So one ballot in the box and already I wonder… How do you see Andruw Jones in the hall and not Bobby Abreu? Let’s get the obvious argument out of the way, for everyone who cares about war, they’re really not far apart at all. The easy for Jones, he has 150 home runs, 11 slugging points and 9 gold gloves on Abreu. On the flip side, Abreu has him by 600 walks, 250 steals, 200 doubles, 550 hits, 250 runs, 25 triples, 60 OBP points, 50 ops points, 80 RBIs and he batted almost 40 points higher than Jones. I know there is a lot of love for Jones’s defense but nine gold gloves trumps all of that?? I don’t see it.
Suzuki should be unanimous, Sabathia would get my vote, Beltran should already be in, as should Wagner, and I guess I wouldn’t begrudge Utley a spot but again, comparatively I don’t see his overall numbers blowing away Ian Kinsler so not sure how one goes and one doesn’t but hey whatever.
The steroid thing is beyond ridiculous at this point, Ramirez is on a pedestal with Ruth, Williams, Foxx, Mays and a small handful of other guys who have batted .300 and belted 500 home runs. Maybe he juiced but that’s not what makes you a Hall of Fame hitter. And unless you’re going to purge the hall of all cheaters and wrongdoers then this argument is extremely stale.
Bobby Abreu is just one of those guys who gets overlooked because of his lack of accolades. Very similar to Dwight Evans; has the numbers of a Hall of Famer, but not the name recognition.
Yes I think if there is ever a most-underated all-time team Abreu and Evans are sure-fire starters.
Dale Murphy
Please keep in mind that I am in no way opposed to Abreu. I never heard a word criticizing his defense when he was playing. But I look at Reggie Smith, Fred Lynn, Bobby Bonilla, Shawn Green, and Brian Giles, all of whom comp out ahead of Hunter=Abreu and there is no rumble for any of them the way that there is for, say, Dwight Evans and Dale Murphy. We are really splitting hairs here, but I don’t get why Dwight and Dale are on the shelf. Hence Abreu= Hunter join a long line of other truly excellent outfielders.
Had to look up that Murphy was NOT in the HOF !! What’ up with that?
Yeah he always seemed really obvious. Dewey too.
If you’re going with a team of guys who should be in the hall there’s a lot to pick from. If I’m looking at it overall, you have all the ped guys with clearly hall-worthy resumes and you could make pretty close to a team there. Then of course Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. I figured I would only use suspected ped guys, no one who failed a test, was suspended, admitted to juicing or was otherwise proven to likely use peds by things like Balco documents and Radomski’s collection of receipts and checks, etc. Not that I personally would keep those guys out of the hall, because I wouldn’t but they would take up most of the team so it’s a little more fun to do without them since they are that obvious. Didn’t include anyone who is on the ballot or still eligible because they haven’t been on a ballot yet but will be. And then I didn’t use Rose or Jackson either because they are still banned from baseball so they wouldn’t get votes anyway. Again, I don’t agree with it and I think they belong in the hall but…
Starter / backup
1B: Don Mattingly/ CarlosDelgado
2B: Jeff Kent/ Lou Whitaker
SS: Bill Dahlen/ Nomar Garciaparra
3B: Ken Boyer/ Darrell Evans
C: Thurman Munson/ Gene Tennace
RF: Dwight Evans/ Bobby Bonds
CF: Jim Edmonds/ Dale Murphy
LF: Lance Berkman/ Bob Johnson
SP: Roger Clemens
Curt Schilling
Tommy John
Luis Tiant
David Cone
RP: John Franco
Joe Nathan
Jonathan Papelbon
Tom Henke
And in the interest of a 26-man roster I’ll throw in Firpo Marberry here since he started and relieved in a time where relievers weren’t really a big thing yet.
I found I really could go around one more time without too much stretching but it’s a 26 man roster off the top of my head.
Really like this. Was thinking of throwing one up there but most of my guys around your list. So here’s my shot at an all-ped team. Might not match with some other people’s because I’m only using guys that either failed a test, get suspended or some documentation was produced against them. Not a big hearsay guy so you’re not going to find Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza or Ivan Rodriguez on my list.
I know Cameron isn’t sexy but I wanted to use guys that actually played the positions and not move other guys there. I don’t care how good Bonds was I just know he was a terrible chemistry guy so I wouldn’t put him on my team.
I would also by the way put all these guys in the hall that deserve it. They were only doing what probably 50% of the sport was doing and you try having your livelihood threatened by not keeping up with the Joneses and see how “moral” you suddenly are then. Good job BBWAA…
This list really looks like someone who did the homework. I think Vern Stephens was THE offensive shortstop of the 1940’s, Cecil Travis of the 8 years before WWII. My outfielders would include Bobby Veach and Barney McCoskey. I would have to include Ed Reulbach. But I really like including Munson, Henke, Delgado and Bob Johnson.
Very nice. Here’s another round without Pat’s guys and uses a couple of Robert’s guys-
C- Wally Schang
1B- Keith Hernandez
2B- Bobby Grich
SS- Vern Stephens
3B- Greg Nettles
RF- Bobby Abreu
CF- Kenny Lofton
LF- Sherry Maggee
SP- Dave Stieb
Rick Reuschel
Ed Reulbach
Vida Blue
Don Newcombe
RP- Dan Quisinberry
Agreeing with Jim Edmonds (slug 527) I see that his best comps are Lance Berkman (537), Ellis Burks (510) and Duke Snider (540). So why was he one and done (Nomar went in the same flame)? On the same ballot were Sosa, Wagner, Sheffield, Mcgwire, Kent, Barry Bonds, Curt Schilling and 11 currently in the Hall of Fame. Somehow the business with Bonds, Clemens and Schilling should have been cleaned up and not permitted to clog the voting for 10 years. Are they in or out? If they get voted in, what are we saying? They weren’t banned but they had “flaws”. Oh, my, don’t we all. This ex post facto judgment is fouling up the system and continues to do so. I vote for Joe Jackson, but not Pete Rose.
Right in line with my thinking. I have said a million times that I don’t understand why we are treating these guys like murderers. In the cases of guys who either admitted it or documentation was found via Balco, Biogenesis, 16, whatever, yes they made a mistake. Who the hell hasn’t?? And for the ones who came clean, how long do you need to beat them over the head for? What is the value in apologizing and seeking redemption if your tormentors are relentless? As far as the guys there is no proof on, who the hell do you think you are deciding that they are guilty and not voting for them? Do you have the right to not vote for somebody? Of course you do. Do you have the right to make a fool of yourself? You have that as well. Not too many of us are sitting out here saying “Boy those good old boys really held ol’ Roger’s feet to the flame on this one! Good job fellas!”. It looks ridiculous. Similar to the alleged Joe Jackson confession, if you can’t hand over I am glad, documented proof on judgment day, what the hell are you doing? Is the BBWAA a communist organization?
This nonsense clogged up the ballots for years and led to ridiculous arguments about guys like Edmonds being ignored because of so many other options ahead of him. What options? Most of those guys didn’t even get elected because of this wretched tomfoolery. If you’re going to Black bowl the guys then just say so and get them the hell off the ballot so that other deserving guys can pick up votes and consideration where it is merited. If you’re going to judge someone’s dignity, then you should have some of your own and stepping on someone’s throat who is already choking is not a very commendable sign of dignity.
Iron-clad proof
and
Blackball
A couple others right off the top of my head are Sherry Magee and Kenny Lofton? Since you included closers how about Dan Quisenberry?
Here’s a good team. For everyone who thinks ped guys should not be voted in because peds made them great.
C- Tim Laker
1B- Larry Bigbie
2B- Tim Beckham
SS- Mike Morse
3B- Chris Donnels
RF- Adam Piatt
CF- Nook Logan
LF- Chad Allen
P- Augustin Montero
Juan Salas
David Rollins
Daniel Naulty
Jason Grimsley
Paxton Crawford
Ricky Bones
Jason Christiansen
Andrew McKirahan
How’s that for a sweet all-ped team? Every one of these guys either admitted to ped use or failed a test. Looks like you might need a little bit more than peds to be a great baseball player.
I agree, but one would think that with all the stats available, one would catch players like Abreu and Evans.
It would make sense but it seems like these clowns are forsaking every actual thing a guy has done and voting based on tarot cards and theoretical garbage instead
The guys who are underrated (like Abreu and his teammate Rolen) tend to do a lot of things well. The guys who are overrated tend to do one thing incredibly well.
Yeah and those are the guys that help you win games most often so voters like to ignore the hell out of them
Very much so and it is kind of a shame to overlook Bobby Abreu. .395 OBP is awesome.. 291 avg isn’t too shabby either. 574 doubles is pretty amazing. People like to overlook The 20/20 Club but it’s not that easy to do consistently and he did it nine times. Second only to a pair of guys named Bonds for each did it 10 times. Also, he may not have been the preeminent power hitter of his generation but six guys in all of major league history ever have hit 250 home runs and stolen 400 bags in a career. The two guys named Bonds once again, Biggio, Morgan, Henderson and of course, Abreu. Say what you want about his defense but he held his own and obviously well enough that, no one sent him to the American League so he could DH because he sucked in the field so bad. Accepting defense as an important part of the game is a good thing but, like many other measuring sticks in recent years, many people have gone way overboard with it. Like anything else worth measuring, find the happy medium and apply it accordingly. Defense is very important but having a great defender doesn’t mean too much if he’s an automatic out at the plate. Great defense can stop and limit runs but if you can’t score them, you still aren’t winning. No one is going to confuse Bobby Abreu with Keith Hernandez or Ozzie Smith but these offensive accomplishments definitely spell Hall of Fame. Not too many guys put together an all around complete game like this and it should very easily be recognized.
I hear you there. I’ve made this case to people as well. Seems people look for very specific things and have developed a certain tunnel vision. These defensive player arguments are getting to the point that it sounds, at times, like some people think defense is enough for the Hall of Fame. You’re not going to change everyone’s minds if they all get on the same boat and think they see the same shore. People tend to latch onto a popular idea and beat it to death in most cases of opinion. Certainly right that defense should play a role but as I’ve long thought, judging it is too subjective and speculative at best so saying a guy’s a great defender and voting him in despite not much on offense will always have that air of ambiguity. On the other hand, saying a guy like Abreu is not a Hall of Famer and using his defense as a big negative is just as silly. The attributes and accomplishments here are certainly no joke and put him in pretty impressive and limited company. It’s pretty ridiculous how little support this guy gets. Baseball Fan has , several times mentioned a lack of true analysis and he’s right.
I know that a number of experts really like the black ink, leading the league in categories such as batting average, HR, ERA, etc. But players who consistently put up big numbers but seem to be second or third also contribute to their teams’ success. While many of the Black Ink folks are the best of the best, there is still room for players who put up top-tier career numbers in the hall.
Of course there is. The voters who look at modern hocus pocus don’t see value in actual stats. They call them counting stats now in an attempt to belittle their reality. The folks who look for only all-time great, undisputed results see the biggest of the real stats and percentage stats like avg, OBP and SLG. Somehow not many can recognize the true greatness in long-term consistency. If you could see careers ahead of time, why would you take a guy with only a 5 year peak if you could have a guy who might not lead the league but he’ll be an upper tier producer, providing consistent value far longer than that?
This is test ballot. It’s there until first ballot
He was a good player, but can a player who has never finished in the top 10 in MVP voting be given the greatest title of his generation, the Hall of Fame?
MVP like most awards is so crooked and popularity oriented who cares?
It’s like reading tea leaves. One leaf means as much as one vote, but when a player gets votes year-after-year it’s not just charity. Griffey Jr getting votes 10 different years was not based on his smile. Enos Slaughter getting votes 8 different years may explain why he’s in. Beltran 7, Abreu 7, Edmonds 6. Are we there yet? Vern Stephens 9.
I don’t think it’s charity so much as maybe ingrained repetition. Plenty of guys have good years and I’m sure many voters take it seriously but if you look back at every MVP race, you can find a lot of “Seriously?” moments. Just like annual All-star snubs. Gold gloves etc. It will always be subjectively silly but I think you could at least rule out guys who’s team misses the post season. How can that guy be the most valuable player of the year? Offensive player of the year? Ok. More accurate but to call it most valuable, the guy should actually be the most valuable.
I love the people who moan about Harold Baines being in
the HOF. He’s going to open the door for players with 1600 RBIs and 384 home runs. For whom does this door open? Pujols, A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Miguel Cabrera, Rafael Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, and Sammy Sosa, Pujols and Cabrera don’t need someone else to open the door for them. Beltran missed by 13 RBIs. The jury seems to be hanged on the other six, having nothing whatever to do with Baines.
Agreed. Baines is not the worst choice in Hall of Fame history. Beltran reached 400 homers and almost 600 doubles with a good chunk of steals though he batted lower than Baines. But also a great defender out there. Funny, of Tom and argument against Baines is along the lines of him playing forever to reach the numbers he reached. And, yes I would have liked to see him get to 3000 hits or at least 400 whole breads and 500 doubles but it’s not like the guy batted .260 either so I can’t say his induction is appalling. But it does make the Carlos Beltran thing look pretty stupid. And again, childish. Maybe he was in on the meetings talking about how they could do the same decoding thing but by any account I’ve heard he wasn’t actually doing the thing. And either way, the Astros weren’t the only ones doing it they were just the ones to get caught and be made an example of.
I wonder how many players really think it’s the greatest title of their careers anymore. After watching some of the inductions over the years you have to think there are some intelligent players out there who recognize the devaluation of a plaque on a wall. Does anyone really think the Rolling Stones are crying about how many more gold and platinum records The Beatles have? I doubt it
Well first off, I don’t necessarily think Abreu is a Hall of Fame lock type of guy. My real point I guess is that neither is Jones but if I had to choose between the two it would definitely be Abreu since as illustrated above, he clearly tops Jones all over the map. But I think this also illustrates why piling up some awards is not a barometer for a hall of famer. Go back through the first year of MVP voting, look up the top 20 finalists and as you go through every year, count up how many times you can easily make an argument that the winner should not have won and possibly should not have even come in the top five. Then throw away all the hypothetical modern so-called metrics and see how many guys could easily have gotten the attention of the voters had they been maybe more flashy or created a larger celebrity platform for themselves. Abreu was not Superstar material personality-wise but he quietly put together 9 20-20 seasons with a pair of 30-30 seasons thrown in there, was a solid if not spectacular fielder, ended up right around .300 annually and was definitely never the reason his teams didn’t go all the way. He sat around through Philadelphia’s rebuild years with a couple of guys like maybe Rolen and Burrell in his lineups and only caught the beginning of the Utley / Rollins/ Howard years. He was shipped off to New York where he gave them a few good seasons and then toiled away in California with not much around him to speak of there. Far too often the guys who get the MVP votes put up maybe some huge home run numbers and don’t bat their weight and a guy like Abreu, quietly puts together solid all around season after solid all around season and is ignored. But that’s the nature of the beast. A guy who goes out there every day and bats .300, gets on base, please solid defense, steals bases and moves himself along, scores runs and piles up some extra base hits is far more valuable to me than a guy who hits 50 bombs but we probably have to wait a week between solid performances before he runs into a good fastball. Look how many times a guy wins MVP and his team doesn’t even get into the playoffs. How valuable is that?
On the other hand, if you look at Jones, he very strongly resembles a guy like Darrell Evans with some gold gloves. Or better yet, Dale Murphy with a handful more of gold gloves. If either of those two guys had batted somewhere around .300 for their careers, they’d have been in the hall long ago. So why would we now ignore all of that for a guy who batted .254? Because of some gold gloves? Okay he was a good fielder but so were several other guys. And the guy who is a little more flashy like Jones generally takes the cake. There have been plenty of cases throughout baseball history where a guy just becomes the consensus favorite through flashiness, personality, exposure and any number of intangibles and then we are left to look back and second guess. But I think that’s why we all kind of know that subjective awards only mean so much so I don’t know how they’ve become such a barometer for Hall of Fame qualifications. Murphy was an MVP and not only did he win five gold gloves but he played all three outfield positions after playing catcher and first base. He landed a pair of homers shy of 400, right around dead even with Jones everywhere else and batted 11 points higher. So how can we think a guy who never actually won an MVP, batted lower than this guy and otherwise replicates his career, beyond a handful of gold gloves is a hall of famer? Not to mention the domestic violence thing. People make mistakes and move on and they should be entitled to but somehow I don’t see how a bunch of voters can beat the hell out of some guys who took peds, which hurt no one else physically by the way, and ignore a guy man-handling his wife. I guess I’m no expert on moral ethics but that seems far worse to me. And as for the argument that he didn’t cheat the game, technically, there are ethics clauses in MLB rules so by that standard, yes he did. He blatantly screwed the game out of it’s moral value from the standpoint that his popularity represented a face of the game and that kind of behavior doesn’t represent it very well.
Well, calm down. There are many cases where a majority vote leads to unsatisfactory results. For example, I can’t even accept that Beltran is on this list. But if it’s decided by the votes of several hundred experts, we have no choice but to accept it.
Oh I’m calm, nothing personal brother. But I think you kind of help me make the point.
“But if it’s decided by the votes of several hundred experts, we have no choice but to accept it.”
What the hell makes someone an “expert” in opinions? Getting a job as a talking head? Watching baseball games? We all watch baseball games.
I may not work for some daily herald or worse, some piece of crap sports blog on a computer where I spout off the same things all my peers spout off because we don’t have an original thought between us but I certainly have watched more than enough baseball in my time to know the difference between who’s good and who’s not. And all without the help of fictitious, hypothetical “statistics”. Like I don’t need “war” to tell me who somebody “might” be better than. And I can’t rely on things like total zone defensive whatever to tell me what somebody “should” be able to do. How can you sit on a sideline, wishing you were as good as the people on the field and make crap-headed decisions about what someone’s fielding range should be? (Again, not you personally but, these so-called experts).
Not sure why you don’t like Beltran but as far as the choices for Hall of Fame induction, this guy blows away most of the list. 2700 hits, 400 home runs, 300 steels, almost 600 doubles, and he was one hell of a centerfielder. .279 avg isn’t glorious but it’s also not horrible, especially combined with all the other numbers he put up. But he banged on some trash cans so he’s going to get punished as well. He may be just shy of traditional benchmarks across the board but in a time when most people are, and the supposed “experts” are looking for people to get behind, he’s one of the closest things to it on the list.
Sign stealing has been part of the game since day one. Obviously the Astros were a little more elaborate in their approach but the result is no different than a guy standing on second base, deciphering the catcher signs and relaying them to the dugout. That’s happened for decades upon decades and no one was ever kept out of the Hall of Fame for it or suspended indefinitely.
Once more, this is never personal between fans and some people let it get that way but, for those of us who are passionate fans and have watched this game our entire lives, accepting nonsense is not part of the plan. And this is just where we come to vent.
At the very least, they’ll give Jones a better rating than someone who calls his defense “some gold gloves and good fielder.”
If the best defensive center fielder since Mays hit more home runs than Stanton, I don’t need to analyze too closely and think he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
I see your view but you also said you don’t understand Beltran being on the list. He was an excellent defender, hit more home runs than Jones and beyond that blows him away and every other statistic.
400 home runs used to be pretty much a lock if you piled up any other meaningful stats. Konerko and Delgado not only have more home runs but more hits, doubles, higher averages etc and we’re basically afterthoughts in Hall of Fame voting. Torii Hunter may only have 350 homers but he has almost 500 doubles, nine gold gloves and again beats Jones all over the map. So I guess my point would be not so much, don’t elect Jones but how the hell do all these other guys fall so short in comparison? There is something drastically wrong with that system.
Believe me, though I’m no retired pro ball player, I played center field for years and I played it as hard as I could. I learned by watching footage of the greats and blew out my knees playing that hard. Backing up the right shielder, the left fielder, the two middle infielders and I played every game with the belief that there wasn’t a ball I wasn’t getting to. I love the value of great fielding as much as anyone and it was right up there with hitting and stealing bases as far as I was concerned, as my favorite things to do on a diamond. But if we’re going to look at guys with 400 plus home runs, .280 averages, at least 400 doubles and at least 2,000 hits, I can’t see how a guy who falls short of all of that except for 400 homers and great defense goes in while so many other guys who accomplished all of that do not.
I think Jones’ defense should be treated more like Ozzie Smith’s, not Torii Hunter’s or Greffey Jr’s.
The fact that he was the best defender of all time at a key position should make any issues with his hitting stats go away.
Of course, the reason I hate Beltran is because of the trash can. Because of him, even when I see a player like Acuna Jr. whose K% changed dramatically in just one year and all his batting stats improved, I always suspect he cheated first.
Personally, when it comes to Hall of Famers, I prefer players with unparalleled skills over players who have consistently achieved 20-20.
When I explain about Hall of Fame players 50 years from now, I don’t want to give a one-hour presentation to explain how great Abreu was. I think Hall of Fame players are the ones whose greatness is immediately obvious to everyone.
However, everyone has their own values, and your opinion has been formed through long experience, so I respect it.
Mostly I think we look at things the same way. But I can tell you I spent a lot of years wondering about guys cheating and how I felt about it. Long before we heard of trash can banging or anyone cared about steroids. When I first saw Jose Canseco at Fenway Park in the ’80s, there were people yelling steroids and laughing just because it was so obvious. I had a minor league baseball card of him and he looked like he was probably about 70 lb lighter only a couple of seasons before he got to the majors. McGwire was a beast when he showed up on the scene and nowhere near what he looked like in St Louis when he was about the size of a small mountain. But there were so many guys that started to look like that in pretty short order and everyone was just astounded by the power displays (the 98 Home run race was one of the greatest eras in baseball, gave the writers something to follow and rave about only for them to now take a crap on the same guys and pretend they are up in arms). And not every guy could provide it. That was part of why it wasn’t such a big deal. Before there were people telling us math equations to judge output, we could all see who was really good and who wasn’t. Felix Jose was a pretty good sized dude when he came up for the Athletics but he couldn’t hit his own ass with the toilet seat.
Beyond that, there have been guys who took amphetamines, snorted coke (Tim Raines nickname Rock was not because he was solid and he’s in the Hall of Fame), scuffed balls, rubbed any number of things on balls, corked bats and on and on. Stealing signs has been part of the game since long before I was alive. So now, when I’m coaching Little League kids, I have given those things a lot of thought over time. Every time I see a kid trying to do the hidden ball trick or trying to “frame” a pitch, the reality hits me that baseball has never been a clean game. Banging trash cans is simply the evolution of a runner standing on second and memorizing signs to later relay them to batters. We get worked up because we’d love to believe that to baseball players facing off is the epitome of gladiators doing battle in the arena. One-on-one, you against me, let’s see who gets the best of who from purely the standpoint of athleticism and talent. But that’s not baseball. No one ever calls a pitcher a cheater because he watches film. But he watches that film to pick up nuances and tendencies based on the batter’s history. He’s not facing that guy one on one from a clean slate, he’s going up there armed with knowledge that certain guys, standing a certain way will, 95% of the time go after a specific pitch. He’s basically playing the odds, just like Vegas. Where are things more impure than Vegas? I’m not saying it’s cheating but what I’m saying is that as long as there has been baseball, there have been players trying to get one over one way or another. But in this day and age, everyone seems to think they are a Puritan and that there is some glory to be gained by catching people doing something shady. What we really are doing is making fools of ourselves because, in reality, none of us are perfect or ever will be. When we have a Hall of Fame full of guys who have used drugs, displayed racism and employed any other tactics, not pure to the game, banging on trash cans kind of pales in comparison for me. And my real thought on sign stealing of any kind is that, I can tell you all day long what’s coming but it’s not automatic you’re going to hit it. And even if you do, there’s no guarantee you’re going to hit it well or well enough to get a base hit. Several guys on that Houston team have produced pretty good careers with or without the trash cans. And it’s not like Houston went 162 and 0 because they employed such a foolproof plot to foil the entire Major League. But, as you said, everyone’s going to have their opinion. That’s just how I’ve come to break it down in my time. By that same token though, holding guys accountable for shady behavior would definitely preclude a guy like Jones. I can’t think of too many things done to get a leg up in baseball that are worse than manhandling a woman.
As far as the defense, like I said, I value defense greatly but at the same time, from your standpoint of Hall of Famers being obvious, which I wholeheartedly agree with, Jones falls on the other side of that line to me. I feel that a kid looking at a list of the Hall of Fame center fielders would wonder why most of his numbers ended up pretty pedestrian across the board except for the 400 home runs. I saw the guy play and he was a great defender. I also saw Kenny Lofton play and he was just as good in my eyes. He also stole 600 bags and rapped 2400 hits. He didn’t, however even get to 400 doubles but he did have 116 triples. And that guy is kind of borderline to me. Which brings me to Ozzie Smith. I don’t quite think Ozzie Smith belonged in the Hall of Fame. Yes he was a great defensive player. But he also barely hit 400 doubles in 11,000 plate appearances. And it wasn’t because he used his speed and athleticism turning them into triples since he only ended up with 69 of those. If you’re going to be a Hall of Famer with 11,000 plate appearances and only hit 28 home runs, I’d like to see at least 500 doubles and 500 steals for a guy with that kind of speed and athleticism. He really wasn’t much of a hitter at all. About average and maybe a little below when it matters most.
I think the reason I would have trouble saying either of those guys is a Hall of Famer without a doubt in the scenario that a Hall of Famer should be obvious is that, without the subjectively great defense (because let’s face it, a pretty good amount of the plays any guy makes are fundamental to the point that we teach little Leaguers these are easy outs and catches that should be made by anyone playing the position), there is still too much to explain. Without the gold gloves, Jones offensively is not much more than Dave Kingman. Omar Vizquel has a much better fielding percentage than Ozzie Smith but he was not likable and so no one has made concessions for his otherwise average career. So, like I said, I value defense greatly but I also think a large part of defense should be pretty fundamental and if you can’t do it, you probably don’t belong in the major leagues to begin with or at least not at that position. I could watch footage of an athletic savant like Bo Jackson running up and down the outfield walls all day long but if the rest of his game doesn’t quite match up in the end or even look remotely comparable to his historical peers, I feel like there’s too much explaining to do for him to be in the hall. And then if he throws his wife down the stairs, I can’t see how that’s ignorable when peds and trash can banging are not.
I respect that you like Jones and don’t like the trash cans and I get why you would feel that way. Obviously there are many who agree with you on those things. And I appreciate that you respect my views. That’s what makes this such a great forum at times.
Just because there have been worse people in the past doesn’t mean I can ignore the bad people out there now.
My favorite team and player lost to the Astros in 2017, and it’s still fresh in my memory, so I may be severely biased.
When I started watching baseball, Jones was late in his career, so I knew very little about what he did with woman until you told me. If I had known Jones since he was younger, I think I would have disliked him.
Well I know that sucks. I like the Dodgers too. I actually like several teams as I just live baseball and family influences from around the country turned me on to different teams growing up. Ohio relatives made me a Reds fan very young, same with the Mets and Queens relatives. Being a New Englander I had plenty of Sox family, and several older family members were Dodgers and Braves fans since they were in Brooklyn and Boston way back.
86 was a great and crappy Series since I like both teams and 90 is the last time the Reds delivered.
Anyway, the losses suck but at least ‘Dem Bums have grabbed a couple of recent ones and have been pretty relevant for a long time now.
I don’t think they lost the ’17 series because of trash cans though. I think they lost because Puig, Bellinger, Turner, Seager and Taylor all went to sleep at the same time. They got mostly no offensive production from the guys who had delivered the most prior to the series and still were able to go seven games. Houston didn’t put on a great offensive display either for a team that supposedly knew everything that was coming. George Springer happened to catch fire and things fell for Houston in game seven. I know it was frustrating but remember, the trash cans didn’t stop the Dodgers from hitting that series.
And, again, sign stealing was done long long long before this. Guys on base, someone watching from the bleachers, clubhouse TV’s catching the live feed from center field. This was just the one that was blown out of proportion to make an example. I wanted LA in that series too but if you let people convince you that teams lose entire series over these types of things you’ll spend forever being paranoid about the game. You can tell guys all day what’s coming and what’s not but the ball still gets thrown and the batter still has the same chance to read it. No one forces him to do anything.
And sorry about the Jones news. I think anyone sincere deserves the chance at redemption but the voters haven’t given that benefit to anyone else so why now? Roger Clemens, among others, never failed a test and his use of PEDs was never proven concrete, beyond a shadow of a doubt yet, they kept him out and this is one of the top 5 pitchers in history.
There are no experts. Expert is someone who knows everything or pretty close to everything about something. Sports awards and Hall of Fame votings are based on opinions. You might think it’s based on numbers but they are really based on what people think of those numbers. Opinions. You can’t be an expert in opinions.
Good post-thank you. In addition to what you wrote, Murphy had 2 MVP Awards and 4 Silver Slugger Awards
From Statcast website….
“DRS uses Baseball Info Solutions data to chart where each ball is hit. Say, for instance, a center fielder sprints to make a nice catch on a fly ball. Then, say data from BIS tells us that similar fly balls get caught 60 percent of the time. That center fielder gains, essentially, 0.4 bonus points for difficulty. If he can’t make the play, he loses 0.6 points. At the end of the day, that player’s overall score gets adjusted to the league average — and then that score gets adjusted for how many runs the once-adjusted score is worth.”
What? Break this down in your head.
“Runs to make a nice catch”:
“Nice” is subjective. It can’t be quantified. Based on who’s determination? If the guy weighs 75 lb more than the other guy, is it a nicer catch because he has to work a lot harder?
“Similar fly balls get caught 60% of the time”:
Similar how? Like they land in the same spot? He traveled the same exact path to get there? The ball traveled the same exact path at the same exact angle of every single ball that landed in that spot ever? Every scintilla of an inch from the bat to the spot is determined at every single infinite possible combination of scintilla’s of inches in order to determine two guys made the same exact play on the same exact ball?
“Awarded .4 bonus points if he makes the catch….”:
Based on what? What the hell is .4? Some ridiculous determination just to have a number? So why would you gain .4 if you make the catch but lose .6 if you don’t make the catch?
“At the end of the day, that player’s overall score gets adjusted to the league average — and then that score gets adjusted for how many runs the once-adjusted score is worth.”
Adjusted for what? By who? And based on what reasoning?
These are the type of things that need a control and the control is determined by who? Some audacious, presumptuous, self-proclaimed wizard of baseball?
I don’t know how anybody argues in favor of these things. Society of followers just blindly believing nonsense. Why would you want to pretend to be rating talent with made up dungeons and dragons rules?
Very true. How can things that depend on human input determine greatness of actual accomplishments?
Saw an article in the last couple of days discussing Jimmy Rollins’ Hall of Fame case. The guy is going crazy with these kind of metrics and calls them “advanced metrics”. What is advanced about guessing? Reading that same breakdown you gave here there is nothing advanced about it. Nobody decides if someone hit a double. The guy is on second base. It’s a double. Obviously unless he got there on a series of errors but in a normal situation, it’s a double. Nobody gets to determine if it was a “nicely hit ball” or a better double than someone else hit.
Rollins was a great defensive player. Another thing the idiot said was that Rollins made easy plays look easy and hard players look hard. All the more reason to not apply this kind of crap. How do you know if it was hard or not? Have you made that play? Where does DRS or any other supposedly advanced metric take into account physical attributes of players? Do you not think a guy who is over 6 ft like Jeter or A-Rod has a better reach and longer legs to get there a little quicker? Rollins was 5’7″ so you’d have to imagine that him getting to the same ball that a 6’3″ guy with comparable athleticism gets to it’s going to go somewhat differently. I’m not saying Rollins is or isn’t a Hall of Famer overall but these ridiculous fantasy numbers do not tell any story worth reading. If the people coming up with this garbage or as smart as they think they are, why don’t they know you can’t account for uncontrollable values like human size, unknown injuries and other intangibles? The only guys you know have an knee injury are the guys who make it known and go get surgery. Plenty of guys tear cartilage and play their careers through the pain because different people have different pain tolerances and different values as to what’s important. What do you know? Another thing the silly numbers can’t measure.
I look at WAR, which is more transparent, and still think nonsense. Ichiro 60, parker 40, tells you nothing. WAR devalues some skills without a clear explanation. Why are some of the best closers in the twenties? Arbitrary devaluing of one skill. I would feel better about it if it said Ichiro 100 Paker 60 and the best closers were 40 +. Was Rivera, was Hoffman that much better than Wagner? I dont know who was better until I check ERA, Blown saves, clearly identifiable stats.
neither is Jones???? 10 straight Gold Gloves with an average of 34 homeruns over those ten seasons. I don’t know how those are not hall of fame numbers. The only other outfielders to win more are Clemente and Mays. Overall, there have been 15 non-pitchers to win at least 10 Gold Gloves. Only four of them also hit at least 400 home runs: Mays, Griffey, Mike Schmidt and Jones.
His dWAR was like 24.4, the highest in MLB history for any outfielder.
During his full seasons in Atlanta, from 1997-2007, he had 26.7 defensive WAR, 10.2 more than any other defender at any position in that span (Ivan Rodriguez). That difference between first and second on the list was the same as the difference between Nos. 2 and 56 on the list. That’s a hefty lead, and again — among all defenders.
The biggest one for me is something called Total Zone Runs, sort of a precursor to defensive runs saved and outs above average. Jones TZR was 230, the most out of any centrefielder. Willie Mays is second with 176. That’s quite a gap.
Add 434 HRs onto that and I don’t understand why he isn’t in yet
You’re talking about subjective numbers like gold gloves and hypothetical metrics. Among many other reasons I and others have outlined already throughout these posts, these numbers you’re talking about or not ironclad statistics but, numbers created by people trying to define something that’s not definable. Too many variables unaccounted for and too fallible. Yes he put on quite a show out there in Atlanta and then sharply fell off a cliff at 30 years old. I also find it very difficult to compare a guy who played in a center field that was about 400 ft at its deepest with a guy who played several years in the Polo Grounds where, not only were the power rallies deeper than Turner Field’s deepest point but centerfield was 480 ft away and measured 505 ft at its deepest point and then spent the rest of his career in a pictures park like Candlestick. Again, if you want to look at modern metrics and think they have made all the necessary adjustments for fields and eras and you can sincerely believe in something that fallible, that’s up to you my friend. So I can say he’s a great defender but I can’t say he’s the greatest ever and I don’t even think he deserved 10 gold gloves. Maybe half that. Offensively, yes 400 home runs is a good chunk but take the rest of his statistics and go look them up against all time players. Not very impressive where he stands everywhere else. Are you trying to set the benchmark for lowest batting average in the Hall of Fame among everyone not named Ray Shalk ever?
The guy bashed 400+ home runs sure but so did Dave Kingman, Adam Dunn and multiple other guys who are not in the Hall. Okay he was a better defender than them but let’s not pretending this guy was the greatest defender of all time when the only basis is a bunch of craptistics to make his situation look more extravagant than it is. That other dude was right, that pitching staff gave up a ridiculously low batting average on balls hit in the air and that wasn’t all to Andruw Jones. And pretty obviously as soon as he didn’t play behind that pitching staff he was no longer a gold glover?? Come on man. Keep believing the hype if you want to. It’s none of my business but it’s beginning to sound a little ridiculous.
It’s the tenth inning and I’m still thinking that there’s not enough between Abreu and Hunter to justify voting for either of them. If you actually play baseball fielding matters, so I give a clear edge to Hunter, but I’ worry about that when Andruw, Dwight Evans and Jim Edmonds are in the HOF. Last call on Utley = Kinsler, I’d rather vote for Pedroia and Jimmy Rollins.
Evans is a no doubter for me. Edmonds is a no doubter as well. They were unfortunate victims of bad analysis. I don’t care if Jones caught a fly ball jumping over the empire State building, I can’t see working this hard to come up with excuses to put the second lowest batting average ever into the Hall of fame. Yes defense means a lot out there and I did play baseball for many years so I certainly appreciate it but to an extent. .270 average, .370 OBP, 400 home runs and 1500 RBIs, okay great defense like a gold gloves puts you over the top. Sounds like Evans. Edmonds, pretty inarguable stats across the board as well and great defense. Jones is not that
For the love of all that’s holy, will you people stop being brainwashed??? Stop following like sheep!!!
Metrics are ridiculously inaccurate, incomparable to other generations and sound insane when you say them to someone else like it’s real. It’s like the grown adults who follow “wrestling” and lose their minds like these are real fights.
Jones was a better than good outfielder. Jones suddenly sucked when he didn’t play behind Atlanta’s pitching staff. Jones hit 400+ home runs. Jones did nothing else offensively that spells Hall of Famer. Please stop with ” 10 gold gloves and 24 dwar”. Watch games, truly analyze, and form real knowledge and opinions. The breakdown theory of Atlanta’s pitching staff has some legs man. No it’s not his whole career worth of defense but he racked up a lot of pretty easy plays there. And then he left Atlanta and sucked completely. And please don’t come out with he got out of shape. He got fat way before he left Atlanta but was still able to rack up a pretty good amount of numbers there. Not a coincidence. Don’t fool yourself. Look at the numbers and look at when he really got out of shape in the first place.
For those who say stupid things like “you only don’t like metrics because you don’t understand them”, grow up. They’re not that hard to understand. The harder part is figuring out what in the hell it’s being done for. Defensive rating and zones and all this nonsense. Maybe you need to go read how they are done because they say right in the definition, a bunch of things that are opinions and decided by humans. That’s not a statistic. A statistic measures something real. Something that can’t be decided by a person. So Jones has a high rating because some “human” decided over and over again how many points to allot him for great plays etc. What the hell were you people watching all these years? Edmonds and Hunter made great diving and running catches all the time. Now we’re going to pretend that they didn’t? Or they didn’t make nearly enough of them? We have to keep hearing 10 gold gloves about Jones but 9 and 8 for Hunter and Edmonds were not just as good. How does that work? What garbage. Watch baseball man. And then at the end of a career, look at what the guy really did in real life and not a bunch of made up stuff that makes him look amazing because he got better made up ratings than someone else. I’ve watched an awful lot of them play and if I’m starting a team and my choices are among the guys we’ve discussed who played in the last couple of decades? Abreu in right, Edmonds in center and Hunter in left it’s going to be the outfield because, two of those guys are amazing defenders in their own rights and all three of them were the complete package at the plate and on the base paths. That’s where runs are scored which is how winning is done. So Jones beat them in home runs. What else? His defense was great but not at the cost of his boom or bust offense. 400 home runs is not enough for me to suffer through a .254 hitter when these other three guys bring all they brought to the plate. And we have people who think it’s enough to put the second lowest batting average ever in the Hall of fame? Wow.
400 home runs? Kingman, Darrell Evans, Canseco, Dunn, Konerko……
Where does Jones rank all time in hits, doubles, triples, stolen bases, walks, batting average and OBP? These are all the tangible things a great hitter does so look up all of those categories and show me where he is a Hall of Famer. Also look at how many guys have gold gloves that their detractors say are meaningless.
So a better than average fielder but with somewhat overblown and under analyzed defensive “metrics”, a whole bunch of below average stats and 400 home runs and that’s it? Where does that say Hall of fame?
I think Rock would feel less aggravated about Andruw if he saw him play on a regular basis. He really could be a highlight reel on a daily basis for years. Regular centerfielders are the best fielders among outfielders, and he was the best of the best for years. After that he was a liability. call it like you see it, Rock has some valid points about Andruw’s long-term hitting.
Actually, I saw him play quite often and I imagine so did many other people because Braves games were broadcast on TBS and available all over the place.
The guy was an extremely gifted athlete. He could run like crazy and made Spider-Man catches on the wall but at the same time, I think gets a little over glorified due to those plays. I don’t have anything against what he did well but several factors come into play for me in regard to Jones’ career. Let me say, the stuff HC brought up about the pitching staff makes a lot of sense. His play, I’m sure, had something to do with their pitching numbers being what they were but those league-low numbers on home runs given up and batting average against on fly balls were definitely not all a byproduct of Jones being an all-world fielder. They didn’t give up only hits to center field, and the rest of the defense looking pretty good in those years shows that. They didn’t just happen to have the seven best defenders around the infield and outfield in the whole league while coincidentally pitching guys like Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz et al. So, while I don’t believe all of his plays were a result of the pitching staff, and I do believe he was an amazing fielder, he certainly didn’t make 4486 put outs in his Braves career on circus stunt acrobatic catches.
I also think, also brought up in this thread and ignored, I have a hard time looking past the amount of glorification a guy like this gets once everyone is in love with him. Jones was very talented and showed some early power but this guy wasn’t even leading his team in home runs every year, never mind, the league. Then between 2000 and 2002, Ken Caminiti and Gary Sheffield were in that locker room. Following this development, Jones had his best power years ever. And not because he suddenly found his stride as some have suggested, because that would have looked more like another decade of awesome numbers. No, he put up a few years of blistering home run numbers, and then collapsed under all the weight he suddenly gained. Some say he got fat for lack of a better expression but many have said, he was relatively lazy about keeping up with himself. He had relied on natural talent for so long that he never found the need to actually work out. Well, oddly, that body is exactly what steroids will look like if you just take them and don’t work out. Strangely, with all of the supposedly brilliant minds recognizing the evolution of statistical analysis we were all supposedly too stupid to see for 150 years, no one recognized this as a recipe for possible ped disaster? Guy balloons, guy slows down, guy hits ridiculous amount of home runs, guy falls off cliff because his knees tear up cartilage trying to support a bunch of extra weight that so quickly piled on unnaturally. The media and the voters have a funny way of distinguishing between actual proof of using, suspicion based on circumstantial evidence and completely ignoring suspicious activity. Therefore, fans have just as funny of a way of accepting these recognitions as Bible. Everyone wants to break down opinions like they had their own brilliant thoughts. Yet, when someone like Jones is the flavor of the month, no one recognizes this? I-rod had a similar trajectory. Comes up in a hot bed of steroid use, suddenly produces outlandish numbers and then as the investigations kick in, loses 35 lb and never puts up those numbers again. At least in his case, he lost that weight and redefined himself to finish a solid career. But because everyone liked the guy and wanted to see a Hall of Fame catcher, that was the end of the ped talk. Juan Gonzalez came from the same place and, because Canseco mentions him in his book without any substantiated evidence, he’s on the radar. Guess what, Gonzalez hit 43 home runs for the first time before Canseco even showed up. Canseco showed up at the very end of that year and obviously could not have retroactively impacted Gonzalez before he was even in that locker room. Then there was “the bag”. A carry-on bag presumed to be in Gonzalez’s possession but also claimed to belong to a trainer. Either way, the trainer said the bag contained ephedrine and painkillers and no one ever proved who the bag belonged to anyway. But there was apparently no love among voters for Gonzalez because he promptly fell off the ballot. To this day, no ironclad proof has been produced against Roger Clemens. But several people have decided he’s an asshole and they don’t like him so that suspicion is treated as knowledge. Maybe baseball allows this nonsense to go on because it values its relationship with the hall and, thereby, the BBWAA but, we don’t all have to accept this and sit around pretending we are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid all over. I’m not someone who really cares about what everyone else sees because, unlike many of the voters and their flock of sheep, I value the ability to think, analyze, apply logic and recognize reality. It’s suspicion is applied to ABC and D then it should be applied to E as well if the circumstances fall that way. Overall, I think keeping guys out on suspicion, no matter the level, is counterproductive, stupid and unfair but this case is based on the idea that it is being done anyway. So if you’re going to do it two players who are far more deserving than jones, then it should be done to Jones as well.
Yeah he kind of did have that kind of career didn’t he? And they decided Gonzalez was guilty without proof. They have the same number of home runs and then Gonzales runs away from the guy offensively. Maybe not on defense but definitely as a hitter.
I agree with nearly everything. Any player that was not suspended for using roids, should get elected. Palmero, AROD etc should still be considered after getting suspended. The minute Ortiz was elected (as he should be) all the other players who didn’t fail a test, should be allowed.
I also think Utley is a difficult player to put in. I do agree Abreu should be voted, but consider Jones a much more deserving player. The gold gloves are not a side note. He was one of the greatest OF ever.
Great post. Hopefully Jones, Abreu , Manny etc eventually get the call!!
I don’t necessarily think gold gloves are a side note, I just think they are not grounds for the Hall by themselves. He was a great defensive player but so were several other guys. Among those guys are Griffey Jr, Mays, Mantle, Snider, Speaker and Cobb. The last 3 played before gold gloves existed and in Snider’s case, only a handful of seasons at the end of his career when gold gloves were new and he was old. These are the greatest center fielders ever and outside of his gold gloves and 400 homers, make Jones look like Tony Armas. Kenny Lofton was an excellent center fielder. He’s been ignored despite several other comparable and better stats than Jones. Abreu, on the other hand, stacks up pretty well all the way around compared to right fielders. He wasn’t the best ever or even close but his all around game was far more complete than Jones. I also can’t see a guy batting just over .250 or not even reaching 2000 hits as a real Hall of Famer.
I think a lot of concessions have been made in lieu of having great , obvious players to vote for and I think that’s why certain guys become the sudden flavor of the day and a bandwagon effect happens. I can’t recall anyone thinking this guy was a Halloween of Famer when he finished his career. And for the argument that we’ve somehow “evolved” statistically since then, we haven’t. We’ve just invented several supposed metrics, many of which are subjective or hypothetical, and applied them to justify a means to an end. But no metric spins .254 avg and 1900 hits into a hall of famer I don’t think.
Just my opinion.
Can we agree that defense is half the game? Should it be ranked as less important than offense? What do you think?
Ed I don’t know that it should be ranked as less important necessarily per se but I don’t think it is actually half the game. I’ll tell you why. You go up to the plate, it’s you against the pitcher. While the pitcher’s goal is obviously to keep you from getting on base, the outcome of that at bat, at least from your end of the responsibilities, is dependent solely on you. What do you swing at? What do you let go? How do you set yourself in the batter’s box? How do you attack the ball when you decide to swing? How well do you control the strike zone? How efficient are you at putting a ball in play or putting a ball out of reach of opposing defenders? Can you control a pitch to the opposite field consistently? And then of course, once the ball is hit, how adapt are you at baserunning? Once on the basepaths, how well do you time the pitcher out of the stretch and successfully beat the catcher’s throw? How well do you gauge your teammates’ contact and run the bases correctly or competently enough to give your team every chance to score?
Again, the opposition’s job is to get you out but you are basically in control of everything you have to do on offense to beat them.
Defensively, yes you are in control of what you need to do to make a play but, the opportunities you are handed depend heavily on who is pitching, how they pitch and, at times, how other defenders on your team respond once the ball is in play. If you’re an infielder, backing a guy like Derek Lowe, who was known for inducing a lot of lazy ground balls, you’re going to probably make a lot of easier plays than a guy who plays behind a pitcher who hands out frozen ropes and moonshots around the diamond regularly. For some guys, it may be easier to make a diving play to your right or left then it is to snag 104 mph liners right at your face because you just don’t see it as well. There are so many intangibles like this that cannot be quantified that I think we cannot possibly judge defense, especially years in hindsight, the way we can, offense.
I think we can certainly watch people play defense and have a pretty good idea of how capable they are and we can also keep track of how many plays they make versus how many chances they are handed. I don’t begrudge anyone anything for trying to quantify statistical accomplishments in some other fashion than those that we’ve known forever but, I also don’t think handing out Hall of Fame plaques based on questionable measurements is valid practice.
If Jones had the same quantity of home runs he has but also batted .284 as opposed to .254, rapped out 500 doubles and maybe 24-2500 hits , this is a much different conversation. Given his defensive accomplishments, though I don’t think they are what many seem to think considering he was able to play very shallow defense and scoop up a lot of gimme stats due to playing behind the best pitching staff in the league for several years, he would then be easily borderline, if not a shoo-in. And that is while ignoring the domestic violence arrest which I’m not sure why that is happening. That’s just my perspective.
If Gold Gloves aren’t a side note, there must be a ridiculously strong argument brewing for Keith Hernandez, the greatest defensive first baseman of all time, to be in the Hall. Where are you, Eras Committee?
Agreed. How come they are a side note for guys like Edmonds and Hunter? Dwight Evans? Keith Hernandez, as you said? But for Jones they are the Holy Grail?
Actually, put the logic this way:
Even if all of those guys and many others mentioned, don’t compare to half of Jones’ defensive ability, they are all far better than him offensively so how does that not wash? Never mind the fact that he is not twice as good as everyone on that list but just for the sake of argument let’s pretend. And then, other than his home runs, they were all far more complete and accomplished offensive players than he dreamed of.
Keith Hernandez might get in if the voting committee is set up that way. Mattingly, Garvey, Pujols, Cabrera might cloud the issue. But I do like the comment about 10 gg being a ” holy grail”. I look at Hunter and Edmonds and think the whole picture was not considered. Check Edmonds slugging pct. There was a time when that alone was a ticket to HOF.
Let me think now: Berra, Bench, Carter, Piazza, Irod… I can see Posey adding something to that list, but I can’t see Martin or McCann as peers. Munson, yes, but the catchers on this ballot don’t measure up.
I think of great centerfielders who get ignored: Paul Blair, Gary Pettis, Mickey Rivers, Devon White. Is Andruw really a clear cut better? I still think that we answer “Yes”. Does he have more than his share of imperfections? I guess every voter has a different answer. I’d rather look at the 10 good years and ignore the last 5 awful ones.
I agree Jones is a cut above those guys but I don’t see him blowing away Hunter or Murphy and definitely don’t put him any cuts above Edmonds.
I think Piazza, Bench and Berra are incomparable at the top as catchers. And obviously Rodriguez, in spite of ped speculation, is up there as well. I don’t see Martin anywhere near that area but McCann I see differently. He batted the same as Carter, right behind Bench and Fisk and, while he would be lower on the list of Hall of Fame catchers, he tops Carter and others in OBP and SLG. He would be 7th on the list and home runs and 10th in RBIs and was a far better than average defensive catcher. Tops Mayer in several categories though, I don’t know how much I apply Mauer to the all time catcher list since only roughly half his appearances came there. He was a good hitter and piled up doubles but McCann out slugged him, out homered him and out RBI’d him. McCann never drummed up a lot of fanfare around himself so I think he’s a little more easily overlooked. I wouldn’t say he’s one of the top five catchers all time but he’s definitely worth more analysis that he is getting.
And of course Posey would land 7th in batting and tie Piazza for sixth in OBP. His power numbers don’t quite match up but not horrible either for a hitter of his caliber. If he had matched McCann’s plate appearances then he would probably be pretty close. And I would say they were pretty comparable defensively but Posey easily wins the popularity contest since he was the face of the Giants all those years.
Remember Jones is compared against the best CF HOF and Abreu is compared with the best RF in the HOF. Different JAWS metrics evaluations. But Abreu has a few things against him, he wasn’t a good defender, never hustled in outfield and during his time his piers were much better than him.
Well let me start by saying, war is hypothetical by nature and Jaws is based on war so unless we are talking about a shark movie, I rank my respect for those numbers right along with the tooth fairy and the great pumpkin. But if you want to look at those numbers, go to the baseball egg and look up the best right fielders of all time. Using prime war, short peak war, long peak war as well as career war, Bobby Abreu is is ranked as the 15th greatest right fielder of all time. So that puts him not far behind guys named Aaron, Ruth, Ott, Clemente, Robinson and ahead of multiple Hall of Famers and guys who should be Hall of Famers.
While there was a perception that he did not hustle, and maybe he just didn’t move that fast, from 98 to 09, he led all outfielders in assists with 120. Not right fielders, all outfielders. So I guess that would be comparing him to his peers. And 15th all time looks pretty good against all time right fielders. Out of how many right fielders in history? No idea. The list only goes to 100. The man was a dominant hitter all the time and unfortunately, received less attention because he played for Philadelphia during crap years. I think his accomplishments would be far better appreciated had he played on winning teams throughout his career. But that goes for a lot of guys. He also produced very well and consistently across the board. We want to put guys in the Hall of Fame who have 400 home runs, 10 gold gloves and an otherwise, lackluster stat line. But a guy who did everything well we ignore?
The unsatisfactory part of this process, is that the writers’ jobs here are to see past those things. They somehow don’t see how much Jones’ otherworldly defensive numbers were aided by the pitching staffs he played behind. And this isn’t just made up hyperbole, look at the positive numbers for all of his outfield teammates in those years. Yes he was a hell of a fielder but I think his situation makes him look in hindsight, like a much better fielder. Why didn’t he continue piling up gold gloves the day he left Atlanta? Unfortunately, you do have writers who depend on fictitious, hypothetical numbers nowadays. I can’t depend on things like that. I’ve looked at them, I understand them and, having done so, I realize how massively imperfect they are. For instance, defensive runs saved. So someone is going to analyze every play a player makes and allot points for the perceived difficulty level of that play and in comparison with how other players make that play. That’s ridiculous. Difficulty of the play? Based on who’s judgment? People who don’t play? People who’ve never played a major league game in their lives and couldn’t possibly discern what a ball looks like coming at you at 105 miles per hour, what the grass feels like that day, how the wind is blowing and affects the ball movement and maybe even what a professional athlete’s body feels like in the middle of 162 game season? I hope you’ll pardon me if I can’t rely on these antics to tell me who can do what. I can rely on a .982 fieldng percentage across all three outfield positions in a career though. I can rely on a .290 career hitter every time he gets penciled into the lineup. I can rely on 574 doubles to be pretty productive for me. I can rely on Bobby Abreu to go 20/20 season after season with a couple of 30/30s mixed in there, provide far better than average, consistent offense and field his position at a .982 clip. How many of his peers did that exactly? He may not have been the fastest, flashiest or greatest outfielder ever but it’s not like this guy was remotely Dick “Dr. Strangeglove” Stuart here and this sudden lovefest everyone has with defense has not always been the case and completely ignores the subjectivity of the game. Pitching staffs, lights, weather, teammates and several other conditions play factors in defense and it is way too difficult to quantify with strange little mathematical equations that are adjusted and adapted based on who knows who’s opinions regarding fielding capabilities. And certainly not dependable enough to keep and otherwise highly qualified candidate down. And if defense is such a deal breaker, how do 17 combined gold gloves and all of their high level offensive production render guys like Edmonds and Hunter perennial afterthoughts? Anyone says a word about Jones and there is an immediate “what are you talking about? He’s the greatest center fielder ever, he has 10 gold gloves!” But bring up Hunter’s nine gold gloves and Edmonds 8-year-old gloves and there is somebody ready to poke holes in them as though theirs don’t count as much as Jones’. I don’t see it. Especially when both of those guys, shy of home runs maybe, out produced Jones offensively across the board.
I am surprised by the lack of love for Torii Hunter. Bill Virdon, Gary Pettis, Mickey Rivers were all high-quality centerfielders without any flicker of hope for HOF. In my mind Hunter and Abreu are clearly a cut above. How Andruw fits into the issue is feeding a debate the result of which is not yet clear. I think Bernie Williams should be added to Jim Edmonds and considered to be that cut above. The problem is that Carlos Beltran is still on the table. He should already have his plaque. If Enos Slaughter (8 yrs with MVP votes) is a standard why is there still debate about Dwight Evans. When I spoke to Jim Edmonds during a game, the fire in his eyes lit up the stadium. Some of these guys are really driven to excel.
Beltran should definitely be in already. This God complex thing is becoming a big problem. By most accounts I’ve seen, though Beltran is the scapegoat, they say he was involved in conceiving the idea and not the actual physical carrying out of the idea. All sounds like a big mess of crap really and the guy lost his management shot over it while being punished by MLB. So now the other question that brings up for me is, since so many guys have been kept out on simply suspicion without ironclad proof of ped use and, Joe Jackson is still out though, they could never produce the alleged paperwork for a confession that he supposedly made, how does suspicion affect Houston astros? Not that the 17-18 Astros were loaded with Hall of Famers but, what day Altuve will surely show up on the ballot. Does he pay the price for suspicion? Currently, McCann doesn’t look like he’s going to make it off the first ballot anyway but he was also on that squad. Perhaps most importantly though, Justin Verlander was on the team those two seasons. Pretty hands down case for Hall of Fame but is he going to pay the price for suspicion? If not, why not? You either can prove something beyond the doubt or you can’t, it shouldn’t work both ways depending on who the guys are or what you suspect them of. Again, this whole system is a trash can.
“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
This is right in the voting instructions for the BBWAA. I think domestic violence violates integrity and character so how do you ignore that for 10 gold gloves and 400 fingers?
*dingers
It seems that Andruw’s 10 outstanding years are getting more votes than Abreu’s many excellent/very good years despite the undisputed facts that Andrew’s bad years were really bad. If the voters who hide behind anonymity don’t prove again to be naysayers Beltran may get a fair shake and gain entry. That still leaves Andruw in limbo and Abreu neglected. Jim Edmonds and Dwight Evans should get another shot, say from the veteran’s committees, but there are so many Lou Whitakers, Tommy Johns, Don Mattinglys, Vern Stephens, Thurman Munsons, Cecil Travis’, Ed Reulbachs, etc. to be considered in this glacial process. (Reulbach top 10 in ERA and W/L for pitchers with 2500 IP). HC nailed it on Nov 18.
Reulbach is 9th on the ERA list and 24th on the W/L pct list. With the 2500 inning caveat Clayton Kershaw is presently #1 and the highest ranked post deadball pitcher on the ERA list.
Abreu blows away Jones and a lot of categories. Maybe Jones has him in home runs and questionable gold gloves but Jones faded at 30 and Abreu was consistent for years. He also didn’t choke his wife so I’m not sure how 60 something percent of voters are missing that. I would definitely vote for more complete, well-rounded players like Abreu over guys like Jones who bring one or two aspects to the game and fade away so quickly. Popularity contests suck and so do bad voters
I’m still trying to figure out Utley. Stats are not too different than Kinsler, as has been noted before. Are half the voters from LA or Philly? He doesn’t compare with Lajoie, Hornsby, Gehringer, Lazzeri, Jackie Robinson or even Billy Herman. Joe Gordon was an all-star in 9 of his 11 years, got MVP votes in 8 years and despite losing 2 prime years to WWII hit 253 home runs. Joe Morgan? Of course, Joe was in a class by himself. Even Mazeroski and Schoendienst were each all-star 10 times; Mazeroski got 8 gold gloves. I don’t get why Utley gets votes and Kinsler, Madlock, Whitaker, Willie Randolph. and, once again, Jeff Kent don’t.
I look at Pedroia the same way I look at Dizzy Dean, Sandy Koufax, Addie Joss, Ross Youngs Don Mattingly, Barney McCoskey and Vern Stephens. They had HOF written all over their first years and then were derailed by injuries. Cecil Travis is a special case. He had 8 years with MVP votes before giving 3 years to WWII and wasn’t close when he returned. In Dimaggio’s big year, Travis out hit him by .002. On the other hand, Hoyt Wilhelm had shrapnel in his hip from the Battle of the Bulge and still managed to put it together; others were less fortunate.
You can add David Wright to that list too! No reason to think he wouldn’t have hit 375-400, drive in 1600-1700 runs, and have 2500+ hits if he was healthy. Gold Gloves, 30-30 man!
Wouldn’t be first ballot, but certainly by the 3rd, he would have been in!
I picked Robin Ventura as a control because he was much coveted by other teams when he was a young White Sox player. When he was on the HOF ballot there were 12 current HOF members, Mattingly, McGwire, Dale Murphy and Andres Galarraga on the ballot ahead of him. So (Don/David/Robin): 6 consec. early years: runs(582/598/497), hits(1219/1072/910); homers(257/155/139) RBPs(684/624/563); BA(327/306/282); slugging(530/515/463) Robin was a much-desired player, Mattingly was truly Donny Baseball and had 9 gold gloves. Not much of a dap between him and David Wright.
Good exercise. Which also brings up the voting maximum problem. With 10 votes as the maximum per writer, there have been several years like that one where guys who probably deserve some more consideration are gone in the blink of an eye. One argument is always, overcrowding the hall. I think this is a silly point because if a guy is Hall of Fame caliber, then he’s Hall of Fame caliber. I’d rather have a Hall filled with deserving guys than this institution of the most obvious, a bunch of questionables that make you constantly yearn for more or question more deserving guys omissions, and then a pseudo-phony heaven that keeps out only certain mistake makers.
There were so many guys who eventually got in on the one ballot Ventura was on that Galarraga was also one and done. And that was another guy that was nothing to sneeze at. Not that removing the maximum would have automatically put those two in there but I would assume they would have gotten more votes, or at least enough to stay in the conversation had the maximum not been there. Also, without the maximum it would have been more likely that several of the other guys would have gotten the votes they needed and cleared that ballot quickly. Obviously the PED guys were already getting stoned in the village square by the self-proclaimed apostles in the BBWAA but the rest of the future Hall of Famers who were splitting votes would not have needed to split votes. That’s how you will clear the ballots quickly. Who cares how many guys get in at one time? Preserving the integrity of the Hall of Fame? What integrity? The myriad of ghosts and skeletons already in there will not be undone so integrity went out the back door a long time ago. And that’s a fact. And besides, this would not be a yearly occurrence, where you would have 20 guys going into the Hall. You should easily clear a large log jam like that quickly and then minimize the returning guys on a following ballot. There are not 15 guys per season showing up on the ballot who are Hall of Fame locks.
I know you used Ventura as part of your David Wright analogy but he also, again, raises the “why all this support for Utley” question. Offensively, extremely similar player and Ventura was also a hell of a defender. And for those who like awards and metrics, 17.9 dwar and six gold gloves. Also did a great job head-butting Nolan Ryan’s fist several times which no one else can really say. Yes, he obviously had the misfortune to be on an overloaded ballot but still only received 1.3% of the vote. This ballot may not be nearly as loaded but this much support for Utley? There are certainly 10 more deserving guys on this ballot.
Dead on. Pedroia and Wright are perfect examples of the guys who get screwed all the time. Great career, obviously heading for the hall and unfortunate injury strikes. Can’t just blow that off like they weren’t great. It’s stupid. And I think Utley and Kinsler we’re pretty close to the same guy during their careers. Utley somehow scored a few more fake bingo points but watching both of them play all those years I didn’t really see a huge difference. The paparazzi machine at work baby.
I don’t know how one votes Beltran and not Andruw.
I think it’s because Beltran blows him away and pretty much every offensive category show all Jones really has on him are a few questionable gold gloves.
beltran 1582 runs, andruw 1204; beltran 2725 hits, andruw 1933; beltran 1587 rbis, andruw 1289; lifetime ba: .279 to .254. Beltran’s numbers fit in with all-time greats, Andruw’s less so. Now I saw Andruw play in his good years and he was a show in the field. You want to capitalize on his 10 gold gloves- he was a very rare talent in the field. Maybe that will work for him despite his canyonesque character issues. Andruw is on my list of “vote fors” but note that Dave Kingman hit 442 homers,1210 rbis and siugged .478. Who would you rather have? Andruw or Dave?
Let’s take out the last 5 years of Jones’ career after he was injured and became a part-time player, plus his first year where he barely played. That leaves 11 full-time seasons where he averaged 94 runs, 32 doubles, 33 HRs, 100 RBI, OPS .826. Plus he was the greatest fielding CF of all time with a dWAR of 24.4, 6 points higher than Mays, who played longer. He deserves to be in. So do Beltran and Lofton. The only CFs who are ahead of them, IMO, are all HOFs except Trout, who will be.
Yes, Beltran has complete player written all over him. Extremely well-rounded game across all levels of offense and an excellent defensive player as well. Voters applying for sainthood are the only reason he didn’t go in in year one and is still fighting his way there. Signed stealing has always been legal in baseball with obviously the caveat that you’re not allowed to involve technology. This guy was involved in the conversation of how it could be done but, in spite of being the punishment scapegoat, by all accounts was not involved in carrying out the plan physically. Okay, you punished him, he lost his managerial spot for the Mets and suffered a suspension. Let’s stop pretending he committed genocide in the middle of the outfield and let it go. Anyway, his all around resume easily speaks for itself. They are not comparable players.
Which, again, speaks to the gross negligence of the current voting system. When rules are set in MLB, punishments are determined, pre or post, and carried out. Nowhere does it say that the BBWAA shall be responsible for playing God and carrying out endless punishments for the rest of time. And please don’t argue integrity and character while you’re ignoring domestic violence etc. and hiding behind the convenient and cowardly excuse that it didn’t happen on the field. Kind of like robbing a bank and excusing it because no one caught you.
dwar is useless. So for multiple reasons, look at Paul Konerko. Say what you want about Fielding percentage but it’s the only accurate statistic you can follow. In 17,000 opportunities the guy made 85 errors. Good for a .995 Fielding percentage. Was he the most athletic first baseman ever? Nope. But with only 85 errors in 17,000 chances how bad could he have been? But somehow he has a -17.1 dwar. Range, rating, zones? Where do you want him to go? He’s a first baseman. His job is to generally be close to the bag to receive put outs. When he gets the chance to make put outs, his job is to make them. With only 85 errors in 17,000 chances, how was he not doing his job? Sorry, just can’t get into fiction like that.
Stop comparing Jones to Willie Mays until you can produce a field with the dimensions of the Polo Grounds that Jones went out there and fielded better than Mays. Or even pitchers’ haven, Candlestick Park.
Jones showed up fat pretty early on which slowed him down but he got away with a lot of it because of great pitching. Slice it how you want, argue with all you want but you can’t undo the numbers those pitchers put up if you go back and look at them. He was an athletically gifted defender and played the position well but let’s get off the fairytale merry go round that makes him sound like he was the most amazing fielder of all time any of us ever saw. I saw Edmonds and Hunter make many, many, many great defensive plays as well. I’ve seen Andrew Benintendi make some of the most amazing plays you can make in the outfield, is he going to the hall of fame for it? So of course you will say he doesn’t have 400 home runs. Kingman, Dunn and Darrell Evans, guess what these three guys have in common? They are the only guys to hit 400 home runs and have lower batting averages than Andruw Jones. Did he hit well for about 5 years? Sure but that’s not a Hall of Fame career.
Injury? What injury is that? Getting fat and lazy? He tore some cartilage in 2008 with the Dodgers and had a simple procedure which generally takes about a month to a month and a half to recover from. I had it and I was back out playing sports in about 3 weeks. Is it uncomfortable? Yes. Is it career ending or detrimental to ever playing again? No. Certainly not a reason to suck the rest of your career away. Guys have these cartilage tears all the time in professional sports. Hell, people have these little cartilage tears all the time everyday without playing professional sports.
He also didn’t lack opportunities. The Rangers gave him a starting spot when Josh Hamilton went down. He sucked. The Yankees gave him a starting spot when Brett Gardner went down. He sucked again. Chicago gave him an opportunity and guess what he did? Yep. Sucked.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who like to ignore these things but be realistic. We are not ignoring these things because suddenly his career was awesome. His first two ballots he didn’t even get 8% of the vote. That’s not an accident. He got a blistering 19% in his third ballot. Again not an accident. But now that we are in a time where we have less and less great players on the ballot who will get voted in because of ignorance over peds, political opinions and so on, we have come to justifying things that we somehow didn’t see five years ago? We are so evolved 5 years later that suddenly this is a Hall of Famer? If you need proof against such a theory of evolution, just watch TV or the news or read all the fictitious so-called articles sports writers are now writing. Nonsensical wild guesses at salaries and signings. Trumped-up, phony “insider” reports. Look up every baseball team you want, find their list of front office employees and decision makers and show me John Heyman listed anywhere. He’s not. You know why? Because he knows nothing. Nothing anymore than the rest of us would know if we spend all our time listening to and concocting rumors so we have something to report. Let’s get back to reality and put players in whose real stats cannot be argued. Not fictional, hypothetical equations based on opinions that can be disproven.
Let’s not take out any years and compare him stat for stat with actual deserving guys. No Toyland metric equations, no subjective, adjusted, “awarded” point system, no hypothetical zones or ranges. And no opinionated, voted-on awards. Just real tangible stats. 400+ homers puts him in a club of 58 guys ever. Now let’s hear the rest of his TANGIBLE accomplishments that rank him in Hall of Fame caliber company……. Still listening….
I agree with your comments. Abreu held his own on defense, with a career -1.0 D War and one gold glove. I enjoyed his few years as a Yankee. I also panicked when Ortiz and Ramirez were at the plate.
What happens when the ballot is loaded with worthy candidates? Some get washed out. Is Hanley Ramirez worth a better deal? The numbers show Hanley = Utley.
The war guys will point to an almost 30 point difference between Hanley and Utley. Utley has a 17 plus dwar and Hanley’s is of course negative. For as little emphasis as I give to any war though, Fielding percentage alone sets them apart defensively. Even there, Utley was a good defender whereas, Hanley played primarily shortstop and then split some time between 3rd, outfield and first before DH. The only position he fielded better than a .969 percentage was the one year he played first base as his primary spot. On the flip side though, Hanley was easily as good and probably a better offensive player. His percentage numbers like batting average, OBP and slugging all top Utley and and the other statistical areas where he doesn’t top him, the difference is so minimal that it’s easily attributable to the 700 less split appearances Hanley had. But they definitely are not so far apart anywhere that would put Utley where he is in the balloting and justify Hanley getting no votes at all.
Really we have snowball voting. Take a snowball roll it one way and see what it picks up. Roll the same snowball in a different direction and see what it picks up there. We have 4 candidates who are not much different from each other, I think slight edge to Pedroia, and one gets more votes than the other three. I get the positives that stand for Utley, but I don’t understand the voters’ logic in dumping Hanley and Ian. Maybe the problem is the 10 vote limit. On some of the ballots there have been `20 players who are currently in the HOF. Can’t blame the voters for that. If Kinsler had spent 10 years in Dodgerville what would hi vote be?
Agreed. There are a lot of guys with careers that are not that far apart overall from each other you’re in and you’re out. Really, without much of a stretch at all I think Hunter and Wright full pretty comparably overall with these four. And of course the wars are all over the place so the guys who swear by Jaws are only going to lean toward the highest wars which is crazy. I’ve always thought the 10-vote limit is ridiculous but that’s been there forever. If there are a dozen or 17 where the guys, why shouldn’t you be able to vote for them? I also think that, while there are definitely guys who see some kind of ordained pecking order by determining if a guy is a first ballot, second ballot etc Hall of Famer, there are certainly other voters who look at it and think they are going to put the 10 best guys in their ballot and hopefully be able to vote on the next best guys in coming years but that kind of depends on those guys getting at least 5% and staying on the ballot so again, the 10 vote limit screws up that theory. And you’re right, that’s not the fault of writers who are casting 10 votes, that falls on guys who cast two or three. And if you think there are only two or three worthy guys as a voter, your powers of analysis are probably lacking.
It would also stand a reason that voters should analyze in a manner commensurate with what a player did as opposed to what he could not do due to injury. Obviously if a guy has a good seven years and then a crappy 7 years, you’re going to weigh out the man against the good and get the ending numbers but if a guy has a great 10 years like Pedroia and then his career is suddenly ended, that goes back to what time where they looked at guys like Kiner and Koufax and appreciated their dominance for what it was in the comparatively short time they had to display it. Like I said, I can see coming up with 10 guys ahead of bedroya right now on this ballot but for the guys who are only putting in two or three names, sorry there are definitely more worthy guys on this ballot that you are just ignoring.
Have a question how can someone vote for a player one year and the next year not vote for that player. If player deserves vote one year why not the next?
Really good and age-old question. I’ve wondered that myself for years. Some guys put out little articles explaining their ballots and the logic they have applied. I’ll tell you it’s sometimes pretty strange to try to decipher the thought processes. I saw one recently that explained how guys who got pinched for peds after the penalties were instituted will not get their votes but guys who used them before that time were not the same so they would vote for them. It appears to make sense on the face at first but then you realize, steroids were not legal prior to the most recent institution of punishments. And they also were not permitted in baseball. It just wasn’t enforced the same way. So to say the difference between Manny Ramirez and Jose Canseco is anything along the lines of, Manny did it knowing the penalties involved so it’s different, is ridiculous. The Mitchell report didn’t come down from heaven to suddenly enlighten everyone to something we didn’t know. The FBI had investigated and warned baseball for several years that the Day of Reckoning was coming. Baseball decided to keep playing Russian roulette as long as they could to reap the benefits of the power display. They still were not permitted during that time frame so if you’re going to hold it against people then hold it against everyone. I wouldn’t hold it against anyone personally because, there was a time when it was likely that more than half of baseball was doing it. It doesn’t make anyone a superstar if they can’t play the game already. And most of all, if Bud Selig is a hall of famer, knowing everything he knew about it and doing nothing, how do you possibly justify everyone else being out? Sorry for the ramble, the point is, what kind of justification is that in the voting process?
I’ve also seen a few guys say they had voted for so-and-so for 3 or 4 years but they weren’t gaining any traction so they weren’t going to vote for them anymore because other people weren’t voting for them. That’s your process of analysis? Bob and Joe don’t like so and so so instead of applying your own opinion, which you previously already had, you just give up? Good plan. This whole thing is a mess.
Did you see Juan Gonzalez numbers? And he is not in HOF?? Please…same with one of the best defense ss in history…Omar Vizquel…amost no one vote for him because he wasnt a slugger. Look for Dennis Martinez, Carlos Delgado (he is not a HOF because of his attitud), Luis Tiant, and other hispanic with great numbers.
Carlos Delgado is easily a hall of famer. Very sad omission there because there is just no excuse against it. Juan Gonzalez too. But he’s one of those unfortunate guys where PED was attached to his name long ago and never forgotten. He never failed a test and no one ever proved he used any PEDs so he sits in a weird purgatory with guys like Clemens who are paying a punishment for a crime they’ve never been factually convicted of.
El Tiante should have been in long ago. You can compare him to many Hall of Fame guys and he sits right there. Very similar career numbers to a guy like Catfish Hunter so that is another terrible omission.
Vizquel though, is a little bit different story. You can look at his numbers and say he had a bunch of hits and was a great fielder but if you dive a little deeper, his case is not as amazing. Look at all the shortstops with over 10,000 plate appearances. Mainly, because it took him that long to reach the numbers he did get offensively and a really become less great when considering how long that is to pile them up. Of the guys with 10,000 played appearances, many have 3,000 hits, a lot more home runs or just better overall offensive numbers. He compares to only a few offensively like Aparicio, Maranville and Ozzie Smith. Everyone else in that club has an ops higher than 7. Those four guys don’t. And the fact that he compares to those three Hall of Famers is probably more of an indictment against those guys being in the Hall of Fame than it is a plus that he belongs. I get the defensive argument in favor of Smith and, okay, obviously enough people with votes thought that was enough to make his case. Many people also feel the same way about Vizquel but if you take the people who believe Smith’s defense put some over the top and then apply the fact that he is considered the best, that puts Vizquel somewhere behind him.
Also, many people are blindly looking at things like range factor now and pretending it has some profound meaning. It basically adds up put outs and assists and divides them by innings played. Very subjective considering it’s just assumes everyone has a similar amount of chances. Also as soon as everyone is facing the same type of batted balls, at the same exit velocities off of the same pitching and so forth. Or at least that these things all come out in the wash in the end. Again extremely subjective nonsense. But if you are a voter who has hitched as wagon to these kind of statistics, Vizquel goes from being a guy with the top fielding percentage to only 72nd on the range factor list at shortstop. So, as convoluted as that becomes, and as pedestrian as his offensive stats look against other guys, that’s an uphill climb already.
Now add in his wife saying he choked her and a sexual assault allegation against an autistic batboy and you have a recipe for disaster.
I completely agree with those character issues at the end but I find them a little funny because of how many times we hear things like, “Andruw Jones didn’t assault his wife on the field so it has nothing to do with his performance on the field”. Why does it apply to one and not the other?
I’m not sure that your inference is that these omissions are racially motivated but at the same time, I would sure hate to think that Ian Kinsler, who compares suspiciously closely to Chase Utley, is being ignored because he played for Team Israel for instance.
Beltran ABSOLUTLY NOT a Hall of Famer!!!
Wtf arw you talking about?? Andruw has 450 homeruns
434. Juan Gonzalez, Paul Konerko and Carlos Delgado have more and belonged in well before Jones. Now Beltran still not in? Several other guys belong in way before the guy who would have the second lowest batting average in the hall.
Good comments
Finally, Hall of Time once again!
This one is going to be very interesting. Too many candidates will be up for election. That could either be good or bad. Some pretty good candidates might fall off because of the too many candidates on the ballot. I would like to compare some candidates here.
I would like to begin with CC Sabathia, Mike Mussina and Felix Hernandez. Of course, Mike Mussina is a hall of famer, but it took him several years to be there, like 6 years if I’m not mistaken.
CC Sabathia 251 Wins, 3,093 Ks, 3.74 ERA, 62.3 WAR Cy Young
Mike Mussina 270 Wins, 2,813 Ks, 3.68 ERA, 82.2 WAR (HOF) No Cy Young
Felix Hernandez 169 Wins, 2,524 Ks, 3.42 ERA, 49.7 WAR Cy Young
Mike Mussina clearly was the better pitcher here and it took him about 6 years to make the hall of fame. Why should CC be first ballot? You be my guest.
I would also like to compare Chase Utley, Dustin Pedroia and Ian Kinsler, none of these are hall of famers so far, but would like to compare them.
Chase Utley .275 avg., 1,885 hits, 259 HRs, 64.5 WAR, 6 All Stars, no gold gloves, no MVPs
Dustin Pedroia .299 avg., 1,805 hits, 140 HRs, 51.9 WAR, 4 ALL Stars, 4 gold gloves, 1 MVP, ROY
Ian Kinsler .269 avg., 1,999 hits, 257 HRs, 54.1 WAR, 4 All Stars, 2 Gold gloves, No MVP
Why this comparison? Because a lot of people out there keep saying that Utley was the better second baseman of the three here above. Clearly, we can see that’s not the case. I’m not saying the other two are or should be hall of famers, but if Utley receives over a 28% of the vote for the hall of fame, then Pedroia and Kinsler should be near that as well.
One more comparison and the last one. I would like to compare Russell Martin with Brian McCann.
Russell Martin .248 avg., 191 HRs, 38.9 WAR, 4 All Star Games, 1 Gold Glove, 1 silver slugger, 0 MVPs
Brian McCann .262 avg., 282 HRs, 32 WAR, 7 All Stars, 6 Silver Sluggers, 0 gold gloves, o MVPs
Why that last comparison? I know neither are hall of famers or will be, but….heard a lot of people saying that Russell Martin was better than McCann…not true.
I meant hall of fame at the beginning of the post.
Excuse my grammar mistakes on the post above.
Yeah I definitely don’t see the Utley over Kinsler thing. Pretty neck and neck right down the line. Pedroia was pretty awesome and I know there will be plenty of sentiment against his longevity. However, if you want to hold war against a candidate, where does it end? The real war leaders are all in the 90s and well over 100 so making concessions for guys at 70 as though that’s amazing puts people like Scott Rolen in there. How is his 70 good enough but Lou Whitaker at 75 is not? Even being finished for all intents and purposes by 33 years old, Pedroia has a higher war than Hall of Fame second baseman. I have no use for war but just making your argument for you. War doesn’t tell you who the best are. For instance, Ted Williams has a lower war than several other guys all because he missed roughly six combined years between real wars and injuries. Anyone in their right mind would take him over most of the people ahead of him on the war list.
In reality, a guy should be judged on what he did in the time he did have not how much time he didn’t have. Not that we should be inducting people who have a great three or four years and do nothing else ever but for a guy to hit.299 with 1800 hits and win championships, you should just consider what he did in the time he did it.
Utley will probably get more consideration than Kinsler and Pedroia because his peak was better. (Best seven seasons: 49.3, compared to 38.1 and 41.0, respectively). Utley’s JAWS score puts him between Ryne Sandberg and Lou Whitaker (who should be in the Hall), and above guys like Alomar and Biggio. Pedroia and Kinsler’s scores put them close to guys like Kent and Altuve (right now), and they don’t have the counting stats those guys do so they might be overlooked. Second base is underrepresented in the hall right now, unfortunately, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
The problem is that Utley doesn’t have the counting stats either, only 1,885 career hits. In fact Kinsler had more hits than Utley (1,999 career hits) Pedroia had over 1,800 hits as well, same as Utley.
Sad but the voting body gets younger so you get what we’re getting. They’ll go so far to justify wars and zones and jaws and hypotheticals that the real accomplishments are ignored. Voting for a guy who’s big offensive contribution is 430 home runs and then so-so because he has 10 gold gloves is ridiculous. The guy batted garbage, hung on too long and threw his wife down the stairs. That’s a hall of fame resume??? Get real.
Agreed with you 100%
Really I see Utley and Kinsler have obviously higher totals than Pedroia but clearly due to his unfortunate knee circumstance. I can actually get behind Pedroia because the guy just screamed Hall of famer pretty much his whole career until the injury wiped them out. The other two guys piled up some numbers but if they were in there they would be among the very lower echelon of Hall of Fame second baseman. Like Joe Gordon, Lazzeri and Evers. Three guys I’m not even sure belong in there in the first place. And then there are guys beyond that like Bid McPhee who probably don’t either. Every other second baseman in there had at least 2000 hits and many of them batted .300 or close to it. Even Lazzeri batted over .290. no we’re going to watch guys go in there who didn’t even get to 2000 hits or bat at least .280? Getting a little silly I think.
Sabathia: Cy Young, 3,000 strikeouts and a World Series champion.
That’s why he’s a first ballot guy.
Yeah, but his ERA is a little high. If I compare CC with Mike Mussina here is because Mussina was better than him and it took Mussina about 6 years to make it. So, to my point, CC will probably make it, but it’s going to take him a couple of years for it.
Sabathia’s ERA is 3.74, Mussina’s is 3.68, that’s not a significant difference. Mussina took 6 years because of the state of the ballot at the time, it was overflowing with HOF because the writers were too stingy in the years leading up to 2013, and then got hit with a tidal wave of qualified layers, many of whom had PED issues, which the writers couldn’t come to a consensus on so those players lingered on the ballot soaking up many of the 10 spots voters are limited to. They’re both worthy HOF pitchers, Mussina went in and CC will, too. How long it took them is irrelevant.
Agree 100%
If I had a vote it’s Manny, Suzuki, Sabathia, Abreu, Wagner, Rodriguez, Beltran, K-Rod, Pedroia and Petite. I don’t care about wars and jaws and hypotheticals, these are the guys who did what needed to happen and produced more than admirably in the time they had. Pedey might not have high numbers all over the place but blowing out a knee wasn’t his choice. What he did in the time he played was more than great.
Agreed!
Whitaker, Kent and Madlock. Cecil Travis and Bill Dahlen. Vern Stephens and Willie Randolph. They all have stats that would fit in with those already in. I like Pedroia and Utley, have no complaint about Kinsler, but I think Kent, Whitaker and Madlock are all better candidates.
“CC Sabathia 251 Wins, 3,093 Ks, 3.74 ERA, 62.3 WAR Cy Young
Mike Mussina 270 Wins, 2,813 Ks, 3.68 ERA, 82.2 WAR (HOF) No Cy Young
Felix Hernandez 169 Wins, 2,524 Ks, 3.42 ERA, 49.7 WAR Cy Young
Mike Mussina clearly was the better pitcher here and it took him about 6 years to make the hall of fame. Why should CC be first ballot? You be my guest.”
It’s due to the players on the ballot and the 10 player limit for voters. Mussina debuted with starting pitchers Glavine and Maddux. When you’re the 3rd best SP debuting, you typically do not fare well in the voting. Add to that returning SP Clemens and Schilling, and it’s 5 HOF caliber pitchers (Jack Morris was in year 15 and Lee Smith was also returning, neither of whom were better than Mussina, IMO) he’s competing for votes with, on a ballot limited to just 10 total. Looking beyond pitchers Big Hurt debuted and Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell, Raines, Bonds, Martinez and Trammell were also on the ballot and finished in front of Mussina. The only players in that list who haven’t subsequently gone in are Bonds, Clemens and Schilling. It was a VERY crowded ballot. Sabathia will debut with only one other pitcher worth considering, two others with whom he’s a competitive candidate, and no overwhelming candidates without controversy associated with them as a position player. This makes it a LOT easier for him to get onto a ballot than the situation Mussina found himself in.
Should he be first ballot? If a voter thinks that it is some sort of special recognition or category, then I suppose they would have to make that decision on their ballot. If they don’t, then they should vote for him if he’s worthy by their criteria.
As a Yankees fan, I must always back my ex-players here. My ten votes are:
Alex Rodriguez Ichiro Suzuki C.C. Sabathia Curtis Granderson Bobby Abreu
David Wright Billy Wagner Troy Tulowitzki Andrew Jones Andy Pettitte.
Not bad Vic but if you’re going Arid then the juice doesn’t bother you, in which case, how do you leave out Manny?
Tulo had 7 solid seasons in Colorado and one decent one in Toronto. You’re voting for him because he played 5 games with the Pinstripes? As far as infielders go, he doesn’t touch Pedroia, Utley or Kinsler and you leave them out. Over 5 Yankee games? Just wondering..
I already said that I’m a Yankees fan. A Rod was a Yankee. Manny Ramirez was not. I didn’t like him playing for the Red Sox or Dodgers.
I like Utley, but don’t care about Pedroia or Kinsler. I miss the days when you can put 15 names instead of 10.
So if you were a Royals fan you would just put Bob Hamlin, Danny Jackson and Buddy Biancalana in there just because they were Royals?
I don’t have a vote, but if I did, I would vote for Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltran, Mark Buehrle, Andruw Jones, Andy Pettitte, Alex Rodriguez, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, and Billy Wagner.
Huh? All those guys, including ARod, but no Manny? Please explain.
Usually this argument and with “Manny failed a test”. Pretty sure A-Rod did too so I never get this reasoning either..300 and 500 bombs? Pretty sure only like seven or eight guys ever have done that
Very close brother. Ruth, Foxx, Ott, Williams, Mays, Aaron, Thomas, Ramirez and Cabrera. So nine including Manny and Cabrera should walk right in as well. Steroids is a ridiculous argument already. It was more of a social movement than anything and a dumb one at that. Simple question, how come no one cared until Congress cared? Anyone who says they were not going to vote for ped guys before the Mitchell report happened is a liar. No doubt about it.
CC Sabathia’s case was pretty much or very similar to Andy Pettitte and Andy doesn’t seem to be getting more support. Sabathia had a Cy Young and 3,000 k’s and one world champion. But….Pettitte was a five-time champion, and his case is not moving forward.
Pettitte’s overall body of work was not bad but he falls short of guys like Frank Tanana, Jerry Koosman, Chuck Finley and several others. Pettitte’s ERA is 756th all time which kind of screams mediocrity to begin with. He didn’t even get to 3500 strikeouts and the guy threw four shutouts in his entire career. The biggest reason he’s made at this long is probably that he’s one of the better options in the last several years in an age where hands down, lights out dominant pictures are fading from existence. Sabathia is 18th all time in strikeouts and we’re not going to see too many guys hitting big victory numbers or strike out numbers for a long time because the focus has become for guys to throw as hard as they can until they blow their arm out which is making it difficult for anyone to pitch more than five innings so they’re not going to rack up victories too often since many times games are won in the later innings after the guy has already left the mound. So then we have guys like Felix Hernandez who win the Cy Young award with 12 or 13 victories. Granted the rest of his numbers that you were good but 10 years before that he never would have won that award because too many guys pitched deeper into games and want a lot more while still hammering out all the other numbers. That’s because guys used to know how to pitch and didn’t rely on velocity velocity velocity. The game is going backwards to a caveman mentality. I have bigger muscles than you so I can punch harder me win fight. Sure, until Bruce Lee comes along and kicks your ass at 170 lb with finesse. On top of all of that, Pettitte admitted to ped use so the tight pants, cancel culture voting body besides his apologies and admissions are not good enough because they can’t strike out Mario Mendoza. There’s your difference in a nutshell.
**He didn’t get to 2500 Ks it should say
This should never have been this difficult. Hall of famers are pretty easy to spot, they are the guys who set or break the standard in their respective roles. Which means your real Hall of famers on this ballot are Manny, Arod, Wagner, Suzuki and based on hitting the 3,000 strikeout plateau, Sabathia. Although Sabathia’s ERA is the highest of anyone with 3,000 strikeouts ever. At 3.74 he is a good chunk higher considering no one ever had 3,000 strikeouts and a 3.50 ERA. That should leave Beltran, Abreu and K-Rod as the arguables. Everyone else is basically a concession in lieu of PEDs and trashcan banging so we’re crapping up the hall with silly excuses like 70 wars and several gold gloves. What the hell is that?
Agree completely. There have always been guys that are so much close and they hang on for a little while and maybe finally get in which is fine because hey, who else is going to go if they’re just aren’t enough top of the list superstars around? Trout looked like he was going to be a shoe in from day one but he sure is making it difficult to keep thinking that way. Is this guy ever going to be healthy again? But I think it’s Arod, Ramirez, Wagner and Suzuki for sure. And CCs higher era is pushing it but I always liked the 3,000 strikeout barometer myself. Guys like Utley are troublesome for me because he had a better than average career but when I think about true Hall of Famers he doesn’t quite make it.
This makes perfect sense. And 3,000 strikeouts is a pretty impressive number. Yeah the ERA was a little higher than everyone else in the club but not too many guys strike out 3,000. And probably a lot less will now because they only pitch a thousand miles an hour for 5 minutes a game and leave.
I think you can certainly see a case for 10 guys without Sabathia but it would be such a close case for a few of those guys that his 3,000 strikeouts would win out. You have voters who are still on the PED bandwagon, voters who either don’t like relievers or value them as lesser players and only throw them a vote when they don’t have 10 guys they like better. That of course you have this strange idea among several voters that the first ballot, second ballot and so on thing controls the value of somebody’s candidacy. Obviously you’re a hall of famer, you’re a Hall of Famer and it doesn’t really matter when that is in many people’s eyes. But at any rate, those kind of guys will hold their support off for a few years as you see in cases like Lee Smith and Billy Wagner. Yes his era is the highest for anyone in the 3000 K club but it’s not like it was 7.74. so 3000 Ks are 3000 Ks and certainly buffer a pretty respectable resume overall.
If you’re tired of the stale PED thing, think the Beltran trash can thing is blown out of proportion and value guys who laid it all out there though they may have been cut short by injuries beyond their control and value relievers as well, I can see attend vote valid saying Beltran, Manny, A Rod, K Rod, Wagner, Pedroia, Wright, Petitte, Suzuki and Abreu. Perfectly respectable and all arguable from those standpoints but I don’t think so much so that you would sacrifice a 3000 K guy overall 10 of those. We are not going to see 3,000 too often for a long time now.
I can’t understand how somebody would vote for Arod and not Manny. If the peds don’t bother you then how are they possibly not both locks? If you’re trying to differentiate ped use, Arod tested positive for actual anabolic steroids while Ramirez tested for estrogen. THE GUY TESTED POSITIVE FOR BREAST ENHANCEMENT!!! I’m very aware they are considered to be a cover-up after steroid use but one guy actually tested positive for steroids and the other guy tested positive for trying to grow a pair of boobs. How do you vote for one and not the other?
I can get the rationale. Ramirez has the statistics of a Hall of Famer, but Rodriguez is statistically one of the 10-15 greatest baseball players ever. If A-Rod stats were decreased by 20-30%, he would still be a Hall of Famer, and I don’t think you can make that same argument about Manny. Manny also failed two drug tests, so people are not going to be as charitable when it comes to his candidacy.
Likewise I can see that rationale however, no matter how you slice reduction of statistics, Manny still outbatted Arod, out slugged him, got on base at a higher clip and therefore bests him in OPS. Arod I had 2500 more plate of appearances than Manny yet only beat him by 140 home runs and pretty similar in RBIs. So while he may have racked up 600 more hits and 300 more steals than Manny, he did it in 2500 more plate appearances and still ends up behind or very close to manny. Doubles for instance, they are one apart. But the hands down stat Manny posted that makes him pretty automatic no matter what is this list: Ruth, Foxx, Ott, Williams, Mays, Aaron, Thomas, Manny and Cabrera. Only nine guys ever to hit 500 home runs and bat over .300 for a career. All in the hall except Cabrera who very likely will be pretty soon.
Personally I don’t care about the PEDS because I’m not jaded enough to believe there weren’t way more guys doing it than we ever found out or ever will find out. And if PEDS were the answer to greatness then why didn’t half the league post the same stats these guys posted? We all know what peds really do to the body so we should all be just as aware that they do not create the greatest players of all time. Strength is only strength and if you do not have the “great responsibility to handle great power” then I guess you are Gabe Kapler, Greg Luzinski or any number of guys who could punch out a horse by somehow did not become Hall of Famers because they were super strong.
Every generation has had it’s downfalls and it’s share of guys trying to get one over. Whatever your era did not have was a bunch of bandwagon jumping, holier than thou, mindless internet riders with their own platforms trying to be the next great sage.
That was just Manny being Manny
Manny being awesome baby
Voting for Utley and not for Pedroia or Kinsler is a joke. The three of them look pretty much the same way. They are on the same level. Dustin Pedroia is the one with more accolades from the theee of them and the best batting average as well.
You can add David Wright to that list too! He is as good or better than the other 3, when comparing many stats!
I think he’s comparing second baseman but you’re right, Wright is definitely comparable. Especially from a Pedroia/Mattingly point of view where, these guys were clearly headed for the hall and still put up great careers, considering they were cut short my injuries. All three still deserve to be in there.
As far as the second base argument, I don’t see the great Utley appeal either versus Kinsler or Pedroia. Other than penalizing Pedroia for the injury of course.
Yes it’s a second baseman argument but I agree with Wright being a valid candidate. The “only have so many votes and there are more deserving guys” argument will somewhat apply here but, at the same time, anyone who has left blank spaces or not supported some of these other guys only to suddenly find them worthy should probably rethink their analysis process. The guys didn’t add or subtract from their careers since you didn’t find them worthy before. Obviously this doesn’t apply to people exhausting 10 valid votes but casting one or two and then clogging it up in future years with guys you ignored signifies a certain lack of capability in the analysis department.
It’s a shame Jeff Kent was overlooked
Exactly
Kent was a no-brainer. Voting body is a circus act.
Kent’s pickup truck agrees
It’s a shame that Lou Whitaker was also overlooked
True
Whitaker too. He had a hell of a career but I think he was more a victim of the era where voters still looked for standout Hall of Fame numbers. He didn’t get to 2500 hits, 400 or even 300 homers or even 250 as a second baseman and we used to look past avgs under .280 when those other things were also missing.
But I think he’s got one of those really solid all-around bodies of work that looks even better now. Now we’re talking about Utley and Kinsler when Sweet Lou was better than both of them.
I don’t know how Whitaker and Kent didn’t get in.
Because the voting body likes to scoff and chuckle over fans who know what they’re watching. These clowns need ridiculous made up crap like jaws and war to tell them who the hypothetical hall guys are now. And the longer it goes on, the more people don’t want to seem foolish for ignoring it so they jump on board and now we’ll go on having a Hall of Who the Hell are these Guys???
Because the voting body sucks
Yes they do
Whitaker, Kent and Madlock. Cecil Travis and Bill Dahlen. Vern Stephens and Willie Randolph. They all have stats that would fit in with those already in.
Shame Kinsler is going to fall off this ballot while Utley gets all these votes. Does anyone in the BBWAA watch baseball or do they just sit around reading fakermetrics?
Since when was Utley better than Pedroia?
Since never. Utley played longer because Pedroia blew out the knee. Still batted .299 with only 80 less hits than Utley in less at bats. Pretty close everywhere else and superior defender to Utley and Kinsler. Utley and Kinsler are pretty similar guys and Utley just happens to have the something factor that attracted some talking heads and the following has rolled from there. You can’t look at actual stats and say Utley was a Hall of Famer and Kinsler wasn’t without holding in a chuckle. Where did Utley blow away Kinsler? A few more “wins above hypothetical mythical characters”? They’ll say Pedroia didn’t have enough longevity. Maybe not but bating .300 with 1800 hits, 4 gold gloves, ROY, MVP and multiple championships in less time than with guy, he already looks better than the other 2 in reality. Just a really sad system.
Agreed 100 %
3.74 career ERA doesn’t scream hall of fame to me. At least, not first ballot.
You have to look at CC for what he did do. Besides Verlander, Scherzer, Greinke and Kershaw, we probably are not going to see another really obvious Hall of Fame starting pitcher anytime soon. Maybe some Old-Timers will get in through the committees but beyond that, with guys only pitching four innings now if they are lucky, who’s going to rack up those kind of stats? The last four guys to retire with 100 complete games are probably Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Eckersley. Nowadays, if a guy pictures to complete games in a season he is probably damn well going to be the league leader that year. Which also means, after the guys I mentioned, you’re not going to see somebody strike out 3,000 batters anytime soon either. 3.74 would be, by far, the highest of anyone in the 3000 Club, and a good deal higher than the average Hall of Fame pitcher as well but, his last several seasons after age 32 are responsible for the climb. So in essence, he’s kind of the jumping off point or segue between the old workhorse and the modern, babied starter. Which makes him relatively historical in and of itself. Until recently, nobody strikes out 3000 guys and doesn’t get in. Clemens and Schilling are exceptions who obviously belong in the hall and have so far been screwed. So while I think the era is a little high, I also think a 19-year career and 3,000 strikeouts is pretty worth memorializing.
I think he will make the hall of fame, but it shouldn’t be first ballot. Yeah, I get, and I know the whole pitcher Like I said before Mike Mussina was better than CC and it took him about 5 to 6 years to make it in. I think that the fact that he was a Yankee pitcher and there are too many voters who represent New York here will support CC. In fact, Sabathia matches Andy Pettitte on almost every category. Andy Pettitte was a 5-time world champion, and even though he never won a Cy Young his playoff performance as a pitcher was far better than CC’s. If I compare CC with Felix, The King for me was better. The difference between those two? CC pitched many years for the Yankees, while Felix pitched for Seattle. That’s why CC got most of his wins. Just compare the ERA and their peak years and you’ll see what I’m talking about. But yeah, he will make the hall of fame, just don’t think he’s worth first ballot.
I think Sabathia should go. 3000 Ks is pretty awesome and I don’t think it matters where he got his wins. Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine got most of their wins in Atlanta but you don’t get wins because you suck. Some maybe but not 200+.
And I don’t get the 1st ballot, 2bd ballot, 10th ballot thing. If a guy is a Hall of Famer he’s a Hall of Famer. His career is over so it’s not like he does anything different between 5 and 15 years after retirement.
Compare the ERA of CC with Maddux ERA or Glavine. CC Sabathia could pitch 6 inmings and could allow 4 earned runs, but the Yankees score 5 or even 6 runs. They will win due to the great hitting tesm they were. Can we say the same thing about Felix Hernandez? His ERA was better than the ome from Sabathia, he couldnt win that many games because his team was not a good hitting team. Get my point now?
Well I got your point all along. All I’m saying is we can’t hold wins against guys because of who they played for. How many wins do you want the discount Mussina, Clemens, Wells, Pettitte and any other pinstriper because they played for loaded Yankees teams? Sabathia actually had pretty good eras until age 32 or 33 and then he started giving up four or five runs a game and if you look at Hernandez, he only had three full seasons with a sub 3.00 ERA. He was also done by 33 years old so we’ll never know what he would have done in those same years after that age that Sabathia was actually pitching. Hernandez took the covid year off after signing with Atlanta so he never even played there and then he caught on with Baltimore the next year and had about an 8.00 ERA through spring training and couldn’t even make the club. So most likely, he would have sucked for the rest of his thirties since he couldn’t even get past 33. So they were pretty even type guys through the age 33 seasons but Sabathia was able to stick around another several years, pile up some winds and at least get to 3,000 strikeouts. If Hernandez was able to make it to 3,000 strikeouts we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation and they’d be neck and neck for the Hall no matter how many games Hernandez didn’t win.
Felix had 5 seasons of an ERA of 3.06 or better including two era titles of 2.14 and 2.27. Sabathia never did that good on the ERA category not like Felix. Of course, he will make the hall of fame mostly due to the 3,000 ks. I feel Felix should have won at least two cy young awards. I think we both had our points and it was a good analysis. See? At least we are analyzing and debating friendly and peacefully, that’s what voters should do, this type of analysis.
Too many false martyrs and followers. Obviously there are still some writers who discern between what’s important and what’s not but way too many jumping on the phony morals bandwagons and relying on half-tales like wars and jaws.
Agreed.
Me too.
I think that there needs to be a fan committee. Players who are obviously HOF caliber need more opportunities and the fan voice needs to be heard! My first HOF ballot would be this class! Without these men along with prob 100 more the HOF just don’t make sense, AKA Harold Baines!!
Dale Murphy
Don Mattingly
Roger Maris
Curt Schillings
Pete Rose
Maury Wills
Lou Whittaker
Curt Flood
Ken Boyer
Darrell Evans
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Manny Rameriez
Mark McGwire
Dave Parker
Steve Garvey
Right on Nick. Never been a hypothetical metrics guy and I’m never going to be. These are a great representation of guys who built the game or continued to make it the greatest game in the world. I would add Luis Tiant and Dwight Evans and then I think it would be a really good start for correcting what ails the Hall.
And Jeff Kent
Agreed! After all we watch the games, we go to the parks, we buy their jerseys and buy baseball cards too. You’re right!
Actually thought of a few more
Allie McReynolds
Johnny Sain
Alvin Dark
Don Larson
Harvey Kuenn
Carmelo Pascual
Elston Howard
Curt Flood
Cletus Boyer
Bill White
Manny Mota
Mickey Lolich
Wilbur Wood
Dennis McLain
Craig Nettles
Sparky Lyle
Andy Messersmith
Bobby Bonds
Vida Blue
Dave Concepcion
George Foster
Greg Luzinski
Jose Cruz
Bob Boone
Ken Griffey Sr
Bill Madlock
Keith Hernandez
Fred Lynn
Ron Guidry
Willie Randolph
Dennis Martinez
Jack Clark
Lance Parrish
Pedro Guerrero
Willie Wilson
Rick Sutcliffe
Kirk Gibson
Jeff Reardon
Mike Scott
Fernando V
Dave Stewart
Brett Saberhagan
John Franco
Vince Coleman
Joe Carter
Andres Galarraga
Will Clark
Dave Cone
Mark Grace
Jim Abbott
Marquis Grissom
Omar Vizquel
John Orleud
Gary Sheffield
Kenny Loftin
Andy Pettitte
Is Allie McReynolds the love child of Allie Reynolds and Kevin McReynolds?
Thanks for proving the point of why fans are not allowed to vote… now where’s my other sock?
I don’t think his idea is bad Curt. There are definitely some guys that should be in and some knowledgeable fans that know it but, you’re right they can’t just have the entire fan base going crazy or everybody’s favorite players would be in the Hall.
I’ve always thought that Bill Madlock should’ve been in the Hall of fame. What a great hitter he was!
Kenny Lofton should.be in the hall of fame. I mean if Tim Raines is in then Lofton should be in too.
I would go El Tiante, Cobra, John for sure. I know people have a big war problem with Garvey but he was a star for a long time in his day and so was Allen. There was a time when I wouldn’t think Boyer but with things being the way they are today, a guy with a pretty good all-around game like that probably deserves to be there. Not all that dissimilar to Scott Rolen so I wouldn’t have a problem seeing any of these guys in there.
Are you aware of the 5 and 10 year requirement in order to be considered for voting? For example, Maris fails both. Don Larsen, Kenny Lofton, John Olerud would all appreciate the thought. My favorites include Sherry Magee, Sam Leever, Jesse Tannehill, Barney McCoskey, Cecil Travis and VERN STEPHENS.
Not sure what five and 10 you are referring to. But I do find it funny how often John Olerud is dismissed. Especially in light of how many times you have mentioned a guy like Sherry Maggee. Not that Maggee had a bad career but, he basically out tripled and out stole Olerud. And then he pretty much falls below him everywhere else. In some cases not much but Olerud crushes him in homers but more importantly, walks and OBP. In fact, Olerud is 52nd all time in walks and 72nd all time with a pretty ridiculous, almost .400 OBP. The guy got on base more often than almost everyone in his generation never mind everyone in every generation except for 71 guys out of about 22,000 who have ever played the game.
These lists are always fun, seeing who everyone remembers the most and who everyone’s favorite guys were in different eras. The problem with lists like these though is that they are trending in the opposite direction of the Hall’s original intention. It was supposed to be the best of the absolute best and is already not that. And this is why. When you put Ron Santo in there, you open the floodgates for why not Ken Boyer? Pretty similar players. Though I’d be more interested to know, if you put Tony Oliva in there, why not Al Oliver? How do you put Bruce Sutter in there and yet, Billy Wagner has struggled to get in for a decade? Andruw Jones versus Jim Edmonds? Keith Hernandez and Bobby Grich both top tier defenders in their time yet, at a time where everyone is harping on defense, both have been ignored. You can find dozens of comparables to a guy like Vern Stephens so do we just keep adding guys because every time you drop the bar a little bit, there’s another guy very comparable to that guy? I love remembering these guys but now we are having conversations about guys in some cases who don’t even have 1500 hits. How far can we go?
Not to mention guys like Delgado, Murphy, Abreu, Clemens, McGwire, Sheffield, Rose, Schilling and Joe Jackson who all belong in there before pretty much anyone on these lists.
Sherry Magee was a major run producer during the dead ball era. 4-time Rbi champ, twice the leading slugger. Compare him to Zack Wheat, Elmer Flick and Harry Hooper, not Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb.
The way I read 5 and 10 was: 5 MVP type years (STEPHENS} or 10 years leading (or close to it) in some major category (Andruw Jones). In other words, forget years lost after they struck gold
I see where you’re going. I thought you were referring to some kind of actual rule but you’re talking about one of those self-imposed oddities that the writers have come up with to help them judge things we used to just be able to judge by watching baseball. Along with the obvious hypothetical nature of many of these current metrics, I find it difficult to go by things like appearances in top 10 simply because, you could hit 30 home runs for 10 straight seasons, five of those seasons only two guys hit more than you, you’re in the top 10. The other five of those seasons happened to be homer-happy years and 15 guys hit 35 or better in those seasons. Now you’re lucky if you’re in the top 20. But the point is you still hit 30 home runs for 10 straight seasons, making you extremely productive and reliable consistently. How are your 30 home runs any more or less valuable in any given season because you did or did not appear in the top 10 list with the same exact number annually? If the guy hit 300 homers in 10 years, I’m pretty impressed and I don’t really care how many lists he appeared on. Same thing with awards. Too many of them are subjective and opinionated. Jones’ 10 gold gloves are a very popular argument to put him over the top with nothing else but his 400 home runs. Eight and nine gold gloves though, are somehow not impressive enough to keep Hunter and Edmonds in the conversation when, other than home runs, they both offensively outplayed Jones without question and still won those gold gloves. So then we hear about how amazing Jones’ defense was, completely ignoring the fortuitous situation he played in behind that pitching staff and the dramatic fall off when he no longer played behind that pitching staff. We can look at every single year the MVP has been awarded. Or any award for that matter, and probably debate pretty well who did and didn’t deserve the award. Most often, the argument can be made both ways for anybody and any number of guys could have half or twice as many MVP awards as they currently have. I think we are all aware of the cronyism and favoritism that has long existed in all sports. Larry Bird deserved twice as many MVPs as he won and Michael Jordan should easily have had a few more as well but, when the voters decide they are not going to give it to a certain guy anymore or consecutively too many times, doesn’t anyone else find it odd that the entire voting body suddenly voted that way? The whole thing is a mess and it’s only getting worse. It’s really a shame. And I have no problem with a guy like Maggee being in there because, you’re right, he was consistently productive at a high level for many seasons and, in an era where the home runs just didn’t fly so you really can’t hold that against him.
Carlos Delgado should be very high on your list. 27 more home runs and this guy would have been a lock. Better fielding percentage than about 8 or 10 Hall of Fame first baseman, 280 average, 483 doubles and probably would have made a lot more all-star teams if he spent his career as a Met or even a Yankee or Red Sox.
Yeah I can definitely think of a lot of fans who should not vote for Hall of famers. But I do agree with some of these guys. And Delgado is definitely a high one. For all the times we hear about how many all-star teams a guy made, Delgado missing all-star teams was not an indictment on his talent and production. That guy was awesome for about 13 straight seasons and just happened to be hiding in canada, playing possibly the most loaded position of his era. Kind of tough to make all-star teams playing the same spot as Frank Thomas, Mo Vaughn (before he malfunctioned), Jim Thome, Mark McGwire, Albert Pujols, and then in his later national League seasons there were Ryan Howard and Derek Lee who just happened to be in the midst of their 20-minute primes at that time.
Fans cannot be solely responsible for voting or you would have people like the guy on this thread who vote in anyone who was ever a Yankee just because he is a Yankee fan. Many if not most teams already have their own Hall of Fame and that’s where your favorite players from that team belong. But I do agree the system is highly flawed. The idea originally that writers could be unbiased and keep it fair has been unfortunately tainted by the idea that many writers have now transformed that responsibility into a sense of omniscience and believe they know more than the rest of us. You need a system where there are specific guidelines. Inarguable. Like the automatics would be 500 homers, 3,000 Ks and so on. And then the second tier guys that come close and need to be examined a little bit would be voted on. But not by the writers alone. Maybe you’d have a committee of 10 highly vetted writers who are not witch hunters and who’s credentials as knowledgeable baseball people are the least questioned in the business, 10 living Hall of Famers and 10 managers/executives. That committee’s output would equal 50% of the vote. Then maybe another 25% would be fan-based and the last 25% would be veteran, active players with at least 10 years of service. Something of this nature would have far more voices involved from different standpoints, allow the fans some say on who they want to see in there but also maintain enough equilibrium that you wouldn’t have outlandish, fan-elected outcomes based on just who played for my favorite team.
I can think of a lot of fans who shouldn’t vote for Hall of Famers too but I can also think of a lot of writers who shouldn’t either…
I agree, but then I think of Manny Ramirez, Sammy Sosa, Rafael
Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds. Who said Ken Boyer and Ron Santo weren’t the best of their particular era.
Each of these guys should be already in. PEDs are silly already. So what, they had some workout help, so did probably half the league but no one cared because human nature is to take down the people who accomplish more than you. When steroids were booming and everyone knew it, no one gave a damn because the early guys saved a dying game at the time. Once Congress stuck their noses in it, suddenly everyone cared. Another media-created witch hunt frenzy. These guys didn’t snort coke while running a daycare full of kids or blow up a bank full of people or even throw their wives down the stairs and choked her while threatening to kill her. Nope. They got a little help in playing a sport. A game. And a game an awful lot of guys have done a lot of shady things to get a leg up in. Blacklisting them from some clown museum doesn’t take away the great careers they had. In fact, the writers bullying them makes them even more likeable and memorable to a lot of fans. Schilling was right to tell them not to vote for him. You don’t agree with my opinions so you ignore my baseball career?? Whatever losers, keep me out then. The prestige was lost long ago when you started putting in all these concession guys to avoid certain guys and still have guys to induct. You still keep out a guy who couldn’t be proven to throw the world series and a gambler while your sport is advertising gambling on the back of the mound during games. Lot of character and integrity there
Yes I would put them in. We are not talking about mass murderers here, we’re talking about guys who potentially did damage to their own bodies in the long term to help them keep their bodies working now to perform at the levels they were paid for. If MLB had made a case out of Mickey Mantle using the steroid that caused his abscess and suspended him for life, this would all have been a different conversation and most likely, not involved anywhere near the amount of people involved in it today. If MLB had investigated the massive physical change of Jose Canseco between the minor leagues and Oakland, determined he was juicing and made a game altering example of him, we would not be discussing this today. Did they violate rules? Sure. And so did countless other guys doing countless other shady things over 150 years. The game has never been cleaned and never will be. Too many people involved and too much money at stake so a bunch of writers pretending that they are the purveyors of Justice, cleaning up some pristine Puritan pastures, trampled by the dastardly ped users is preposterous at best. Aaron said he tried the greenies once and it made him feel like he was out of control and never did it again. Kid Nichols injected himself with some horse testosterone crap. Bob Gibson told stories of handfuls of amphetamines being eaten out of boels in the clubhouse everyday. Spitballs, sign stealing, corked bats, pine tar, cleating, tipping and on and on. This is what we are going to hold the line on all of a sudden? Nobody became a great ball player because of steroids. They were already great and it only helped to keep them going physically. If you weren’t a great ball player already, this wasn’t going to make you one, as evidenced by the amount of jacked up dudes coming out of systems like Oakland and Texas who still sucked even though they looked like they could lean on a building and push it off the foundation. Still couldn’t consistently hit a baseball. Keeping them out means they are forgotten? Hardly. I think we still all know who are the all-time leaders in home runs and we are all still aware of where baseball was before the ’98 home run race that made us all fall in love again. Thanks for the memories guys but now we are going to put our foots on your necks because we are a bunch of power happy writers who otherwise bear zero importance in the overall scheme of this game but to take wild guesses at salaries, make bad predictions and enforce accountability on people who can do things we couldn’t dream of.
And, yes, Santo and Boyer we’re definitely two of the best in their era. I would say Robinson, Perez, Allen for a handful of seasons and these two guys would have been the top choices of most teams at third base if they could get their hands on them at that time. I was simply using them for comparative reasons as to how each small step down between one guy to the next will eventually lead to a bunch of guys we all look at and say, “how the hell did that happen?”.
How did Jesse Haines and Chick Hafey happen? Why Travis Jackson and not Glenn Wright? Rube Marquard, but not Jesse Tannehill, Ed Reulbach or Sam Leever? Tommy McCarthy and Joe Kelley, but not Pete Browning or Jimmy Ryan. Now that you mention it, why not Jim Edmonds, Torii Hunter, Dwight Evans and/or Dale Murphy. Maybe a better question is who voted Rabbit Maranville in and zeroed Bert Campaneris and Dave Concepcion? There must be 100 worthy candidates who stoke the conversation and what we get are answers that underline the inability to establish an objective vote. Surely there isn’t one now. A-Rod, Barry Bonds And Roger Clemens would have been in on the first ballot without apologies.
Yes several good points here and really expounding on the point I guess I was trying to make. Tannehill had better numbers then Marquard in multiple categories like ERA, walks per game, hits per game and a 10% better winning percentage. And Concepcion outperforms Maranville all over the place. Of course you will get arguments about dead balls, era adjustments, so on and so forth but I think that brings about the point that, what the hell is the Hall of Fame all about then? If we’re going to have guys like that in there then, you’re right, you should be considering every similar guy to them because why wouldn’t you?? Is the Hall supposed to be a shrine for the absolute greatest ever or a historical museum, displaying the upper echelon of every generation? It’s already pretty mixed up considering you have guys in there whose careers don’t quite match up to guys who are on the current ballot getting minimal attention.
Of course there are several factors at work here and certainly not easily solved. Obviously the people voting today were not voting in 1960 and the people who voted in 1960 were certainly not the same exact people who voted in 1937 so it’s not like we are dealing with a controlled basis for induction. Also, we are now in a generation where, people as a whole, have come to look for the easy way to do everything. Maybe it’s too difficult to analyze actual statistics, watch baseball, make your own actual judgment call and fairly discern case by case situations with a modicum, as you said, of objectivity? I don’t think it’s that difficult if you really love the game and you really paid attention to what was going on. Think the thing through. I know people don’t like to think anymore so they cling to status quos and hypothetical metrics but those are clearly not all adding up to a shrine for the greatest of all time. Abreu, for instance, has a better war than Scott Rolen. Yeah I get it, they played a different position and blah blah blah but if war is an overall value of a player, why wouldn’t five more points be more valuable? I don’t care if he’s the bat boy, five points is five points. But there is always some unprovable argument to be made against logic. Again, complete lack of objectivity. If Rolen is more valuable by some unjustifiable means, then why the hell wasn’t he catching balls in right field?
Another good point, as a couple of other guys have said here, is that, in any given year, there may be a pile up of candidates that make it difficult for a somewhat lesser candidate to get votes. Another easily solved conundrum. Stop the stupid limit. If there are 15 guys on the ballot worthy of induction why in the hell shouldn’t I be able to vote for all 15 of them?? I’m sure the rhetoric involves overcrowding the hall but what sense does that make if all 15 guys on that hypothetical ballot are deserving? And furthermore, if the voters would dispense with this nonsensical first ballot, second ballot, 9th ballot silliness, these log jams wouldn’t happen. Or at least nowhere near as frequently. If a guy had a Hall of Fame career, it didn’t change from year one to year 9.
You’re not going to change human nature which is why I think, as I proposed in an earlier post, there should be some kind of system based on actual accomplishments. The most unattainable numbers equal automatic enshrinement, in lieu of any of those numbers, some combination of multiple other numbers at an acceptable rate for enshrinement would get you in. Then you would appoint a committee only for the purpose of discussing that very next year of guys on the edge. But not a committee of writers. You’re talking about guys who are now on the internet every day, proposing ridiculous trades, guessing salaries and otherwise talking complete nonsense while pretending to be “insiders”. If “insider” actually meant anything beyond “kissing asses and harassing the hell out of actual team personnel”, then these supposed “insider” reports shouldn’t be so off base all the time should they?
The committee should be made up of living Hall of Famers, executives, managers and include a small percentage of some kind of fan vote. I definitely do not think fans as a whole good fairly control the responsibilities of Hall of Fame induction but if you polled fans and then counted their collective votes for maybe 15 or 20% of that portion, you may actually have a better shot at something resembling what fans want to see rather than a bunch of self-important writers screwing the whole thing up. Not that all of the writers are this way but, given the outcomes of countless elections, a pretty good chunk of them should not be given this responsibility. Anyone relying solely or, putting large amounts of faith in hypothetical measurements while ignoring realities has proven as much. And anyone who can argue with a straight face that a guy with 10 gold gloves and 400 homers is easily a Hall of Famer while guys with eight and nine gold gloves and better offensive stats all around than the first guy or not, should not have this responsibility either.
You have some pretty fun guys on these lists. Not sure every one of them is a Hall of Famer but definitely a great who’s who of a couple of generations of upper tier Major Leaguers. I think the Hall was originally designed to be the absolute best of the best, baseball’s oversized Mount Rushmore. It has since then become pretty watered down and that brings a lot of those guys into the conversation. But even in a time where we don’t have Lou Gehrigs, Hank Aarons, Walter Johnsons, Tris Speakers, Cy Youngs, Ted Williams or Honus Wagners, you still need to look for the guys who truly mattered in their eras. Dwight Evans, Carlos Delgado, Dave Parker, Lou Whitaker, Jeff Kent and several guys from the first list here who have been blackballed because of the PED nonsense, the Pete Rose fiasco and Curt Schilling having the audacity to think he’s allowed to have his own opinion here in communist America are the guys who should be in there due simply to performance on the field. But you can’t replicate the value of seeing the game played and several guys mentioned here certainly looked like they could have been Hall of Fame material at one time or another.
Thurman Munson the Best post season player of the group.
Absolute World Series monster. Very sad case. You’d think he’d have gone in on a committee ballot by now but what power he had seemed to disappear a couple of seasons before the crash. But he was still a good hitter and great defensive guy too. I’d bet even without the power, if he has a couple more seasons of similar production he’d have gone by now. Even as a combination production/sentimental pick.
Not being a Yankee fan I gave 5 more Years to THURMAN MUNSON and what I got was a power hitting Rick Ferrell. Lots of MVP and all-star consideration and many years of excellent defense. Why Ray Schalk; is that some kind of reward for cleanliness?
Ray Schalk was elected in 1955 — did you bother to read HC’s lengthy reply to you above… People looked at the game differently 70 years ago…but to answer your question: Regarded as the finest defensive catcher of the Dead Ball Era, Ray Schalk pioneered an athletic approach to the position, catching three no-hitters and leading the AL in games caught seven times, including his 1920 season when he caught 151 of Chicago’s 154 games. His defensive prowess stands out even more since he was excelling during many years where the spitball was legal.
Hubie Brooks, Todd Benzinger and Dale Berra should be in there
Today the new version of the Veteran’s committee will announce the new inductees… curious to hear your thoughts as to who they will be… My choices are Tommy John, Luis Tiant and Ken Boyer
Think there is a strong case for six gentlemen. Hope third time a charm for Allen. Pulling for Parker and John so they can celebrate with their families while still alive. It’s sad Allen and Tiant cannot …also what happened to Santo and Minoso getting elected right after passing is terrible IMO.
Agreed. They are all good choices…
Happy for Allen and Parker, both deserving… Very disappointed that Tommy John was not chosen he ALSO is very deserving….
Yes, good for those guys. I too would have liked to see John go in as well as Tiant but I guess it is what it is.
All of the guys of the ballot are deserving.
I would have been happy to see Tiant, Allen, Parker, Boyer, Garvey and John go in. Looking up information on Donaldson and Harris, not really sure why they are even on this ballot. I understand they played a lot less games in those leagues but Donaldson appears to have had a couple of solid seasons and otherwise never had more than 31 hits. And that was only once every other season he played had less. Harris seems to have shown no power, no speed and not much of anything else and who on the voting committee was possibly around to see this guy play live to make any major judgment on his defense one way or another? Again, aware they played less games than the regular major leagues but there were some guys in those leagues that really stood out like Charleston and Gibson and the baseball reference stats don’t really show that for these two guys. Maybe I’m missing something but I can’t really fault the voting committee on those two.
Harris was being considered as a manager. He has the highest winning percentage of any manager in Major League history, at .663, with at least 500 wins. As for Donaldson, he did not play for very long in the Major Leagues but achieved 428 wins and 5,295 strikeouts in a barnstorming career. I recommend this website (https://johndonaldson.bravehost.com/) as it can give more justice to Donaldson’s career than I ever could.
Interesting information. Obviously we’ve seen a tremendous movement toward integration retroactively in baseball in recent years. While many historical aspects of this country are unfortunate, and a guy like Donaldson’s statistical output appears impressive in retrospect, it is probably accurate to assume the voters for this ballot struggle to reconcile barnstorming statistics with Major League standards. While some of those games may have been played against some professional players, many were played against semi-professional teams and whoever else would give them a game. Since we generally do not put minor league players into the Major League Hall of Fame, presumptively, this would be a difficult case to advocate. The sentiment of this integration is understandable but begs the question, why do we not integrate NPB players into the Hall of Fame? Granted there may be some minor disparities between rules of the game like a slightly smaller baseball ( which actually is probably more difficult to hit), tie games, etc but, many of those players have come here and proven able to play in either league. And NPB has also surely shown a propensity to compete on the international stage.
Agreed. The attempt to integrate is understandable but sites like baseball reference are now listing guys with barely 4000 plate appearances at best as all time leaders. And by definition, barnstorming relates to exhibitions so it’s kind of hard to justify electing people who built careers on barnstorming. As far as NPB, I get the comparison but it is called the National Baseball Hall of Fame so it would stand to reason that it is for this “Nation” argumentatively. Though it doesn’t specify only this nation. But also by that token, it doesn’t say “Major League” anywhere in the title so why aren’t others considered such as prominent minor league lifers?
There is a sad logic to the thinking that if Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds are not in then none of these contenders measure up. The sooner that this issue is cleared up and the ex-post-facto witch hunt is overruled, the better for fans of baseball and the Hall.
Agreed. First of all, other than is obvious physical increases which we could all see, the only indictment on Bonds is Balco documentation. The only indictment on Clemens is hearsay. Neither guy ever failed a test so who made the writer’s gods? You can not like them all you want but to keep playing judge and jury when no one cares who the hell you are in the first place is ridiculously presumptuous of your own importance and extremely self-aggrandizing at best. End it already, this has become just silliness.
Right. Aside from saving face among peers, how many of the writers who actually have votes watched baseball pre Mitchell report? And of all those that did, how many can honestly say they were up in arms over ped use during that time? Many will probably say they were but many are probably liars and really need to get over themselves. This is what happens when society becomes a place where no one has their own opinion, not shaped by what others think of them or the fear of being canceled by people who don’t matter anyway.
I read an article that claimed electing Dick Allen was a mistake because it should have been done sooner. I’d like to see the same mistake made for Luis Tiant, Cecil Travis, Barney McCoskey, Vern Stephens, Tommy Henrich, Sherry Magee, John Beckwith, Frank Howard and Rocky Colavito.
You guys keep lowering the bar I keep hitting my head on it.
These are guys who had great runs but not great careers. Howard, Colavito, Stephens and Sievers were important parts of some teams for relatively decent stretches but when they fell off a cliff they really fell. All very similar guys in terms of homers, hits, RBIs and overall on base ability but baseball history is literally littered with guys who fall into this category. Some of those other guys barely racked up a few thousand plate appearances and their numbers accordingly pale in comparison to even some of their peers in their own generations never mind all time. You could put all those guys in there but then you would wind up with the Hall of Every Tom, Dick and Harry not named Mario Mendoza, Bob Uecker and Mickey Morandini because there are a lot of other guys very similar to them that would then have a case. I do think Tiant should go but there are several far more deserving guys who still aren’t in there and produced more impressive careers than a lot of these guys. It’s kind of unfortunate in the respect that some of these guys could certainly stand to be remembered my future fans. Obviously you go to the hall and see the greatest of all time and then some guys that maybe aren’t quite the greatest of all time but I guess it really has to end somewhere. There are only so many Ted Williams, Willie Mays and Randy Johnsons so it would be a pretty small place if you only went there to see the actual elite which, necessitates consideration of the next level or two down. Going down another level or two from that would require doubling the size of the building because those tears are very highly represented throughout baseball history.
The article should be about how people who don’t really know the game, talking about the game is a mistake. I can see putting down some of the one-and-done guys who don’t even get or deserve 2% of the vote but harping on a guy who was a legitimate consistent stud in his time is silly. Especially in light of some of the guys we already have in there
Dustin Pedroia and Ian Kinsler are not hall of famers I get it, but neither is Utley. Come on!
Neither is Jones for that matter and he’s getting votes. And please spare me the “greatest center fielder of all time based on magical “metrics” that can only be applied to certain eras and somehow pertain to fielding prowess while ignoring fielding percentage, errors, assists etc. He hit 400+ home runs and was otherwise nothing that amazing on offense. So he was a better than average, athletically gifted fielder. So were a lot of guys.
We can make a case for Andruw Jones as one of the best, if not the best center fielder of all time. He won 10 gold gloves if I’m not wrong, what a center fielder he was! He could go in a la Ozzie Smith style
Shouldn’t have to make a case. Should be a lot more obvious. I don’t necessarily believe Smith was a lock either. Gold gloves are a prestigious award but your job is to make plays at your position. If you can’t then you are Masataka Yoshida or any number of guys who’s only value was on offense, hence the DH. Yes she was graceful, athletic, instinctive and made an awful lot of great place but, when I grew up, I was still at the center fielders job as to back up the left fielder and the right fielder and the two middle infielders. That’s your job. You have a glove, go catch the ball. But please do us a favor, when you’re at the fleet, please don’t hit .254 with less than 400 doubles and not even 2,000 hits if we’re going to pay you to be a top tier producer. Jim Edmonds and Torii Hunter we’re also great center fielders with 8 and 9 Gold gloves respectively. They may have had less homers (not that many less) but all their other offensive numbers are much better than Jones. But somehow they are ignored and they’re gold gloves are not as important as Jones when making their cases. That’s crap. Carlos Beltran was a great center fielder and also blows away Jones offensively but he’s struggling for votes because he banged on a trash can. Let’s see, stealing signs, which has been done for decades and no one cared, or whacking your wife around… Hmmm .. and of course his supporters will say he made a mistake or it was not on the field. It’s still a black eye for the game and one of the standards for voting is character. Okay, he made a mistake and maybe him and his wife are over it and maybe he deserves to move forward, Beltran, Schilling, Rose and everyone else who made a “mistake” don’t deserve to put it in the past and move forward? Why? Because of 10 gold gloves? Who cares?
I agree with you, but that’s basically the same reason why Ozzie Smith is in the hall, because of his glove.
Right, but thatthe same issue with Chase Utley, a guy has a .275 lifetime average and not even 1,900 career hits.
Depending on what you value, Smith is a little bit different case. It’s why many of us have little use for these clown metrics.
Who decides the basis for things like range factor? Zone whatever? Who gets to determine what should be playable and what’s not? Based on what supposed expertise? Catching a ball??
If you those crazy things and value hypotheticals, Smith has a far higher defensive war # than Jones and, at a far more demanding position. This number supposedly says he’s the greatest shortstop or actually defensive fielder of all time. Ok. But he was still not a great or even upper echelon offensive player.
If you want to look at reality based stats like, guy gets chance to play a ball and either makes the play or doesn’t, also known as fielding percentage, Smith isn’t even in the top 25 shortstops of all time , never mind defenders overall. And then of course, that pesky little subpar offense thing.
But I think overall, his showmanship, heart, hard work and of course pretty great defense anyway made him a tough case to vote against.
HC on Ozzie Smith
“Depending on what you value, Smith is a little bit different case. It’s why many of us have little use for these clown metrics.
Who decides the basis for things like range factor? Zone whatever? Who gets to determine what should be playable and what’s not? Based on what supposed expertise? Catching a ball??
If you those crazy things and value hypotheticals, Smith has a far higher defensive war # than Jones and, at a far more demanding position. This number supposedly says he’s the greatest shortstop or actually defensive fielder of all time. Ok. But he was still not a great or even upper echelon offensive player.
If you want to look at reality based stats like, guy gets chance to play a ball and either makes the play or doesn’t, also known as fielding percentage, Smith isn’t even in the top 25 shortstops of all time , never mind defenders overall. And then of course, that pesky little subpar offense thing.”
Are you smoking crack or what? Reality based stats like fielding percentage don’t measure range or arm. Ozzie would get to far more balls than other SS, which is clearly reflected in his Chances, Putouts, Assists and DP. Not even in the top 25 for SS fielding percentage all time? So you’re going to try to tell me that Paul Dejong, Trevor Story, Jose Iglesias and Miguel Rojas are better SS than Ozzie because they have higher fielding percentages in fewer than half the innings played? Get a grip! Vizquel has the top fielding percentage in about 1200 more innings at SS than Ozzie, but he had about 944 fewer chances (there’s that pesky range again). He also has 149 fewer putouts, 699 fewer assists, but he did have 144 more DP at least. Still Ozzie accounted for more outs in fewer innings than Vizquel despite the lower fielding percentage. But hey, if you really think Dejong is a better SS than Ozzie because fielding percentage is .9787 over .9782, fine by me.
Calm down angry little elf. Not sure what crack has to do with it or getting a grip but this probably not much need for millennial style arguments. You don’t like the point someone makes so you lied over what they’re saying half-heartedly and then try to insult the shit out of them. I didn’t walk out of a Cracker Jack box yesterday afternoon.
Chances and put out to clearly illustrate range? I think they clearly illustrate feeling percentage. So again, range based on who? Who decides what guys should be able to get to? Smith very obviously, again just by watching him play, had amazing range and got to plenty of things other people didn’t get to. Clearly demonstrating, along with his array of backflips, an extreme level of athleticism and speed. Athleticism and speed, that also should have gotten him a lot more doubles, steals and offense in general. From the, missing the point department, again, great great defender and not an offensive Hall of famer. And clearly I didn’t say anything about Vizquel or Dejong being better either way.
People want something to believe in and far be it from me to crush that. But for everyone who likes to believe in these so called modern statistics, there should also be an ability to apply such statistics in an overall analysis before making nonsensical judgments. Andruw Jones is an anomaly in that, his first few years of flashy and spectacular fielding set a tone for those who watched him and no one ever bothered to really think about what went on through his entire career. He was anointed a great center fielder and the legend only grew. Now, in light of the fact that, beyond 400 plus home runs, he has no offensive case for the Hall of Fame whatsoever, this ridiculous idea of Jones being the god of center fielders is all that’s left to make the argument. Forget about the fact that he pulled his wife down the stairs, choked her and told her he wanted to kill her, especially since many of the BBWAA seem to have already forgotten it. If you break down the career of Andruw Jones, all of his amazing defense happened in his first 11 seasons. He might as well have been sleeping on a park bench under some newspapers after he left Atlanta.
During Jones first handful of seasons, he showed an amazing propensity to cover a lot of ground, make spectacular diving catches and quickly turn and go back on balls that would have seemed impossible given how shallow he played in the field. Jones then started to put on weight and didn’t move anywhere nearly as quickly as he did in those first handful of seasons. He made an awful lot of outs on shallow drop in hits because he was standing about 10 ft off of second base. Many of those balls would have normally fallen in for a hit or should have been played by the second baseman or the shortstop. The reason for this? How about that the Braves pitching staffs in front of him spent several years as the best, can of corn producing staff in all of baseball? Don’t think so? Look at the positive defensive numbers for his outfield teammates during those seasons. Yes he had a strong arm and therefore was able to accumulate a good number of assists because he was almost standing in the damn infield! And maybe you could make an argument that the fly ball rate was not necessarily a gimme but they also had the league’s lowest home run rate allowed for years. Jim Edmonds, Torii Hunter and others were already great center fielders so imagine how much better their numbers would have appeared with a pitching staff basically forcing pop-ups all day long, allowing you to stand so shallow in center field that you can basically make a bunch of simple catches and gun people down from 20 ft away. Argue it all you want but that’s the reality of Andruw Jones defensive “metrics”. Don’t get me wrong, he was a superb fielder but he was definitely not the greatest fielder of all time. And if you add all of this together, it’s certainly not enough to make up for all the missing offensive numbers outside of his home run total. And certainly doesn’t add up to Hall of Famer.There are modern defensive numbers that would suggest Andrew Jones is basically twice the center field or Willie Mays was. No shot in hell. That’s just simply ridiculous. His voting trends suggest he will eventually get in but they also suggest a severe lack of knowledge among the BBWAA. His defensive war number alone looks so ridiculously out of place among his peers, anyone with half the ability to do an eye test should be able to resolve that this is a ridiculous anomaly. Yes he was a great fielder, no he was not so much better than anyone who’s ever played the game that almost half of his war value came from his defense. A pretty solid chunk of that is owed to his pitching staff. Otherwise, how was he suddenly not that amazing anymore and never won another Gold Glove as soon as he left Atlanta? He forgot how to play defense? Or he no longer had that same pitching staff? One seems a little more realistic than the other.
Right, and the same is going on with Chase Utley, clearly not a hall of famer. Less than 1,900 career hits and a .275 career hitter. That doesn’t scream hall of fame to me.
Right. I don’t get the Utley thing either. Take a look at this guy’s “baseball card” and about five straight seasons jump out at you as potentially Hall of Fame. But that makes him borderline at best and the rest of his seasons were pretty pedestrian. And that’s both actual, tangible stats and the hypothetical metrics other people believe in.
In 400 games and 1100 more at bats than Pedroia, the guy amassed an “amazing” 80 more hits, 17 more doubles and 100 walks. Granted he has over 100 more home runs than Pedroia and 300 RBIs but, again, 400 more games and 1100 more plate appearances. Also, that wasn’t Pedroia’s thing. His job was getting on base from the 1 or 2 hole and playing awesome defense. And he did the job extremely well and extremely consistently. Look at his career and there’s no drastic drop-off or outlying crazy seasons that he never replicated, just a consistent, decade-long peak.Too bad the knee wasn’t as consistent because that guy had Hall of Fame written across his face. Not to mention the championships, ROY, MVP and gold gloves.
So, all that in mind, if he just doesn’t have enough meat for the Hall, neither does Utley. Also talking about one guy who was a .300 hitter for about 5 years and dropped off badly and one guy who was a .300 hitter for his whole career. When Pedroia went down, he was still putting up strong, consistent production. Utley became relatively Joe Blow well before that.
Strange what some voters see and appreciate I guess.
“People want something to believe in and far be it from me to crush that. But for everyone who likes to believe in these so called modern statistics, there should also be an ability to apply such statistics in an overall analysis before making nonsensical judgments. Andruw Jones is an anomaly in that, his first few years of flashy and spectacular fielding set a tone for those who watched him and no one ever bothered to really think about what went on through his entire career. He was anointed a great center fielder and the legend only grew.”
How good of a CF does he have to be given his offensive performance? And for how long? Here you say a “few years,” then just a bit later you say his first 11 seasons. He did win 10 straight GG. Were that many voters asleep at the wheel and just rubber stamping him? He led the league in putouts 6 times and is 15th all time for CF, assists 3 times and 41st all time, DP twice and 54th all time. Seems like he ranks pretty highly amongst CF all time and was clearly one of the best of his era by these numbers. So how good does his offense have to be to get him into the HOF level as an elite defensive CF?
“He made an awful lot of outs on shallow drop in hits because he was standing about 10 ft off of second base. Many of those balls would have normally fallen in for a hit or should have been played by the second baseman or the shortstop. The reason for this? How about that the Braves pitching staffs in front of him spent several years as the best, can of corn producing staff in all of baseball? Don’t think so? Look at the positive defensive numbers for his outfield teammates during those seasons.”
Well, this is an interesting take. Many of the balls he caught by being able to play shallower than other CF “would have normally fallen in for a hit” but you manage to hold this against him? I thought it was a good thing for defenders to record outs on balls that would ordinarily be hits. His ability to play extremely shallow and still make the outs on balls hit deep was one of his strengths, not a weakness. As to his pitching staff, they were not extreme flyball staffs, basically league average. Glavine and especially Maddux were good groundball pitchers. How about you show how the pitching staff was “the best, can of corn producing staff in all of baseball” since you’re making the assertion? What is it based on?
“There are modern defensive numbers that would suggest Andrew Jones is basically twice the center field or Willie Mays was. No shot in hell.”
Actually there aren’t. The metrics measuring Jones are different than the ones used by WAR to measure Mays’s defense because there isn’t enough data available for Mays era. You can’t make an apples to apples comparison of the two by looking at Rfield on B-R. All it will tell you is that both were elite CF in their eras given the data available. You can make direct comparisons of Jones versus his peers though given the same data and metrics were available for all of his peers. But you don’t have to if you’re skeptical of the defensive metrics.
“Otherwise, how was he suddenly not that amazing anymore and never won another Gold Glove as soon as he left Atlanta? He forgot how to play defense? Or he no longer had that same pitching staff? One seems a little more realistic than the other.”
There was nothing sudden about it. By the time he left Atlanta he had already played more games in CF than DiMaggio had for his career. He led the league in games played in CF for his first five seasons and then was 2nd, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, and 3rd the next five seasons. That takes a toll. Age related decline and poor conditioning, in other words his body was beat up from playing CF almost every game (averaged 157 games for 10 years) and he stopped taking care of himself and got fat. The latter was obvious, but the former is still clear if you look at the careers of CF. It’s the most demanding position, by far, in the OF. All the running takes a toll on the body, the years take away the speed, age slows reaction time. You can look at the career games leaders for CF and see it. He played almost exactly the number of games and innings as Mantle, a bit more than DiMaggio. With just one more of his average number of games during his 10 year run as a starter in CF he would be top 10 in games. That number of games and number of innings wears you down, and if you let yourself get fat, it’s only going to be worse. This is way more realistic than your theory of Atlanta’s pitching staff being exceptional at inducing weak flyballs, especially given the fact that the staff was not the same over the 10 years he was the CF in Atlanta. You’re not seriously saying that Russ Ortiz, John Thomson, Jaret Wright, Mike Hampton and Paul Byrd were inducing easy flyballs in 2004 the same way Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz (and their GB/FB numbers don’t suggest they were either) were in 1997, right? But I’m open to your evidence they were, if you have any.
Well that’s a lot.
Let me say that, while we obviously have differing views on the situation, I do appreciate how much more thought you put into this than the average “he was the best ever you don’t know what you’re talking about” argument based on nothing.
Also, while I have mentioned a few times, forget about his domestic violence issue, when we are ignoring guys who took peds to keep their bodies going, gamblers, unproven game throwers and a guy who is not in because the writers don’t like his political opinions, I don’t understand why Jones is even a debatable topic after what he did to his wife. It’s kind of hard to respect the opinions of writers who blackballed all those other characters while ignoring this little fact.
At any rate, I mentioned his first few years because that’s when he first on the scene, flashing outfield greatness and ingraining himself in the minds of viewers as a highly athletic and skilled glove man. 11 seasons is where he piled up all this defensive credibility with Atlanta. And yes, that is what’s known as a sudden drop off, when a guy wins a gold glove, leaves the team, signs for big dollars with another team and proceeds to suck for the rest of his career. I’m very aware he put on weight which I believe I mentioned, I’m very aware he became out of shape but those things are part of being a great player. You are paid $20 million dollars to keep yourself in shape, not hit the HomeTown buffet every night on the way home and then use it as an excuse to suck.
For a referential point of view, center field was my main position my whole life. Was I Ken Griffey Jr? Likely not but I was a good enough overall player to have a professional tryout, show up hungover from the night before and suck my way out of the opportunity before deciding it was over and, for personal reasons way too ridiculous to get into here, giving up and moving on with my life. But having played the position as long as I did, I fully realize the importance, difficulty and attributes of it. I also know personally, how many times I made a play that would send teammates and viewers into hysterics, only to know that, the play really wasn’t that difficult to make in the first place. But a quick burst of speed and a dive go a long way to wow people. Obviously, I didn’t end up playing at the level of the guys we are discussing here but the position is the position regardless. So, yes, I do have some idea that the pitching staff plays a pretty sizable role in the place you make because they can dictate the type of balls you see. From 97 to 2002, Jones racked up the majority of his most serious numbers, relatable to the argument regarding his otherworldly defense. During those six seasons, the Braves pitching staffs allowed the lowest batting average against on fly balls in the entire league. Now you can certainly make the argument that the outfielders bared a lot of responsibility for that, and unlikely they did but, it also stands to reason that, the positive defensive statistics for the entire outfield relied on a little more than that. So then we look at home runs allowed. Again, in that six year period, the Braves pitching staffs allowed the fewest home runs in all of baseball. By about 80 less than the next closest team. This clearly illustrates their ability at keeping fly balls in the yard. Therefore, having three athletic defenders manning the outfield, you’re going to get an awful lot of fundamentally, routine outs. Also, allowing a guy like Jones to play up closer. Now the point here, isn’t that he couldn’t go back on balls because clearly he could. The point is that his numbers were inflated by his arm. Playing shallow allowed him to basically “rob” out from his middle infielders and rack up assists as well. All on balls that wouldn’t normally be the center field as responsibility. You can believe that or not but that’s pretty much exactly what happened.
In no way shape or form did I say he was a terrible outfielder. He was a great outfielder. But, definitely somewhat inflated by what I’ve described. And if you watched him play defense and watched Jim Edmonds play defense, there really wasn’t a huge discrepancy in athletic ability, instinct and complete disregard for the body when it came to making the tough plays. Edmonds shot didn’t begin in Earnest until he was 24, Jones at 19. Edmonds clearly outpaces him in most offensive categories, one two less gold gloves and basically was walked in the front door and out the back door of the ballot in no time flat. But now we suddenly want to overanalyze the hell out of defensive metrics for this guy.
If you look at dwar, take the ratings and divide them by any fade, this is where Willie Mays is purported to be roughly half the fielder Jones was. So, I see you kind of reiterated my point but in different words but, I was actually making the point that you cannot call this guy the greatest center fielder ever when you’re using defensive metrics that cannot be applied equally across generations. My point, is that I don’t rely on any of these metrics because of exactly these reasons. Too many discrepancies, too many inaccuracies and too little information is available to say that Jones was better than Speaker, DiMaggio, Mantle, Mays, Murphy, Armas oh the best center fielder on your local American Legion team.
I also am not going to say that a case should not be made for a great defender but, I don’t think that defender should be a guy with almost the lowest batting average in the Hall of Fame and, overall, lower tier offensive statistics than most of his peers or Hall of Fame potential brethren.
No one was in that house when the domestic dispute went down so I’ll never pretend to be one of the apostles or a baseball media saint casting judgment on something I can’t possibly speak completely intelligently on given I don’t have all the facts and I didn’t see it happen. But I also wouldn’t cast judgment on all the other guys they’ve kept out either. Also, if I have 10 votes, there are 10 guys I find more deserving than a guy who’s best cases are 400 home runs, which is now done far more often than it used to be and hasn’t been enough to get just everybody in and, the debatable defensive case based on what numbers you want to look at and believe. So yes, I would say skeptical is probably the right word but however you slice it, I certainly can’t go with a list of Gold glove seasons since that subjectively depends on biased voting, perception and only matters for some guys apparently.
So, while my “theory” regarding the involvement of the pitching staff may be only that, I certainly can’t ignore the realities of those numbers and pretend they didn’t exist. You’re definitely right that he got out of shape though and that makes his case even harder for me. One, he shouldn’t have gotten out of shape and two, whatever the reason was, yes he did fall off the face of the Earth in one season between leaving Atlanta and robbing the Dodgers.
Couple of grammatical changes there by the stupid microphone. But should say divide by innings played
“In no way shape or form did I say he was a terrible outfielder. He was a great outfielder.”
OK, so how much offense does he need then to be a HOF outfielder? That’s what it comes down to. We’ve both gone on at length, but lets get down to brass tacks. If he’s a HOF caliber CF, which he is, then how much offense does he need to have to go with it? Yes, his BA is low, but when you look at OPS he’s above average. His power is plus, especially for a great defender at an up the middle position. More HR than Doby, Puckett, Ashburn, Snider and basically the same as Dawson (who moved off CF very early, ending up with more time in RF than CF). Those are five of the eight HOF CF with careers beginning after integration. He has more total bases than Doby, Puckett and Ashburn, and only slightly fewer than Snider. He has more 2B than Doby, Puckett and Snider. He stacks up just fine offensively with the typical Integration Era HOF CF, and he’s a better defender with more time in CF than all of them. No, he’s not a Griffey, Mantle, or Mays, the other post 1947 HOF CF, but clearly you don’t have to be as good as them to be elected.
“From 97 to 2002, Jones racked up the majority of his most serious numbers, relatable to the argument regarding his otherworldly defense. During those six seasons, the Braves pitching staffs allowed the lowest batting average against on fly balls in the entire league. Now you can certainly make the argument that the outfielders bared a lot of responsibility for that, and unlikely they did but, it also stands to reason that, the positive defensive statistics for the entire outfield relied on a little more than that.”
Lowest BA against on fly balls sounds like a fine example of what a great CF Jones was. I really don’t understand how you think that can be an argument against his defense.
“So then we look at home runs allowed. Again, in that six year period, the Braves pitching staffs allowed the fewest home runs in all of baseball. By about 80 less than the next closest team. This clearly illustrates their ability at keeping fly balls in the yard. Therefore, having three athletic defenders manning the outfield, you’re going to get an awful lot of fundamentally, routine outs. Also, allowing a guy like Jones to play up closer. Now the point here, isn’t that he couldn’t go back on balls because clearly he could. The point is that his numbers were inflated by his arm. Playing shallow allowed him to basically “rob” out from his middle infielders and rack up assists as well. All on balls that wouldn’t normally be the center field as responsibility. You can believe that or not but that’s pretty much exactly what happened.”
From 1997 to 2002 Atlanta Braves pitching flyball percentage/NL flyball percentage: 22.1/22.4, 23.5/23.3, 25.4/25.9, 26.6/27.9, 27.8/27.5, 25.2/25.7. They were basically a tick below average in terms of flyballs in four of those seasons and a tick above in two. They did not allow, or cause, any exceptionally high number of routine flyballs. If they had, their flyball percentages would have been much higher than league average. The quality of their pitching may have resulted in fewer HR than league, but it didn’t result in more flyballs. And what does it matter if he caught flyballs infielders might otherwise have caught? He had the range, he made the plays and he recorded the outs. And, again, how can you use the fact that he was recording more assists than other OF against him? He was racking up assists, that’s a GOOD thing.
I said batting average against on fly balls allowed. Fly ball percentage has nothing to do with it. They could have allowed 90 or 300. The point was the batting average allowed was about.138 I believe. Being the lowest at home runs allowed illustrates that the fly balls they allowed we’re not necessarily hard hit contact. Sure guys Rob home runs but definitely not at the rate you would need to insinuate Jones was responsible for that. And of course making outs and assists are a good thing. You’re ignoring the point though, he was in other people’s territory making their outs and plays. Once again, I I didn’t say 100% of his output was any of this. The very clear and obvious point is, was he great? Sure he was? Was he faring away better than anyone who ever played the game in center field? No. Did you actually watch the games? Did you just see some highlights of the guy recently and jump on the argument? If you watched him play and you watched other guys that we’ve discussed here play, he’s impressive but not so impressive that he made other great centerfielders look stupid. Hall of Fame caliber defense? Sure. How much offense should he have? Okay, 430 home runs is a good start. And then it ends. 319th all time in OPS it’s not that amazing. 715th all time in OPS plus is not that amazing. 1900 hits is far from amazing. Yes you named Hall of Famers that he may sit closely with but you also named Hall of Famers that many people have argued, maybe are not necessarily Hall of Fame caliber Hall of Famers. Trying to have the lowest batting average possible for a Hall of Famer is not much of a goal. Obviously he’s not that but damn close.
HC says, “You don’t like the point someone makes so you lied over what they’re saying half-heartedly and then try to insult the shit out of them. I didn’t walk out of a Cracker Jack box yesterday afternoon.
Chances and put out to clearly illustrate range? I think they clearly illustrate feeling percentage. So again, range based on who? Who decides what guys should be able to get to?”
OK, my bad. Seemed to me when you tried to belittle Smith’s D by saying he was only 25th in fielding percentage, and that fielding percentage is the stat to look at since it reflects whether someone got to a ball and made a play or didn’t, you were putting far more emphasis on FPct as a means of judging defense than it is worth. Apologies for the misunderstanding, and honestly the smoking crack thing is not meant to be mean but it’s just like an expression of shock at something wildly unbelievable.
Chances and putouts/assists are much better measures of defensive skill, and, yes, they do represent range pretty well. If you look at groundballs vs. flyballs, as we did when we looked at Jones, the distribution is pretty even across the leagues. IOW, one team doesn’t have a significantly higher amount of groudballs than any other team, so if there are roughly equal amounts of opportunities for fielding a batted ball between teams, then a position player with more chances is almost certainly displaying better range than others at his position. The answer to your last question is the Official Score, and this is why FPct is a poor metric to use for judging defense. The Official Scorer makes a judgment call on an error, it’s entirely subjective AND it doesn’t take into account range because they don’t know where a player started from when the ball went into play, they don’t know how far the player went to get to the ball, they don’t know how hard the ball was hit. They may makes some judgments on these, they may try to makes some approximations, but they can’t do it accurately and so two players will not be treated the same. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that Ozzie picked up at least a few errors on balls that other SS would not even have put a glove on.
I think you’re offbase on his offense as well. If you want a poor offensive performer who’s known for his glove, you should be looking at Vizquel, who was truly atrocious at the plate. Ozzie was a poor hitter early in his career, but he improved significantly and, especially when his baserunning is considered, he was a solid offensive performer in the middle of his career, and then poor in his last years as age related decline kicked in. If you don’t consider the offensive environment he was playing in, you may mistake his offensive numbers throughout his career as being substandard, but by 1984 jis BA of .257 was basically league average, .261, and his OPS was nearly league average as well. Then from 1985 to 1989 he was able to maintain that level, had a poor year in 1990, and then 2 more good years in 1991 and 1992. In fact, he hit over .300 four times in those 9 seasons. From 1985 to 1993 his BA was .294 to a league average of .281 and OPS was .709 to .721. So there you have nearly a decade of a SS who is basically a league average bat, who is far and away the best defender, and who stole 322 bags at an 82% success rate. But, yes, for about 40% of his career he was a really poor hitter, though always a plus baserunner who was also above average at staying out of the DP, along with being the best defender at the most important defensive position other than Catcher.
I’ll always be partial to fielding percentage because it’s pretty straightforward. Chances, plays made, done. Assists and putouts are pretty straightforward. You make them, they’re obvious, the more you make, great. And I know official scorers determine hits/errors/etc. But that’s the point. It’s already subject enough to human error and opinion. I’ll never have use for more useless human error than we already need to have. Some clown is going to judge what’s a good play and award points for it? Sorry, not really interested in fiction. I know plenty of people are getting into following along with the fictional stuff but then a lot of people follow along with a lot of ridiculous things in life. I prefer to have my own opinion, mind, eyes, judgement and I’ve never had a problem knowing who is a bad, good, great player.
Smith was obviously a great defensive player. My point is, WAR is nonsense, as are pretty much any purported metric that uses the words, adjusted, points awarded, etc to insinuate any realistic validity. Some people want to believe in them or pretend they make sense, great. Not my business. Some people like to watch WWF and talk like it’s a real fight as well so there’s always that..
Watching smith, it was not hard to tell he was a hell of a fielder and as I stayed earlier couldn’t extremely athletic, quick and instinctive. Best ever? I don’t know. That’s kind of a hard label for me to put on a defender. There are so many variables involved in playing defense that I think is pretty impossible to say that. There have been guys that could be just as great and maybe didn’t play anywhere near long enough to add up phony war numbers don’t have enough opportunities for other members but, it doesn’t change that they were great. But, all in all, he was usually one of the best ever in the field.
Offensively, I think you’re off a little bit. I’m pretty sure he only been at 300 once in his life. I believe it was .303. and I believe he only added .280 or better six times in 19 years. That’s kind of a minimum mark for me if someone is to be considered a great hitter or Hall of Fame worthy hitter. He did have speed. Above average but I’d be more impressed with 500-600 steals with his speed and athleticism. Especially if you only bring 28 home runs to the table in 19 seasons. Doubles, again, not extremely impressive, given his plate appearances.
As far as offensive environment I think Busch in those years was maybe 325-330 down the lines, 375-380 to the power alleys and 400 to center. Not that difficult to reach for a good power hitter but those teams were built to hit and run with Her, McGee, Coleman ets and the minimal power coming from Clark or Brunansky, given the year.
I get why he’s in. I just can’t place such a detrimental amount of weight on defense. It’s obviously important but it’s the job. The extremely vast majority of plays made are expected to be made by a guy playing the position. Fundamental stuff. No one’s spending 30-100% of their career making astounding, mind boggling plays . Those are exceptions so basically, you’re looking at a small faction of difficult plays in contrast with how many normal, run of the mill plays a guy makes and portraying them as something amazing. I think, more amazing than the reality. That said, relatively pedestrian offensive numbers don’t combine with that to equal obvious Hall of Famer.
And to tell you what brothers me the most about Jones, no ope bring it up but, he has all the earmarks of a PED guy. Some like to say he got out of shape blah blah blah. I’ve always watched as much baseball as I could get my eyes on and the Braves were on a lot back then. He came on the scene just before the big McGwire/Sosa chase and had his best years right through the heart of the PED period. After the first handful of years, he began bloating and his speed went down. But the bloating didn’t stop him from clobbering home runs. But it did make his already suspect hitting even worse, pretty much ended his base stealing and slowed him down in the outfield. I know there is this love affair with his ten gold gloves and his outlandish war number on defense. Shall I looked further into my theory regarding the pitching. Apparently I’m not alone. I came across an article where a guy was breaking down those numbers and how shallow he was allowed to play due to lack of hard contact to deep center field against those pitching staff. So I obviously didn’t dream that if somebody else was aware of it who actually researchers the hell out of everything. When this article he also quoted a guy named Dial, who, apparently, is a member of the SABR defensive index committee, if I have that title correct, and this guy said, something to the effect of, after the first few years, Jones’ defensive stats were largely inflated by “discretionary outs” or taking out away from his infielders and what strength was left in his arm racking up shallow assists. In the same article, none other than Bill James was quoted discussing Jones’ perceived defensive prowess and basically stated, Jones is a fine defender but given several underlying circumstances, he was not nearly ready to proclaim him the best of all time.
But I think my most unanswered quandary in all of this is, if Jones were married to your mother or sister, grabbed her by the leg and threw her down the stairs, choked her and said I’m going to kill you, would you consider that a drastic enough case of domestic violence to think it violated the character and integrity portions of the bbwaa voting instructions? I know I don’t really need it to be my mother or sister to understand the severity of it but somehow it seems to be blatantly ignored by, so far, 66% of voters. But God forbid, Curt Schilling has his own opinions on anything political, he’s not getting in.
So if I whacked my wife around instead of “allegedly” juicing I’d have been a 1st ballot lock??? Damn!
How is Billy Wagner’s % dropping?
I don’t know why. The guy was one of the best closers ever!
It’s still just 21 ballots out of approximately 400. Nothing in the totals here is statistically significant yet. Check back when about 100 ballots are revealed to see what the general trend will be.
Good point. I too, think Wagner belongs in and maybe he will finally get there but it is not going to be a runaway if he does.
FOR a guy with 25 votes out of 29, 25 yeses and 4 noes, another yes raises the percentage minimally, being only 1/26th of the total yeses, but another no does more damage because it would be 1/5th of the no total.
When you talk about careers falling off the table, I think we can consider why it happened. With Ross Youngs, Addie Joss and Urban Shocker: they died. With Don Mattingly, Barney McCoskey, Vern Stephens, Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax: injuries ruined each career, in terms of statistical output. Cecil Travis was a consistent all-star and potential MVP candidate before WW II. He outhit Di Maggio in 1941 (by .002) and was not a factor after he returned from his 3-year stint. I don’t think that considering .320+ hitters is ” lowering the bar”.
Agreed. For the most part, I think a lot of guys’ careers fall off the planet due to declining skills whether it be physical or mental or a combination of both. But I also agree there are cases like Mattingly and Pedroia where, unfortunate physical circumstances cut a career short for an otherwise, still capable player. And when that player was pretty much awesome right up until that devastation, I think that is definitely worth a different approach as a voter. Certainly not a guy who had two or three great seasons and blew out a knee or a shoulder because, you really can’t know that he would have continued such production 7 years into the future. But a decade is a pretty good amount of time for a guy to be at the top of the game, go down with an unfortunate circumstance while still on top of the game and not have all the reason in the world to think he would have continued that production at least a few more seasons.
I know that Bruan McCann is not a hall of famer, but his career was pretty good. The voters should at his numbers closely and what he did as a catcher.
I meant Brian McCann.
You’re right, McCann did have a good career. Might have been the best power hitting catcher in his era and batted over .280 lifetime. Pretty damn good considering not too many catchers do that. No, his numbers don’t spring off the page compared to the majority of Hall of Fame players but when you look at them as a catcher, they should. But this just goes to show you that too many people are now relying on war and jaws which clearly don’t tell you the story. If you lived through his career and paid attention to baseball at all, he was widely considered an elite framer (for whatever that’s worth), a very strong defensive catcher and had a powerful and accurate throwing arm. Coupled with his above average offense for the position, he should definitely be getting some attention. This guy finished his career in the top 10, 20 and 25 of all catchers ever in several offensive categories as well as being a high above average defensive catcher. Pictures of his era loved throwing to this guy and, for good reason. But he’ll be forgotten just like Hunter and Abreu, two other guys who deserve some serious attention and, way more than they have gotten.
I think McCann (and Russell Martin, too, for that matter) will be better appreciated in time as defensive analytics continue to evolve. I believe they will be looked back on in the same way Gene Tenace is looked back on now: overlooked in their time, but with modern statistics, we can find a greater appreciation of the value they provided to their teams. Unfortunately, that time is not now.
Tennace is probably a little bit more difficult case to make on the face than McCann. 200 home runs, 1000 hits, 178 doubles aren’t much to write home about. And then of course, a.241 batting average is pretty terrible. However, he did get on base at a .388 clip due to how often the guy walked. Kind of absurd how often he walked comparatively to his other statistics. But, this has not been a well-kept secret. It’s right there in the statistics. He was also a pretty average defender behind the plate but, a monster at first base.
I don’t know how many more metrics can be invented to tell people what we already know but I’m extremely saddened by how many people think they need them to determine the quality of a baseball player in this day and age. Again, getting on base has never been a secret. Suddenly, we have all these people preaching how much more valuable on base percentages than batting average. I don’t see where that was ever a secret. Seems pretty obvious. The more times you are on base, the more opportunities you have to score runs which in turn, is more valuable to your team. Pretty basic math. I can remember learning to hit decades ago and I can still remember one of the most commonly reiterated phrases from my father, grandfather and uncles was “a walk is as good as a hit”. None of us had ever heard of metrics but somehow we already knew this valuable nugget of information. I’m pretty sure, in fact, the values of a walks and on base percentage were no secret this far back as Ted Williams and beyond so I’ll never see the need to keep pushing these convoluted modern metrics to over-explain things we should already know.
I realize the digital age has increased and overarching sense of boredom around most common-place things because, in general, our society has now become so fast-paced due to not having to think anymore since something digital does that for you if you let it. But why over analyze the hell out of something that doesn’t need to be when you can just sit back and enjoy it for what it is?
Besides that, “Ichiro 60”, “Parker 40”. Doesn’t that tell you immediately to tread with care before considering WAR as the last word? I would have more respect for “objectivity” if it read “Ichiro 85”, “Parker 65” and the best relievers were in the forties instead of the twenties.
Right. I’ve heard many arguments on these metrics yet they all fail to substantiate concrete evidence. And I hear people say things along the lines of, “we have evolved and understand statistics better”. Seems to me, someone dictating hypothetical zones, values and capabilities with so-called adjustments and guesses is exactly the opposite of evolution. Obviously many of us know what a good baseball player looks like and what that’s spectacular baseball player looks like which now leaves us to accept the devaluation of the Hall of Fame but I guess it’s just like a million other things in current society.
I guess by this point we can have an idea of what is going to happen if this keeps up. Suzuki, Sabathia and Wagner. I hope Billy Wagner makes it in. This is his last year on the ballot. The guy deserves to be in Cooperstown.
Checking the name of Chase Utley on many ballots and not the names of Dustin Pedroia or Ian Kinsler is laughable.
It shows a severe lack of actual analysis on the part of the voters. Kinsler and Utley are obviously very similar players, only separated by fictitious metrics.
Pedroia was clearly on a path to the Hall, derailed only by unfortunate circumstance, probably caused by how hard he played the game. You take certain cases like Ralph Kiner and recognize greatness over a shorter period because a back injury ended his career prematurely. David Wright, Dustin Pedroia and Don Mattingly, among others, fall into that same category. But instead we now have to hear about peaks and other argumentative quandaries as though the ultimate goal is how to keep people out. Are we creating a historical monument to those who brought their best of the game in the time they were allowed to do it or just an adolescent boys club governed by writers with unfounded agendas and too much power in their hands?
Exactly
Well, let’s see. You can only vote for a maximum of ten players. I assume most people will vote for Ichiro, Sabathia, and Wagner, and more than half will vote for Beltran and Andruw. If you don’t care about alleged/confirmed steroid use, there’s A-Rod, Manny, and Pettitte. That’s eight names. So if you wanted to vote for all three, you couldn’t. Then there are underappreciated guys like Abreu and other short but sweet careers like Wright, Hernandez, and Tulowitzki. I think the ten-player limit is dumb, but that’s the rule, so inevitably, guys you could make good cases for will not get voted for.
I’d go Abreu, Beltran, Manny, Wagner, Suzuki, Arod, Hunter, Buehrle, K-Rod and Pettitte. Then Sabathia, Pedroia and Wright go right on to my ballot next year.
Coke Hamels is the only thing close next year so plenty of space.
Cole
Although I am 100% convinced that Ichiro is for the HOF, my votes would include CC, Wagner, Beltran, Andruw, ARod, Manny Ramirez Pettitte, KRod, Pedroia, and DWright. There are some very good arguments to the contrary for some of these, but I think these 10 guys should be HOF. If Ichiro is spurned by the voters, I will feel worse than foolish, but Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Musial were not 100% so I’m not feeling that Ichiro NEEDS to have 100% of the vote. I am not opposed to Abreu = Hunter nor Rollins, nor Utley = Kinsler, but there are too many more deserving players not currently HOF. Similarly, for Buehrle. I really liked Hunter and Buehrle as players. I thought that they were gold. But I had no trouble thinking of 10 pitchers who I would put in the Hall ahead of Buehrle: John, Clemens, Tiant, Reulbach, Leever, J Tannehill, CC, Pettitte, Verlander, Kershaw, Scherzer, Greinke. Got the idea. I wanted to add Curt Schilling, but the ghosts of Mickey Lolich, Paul Derringer and Dennis Martinez objected.
Thanks to Ryan, Anthony and Adam for running this site year after year after year.
Definitely some good pictures on your list including old timers. Unfortunately they are not on the ballot so they really are not options for voting. But I would go with Buehrle in this round as well. I throw him my support because he’s been there a while and not climbing very fast. But there’s something I love about a guy who came within less than two innings of pitching 200 innings per year for 15th straight years. And it’s not like he was just hanging on with a five or six era and being a bum.
Just curious; with the election results to be announced in nineteen days, why is there very little movement with the votes cast?
Everyone is taking their time to decide who they want to screw the most
The answer is always Sammy Sosa.
Yes sir and Curt “Don’t you dare vote for me Schilling.
What’s the hyper with Chase Utley’s candidacy for the hall of fame? Come on! The guy just had five great seasons, that’s it, just five!!! Pedroia has a better case than this guy and still some people think he was way superior to him. Jeff Kent had a caliber hall of fame career and you guys DENIED him! Kent never even made it to 50% on the ballot. Are you going to tell me that Utley was better than Kent? Utley was not better than Pedroia! No gold gloves, no MVPs and Pedroia has a 30 plus career batting average than Utley. What are we talking about here? How do you voters come up with your analysis? If the guy was so good with the glove where are his gold gloves? Answer me that question. Not even one!
The hype I meant.
Awards are awarded based on popularity, not necessarily merit. For example, Derek Jeter won five Gold Gloves based entirely on reputation and popularity. If you’ve never had a differing opinion on who should have won an award at the end of a season, I can understand using awards as the basis for Hall of Fame worthiness. But I feel a lot of people go back and scrutinize past award results (like Porcello’s 2016 Cy Young, for example). As for Kent, he was a victim of timing on the ballot, as there was always a ton of others candidates being considered a head of him on every ballot he appeared on. But just because the writers whiffed on Kent shouldn’t be a valid reason to deny every other subsequent second baseman. Utley is getting more consideration than Pedroia right now because of sabermetrics. Whether or not you like it, that’s the reality. They aren’t looking at batting average, they’re looking at OPS+ and wOBA. They aren’t looking at MVP voting, they’re looking at WAR. They aren’t looking at Gold Gloves, they’re looking at DRS. Why do you think baseball is more strikeout-liberal than it used to be? Why do you think pitchers are blowing out their arms at alarming rates in pursuit of the highest velocity and the maximum spin rate? Because what players value is changing. What teams value is changing. What baseball values is changing. Likewise, what voters value is changing. You can lament those changes and the implications they bring to baseball, but that’s the reality of the sport. Stats like WAR and DRS are not infallible, as they have lots of problems, and I’m sure in twenty years there will be new statistics that will make them obsolete the same way they made stats like batting average, RBIs and pitcher wins obsolete, and there will be a push back from people who subscribe to that philosophy just like it is with the traditional philosophy now. It’s not like Utley or Pedroia are going to waltz into the Hall in the first couple round of balloting. If they were to make it, it would be by the skin of their teeth. They were always going to be borderline cases, anyways. Utley got 28% last year. Plenty of guys have gotten that and never come close to 50% on subsequent ballots.
Having talked baseball with approx. 30 other devotees for over 30 years it is interesting that WAR has not been mentioned even once, to my knowledge. We all get a laugh out of “Ichiro 60”, but it’s a private laugh. It so clearly means nothing. On the other hand, the obsolete metrics : RBIs, HRs , wins, ERA, etc. are frequent subjects. I really approve of WAR, etc. because they are intelligent attempts to look from a different angle. They spark conversation. But “Ichiro 60” needs no justification for being a first ballot electee; “Lou Whitaker 75” for a guy with no immediate chance ought to do more than raise eyebrows. The year that Bill Madlock got blown away there were 10 guys ahead of him now in the HOF. Who else? Steve Garvey, Pete Rose, Vida Blue, etc. WAR didn’t create that problem, but I think that anyone who thinks WAR makes Utley more desired at peak than Whitaker or Kent is missing something.
Yeah no one I know mentions war, jaws or anything like this when we talk baseball. Just the game and the stats. To each their own.
Yeah, but WAR doesn’t mean that much..let’s put it this way. Utley had a WAR of 64, so that proves what? The guy didn’t even reach 2,000 career hits. He was a .275 career hitter and to say that he was good defender without a gold glove, not even one. I just dont think he was that good. Actually, there’s a reason why ball players win gold gloves. The guy was good, but not for a long time. He was never great.
And DRS is another circus. Subjective and dependent on perception of great plays. Bishop defensive stats show Kent was a .980 fielder and second base and Utley, .982. not much of a difference there in provable statistics. And offensively, Jeff Kent makes Chase Utley look like Brett Boone. So if DRS and a 17 WAR on defense are the difference for voters, why play offense? Yes there were guys like Clemens etc on the mallet but most of them were not receiving large chunks of votes and in no way, was there 10 guys or deserving than Kent for the entirety of his time on the ballot. But this many voters are finding a spot for Utley?
You broke it down very well and I think a lot of us agree and are aware of what you’re saying but one thing we will probably not all ever agree on is we don’t have to accept anything really. I don’t, you don’t and anyone else who doesn’t want to, doesn’t have to. The age-old statistics are not obsolete, they are just hiding in the background as people like to pretend they are useless. But they can’t figure out the new phony ones without the real ones so they will never be useless. And like anything, it may take time to happen but the Hall is who should be concerned because they will lose patronage over the years. It may not hurt them now, but if they continue permitting what goes on now that a lot of people don’t want to see, they will continue to alienate fans who know what the real stats are and don’t need to pretend. 25 to 30 years ago did you think Sears was going to go out of business? I don’t know your age but I can tell you 30 years ago I wouldn’t have but people would be interesting their entire livelihoods to computerized devices but here we are having to chase down banks, change all of our information and worse, paying huge ransoms to keep our businesses alive every time some jack off decides to hack it and can’t be found. Again, people love the easy way so if you give it to them, I would say 85 to 90% of the people will blindly take it regardless of not knowing the consequences. The one thing that will not change throughout the course of the world is that nothing worth having comes easy, only a larger amount of people nowadays than ever, disregard that reality. And pay the price. Eventually any business that lets itself go down the toilet gradually will pay the price. Changing the the game with stupid little rule tweaks and larger bases and every other ridiculous thing in the name of speeding it up for people in today’s society with shorter attention spans is a bad idea. It’s too late, it’s been done and no one is going to fight against it but any ass could have foreseen that when those things happened, more stupid ideas would follow. And sure enough, this year we hear about the golden at that rule. Now it’s being shrugged off as though it was never anything but it was obviously the machine floating the idea to see what people thought. Unfortunately it takes seeing stupid things happen to the game before people finally have enough and then you see Hall of Fame players come out and say what a dumb idea this is. Or even current players like the pitcher the other day who made a relatively unveiled remark regarding not believing Manfred and the garbage he spouts. There are plenty of people who have no use for the modern rhetoric known as metrics or safer metrics or whatever you want to call all this crap. But what happens more often than not is, they grow frustrated and just ignore the argument rather than bother beating their head against a brick wall. I certainly understand that feeling but, I also believe it is incumbent on older generations to at least try to offer voices of reason and experience in a lot of cases. No one has to listen and the majority won’t but that doesn’t mean everyone should just roll over and die or accept any crap they don’t want to.
Yes there have always been changes in the game, in any game. You may not read it all over the Internet and maybe you do, I don’t spend much time on it I just like this forum, but, in real life, I know an awful lot of people who are die hard NBA fans when we were growing up and right through the ’80s and ’90s. Now, I know an awful lot of people who don’t want to watch an hour long 3-point contest every night where no one is allowed to sneeze on anyone else show that the floor can be left open for everyone to fire off from beyond the arc all night long. Very boring for those of us who watched Jordan, Bird, Magic, Jabbar, Moses, Gervin and all the true greats who came before those times have to fight their way through bruising defenders, hand checks and maulings. Now we listen to the new generations tell us we are crazy if we don’t understand that LeBron James is the greatest. We saw the NBA before and we see it now and we certainly never all had a problem knowing who the greats were and who the greatest of the greats were before new generations came along and led us out of our collective slumbers and enlightened us on what the game is really all about. But back to baseball though, we have always known what batting average, on base percentage, walks, strikeouts, slugging percentage, fielding percentage and every other statistic on the diamond means. Now you have people who want to add them together as though we couldn’t figure out who the sluggers were and who the on base guys were prior to this stroke of genius. Most importantly though, the fact that many are realizing how undependable and an exact these metrics really are, should lead people to realizing they don’t really serve much purpose. Real, tangible things surf purposes. They always have and they always will. Convoluting the conversation in an attempt to show older generations how stupid they are and how much they didn’t know about watching a game they’ve watched for 150 years is really serving no purpose but to deface the hell out of a beautiful game. And to now be arguing statistics of guys who are oftentimes borderline at best.
Baseball’s cool.
Only one of them could play it.
You are my sunshine…
R.I.P. Rickey Henderson
God bless you Man of Steal – greatest leadoff hitter ever
Miss him!
Chase Utley is not a hall of famer. Voters you need to study each case before voting. Dont go.with the flow, make your own desicions based on your judgement after doing some research.
Some people say he was a hard-nosed player. I don’t think trying to injure people it’s hard-nosed I think it’s pretty dumb. Yeah he had five solid seasons but all the rest is just okay. I don’t know how you would put him in there and not Kinsler. Pedroia was better than both too bad his knee ruined him.
Nothing against Chase Utley he was a very good player, but seriously how could you not put in Jeff Kent? What was the highest % of votes that he received?
This needs to be addressed….
I think his high was around 46% in his last year on the ballot. I always thought he was a pretty ridiculous omission. You can look at other guys and argue one way or the other and maybe even see either side of the argument. Whitaker was great and I have no problem seeing him in the hall but, I can certainly understand arguments against maybe his batting average etc. Kent batted .290 though. Add in 560 doubles, almost 2500 hits, top 100 in career home runs and most all time for a second baseman. He was clearly a case of writers disliking him. You here arguments about appearances in top 10 lists, awards etc. Okay, five time all star, four-time silver slugger and he won the MVP in 2000. I’m not a big proponent of adding awards together since they are subjective at best but, for those who like that sort of stuff, he had awards and plenty of top ten appearances on leaderboards. I don’t really care about those either because leaderboards are obviously just that and only for a specific season. In any given season you have guys on leaderboards who are in the midst of one awesome campaign or maybe a three or four year run of good seasons. But it’s a ridiculous way to gauge performance overall in a Hall of Fame career because top 10 lists don’t necessarily show consistency for guys like Kent and Abreu who, consistently, achieve above average output. Maybe not always top 10 but even top 20 is impressive. You don’t get to 560 doubles by accident. And you don’t have to lead the league every year to do it. But you do have to perform at a relatively high level for a long time and he did that. Simply more proof that the system is a joke. Guys didn’t like his attitude, his mustache, his personality, whatever. Let’s go back to a time before the last 20 years where people had some pride in their work, everything didn’t come easy off the face of a digital screen and writers’ main concerns didn’t involve clicks on garbage, opinionated articles about nothing. When people had pride in themselves and cared about not looking like clowns. Even then, you had favoritism and cronyism but it never sounded as silly as some of the arguments you’re here today and no one depended solely on hypothetical nonsense to determine Hall of Fame qualifications.
Jeff Kent had the misfortune of being on the HOF ballot with Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Curt Schilling and Gary Sheffield. Consequently, the best hitting second baseman since Rogers Hornsby got lost in the fog. There definitely is a herd aspect to the annual vote. There’s a popularity aspect, a payback aspect, but most of the voters seem to vote on a quality basis. The ones who turn in blank ballots should be banned.
Clemens Bonds Sheffield all reached highs of around 65-66% and not until the very end so I don’t think Kent was losing too many votes to those guys. Schilling went over 70% and then they backtracked because they didn’t like his personality. Showing the childish nature of an awful lot of voters. Which I think also displays that a lot of voters do not vote on a quality basis. But I do agree that voters handing in blank ballots should be banned. There were never 10 guys on the ballot who should have blocked Kent at any one time. Especially since so many guys were against the PED guys already anyway and if you’re not going to vote for the best hitting second baseman since Hornsby, you’re certainly not doing it because you are a quality voter. You’re a child and shouldn’t have the privilege of voting.
Exactly, good point!
Exactly, agreed 100%
Exactly, Jeff Kent deserved to be in Cooperstown, not the case with Utley.
Kent was great. He had plenty of good numbers but really what do you need to know beyond most home runs ever by a second baseman? Obviously has plenty more than that but that’s pretty awesome right there.
Let’s talk about K – Rod, what do you guys think about him? He saved a lot of games, just behind Jansen and Kimbrel. I feel that he should be a hall of famer once Wagner gets rhe call, even if it takes him 10 years to make it. What do you think guys?
Good one. Clearly one of the best closers in the game and member of a very small club with 400 saves. Still the single season leader with 62 and no one else has ever touched 60. Also, Rivera and Hoffman each had nine seasons a piece with 40 saves, the only other closer with six is K-Rod.
You won’t hear a million ridiculous arguments. Closer is not a position, closers are failed starters, closers only pitch one inning on average, their stats are subject to other variables, blah blah blah blah blah.
Yes, they pitch one inning on average. That’s their job, duh. Many guys have been given that job and not been able to hold on to it. That’s not because it’s so easy that any idiot can do it. Yes their stats depend on other variables. For instance, MLB does not have a long-standing practice of tracking a useful stat such as save percentage. Pretty simple, saves divided by save opportunities. If you try to look up this number, it is not easy to find and when you look at a site like mlb.com, they list saves and save opportunities. You can do the math from there however, before 1999, save opportunities is the same number as saves for most players as no one was apparently tracking this. So Lee Smith has 100% save percentage for example. Obviously not realistic but the information is not there to easily access. Again, probably due to a belief in some circles that this number is not useful. I think it is because you would apply it like you apply anything else. If you look at it on base percentage and see a guy with a four something OBP, you can then look at his other statistics and see he basically had a cup of coffee and is not comparable to guys who have reached minimum plate appearances for consideration. Same thing here. You’re going to look at a guy and see a 90% save percentage but maybe he only had 20 opportunities and saved 18 games. Well obviously you’re not going to say he’s the greatest closer of all time. But to look at, say, guys only in the 400 Club, Trevor Hoffman is over 92% and Rivera is just under. Not counting Lee Smith and John Franco, who’s numbers are not readily and accurately available, K-Rod is around 85%, the lowest in the 400 Club but certainly still respectable. The rest of the guys are generally around 88% like Wagner, Jansen and Kimbrell, with the last two obviously being still active. As far as variables, of course there are variables. But an argument regarding variables could generally hurt or help the guy. Come into the game with the lead in a safe situation, error at second, that’s row from the first baseman, etc, blown save. So not actually your fault. On the flip side, give up a hard liner that could be a big hit but the short stop dives and snares it in midair, game over, save. But this is the case for most to change that. Just like it’s the case for many defensive stats. While individual performance stands out more in baseball than most team sports, these variables exist throughout the game every single night. Errors obviously change the course of a game but then so do bad place that are conceivably not ruled errors. The same way great plays can reverse a would be hit into and out. Obviously affecting era, hits per game, hits and so on. With all the talk of framing in the last several years, you can certainly watch a game and pick out several gifts pitchers receive as well as several bad calls by umpires that go the other way. It’s a fallible game and it always will be. Or at least it always should be because that’s just how the game is built. It’s why I have no use for attempts at modern metrics because there will always be the subjective aspect to it that relies on human interaction and discretion. My convolute the hell out of something beautiful when it was just meant to be enjoyed?
That being said, only a handful of guys have ever received 400 games and, for something that many describe as easy or not that difficult, it certainly isn’t done very often and, looking at the current leaderboards for career saves, isn’t going to be done very often anytime soon. The guy had a good ERA, saved 400 games, is the only player ever to save 60 in a season and did it all in spite of not always playing on the best teams. Rivera was clearly great but Rivera also played on some clearly great teams for most of his career. Yes he was part of the greatness and what made it great but not everyone got to close games for dominant Yankees teams. I’d vote him in.
*you will hear
*Bad throw from first base
*Why convolute
Sorry, speaking out loud
I agree. K-Rod would get my vote every time.
Wow well thought!
Didn’t KRod face charges of domestic violence? People here keep bringing that up when Andruw Jones is being discussed. I don’t know much about the details of each case. Are there significant differences that make Jones’s past worse than KRod’s?
So I was not there obviously and clearly none of us were but from my recollection, K-Rod was a bit of a hot head. I believe he had a first altercation with his father-in-law where the father-in-law said something derogatory about Rodriguez’s mother and Rodriguez whacked him. If you have a mother, I’d say that’s understandable. At least for me it is. The other one I believe, involved allegedly and altercation with his girlfriend but the case was dropped as she told the DA or the police he did not hit her and then nothing further ever came of it. Unfortunately we can’t know what really happened or didn’t happen since no one corroborated it and it went away. Could he have hit her and she just didn’t want to get him in trouble? Sure but that’s kind of pure speculation. I know that doesn’t matter to the writers since that’s kind of what they’ve done with many of the PED guys as well. But Jones’ case is a little different and his wife clearly reported that she asked him to help her clean up the house or something like that and he became belligerent, they argued, she tried to run up the stairs and he grabbed her by the ankle and pulled her down the stairs. Then she said he wrapped his hands around her throat and said something to the effect of, I want to kill you. I think she also said he had been drinking so she was able to push him off and get away and she ran out of the house to her friend’s house or her parents house or something like that. So I would say the difference has to be what we know versus unsubstantiated accusations. Again, none of us were there so no one ever really knows the real stories but none of us saw Roger Clemens use steroids either and that doesn’t seem to matter when it comes to speculative views.
I’m not employed by the morality police and it’s not my job to decipher what did or didn’t happen. I’m just wondering how a guy like Joe Jackson is still not in the Hall of Fame based on basically hearsay since he went into court and said he did not do it, no one could produce the supposed written confession and yet MLB just decides he did it without proof but something like this is brought to light and no one seems to even remember it happening. Some ped guys came forward and said yes I did it I’m sorry and strangely, they are still being castasized by the martyrs in the BBWAA. Whatever. But some guys have maintained they did not do it and have been held out on pure speculation. This kind of leads to the conclusion that the self-serving antics of the BBWAA ruin the Hall of Fame more than any player.
Pretty stupid. Jackson batted .375 in that world Series with 12 hits, three doubles, a home run and six RBIs. Also 16 put outs, and assist and no errors so even if he swore with his hand on the Bible, why the hell would anybody believe he threw the World Series? There is definitely something wrong with MLB and the voters. MLB for suspending the guy for life in spite of those stats and with no proof and the voters for just going along with it. People protest an awful lot of stupid things nowadays, why wouldn’t you stand up for a case like that?
Don’t know what happened in the girlfriend case since it disappeared but if the guy was talking about my mother I’m pretty sure I’d whack him too.
“Pretty stupid. Jackson batted .375 in that world Series with 12 hits, three doubles, a home run and six RBIs. Also 16 put outs, and assist and no errors so even if he swore with his hand on the Bible, why the hell would anybody believe he threw the World Series? There is definitely something wrong with MLB and the voters. MLB for suspending the guy for life in spite of those stats and with no proof and the voters for just going along with it. People protest an awful lot of stupid things nowadays, why wouldn’t you stand up for a case like that?”
Hey MAC, I’m not a Black Sox expert, but I believe Jackson was suspended because he knew of the conspiracy, and even if had changed his mind and didn’t participate, he didn’t report it. There was ample proof, I believe, that he was aware of the conspiracy. That’s why Landis suspended him. Also, the suspensions took place after the 1920 season, the HOF didn’t even exist at that time, there were no HOF voters to go along with it or to protest it. When the HOF was established he did receive a couple of votes in the first election, then got a couple of votes on a nominating ballot in 1946 (perhaps the same two voters?). But the HOF did not want to be associated with a scandal like that, and it needs to maintain a strong relationship with MLB, so at some point it was determined that anyone permanently banned by MLB would not be eligible for the HOF ballot. Given his lack of support, I assume contemporaries of his believed it was justified for him to be excluded. Rose got way more support as a write in than Jackson did so it sure looks like the voters of the time felt it was appropriate to make him ineligible at least.
Doesn’t look like the guy said anything about standing up in 1920. Obviously there were no voters yet since the first class wasn’t announced until February 2nd 1936. Many years have since passed though and anyone with a spine could stand up and organize such a protest. Spines generally belong to people who deal in reality and logic. If the Hall is concerned with staying on the right side of MLB, why was there no redaction of the inductions of Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle when they were banned for life by MLB for taking jobs in casinos? Why is Roberto Alomar enshrined when he remains banned for life to this day? Lazy, inconsistent excuse making, dependent on the parties involved is the reason. Granted the Mays and Mantle decisions were overturned later but nothing happened in between. The sad reality is that the hall and the voters do not deal in reality.
Reality is that there is no document to prove the alleged confession. Also, the jury acquitted the players. Never mind obviously several accounts regarding the events of the unfortunate scandal. From a part-time player being paid just to keep his mouth shut to Jackson making a supposed confession under oath that no one could ever find. Chick Gandil was the alleged mastermind for who knows what reason beyond money. Eddie Cicotte was 29-7 that year for a $6,000 salary. He had a bonus provision in his contract that would pay him $10,000 more if he won 30 games. Idiot Comiskey supposedly ordered Gleason to bench him for the last five games he could have pitched in to keep him from earning the bonus. Sounds pretty shady to me. Why is Comiskey in the Hall of Fame? Buck Weaver received no money though he was banned for life. He batted .324 with 11 hits and four doubles in the series. Doesn’t sound like throwing it to me. And anyway, none of this can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. But big man Landis decided to blanket them all and throw them out. If you’re going to have a Hall of Fame and parade it around as some sanctimonious Ring of Honor, monitored by integrity and rules, that should apply right down the line and to everyone. It clearly hasn’t in decades upon decades I never will if the Hall and the voters it relies on prefer to tender to MLB’s various whims as opposed to decency, integrity and dignity. This is still America as far as I’m aware so you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Obviously that doesn’t exist in an awful lot of places and this is just a clear indictment on that fallacy. No confession, no proof and a body of work in that series that would stand to reason he did not participate, but ban him anyway? Mac is right, stupid.
“Closer is not a position, closers are failed starters, closers only pitch one inning on average, their stats are subject to other variables, blah blah blah blah blah.
Yes, they pitch one inning on average. That’s their job, duh. Many guys have been given that job and not been able to hold on to it. That’s not because it’s so easy that any idiot can do it.”
Closer is not a position, it’s a role. That’s not ridiculous, it’s a fact. Presumably you believe it’s reasonable to compare relievers to relievers for HOF consideration. If so, then what’s your justification for this?
Starters are failed closers. That is typically true, and it’s a valid point. Rivera might have had a decent career as a starter, but he thrived as a closer because he had one great pitch. Hoffman was actually a failed shortstop, but he thrived as a closer because he had one great pitch. Wagner was a failed stater. Look at his minor league numbers, he walked 4.7 per 9 IP. Try to find a starting pitcher who had a great career walking that many. He still walked 3 per 9 IP in his MLB career, but he could offset that because he had one great pitch. You CANNOT be a successful starter, let alone a HOF caliber starter, with one pitch. You CAN make it through one inning though. None of those guys would be on a HOF ballot if they had been starters with just the one pitch because they couldn’t have made it through the lineup 3 times without getting lit up. Hitters will adjust.
That’s their job, duh? Then what makes their job HOF worthy? It is easy to pitch one inning at a time, or at least it is easy relative to what a starting pitcher has to do to qualify for the HOF, which is pitch 6 or more innings on a regular basis. As noted above, it can be done repeatedly and successfully with only one pitch if the pitch is good enough. So saying it’s their job doesn’t make it worthy of HOF consideration.
Well you definitely check all the boxes of the classic naysayer. Call it a position or a role or whatever you want but it is a job. Either way, they get paid for it and are expected to do it well. I played every position growing up and I am not audacious enough to say any of them is easy, especially at a major league level. If it was that easy, why haven’t you and I ever run into to each other on the field at Fenway or Dodger Stadium. When you start a game, you have several innings to get it right and make adjustments. When you close the game, whether there’s a run difference of one or three, you’re not very likely to see this guy again and you didn’t see him already today so there’s no adjustment. Only, block out negative distractions and deal with the pressure. Parts of your argument depend upon a realization that a three-run lead is easy to protect. I’ve never played or seen that game. And definitely not when you are facing Major League hitters whose job is to tear your head off. Anytime I ever played baseball, a couple of hits or a couple of walks etc and a home run erases that lead pretty quickly. So if you’re a closer and you are closing out three run leads regularly, that’s pretty damn good. It means you didn’t go out there and hand out that couple of walks and the home run that would have erased it. Strike out, walk, single, back to back doubles. Lead gone. So I guess saying he saved 97+% of those opportunities is pretty good. 97% of anything that has to be done is usually a pretty good number. So is 85-88%. Not as good as 97 but still pretty good, especially when done over the long haul.
You also list a bunch of guys who “could have” matched his statistics given more save opportunities. I can’t generally find it in my makeup to compare people who did to people who “would have”. It would seem more reasonable to me to wonder why didn’t they have those save opportunities? Did they become a closer later? Okay, why? Did they become a closer early and not last as long? Okay, why? Honestly, who cares. The fact is they didn’t match his opportunities for one reason or another. The only fact I can go on is, they didn’t.
And listing a bunch of guys who did not match his opportunities makes him look better.
Do I presume to compare closers to other relievers? No probably not. I would presume to compare them to other closers I guess when the comparison needs to be made because other relievers’ jobs might be set up man, long man etc. Not, come in with three outs to make and “save” the game as opposed to handing the lead over to the other team. Everyone’s job is to stop the other team from scoring but only one guy’s job tends to be, doing it in one inning most often.
No, saying it’s a job, does not make it a Hall of Fame caliber role. But the fact that it is a job on a Major League baseball team and bears the importance of not giving the game away in the final inning in situations where the pressure is higher than the rest of the game, makes it a Hall of Fame Worthy role. Clearly you don’t agree and that’s up to you but saying saves is a garbage stat doesn’t make it true. Closers don’t write the rules as to how those saves are acquired, they are simply tasked with going out there and doing it as many times as possible correctly. So I guess, saying he pitched in so few situations where that was attainable and yet somehow piled up more saves than almost anyone who ever played the game would be a plus.
But the same rhetoric could be applied to anything. Home runs are a garbage stat. Batting average is a garbage stat. And for those who prefer modern metrics, putting aside their already hypothetical nature, they can all be termed garbage stats even if they weren’t already. Simply do one of your breakdowns and figure out how many home runs, doubles, hits, RBIs and whatever any given player hit off of nervous rookies, has beens, never weres and the otherwise worst pitchers you can find in their records and then compare them to guys that did a higher percentage of their damage against better competition. But we don’t really do that. And by not doing that, we just assume relatively equal platforms for every hitter across the board. We accept the game for the fallible, imperfect beauty that it is. Are there guys out there trying to quantify everything to the absolute nth minutiae they possibly can? Sure. That’s called modern metrics, saber metrics or whatever else you want to call this waste of time based on something someone says should be done or could be done or has been done etc. and are more fallible than the game itself. No matter how much they bastardize the game for short attention spans with stupid things like larger bases, limited pickoff opportunities, ghost runners who haven’t earned a base, applying morals only where they are convenient relevant to the argument and even sillier “floated ideas” like the golden batter, it will never be perfect. If it is, it won’t be baseball. Therefore, we only have what we have and I can only realistically look at what someone really has done to judge their career. If you want to apply things like “would have done with the same opportunities as another guy”, then that goes both ways and makes guys like Mattingly, Pedroia and Wright, automatic Hall of Famers because we’ll just guess that they would have continued to be as awesome had they not lost their opportunities through no faults of their own.
For now, I’ll take Wagner’s saves, era and 1200 strikeouts in 900 innings, and put him in the hall. Apparently I’m not alone.
Me too. Wags was awesome. John Franco belongs in there too.
Wow that was an impressive volume of utter nonsense, congratulations!
“So if you’re a closer and you are closing out three run leads regularly, that’s pretty damn good. It means you didn’t go out there and hand out that couple of walks and the home run that would have erased it. Strike out, walk, single, back to back doubles. Lead gone. So I guess saying he saved 97+% of those opportunities is pretty good. ”
No, it’s not. You completely missed the point, unsurprisingly. Every closer does that, which shows that it’s not pretty good but in fact quite easy. If Joe Table can do it 99% of the time in 102 chances, it’s not good but common place. It really should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with baseball, especially an expert like you who played every position! Baseball is a game of failure. Hitters who fail 70% of the time over a long enough career end up in the HOF. Pitchers succeed more often than hitters, but shutouts are still extraordinarily rare, just 16 of 4,858 games last season! And yet closers regularly have a success rate of over 80% in terms of save conversion.
“You also list a bunch of guys who “could have” matched his statistics given more save opportunities.”
No I listed other closers from his career who converted 3 run saves at the same, better, or slightly worse rate to illustrate how easy it is to record a 3 run save. Again, you miss the point by a mile.
“Clearly you don’t agree and that’s up to you but saying saves is a garbage stat doesn’t make it true.”
No, it doesn’t, but showing clear examples, even if they sail far over your head, does make it true.
“But the same rhetoric could be applied to anything. Home runs are a garbage stat. Batting average is a garbage stat.”
Really? That’s a fascinating take. Please explain how HR and BA are garbage stats. I’ve already clearly shown how Saves are a garbage stat, and with multiple examples. The 3 run save being converted at nearly 100% by even bad closers and career Save Percentages well above 80% clearly illustrate the Save is not a metric that identifies accomplishing anything exceptionally difficult. The high number of Saves by pitchers with horrible ERA numbers show the Save is a garbage stat. Find any starting pitcher who finished in the top 10 in W’s with an ERA over 7 as Lidge finished in the top 10 in Saves in 2009 and Shawn Chacon did in 2004, and then you can tell me that Saves aren’t a garbage stat. Find me a starting pitcher who led the league in W’s with an ERA over 5 as Borowski led the league in Saves in 2004 with an ERA of 5.07, and then you can tell me that Saves aren’t a garbage stat.
You do realize you’re comparing a guy with 422 saves to people with barely a third of his accomplishments right? I think it’s your head the point of sailing over. What the hell is 102 chances compared to wagner? Get a grip man.
I guess every circus needs its clown.
What’s truly unsurprising is that you are the one who’s missed half the point you are trying to argue. If you’re going to argue that several other guys did the same thing as Wagner then you should not use several other guys who didn’t come close to his actual career production. Joe Table saved 99% of 102 opportunities? So where was Joe Table while Wagner was cementing the rest of his career? You’re not making an argument of any merit and you don’t have a single thought in your pez dispenser that doesn’t revolve around spitting out a baseball encyclopedia which any of us can go read and then expecting everyone to read along in all as though you have just unleashed some mystical element of baseball acumen we’ve all been so bereft of. Instead of your inane attempt at insulting the shit out of people who’s thought process clearly sails miles over your head, you should put a little effort into paying attention. You want to compare Billy Wagner, who’s output sits in the top tiniest percentage of all closers ever, to a handful of also-rans and call it a valid point? So then we should compare Tris Speaker or Mickey Mantle to Mike Cameron and call that a valid argument?
And you think the entire point was that I am calling home runs a garbage stat? Did your reading comprehension completely elude you after the first two sentences? For a genius such as yourself, you should clearly have recognized that those two sentences you quote and ask for justification on were sheer sarcasm, leading into the following points. Clearly illustrating how ridiculous your statement about saves being a garbage stat is. Let me break that down for you further if you’re paying attention now: if you want to prove home runs is a garbage stat, you could take any handful of guys at random and show how many home runs some of them hit off of guys like Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Rodger Clemens and Pedro Martinez as opposed to another hitter who predominantly homered off of guys like Wes Gardner, Anthony Young and your favorite guy, Joe Table. Then you could regale us all with your brilliant findings as to how player F hit as many home runs as players A-E but, since they were against crappier pitching more often than not, his were not as impressive, thus rendering home runs a garbage stat in your opinion. Get it yet?
What really is fascinating is how you can take two sentences out of context and argue them as though they were a point on their own worth arguing in your ludicrous attempts at outsmarting anyone. Comparing an apple slice to an apple pie and then calling someone an idiot for not agreeing with your failed approach is very impressive. In case it sails over your head, perhaps you have noticed that the vast majority of this forum is people having valid conversations about a passion without insulting each other but since that appears to be how you like it, happy to oblige. Remember, the smartest man in the room is never the one spouting bullshit and defensively insulting the hell out of people who don’t agree with him.
Relivers/Closers are already over represented in the HOF. Adding Wagner this year will only exacerbate this, and there’s certainly no reason to add Rodriguez to an already over represented role. The writers grossly overrate the contributions of relievers/closers to their teams. Although they’ve moved away from the absurdity of awarding both the CY and MVP to a guy who only pitched 78 or 80 innings (Fingers in 1981 and Eckersley in 1992), they still believe these guys are somehow more worthy of HOF recognition than pitchers whose contributions to their teams are much more significant. I’m not going to bother digging into Rodriguez because it’s not worth the time, but I’ve already done it for Wagner so I’ll share that to illustrate why these guys are not worthy of election. But first let’s be clear of our criteria: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. I’m not going to deal with integrity, sportsmanship, or character because those are subjective measurement beyond my knowledge, I’m only going to be talking about the record (which is documented in the stats), ability, and contributions to the player’s teams.
Wagner’s record is comprised of 903 career IP, that’s it. The average HOF pitcher in the modern Era (beginning in 1900, but excluding Negro League selections, not because of lack of quality or merit but because of the lack of historical record) threw 3,591 IP, and this includes all of the relievers elected to date. That’s nearly 4 times the IP of Wagner (or Rodriguez). If you exclude the 6 pure relievers (Wilhelm was not removed due to his significant IP), it goes up to 3,809! Limit it to the Live Ball Era beginning in 1920 and it’s still 3,510 (I removed 3 HOF pitchers with fewer than 2,000 IP after 1920 because the bulk of their career IP were before 1920, but left 6 others who had also pitched prior to 1920 although I did NOT include their full career IP). If you exclude the relievers again, it goes up to 3784! Take it to the Expansion Era and it’s 3,548 (I removed 4 pitchers with fewer than 2,000 IP from this group due to their significant IP prior to 1961). Exclude the relievers and it’s 4,092! So in every case Wagner has thrown only about 1/4 of the IP of the average HOF pitcher. There’s simply no way his contribution to his team measures up to the HOF standard with so few IP. But let’s look more closely at those IP.
He has 4 seasons where he wasn’t even a closer totaling 95 2/3 IP, so now he’s down to 807 1/3 IP in the role he’s being credited for. Then you can look further at individual seasons and see that of his 853 games he has 422 saves and 69 blown saves, or 491 appearances in a closer role. This means even in those seasons where he was a closer, he often did not appear in that role. Now it’s true he still appeared in high leverage situations in some of those games, but he also often pitched in a plain relief role with his team either behind or ahead by more than 3 runs. For example, in 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006 (the only seasons he pitched more than 70 IP) he had 105 such appearances totaling 105 1/3 IP. So you can take that 807 1/3 down to 702 (and well below that because I’ve only looked at those 5 seasons, but it’s about 25% of his IP in those seasons).
But let’s not forget that the Save is a garbage stat. It does not correlate well with a pitcher’s performance. A pitcher might earn a save for recording a single out in some instances, it could be earned by a pitcher who allows 2 runs in an inning as long as it was a save situation, which allows for up to a 3 run lead. Examples include Joe Borowski who led the league in saves in 2007 with an ERA of 5.07. Recording 30 or more saves is a mark of someone who is a full time closer, and often put you in the top 10 for saves. Lidge did that with an ERA of 7.21, Chacon did it with an ERA of 7.11. Point being you can be a closer and rack up saves but not be an effective pitcher. Now Wagner did not pitch poorly as a closer like these other guys, but he did rack up a bunch of saves during his career when his team was ahead by 3 runs, and that is simply NOT a HOF caliber achievement. A 3 run save should NOT be used to justify someone’s HOF case, and yet this is what is being done when these guys are being elected. No one is looking at the difficulty of the performance, it’s simply assumed that they were doing something so extraordinary as closers that even though they have only pitched about 25% of the IP of a typical HOF, they are worthy of election.
So what about the 3 run save? Limiting it solely to Wagner’s career, 1995 to 2010, there are 25 guys who had at least 200 saves. So we’re comparing like to like here, these are all guys who had extended periods of time as full time closers, they directly overlap with Wagner, and they run the gamut from Rivera and Hoffman to Jose Mesa and Roberto Hernandez. If you look at all of these guys they had a combined 2,104 save opportunities of the 3 run variety, and they had a 97.3% save percentage in those opportunities. Basically every 3 run save is being converted, across 16 seasons only 50 were blown, about 3 per season in all of MLB. Wagner’s career save % is 85.9, but it’s 97.7% for 3 run saves. The big 3 here (Rivera, Hoffman and Wagner) all had well over 100 save opportunities of the 3 run variety, but two other guys also had at least 100. Jose Mesa had 102 and only blew 1, 99% save percentage, better than Wagner, Isringhausen had 106 and blew 2, 98.1%, better than Wagner. Another 5 guy had at least 80 chances (Todd Jones, Robb Nen, Francisco Cordero, Armando Benitez, and Roberto Hernandez), Jones and Benitez had a 98.8% save rate, and the others 96.5, 94.1 and 92.8%. So you could have a really poor closer like Roberto Hernandez and given the same number of chances as Wagner had you’d only have 6 more blown saves across the 12 seasons of Wagner’s career where he was a closer. That’s no difference at all, 1 blown save every 2 years.
Where does that leave us with Wagner, or Rodriguez, or closers in general? Far from a HOF level of contribution to their teams! Specific to Wagner we have a guy with fewer IP than anyone in the HOF to date at 903, fewer still in the closer role at 807 1/3, about 1/4 of those IP were in non save, low leverage situations the same as any other reliever would appear in, and roughly another 1/4 were 3 run save appearances, which are clearly not difficult or high leverage situations. That leaves only about 400 IP that might fit the sort of level of achievement he’s being credited for as a vaunted, HOF caliber closer. 400 IP is not sufficient for a HOF pitcher.
I don’t know what over represented means. Is there a limit on how many of every type of player should be in there? I think there are only three DHs so does that mean we should just put in the next best 17 to get it up near the 20 range like all the other positions? Or is DH not a position either?
“I don’t know what over represented means.”
How embarrassing for you.
“Is there a limit on how many of every type of player should be in there?”
Nope.
“I think there are only three DHs so does that mean we should just put in the next best 17 to get it up near the 20 range like all the other positions?”
Nope.
“Or is DH not a position either?”
No, obviously it’s not a position, it’s a position in the batting order a team can use if they choose to in order to remove its worst hitter from the batting order. HTH
I think it’s more embarrassing for you because you’re trying too hard to prove something that doesn’t need to be proven. I don’t know what overrepresented means because there’s no such thing. If a guy is a Hall of Famer then what does it matter what position he plays? I’m not embarrassed at all to live in reality but maybe you should be since you seem to not yet the satirical notion of the entire comment.
Wow guy are you that hell-bent on the word position? And did you really just break down that guy’s statement line by line to try to make a fool out of him? It’s not working. Holy crap!
So just to prove how things need to change and any writer that does not take the vote seriously, in what world does Russell Martin Brian MCcann, And Ian Kinsler deserve a vote for the HOF, they are in no way HOF players
Martin I agree with. I don’t see what’s special there. I think the point of Kinsler is more, if Utley deserves votes then why not Kinsler? If you are tied to fairytale metrics then you’re going to separate them a bit but if you watch them play in reality, one didn’t change your championship aspirations over the other in real life.
18 catchers in the Hall of fame. McCann would be 7th in homers, 10th in RBIs, tied with Carter for average and a little below Bench. He would be 15th in hits out of 19 if he was in and on the lower end in obp. So I would not argue he’s a lock but I wouldn’t chuckle or be disgusted if he got in because there weren’t many catchers you wanted over McCann if you had the choice in his time.
Exactly, feeling same way here. McCann was a great hitting catcher, maybe not a hall of famer, but his case should be analyzed a little bit deeper.
Same with Kinsler. If Chase Utley is way up there, then Pedroia and Kinsler should be there as well.
Too easily confused? Maybe. I’m trying to get a clear difference in value between Torii Hunter and Bobby Abreu so I turned to BaseballReference.com to look at best matches. Abreu’s are Luis Gonzalez, Bernie Williams, Dwight Evans, Garret Anderson, Torii Hunter and Dave Parker. Hunter’s are Chili Davis, Dave Parker, Carlos Lee, Dwight, Luis, and Garret. Hunter is a better match with his first 5 than Abreu is with any of his. Whatever their metric, it confirmed my thoughts. Like Kinsler and Utley, in the overall picture, there’s not much difference between Hunter and Abreu. Both excellent. I don’t see best ever, but none of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial or Ted Williams got 100% of the vote.
Trying the same match for Utley and Kinsler, out of more than 20000 former players the one whose hitting best matches Utley is Ian Kinsler (92%+) and vice versa. Utley’s next best matches are Bret Boone, Hanley Ramirez, Bobby Doerr, Brandon Phillips, Bobby Grich, Vern Stephens, Ray Durham, Travis Fryman, and Joe Gordon. Kinsler’s other matches, in order, are Durham, Phillips, B Boone, Jose Altuve, Grich, Ryne Sandberg, Jay Bell, Hanley and Toby Harrah. By comparison Beltran’s matches include 8 HOF members and further down the list Luis Gonzalez and Dwight Evans. Beltran’s best matches are Andre Dawson, Al Kaline and Billy Williams, all-time greats.
I have long thought it was pretty remarkable how similar Beltran and Dawson were. Beltran had 200 hits on the guy, 60 doubles, about 500 more walks which gave him 27 more OBP points but they were otherwise a handful of numbers apart in every category. They even finished with the exact same batting average. Dawson had more gold gloves but overall remarkably similar players. Oddly, it took forever to put Dawson in and you still have people who think maybe he doesn’t belong there. Makes you wonder what the hell people are looking at. For instance, in Dwight Evans first year on the ballot, out of all candidates, he was first in runs, 6th in hits, second in home runs, 5th in RBIs, 4th in OBP, 6th in SLG and first overall in walks. Neikro was the only player elected. Second season, first in runs, 5th in hits, first in home runs, 4th in RBIs, fifth in OBP, 5th in slugging and again, first overall in walks. Don Sutton was the only electee. 3rd and final year on the ballot, 3rd in runs, seventh in hits, second in home runs, 6th in RBIs, 4th in slugging, first one more time in walks and 3rd in OBP. Brett, Yount and Ryan went in that year, all very deservedly but Evans fell off the ballot with less than 4% of the vote. What the hell are these so-called analysts looking at? Granted, he didn’t hit the big numbers like 3,000 hits or 400 to 500 home runs but he was very comfortably up there and over a good chunk of the guys on the ballot across the board. .272 average may have hurt but his OBP was always one of the better ones. And eight gold gloves to top it off.
If Billy Wagner falls off the ballot that’ll be a huge mistake.
He’s going to fall off one way or another since it’s his last BBWAA ballot. The next VC window for his cohort will elect him, not to worry.
Let’s face it …it will probably be just Ichiro as this year’s inductee.
It should be Ichiro and Wagner. The others can wait.
I see that coincidently, Utley, Martin and Abreu all had time in Dodgerville. That explains why they are scored above Kinsler, McCann and Hunter. Are there more writers from Dodgerville?
I don’t know how many Dodgers’ writers around the panel but I do find this interesting. If you go down this ballot and look at every major offensive category, including hits, doubles, home runs, runs scored, stolen bases, RBIs, batting average, walks, OBP, SLG, OPS and even OPS+, one guy is in the top seven in every one of them. A rod. Two other guys are in the top seven in all but one category. Ramirez and Abreu. Ramirez stole only 38 bases in his career and Abreu comes in at number 9 in SLG. Guess who comes in almost never in these categories? Jones and Utley. Uttley only makes the top seven in RBIs. Jones makes the top seven in home runs, RBIs and SLG. So how do you see analysis and these strange metrics working but not see Abreu in the Hall of Fame?
As far as what you’re saying here, I think we have pounded the Utley / Kinsler thing into oblivion and, it definitely makes no sense. I also have never seen why Hunter doesn’t get the support he deserves versus Jones. And the only reason I could see someone voting for Martin and not McCann is maybe because they are holding a grudge over him being on the trash can Houston team.
This makes BBWAA look pretty silly.
I’m on those stats note that he is second on the ballot in OBP to only ramirez, third on the ballot in ops to only Ramirez and A-Rod and fourth in OPS+ to Ramirez, A-Rod and Wright. But consider Wright didn’t even have 6,000 at bats so who knows where he would have landed if he played through his 30s.
Well, let’s not act like these vote comparisons are all equal. As of now, Jones has 50 more votes than Abreu and 68 more than Hunter. Utley has 42 more votes than Kinsler. Martin, on the other hand, has only one vote more than McCann. If both those catchers survive to see more than one ballot (which seems unlikely), the discrepancy could grow to the level of the other two comparisons, but today it’s entirely different. In other words, while plenty of writers are voting for Jones and Utley, almost nobody this year is voting to induct Kinsler or Hunter or McCann…or Martin..into the HOF.
The numbers speak for him… Carlos Beltrán has impressive numbers. There’s no doubt that it’s a hall of fame.
If Utley is a hall of famer, then Pedroia and Kinsler are as well.
The voters denied Curt Schilling for the hall of fame, but they continue to support Buehrle. I don’t get it. Not much analysis while casting your votes.
Agreed. If you can only point to subjective metrics as a reason for induction that should tell you you’re doing it wrong.
This part of the first post says it all-
“The easy for Jones, he has 150 home runs, 11 slugging points and 9 gold gloves on Abreu. On the flip side, Abreu has him by 600 walks, 250 steals, 200 doubles, 550 hits, 250 runs, 25 triples, 60 OBP points, 50 ops points, 80 RBIs and he batted almost 40 points higher than Jones.”
9 gold gloves – again, subjective
150 dingers and 11 SLG pts.
That’s it. Abreu crushes him in EVERYTHING else. What the hell are you guys analyzing?
And Utley too. Cheap shot artist with a good 5 year run. And nothing for Kinsler?
Circus
Agreed!
Why does anyone waste their votes on Ramirez & A-Rod? If Bonds & Clemens couldn’t make it in, why do Manny & AROD deserve it?
Jerry Mejia is the only MLB player banned for life due to PEDs. Therefore he is the only ineligible player for Hall of Fame induction due to PEDs. Like any offense, the crime has its own set of punishments and keeping guys out of the Hall on purpose is not one of them. These are not murderers and thieves so any voter treating them that way doesn’t deserve a vote. Steve Howe was suspended seven times for cocaine, banned from the game and then reinstated by an arbiter. He wasn’t good enough for the Hall of Fame anyway but that’s irrelevant. Roberto alomar was banned, post induction, but remains in the Hall of fame. This is stupid.
Very true. Guys have taken stuff forever. Back to the Brown Sequard Elixir (animal testosterone injections) in the 1800s. If they fail a test now they get punished. Who does the BBWAA think they’re supposed to be? The morality police? Try telling the truth when you write instead of spreading “rumors” you made up and pretending to be “hearing” information. Hearing from who? Yourself saying it out loud to yourself?
Not so much that they do (or don’t) deserve if, but that one arguably could be more strategic in giving those votes to candidates who have a better shot at induction, in the short or long term. Or say the heck with all that meta stuff and just vote for them if you think they belong anyway.
Still strange that Manny is within 4 points of A-Rod, given the vast gulf in their overall value.
Makes sense. If you have a vote and liked the guy’s career then vote him. I don’t see a vast gulf between Manny and A-Rod though. A-Rod piled up a few more numbers with his 2500 more plate appearances but Manny actually averaged more doubles, RBIs and walks per season with a substantially better avg and OBP. Not that A-Rod was Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith but he probably was a little better defending his positions than Manny who was relatively serviceable in left. After watching those careers simultaneously though I think I’d rather have Manny in my everyday lineup just because you got more production on average and he was a pure monster in the clutch.
The best thing about Ichiro batting 1.000 in the vote is that are no blank ballots this year!
That is what every year should be like. So far, the minimum ballot is two. That was for Ichiro and CC.
Johan Santana should’ve been in the hall of fame. He had better numbers than all the pitchers on this ballot. It was a mistake he fell off after the first ballot.
When I compare Addie Joss, Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax to Johan Santana and Felix Hernandez, I think there’s very close to a match. Santana and Felix lacked the press, not the talent.
Santana is one of those guys that makes me have to really think about the effect of press coverage, fanfare and popularity. I really liked him when he was pitching but I also felt he disappeared a little too soon. I don’t think Felix Hernandez is a Hall of Famer and Santana compares to him in several aspects. But another guy Santana compares pretty closely to and actually falls short of in some ways is David Price. And I definitely don’t see him as a Hall of Famer either. I think in the overall career department, Price tops Santana in several areas and they are otherwise pretty even. But I think Santana piled it up in a few dominant seasons and faded in a little bit whereas, Price piled it up over the long term.
But with the Hall becoming what it has, I guess I’m not going to share any tears if all three of them were in honestly at this point because there’s just no rhyme or reason anymore anyway.
Santana should’ve won 3 cy youngs, instead of 2. I think that was a mistake. They gave it to Bartolo Colón when Santana had a better year. Then Santana would’ve probably be a lock with 3 cy young awards. Santana’s is to me pretty much compared to Sandy Koufax in terms of his strike out seasons and ERA. Both pitchers had short careers, but if you check Sanatana’s career ERA none of those pitchers were at his level, only Koufax who did better than him.
Santana was awesome when he was awesome. About 04-08. Yes I would have given him the Cy Young in 05. I probably also would have given it to Jon Garland before Bartolo Colon that but that’s why I have pretty little use for voted on awards. They’re nice to see guys win but when deciding on Hall of Fame candidacy, I pretty much ignore them all together. So many years you can look at and see somebody else should have won any given award. 56 games is a wonderful hitting streak but it certainly didn’t make DiMaggio’s entire season better than Williams who batted over .400 for the last time in history. But DiMaggio got the MVP. I’m sure plenty of fans, especially Yankee fans, would argue in his favor but that argument seems like I reach to me. Again very opinionated.
Santana vs Price is a closer comparison than Santana vs Koufax. Yes Santana had some great strike out years but not quite as great as Koufax. And at the end of their careers, Koufax had a pretty dominant 2.76 ERA, about 45 points lower than Santana. Santana, at 3.20 was only 12 points lower than Price at 3.32. Price and Santana also very close together in strikeouts per game, hits per game etc. and for overall career numbers, Santana didn’t even get to 2000 strikeouts and won a good chunk of games less than Price or Koufax. Like I said, I think Santana had a great run for 5 years and okay for another 3 maybe but for the length of his career, I would have liked to see an ERA under three and at least 2000-2200 Ks before I throw him in the Hall. If Santana had even 200 more Ks and an ERA around 2.80 then you are talking about much closer to Koufax and this is a different conversation. I still loved watching him pitch but there are quite a few guys I love to watch who I don’t wear a little bit shy of the Hall.
hi everyone, I wanted to stop in and personally thank everyone for leaving my name out of the hall of fame conversation, since I do not belong
love,
Omar Vizquel
I could not have said it any better myself
Adios hombre
Voters need to analyze better their choices when voting.
Unless if in the unreleased ballots either Andruw Jones or Carlos Beltran pick up more votes than they are currently picking up, it looks like the writers will only be putting in 3 guys this year…
Ichiro Suzuki
C.C. Sabathia
Billy Wagner
With Andruw Jones and Carlos Beltran being poised to get in next year, and Chase Utley coming up short next year. And of the new comers only Ryan Braun staying on the ballot, unless if Edwin Encarnacion, Cole Hammels, Matt Kemp, Chris Davis, Nick Markakis, Alex Gordon, Daniel Murphy, Rick Porcello, Hunter Pence, Gio Gonzalez, Matt Wieters, Jason Kipnis, Kelvin Herrera, Shin-Soo Choo, Edison Volquez, Howie Kendrick, and Jeff Semardzia can get enough votes to stay on the ballot past next year.
Of course, there were only 28 on this year’s ballot with 14 returnees and 14 newcomers. 2 of the new comers and one of the returnees is likely to get in this year, with 2 new comes on track to return next year, with 3 newcomers and 1 returnee on the bubble to falling off and not making it to next year and 9 newcomers not yet having received any votes. So, maybe only 14 of the 18 potential candidates who are eligible to get on the ballot actually making it.
—
Next year, I project Andruw Jones and Carlos Beltran get in with Chase Utley ending with 60 to 70 percent of the vote. It will be interesting which candidates make significant vote jumps. My guess is Andy Petite, Jimmy Rollins, Felix Rodriguez and Mark Buerle will be among those making the largest jumps with Omar Vizquel, Bobby Abreau, David Wright, Dustin Pedroia, and Francisco Rodriguez also making noticeable jumps, though none of those jumps will put them in range to make a run in the next two to three years.
—
In 2 years, Buster Posey and Jon Lester will be the headliners of the new class. My guess is only Chase Utley will get in on the writer’s ballots maybe alongside Buster Posey, unless if some one starts making a run next year to position them to join Chase Utley and maybe Buster Posey, on a scale like what Larry Walker did a few years back.
—
In 3 years, I think 2 first timers get in with Albert Pujols and Yadier Molina going in with Robinson Canoe and David Price returning for the following ballot. David Price and anyone in the 50 to 60 percent range in the prior year has an outside chance of getting in that year.
—
The following year, Miguel Cabrera and Zack Greinke will likely be 1st ballot electees, with Nelson Cruz, Joey Votto, Adam Wainright, Corey Kluber, and Madison Bumgarner being the other headliners who will likely remain on the following year’s ballot. And again this may end up being a four person class.
Next year I would assume Hamels will get enough votes to stay on the ballot. Not sure Braun even had Hall of Fame stats to begin with but add on PED problems and he’ll have a tough time. The following year, I agree, Posey and Lester will stick around. Molina and Pujols are locks when their time comes and so is Cabrera. Probably Greinke too unless too many writers remember not liking his attitude and hold that against him. You know, because that’s what voting for great players should really be about.
Cano has a few stats over Kent and some less than Kent so if Kent isn’t a Hall of Famer then I don’t know how Cano could be. And then Cano had a couple of PED suspensions so that will easily give him the Manny Ramirez treatment since it happened after the new testing rules. Votto and Wainwright should get some serious attention and then guys like Price, Ryan Zimmerman and maybe even Strasburg will be in the conversations as well.
If CC Sabthia makes it on his first ballot, then Zack Greinke should be a first ballot as well.
Greinke had a great career and the type of career we are not going to see for a long time after guys like Scherzer, Verlander and Kershaw wrap it up. The new “wisdom” of the game has dictated that it’s more important for pitchers to go out there and destroy their arms for four innings then it is for them to actually pitch anymore. You now hear how rare a shutout has become. Well, obviously, you can’t pitch a shutout if they don’t let you get past the 4th or 5th inning. And from this standpoint, that would mean no pitcher would ever get into the Hall of Fame again since they are basically becoming just a reliever who starts the game and there are many who don’t think relievers are worthy of Hall consideration. Then again, there are many who will concoct new ways to evaluate them based on ridiculous metrics that illustrate they’ve done something of value while averaging 4.5 innings a game in their careers and ending up around maybe 1500 strikeouts if they can avoid having five Tommy John surgeries that keep them out every third season.
Anyway, Greinke certainly has the qualifications in comparison with several other guys who are in. If you compare him to Sabathia, he is a little short on the strikeouts but only 21 short of 3,000 and, otherwise, actually had a better overall career and should walk right through the door.
He compares less favorably though to a guy like Schilling. Not by a hell of a lot but enough to consider how his personality will affect him. Schilling is a no doubter, only kept out because the children in the media don’t like him. From this standpoint, Greinke was kind of a weird guy, speaking his mind and saying not so popular things at times. Some have accepted emotional/ mental issues as the reasoning and, while that seems likely and understandable, others think he was a surly jerk who thought he was above the fans and the game. So I imagine it will come down to sorting out those perceptions to define his case, as ridiculous as that is. He has not officially retired yet but, assuming he doesn’t pitch again, we should find out around 2029 I guess.
Exactly, but compare Greinke’s WAR with Sabathia’s. Compare the ERA also, Greinke’s ERA was better than Sabathia’s too. Greinke was just 21 ks away from 3,000 and thank God he retired, cause his last season was awful. But Greinke was way better than Sabathia. If Greinke was a Yankee pitcher and Sabathia was with the Royals we shouldnt talking about CC here.
One of the teams I have always liked his Boston, therefore I have never been a big Cleveland or New York fan. And I have liked Cleveland even less since they went with this new high school sounding name of theirs. If they were so hell bent on changing the name to appease the woke crowd, they should have gone with one of their former names like the Lakeshores or the Broncos or my personal favorite, the Spiders, which was the name of their American Association team that disbanded prior to the current incarnation.
Anyway, that gets me off track but Sabathia pitched for Cleveland and New York for basically his entire career with the exception of about 15 minutes in Milwaukee. So for obvious reasons, he would not be one of my favorite players but Boston did tune him up pretty good twice in the 07 playoffs and again in 18, both on the way to championships. At any rate, he was still one of the top pictures in the game, like him or not. Yes, I have said his era was a little high for my taste and would be the highest of anyone in the 3000 strikeout club. But it’s not like it was five or six and he was just out there getting shellacked day in and day out while mysteriously piling up strikeouts. He had some really good seasons and 3,000 strikeouts is 3,000 strikeouts so I certainly don’t begrudge him a spot in the Hall. Seeing these infantile voters keep Schilling out makes it a little more difficult but that is not Sabathia’s fault. At 3.49, Greinke did have the better era and I probably would have also given him the Cy Young in 2015 which would have given him two. However, the argument can be made that he never had a 20-win season, in spite of pitching for three first place Dodger teams in a row and some pretty good Houston teams. Unfortunately he was well on his way downhill by the time he got to Houston and a good chunk of his career was spent pitching for that triple a team in Kansas City. I don’t care about war but everywhere else, they happen to be relatively even. Strikeouts per game, walks per game, hits per game etc with Greinke, again, having the better ERA and Sabathia having the better winning percentage. I think there is no doubt that Sabathia would get into the Hall of Fame and if you’re concern is about first ballot, second ballot whatever, I have to imagine Greinke will probably also go his first time around. Think about who’s coming up and you’re going to have guys like Pujols, Cabrera and Molina walk right through the door in classes that will likely see most guys fall off the ballot pretty quickly. So there won’t be a hell of a lot of reasons to hold Greinke down when his turn comes up. No matter what teams I like, I’m a baseball fan first and foremost and you are right, Sabathia doesn’t overwhelm you to the point that you don’t have a question but he want a lot of games and struck out 3000 guys. Yes I would like to see any ra more like 3.25 but he is what he is.
Cleveland Spiders were an NL team for 11 years (1889-1899). They played for two years in the AA as the CLEVELAND BLUES.
Yes that is correct. They were also in NL team which I did not mention but that brings to mind that, out of the two other names they used while in the AA, either of those would have been better as well. Blues might be a little overused between St Louis’ hockey franchise and it’s attachment to Blue Jays and Blue jackets etc but the Cleveland Forest might have been a nice take as well in salute to the Forest Cities name they briefly used in the AA as well as the first professional team in Cleveland and a nickname for the city itself. So I guess I might be torn between the Cleveland Forest which would be pretty cool and different compared to most professional sports teams names and the Cleveland Spiders which, I think, has a really cool nostalgic feel to it. But I’m sure some group of bored-out-of-their-minds, “do-gooders” would eventually come along and determine that Cleveland ownership as insulted arachnids or trees and ruin the whole thing anyway.
I think they should have gone with the Cleveland Buckeyes.
The Cleveland Spiders played in the National League. They have nothing to do with the current Cleveland AL franchise. And the Spiders never competed in the American Assocation.
This is going crazy.
That team started playing in the AA in ’87 as Cleveland Forest Citys, a nickname for Cleveland and the name of the first pro team in Cleveland. They were also referred to as the Blues because of the uniform colors. They moved to the NL in ’89 and took the name Spiders in their first NL season. The owners, Frank and Stan Robinson I believe their names were, purchased a team in St. Louis that took the place of the first St. Louis Browns NL team after they were expelled for not being able to pay their dues etc because they were doing very poorly. The Robinson brothers abandoned the Browns nickname looking for a fresh start and some local reporters started calling them the Perfectos. This team eventually became the Cardinals due to the cardinal Ted uniform trim and socks. The Robinson brothers bled the Cleveland team and sent the best talent to the St Louis team because the area had a denser population and they wanted to build a better product there. Burkett, Young and Wallace helped St Louis quickly become respectable while the Cleveland Spiders went to complete crap. Spiders still have records for 101 road losses in a season (unlikely to be broken since no team please not many road games with the normalized schedule now) and 134 losses in a season overall. The NL contracted from 12 teams to 8 and that was the end of the Spiders.
No, the Spiders were not the Indians and I believe I mentioned in the beginning of all this that the AA team (which became the NL team), disbanded before the current incarnation.
Anyway, I was just trying to say I liked the Spider name best of former Cleveland team names. Not the same team as the Indians obviously, but any pro team Cleveland had. You know, part of the historical fabric of the city’s sports landscape.
Guess I just like spiders. But I still think Cleveland Forest would be a good take on the old city nickname too. And no one else has it.
Yeah I think Greinke should easily go. I don’t really care about first and second ballots and all that garbage. That’s just writers thinking to have some power to wield.
Baseball fan, so if that’s where you see Greinke and Sabathia, how do you see Hamels’ chances next year? He did not accumulate the wins but he pitched 160 less games than Greinke. Better strikeouts per game, half a walk more per game and exactly the same hits per game. And he had a better era than both of them. Again, less games and less innings but not so short that it wasn’t a full career. It comes up next year, do you think he goes in?
Don Newcombe has 149 career major league wins and he’s not in the Hall of Fame. Dizzy Dean has 150 career major league wins (not to mention getting lampooned in a Merrie Melodies cartoon) and he’s in the Hall of Fame.
Joking aside, then was a folk hero in his time yes he had six really good seasons four of those were better than really good and two of them were awesome. But the Cardinals became wildly popular because there was no team south or west of them at that time so they had a pretty big fan base and they were very likable. Especially due to Dean’s wacky personality. The guy said crazy things before Berra said crazy things. “Fractured? Hell, the damn thing’s broken!” But I would guess between the popularity of the Gashouse Gang and the release of The Pride of St Louis, Dean’s life story, the year before he was elected probably played a large role. These were crazy times on the ballot. The balance were extremely overloaded in fact, Dean’s first ballot contained 56 future Hall of Famers. Guys like Foxx, Ott, Gheringer, and so on waited years for induction. I don’t discount Newcombe at all but you can see there were a lot of circumstances at play here and you also could never discount the power of a Hollywood movie in 1952, a time where motion pictures were one of about five things people had for entertainment back then.
Dean had a 30-win season, Newc had 27. Welch had 27 and more than 200 wins, career, and there’s no ground swell for Welch and 20 other guys who had 20-win seasons and won more-or-less than 200 games. Tiant and Tommy John, etc. on the shelf.
I think the Merrie Melodies cartoon puts you over the top.
Xray of Dean’s head finds nothing. Voted in on the 3rd or 4th ballot by BBWA.
The context of time – with modern baseball and the Hall of Fame both in their infancy…of course the public was excited about the efforts of Dean…his first 6 1/2 years were legendary for that time period… One MVP and 2 second place MVPs…Overuse and all of the “sideshow’ business ruined his career. But by 1930 standards – he did stuff never seen before in baseball.
Now time moves forward 90 years and 1000s of more players and we have the context of time to reexamine his career and the decisions of the BBWA…We cannot go back in time – we can complain – but 90 years ago Dizzy was special. And he put together six straight years of some of the greatest pitching EVER seen.
So no – I don’t agree we can now lower “counting” standards because Dizzy only had these many wins, strikeouts, etc. Otherwise we would have another 100+ pitchers in the Hall. In the context of time – although he had some great years – Bob Welch’s 17 year career doesn’t not compare to Dean (let’s not forget Steve Stone won 25 games in a year). Newcombe had five solid years ,and it’s a shame he missed two years due to WWII, but we can’t start making up numbers and scenarios based on military or injuries. We can even make a negative scenario that Don pitches in 1952 and blows-out his arm and 1955-56 never existed. What happened on the field – happened on the field…no excuses that David Wright WOULD have been better than so-n-so if his back was stronger.
So in 1930’s America – Dizzy Dean was the nation’s Lebron, Ohtani, etc … Athletes bigger than the sport.
4 days left for the announcement of who will be elected and only 40% reported….why?
Some voters hide their votes from all but the HOF. It is, after all, a “secret” ballot. Some are in process of revealing their choices now.
This is pretty much the way every year Steve. I wouldn’t anticipate it’s ever going to be any better than this. But hey, it’s certainly better than years back when you had no idea at all until it was all announced. At least now we have trickling anticipation to piss us off along the way and give us all a reason to be debating on this forum.
ichiro is legend
Interesting to see Beltran trickle higher and Jones stay flat recently. I was seeing many projecting both to fall short but Beltran might just hold on.
BTW, love this site and the service it provides. Is there a way, for next year, to add an option for the newest comments to be at the top? It’d make it easier to navigate and engage.
Was thinking about that as well. I think if everything stays at the top though you would still only be answering the most recent comments since you have to keep scrolling down to find the subject you are more interested in. Maybe some way to put a little search bar in there where you could enter specific player names and it would bring up the comments involving those players? I don’t know. With all of the different stuff going on you still might miss it. I don’t know if there’s a way to alleviate that. It is pretty fun the way it is anyway and just takes time to go through and find stuff. It is pretty fun either way. It’s too bad we only do this until the votes are announced and then everyone kind of goes away until next year.
I do hope you’re right and Beltran stays hot. I feel he belongs in there. How much punishment can you give the guy when he was literally the scapegoat for the entire thing while no one else was named or penalized?? They said he was part of the conception of the idea and that he did not necessarily carry out the actions. So he should take a lifelong punishment for things a bunch of other people did? Thankfully, it seems a lot of the voters have figured that out. They clearly are not going to put the PED thing in the past but at least they seem to be getting this right.
Just took a quick look at article posted by Bradford Doolittle. He’s maintaining that Jones and Suzuki are similar in that, they would have both been Hall of Famers after the first 10 years of their careers. Did this guy really write this?
At 10 years Suzuki was batting over .330 with a .376 OBP. And about a thousand more hits than Jones in the first 10 years. Starting with Jones first full year, and aggregating that 10-year period, his average was in the 260s with 337 home runs, less than 300 doubles and again, a thousand less hits than Suzuki. Defense was great but the only way I could see this argument as if Jones suffered some terrible fatal disaster at 30 and everyone just assumed his career would have continued on the same way. But in fact, we know it would not continue that way because he played it and it was pretty terrible after 30. Like him all you want but that’s not a very valid argument.
only 50%+ of the votes have been shown?
It should’ve been 50% back on New Year’s Day!
Why do the BBWAA do this to us?
Right now at 2pm EST, 4 will get elected.
Now post-results, a couple things shine out (Congrats to the 3 inductees):
– Beltran, Jones and Utley took big hits from the unknown voters, while saving Hunter. I’m assuming many of the unknowns are the old-timers. Jones has 2 years left…can he make it?
– Of course…someone had to be That Guy and prevent Ichiro from 100%. Looking forward to hearing some pretentious writer’s pathetic justification for that (and curious if they have a Yankees association).
– As a Red Sox fan I’m happy to see Petey over 10%.
With all those votes cleared out, and (to me) only 1 or 2 remotely viable, but not 1st ballot, candidates coming in (Hamels and Braun), next year should be wide open and very interesting!
Congratulations to the turd who did not vote for Suzuki. You are now in the D-Bag Hall of Fame with the 20 clowns who didn’t vote for Ted Williams, the 23 putzes who didn’t vote for Stan Musial, the 43 boneheads who didn’t think Mickey Mantle belonged and every other fool who didn’t vote for the most obvious guys just because they were jackasses who shouldn’t have ballots in their hands. Way to go clown, you’ve enlightened us all with your amazing powers of stupidity to make a statement of some kind that impresses only you.
Must feel pretty amazing to be the loser who doesn’t vote for Suzuki. What a skidmark in the underpants of society.
Idiot. In ’16 the writers voted 80-9 to require publicizing all ballots. The Hall rejected the proposal. Find out who the 9 were and your lone dissenter is likely in there.
Congratulations to Ichiro and CC! Well deserved!
Looking forward –
Matt Kemp, Rick Porcello, Alex Gordon, Shin Shoo-Choo, Edwin Encarnación, Hunter Pence, Nick Markakis, Cole Hamels and Ryan Braun
Hamels is the closest thing to deserving of any votes next year of the new guys. I don’t think Braun is even borderline and that’s before his admitted PED use. Don’t think any of these other guys are even close.
Next year I’d vote Beltran, Pedroia, Wright, Ramirez, A-Rod, K-Rod, Abreu, Hunter, Buehrle and Pettitte if I had a vote.
Looks good to me. Hopefully the veterans committee can correct some long overdue wrongs.
I like your choices, but I still think Andruw. Tough question is who from your list to omit. Ten months to consider.
This was my ninth season following the tracker. Always amazed at the self-indulgence, pomposity and outright arrogance of some of the BBWAA members who vote. There is only one question a voter needs to ask when marking the ballot: is this player worthy of the Hall of Fame? You are not saying is the player one of the greatest of all-time. All you are asking is while the player was active, did he perform at a HOF-level?
So one ballot in the box and already I wonder… How do you see Andruw Jones in the hall and not Bobby Abreu? Let’s get the obvious argument out of the way, for everyone who cares about war, they’re really not far apart at all. The easy for Jones, he has 150 home runs, 11 slugging points and 9 gold gloves on Abreu. On the flip side, Abreu has him by 600 walks, 250 steals, 200 doubles, 550 hits, 250 runs, 25 triples, 60 OBP points, 50 ops points, 80 RBIs and he batted almost 40 points higher than Jones. I know there is a lot of love for Jones’s defense but nine gold gloves trumps all of that?? I don’t see it.
Suzuki should be unanimous, Sabathia would get my vote, Beltran should already be in, as should Wagner, and I guess I wouldn’t begrudge Utley a spot but again, comparatively I don’t see his overall numbers blowing away Ian Kinsler so not sure how one goes and one doesn’t but hey whatever.
The steroid thing is beyond ridiculous at this point, Ramirez is on a pedestal with Ruth, Williams, Foxx, Mays and a small handful of other guys who have batted .300 and belted 500 home runs. Maybe he juiced but that’s not what makes you a Hall of Fame hitter. And unless you’re going to purge the hall of all cheaters and wrongdoers then this argument is extremely stale.
Bobby Abreu is just one of those guys who gets overlooked because of his lack of accolades. Very similar to Dwight Evans; has the numbers of a Hall of Famer, but not the name recognition.
Yes I think if there is ever a most-underated all-time team Abreu and Evans are sure-fire starters.
Dale Murphy
Please keep in mind that I am in no way opposed to Abreu. I never heard a word criticizing his defense when he was playing. But I look at Reggie Smith, Fred Lynn, Bobby Bonilla, Shawn Green, and Brian Giles, all of whom comp out ahead of Hunter=Abreu and there is no rumble for any of them the way that there is for, say, Dwight Evans and Dale Murphy. We are really splitting hairs here, but I don’t get why Dwight and Dale are on the shelf. Hence Abreu= Hunter join a long line of other truly excellent outfielders.
Had to look up that Murphy was NOT in the HOF !! What’ up with that?
Yeah he always seemed really obvious. Dewey too.
If you’re going with a team of guys who should be in the hall there’s a lot to pick from. If I’m looking at it overall, you have all the ped guys with clearly hall-worthy resumes and you could make pretty close to a team there. Then of course Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. I figured I would only use suspected ped guys, no one who failed a test, was suspended, admitted to juicing or was otherwise proven to likely use peds by things like Balco documents and Radomski’s collection of receipts and checks, etc. Not that I personally would keep those guys out of the hall, because I wouldn’t but they would take up most of the team so it’s a little more fun to do without them since they are that obvious. Didn’t include anyone who is on the ballot or still eligible because they haven’t been on a ballot yet but will be. And then I didn’t use Rose or Jackson either because they are still banned from baseball so they wouldn’t get votes anyway. Again, I don’t agree with it and I think they belong in the hall but…
Starter / backup
1B: Don Mattingly/ CarlosDelgado
2B: Jeff Kent/ Lou Whitaker
SS: Bill Dahlen/ Nomar Garciaparra
3B: Ken Boyer/ Darrell Evans
C: Thurman Munson/ Gene Tennace
RF: Dwight Evans/ Bobby Bonds
CF: Jim Edmonds/ Dale Murphy
LF: Lance Berkman/ Bob Johnson
SP: Roger Clemens
Curt Schilling
Tommy John
Luis Tiant
David Cone
RP: John Franco
Joe Nathan
Jonathan Papelbon
Tom Henke
And in the interest of a 26-man roster I’ll throw in Firpo Marberry here since he started and relieved in a time where relievers weren’t really a big thing yet.
I found I really could go around one more time without too much stretching but it’s a 26 man roster off the top of my head.
Really like this. Was thinking of throwing one up there but most of my guys around your list. So here’s my shot at an all-ped team. Might not match with some other people’s because I’m only using guys that either failed a test, get suspended or some documentation was produced against them. Not a big hearsay guy so you’re not going to find Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza or Ivan Rodriguez on my list.
C- Yasmani Grandal
1B- Palmeiro
2B- Cano
3B- A-Rod
SS- Tejada
LF- Manny
CF- Cameron
RF- Sheffield
DH- McGwire
SP- Pettitte
Brown
Colon
Mercker
Neagle
RP- Mota
Rocker
Gagne
I know Cameron isn’t sexy but I wanted to use guys that actually played the positions and not move other guys there. I don’t care how good Bonds was I just know he was a terrible chemistry guy so I wouldn’t put him on my team.
I would also by the way put all these guys in the hall that deserve it. They were only doing what probably 50% of the sport was doing and you try having your livelihood threatened by not keeping up with the Joneses and see how “moral” you suddenly are then. Good job BBWAA…
This list really looks like someone who did the homework. I think Vern Stephens was THE offensive shortstop of the 1940’s, Cecil Travis of the 8 years before WWII. My outfielders would include Bobby Veach and Barney McCoskey. I would have to include Ed Reulbach. But I really like including Munson, Henke, Delgado and Bob Johnson.
Very nice. Here’s another round without Pat’s guys and uses a couple of Robert’s guys-
C- Wally Schang
1B- Keith Hernandez
2B- Bobby Grich
SS- Vern Stephens
3B- Greg Nettles
RF- Bobby Abreu
CF- Kenny Lofton
LF- Sherry Maggee
SP- Dave Stieb
Rick Reuschel
Ed Reulbach
Vida Blue
Don Newcombe
RP- Dan Quisinberry
Agreeing with Jim Edmonds (slug 527) I see that his best comps are Lance Berkman (537), Ellis Burks (510) and Duke Snider (540). So why was he one and done (Nomar went in the same flame)? On the same ballot were Sosa, Wagner, Sheffield, Mcgwire, Kent, Barry Bonds, Curt Schilling and 11 currently in the Hall of Fame. Somehow the business with Bonds, Clemens and Schilling should have been cleaned up and not permitted to clog the voting for 10 years. Are they in or out? If they get voted in, what are we saying? They weren’t banned but they had “flaws”. Oh, my, don’t we all. This ex post facto judgment is fouling up the system and continues to do so. I vote for Joe Jackson, but not Pete Rose.
Right in line with my thinking. I have said a million times that I don’t understand why we are treating these guys like murderers. In the cases of guys who either admitted it or documentation was found via Balco, Biogenesis, 16, whatever, yes they made a mistake. Who the hell hasn’t?? And for the ones who came clean, how long do you need to beat them over the head for? What is the value in apologizing and seeking redemption if your tormentors are relentless? As far as the guys there is no proof on, who the hell do you think you are deciding that they are guilty and not voting for them? Do you have the right to not vote for somebody? Of course you do. Do you have the right to make a fool of yourself? You have that as well. Not too many of us are sitting out here saying “Boy those good old boys really held ol’ Roger’s feet to the flame on this one! Good job fellas!”. It looks ridiculous. Similar to the alleged Joe Jackson confession, if you can’t hand over I am glad, documented proof on judgment day, what the hell are you doing? Is the BBWAA a communist organization?
This nonsense clogged up the ballots for years and led to ridiculous arguments about guys like Edmonds being ignored because of so many other options ahead of him. What options? Most of those guys didn’t even get elected because of this wretched tomfoolery. If you’re going to Black bowl the guys then just say so and get them the hell off the ballot so that other deserving guys can pick up votes and consideration where it is merited. If you’re going to judge someone’s dignity, then you should have some of your own and stepping on someone’s throat who is already choking is not a very commendable sign of dignity.
Iron-clad proof
and
Blackball
A couple others right off the top of my head are Sherry Magee and Kenny Lofton? Since you included closers how about Dan Quisenberry?
Here’s a good team. For everyone who thinks ped guys should not be voted in because peds made them great.
C- Tim Laker
1B- Larry Bigbie
2B- Tim Beckham
SS- Mike Morse
3B- Chris Donnels
RF- Adam Piatt
CF- Nook Logan
LF- Chad Allen
P- Augustin Montero
Juan Salas
David Rollins
Daniel Naulty
Jason Grimsley
Paxton Crawford
Ricky Bones
Jason Christiansen
Andrew McKirahan
How’s that for a sweet all-ped team? Every one of these guys either admitted to ped use or failed a test. Looks like you might need a little bit more than peds to be a great baseball player.
I agree, but one would think that with all the stats available, one would catch players like Abreu and Evans.
It would make sense but it seems like these clowns are forsaking every actual thing a guy has done and voting based on tarot cards and theoretical garbage instead
The guys who are underrated (like Abreu and his teammate Rolen) tend to do a lot of things well. The guys who are overrated tend to do one thing incredibly well.
Yeah and those are the guys that help you win games most often so voters like to ignore the hell out of them
Very much so and it is kind of a shame to overlook Bobby Abreu. .395 OBP is awesome.. 291 avg isn’t too shabby either. 574 doubles is pretty amazing. People like to overlook The 20/20 Club but it’s not that easy to do consistently and he did it nine times. Second only to a pair of guys named Bonds for each did it 10 times. Also, he may not have been the preeminent power hitter of his generation but six guys in all of major league history ever have hit 250 home runs and stolen 400 bags in a career. The two guys named Bonds once again, Biggio, Morgan, Henderson and of course, Abreu. Say what you want about his defense but he held his own and obviously well enough that, no one sent him to the American League so he could DH because he sucked in the field so bad. Accepting defense as an important part of the game is a good thing but, like many other measuring sticks in recent years, many people have gone way overboard with it. Like anything else worth measuring, find the happy medium and apply it accordingly. Defense is very important but having a great defender doesn’t mean too much if he’s an automatic out at the plate. Great defense can stop and limit runs but if you can’t score them, you still aren’t winning. No one is going to confuse Bobby Abreu with Keith Hernandez or Ozzie Smith but these offensive accomplishments definitely spell Hall of Fame. Not too many guys put together an all around complete game like this and it should very easily be recognized.
I hear you there. I’ve made this case to people as well. Seems people look for very specific things and have developed a certain tunnel vision. These defensive player arguments are getting to the point that it sounds, at times, like some people think defense is enough for the Hall of Fame. You’re not going to change everyone’s minds if they all get on the same boat and think they see the same shore. People tend to latch onto a popular idea and beat it to death in most cases of opinion. Certainly right that defense should play a role but as I’ve long thought, judging it is too subjective and speculative at best so saying a guy’s a great defender and voting him in despite not much on offense will always have that air of ambiguity. On the other hand, saying a guy like Abreu is not a Hall of Famer and using his defense as a big negative is just as silly. The attributes and accomplishments here are certainly no joke and put him in pretty impressive and limited company. It’s pretty ridiculous how little support this guy gets. Baseball Fan has , several times mentioned a lack of true analysis and he’s right.
I know that a number of experts really like the black ink, leading the league in categories such as batting average, HR, ERA, etc. But players who consistently put up big numbers but seem to be second or third also contribute to their teams’ success. While many of the Black Ink folks are the best of the best, there is still room for players who put up top-tier career numbers in the hall.
Of course there is. The voters who look at modern hocus pocus don’t see value in actual stats. They call them counting stats now in an attempt to belittle their reality. The folks who look for only all-time great, undisputed results see the biggest of the real stats and percentage stats like avg, OBP and SLG. Somehow not many can recognize the true greatness in long-term consistency. If you could see careers ahead of time, why would you take a guy with only a 5 year peak if you could have a guy who might not lead the league but he’ll be an upper tier producer, providing consistent value far longer than that?
This is test ballot. It’s there until first ballot
He was a good player, but can a player who has never finished in the top 10 in MVP voting be given the greatest title of his generation, the Hall of Fame?
MVP like most awards is so crooked and popularity oriented who cares?
It’s like reading tea leaves. One leaf means as much as one vote, but when a player gets votes year-after-year it’s not just charity. Griffey Jr getting votes 10 different years was not based on his smile. Enos Slaughter getting votes 8 different years may explain why he’s in. Beltran 7, Abreu 7, Edmonds 6. Are we there yet? Vern Stephens 9.
I don’t think it’s charity so much as maybe ingrained repetition. Plenty of guys have good years and I’m sure many voters take it seriously but if you look back at every MVP race, you can find a lot of “Seriously?” moments. Just like annual All-star snubs. Gold gloves etc. It will always be subjectively silly but I think you could at least rule out guys who’s team misses the post season. How can that guy be the most valuable player of the year? Offensive player of the year? Ok. More accurate but to call it most valuable, the guy should actually be the most valuable.
I love the people who moan about Harold Baines being in
the HOF. He’s going to open the door for players with 1600 RBIs and 384 home runs. For whom does this door open? Pujols, A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Miguel Cabrera, Rafael Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, and Sammy Sosa, Pujols and Cabrera don’t need someone else to open the door for them. Beltran missed by 13 RBIs. The jury seems to be hanged on the other six, having nothing whatever to do with Baines.
Agreed. Baines is not the worst choice in Hall of Fame history. Beltran reached 400 homers and almost 600 doubles with a good chunk of steals though he batted lower than Baines. But also a great defender out there. Funny, of Tom and argument against Baines is along the lines of him playing forever to reach the numbers he reached. And, yes I would have liked to see him get to 3000 hits or at least 400 whole breads and 500 doubles but it’s not like the guy batted .260 either so I can’t say his induction is appalling. But it does make the Carlos Beltran thing look pretty stupid. And again, childish. Maybe he was in on the meetings talking about how they could do the same decoding thing but by any account I’ve heard he wasn’t actually doing the thing. And either way, the Astros weren’t the only ones doing it they were just the ones to get caught and be made an example of.
I wonder how many players really think it’s the greatest title of their careers anymore. After watching some of the inductions over the years you have to think there are some intelligent players out there who recognize the devaluation of a plaque on a wall. Does anyone really think the Rolling Stones are crying about how many more gold and platinum records The Beatles have? I doubt it
Well first off, I don’t necessarily think Abreu is a Hall of Fame lock type of guy. My real point I guess is that neither is Jones but if I had to choose between the two it would definitely be Abreu since as illustrated above, he clearly tops Jones all over the map. But I think this also illustrates why piling up some awards is not a barometer for a hall of famer. Go back through the first year of MVP voting, look up the top 20 finalists and as you go through every year, count up how many times you can easily make an argument that the winner should not have won and possibly should not have even come in the top five. Then throw away all the hypothetical modern so-called metrics and see how many guys could easily have gotten the attention of the voters had they been maybe more flashy or created a larger celebrity platform for themselves. Abreu was not Superstar material personality-wise but he quietly put together 9 20-20 seasons with a pair of 30-30 seasons thrown in there, was a solid if not spectacular fielder, ended up right around .300 annually and was definitely never the reason his teams didn’t go all the way. He sat around through Philadelphia’s rebuild years with a couple of guys like maybe Rolen and Burrell in his lineups and only caught the beginning of the Utley / Rollins/ Howard years. He was shipped off to New York where he gave them a few good seasons and then toiled away in California with not much around him to speak of there. Far too often the guys who get the MVP votes put up maybe some huge home run numbers and don’t bat their weight and a guy like Abreu, quietly puts together solid all around season after solid all around season and is ignored. But that’s the nature of the beast. A guy who goes out there every day and bats .300, gets on base, please solid defense, steals bases and moves himself along, scores runs and piles up some extra base hits is far more valuable to me than a guy who hits 50 bombs but we probably have to wait a week between solid performances before he runs into a good fastball. Look how many times a guy wins MVP and his team doesn’t even get into the playoffs. How valuable is that?
On the other hand, if you look at Jones, he very strongly resembles a guy like Darrell Evans with some gold gloves. Or better yet, Dale Murphy with a handful more of gold gloves. If either of those two guys had batted somewhere around .300 for their careers, they’d have been in the hall long ago. So why would we now ignore all of that for a guy who batted .254? Because of some gold gloves? Okay he was a good fielder but so were several other guys. And the guy who is a little more flashy like Jones generally takes the cake. There have been plenty of cases throughout baseball history where a guy just becomes the consensus favorite through flashiness, personality, exposure and any number of intangibles and then we are left to look back and second guess. But I think that’s why we all kind of know that subjective awards only mean so much so I don’t know how they’ve become such a barometer for Hall of Fame qualifications. Murphy was an MVP and not only did he win five gold gloves but he played all three outfield positions after playing catcher and first base. He landed a pair of homers shy of 400, right around dead even with Jones everywhere else and batted 11 points higher. So how can we think a guy who never actually won an MVP, batted lower than this guy and otherwise replicates his career, beyond a handful of gold gloves is a hall of famer? Not to mention the domestic violence thing. People make mistakes and move on and they should be entitled to but somehow I don’t see how a bunch of voters can beat the hell out of some guys who took peds, which hurt no one else physically by the way, and ignore a guy man-handling his wife. I guess I’m no expert on moral ethics but that seems far worse to me. And as for the argument that he didn’t cheat the game, technically, there are ethics clauses in MLB rules so by that standard, yes he did. He blatantly screwed the game out of it’s moral value from the standpoint that his popularity represented a face of the game and that kind of behavior doesn’t represent it very well.
Well, calm down. There are many cases where a majority vote leads to unsatisfactory results. For example, I can’t even accept that Beltran is on this list. But if it’s decided by the votes of several hundred experts, we have no choice but to accept it.
Oh I’m calm, nothing personal brother. But I think you kind of help me make the point.
“But if it’s decided by the votes of several hundred experts, we have no choice but to accept it.”
What the hell makes someone an “expert” in opinions? Getting a job as a talking head? Watching baseball games? We all watch baseball games.
I may not work for some daily herald or worse, some piece of crap sports blog on a computer where I spout off the same things all my peers spout off because we don’t have an original thought between us but I certainly have watched more than enough baseball in my time to know the difference between who’s good and who’s not. And all without the help of fictitious, hypothetical “statistics”. Like I don’t need “war” to tell me who somebody “might” be better than. And I can’t rely on things like total zone defensive whatever to tell me what somebody “should” be able to do. How can you sit on a sideline, wishing you were as good as the people on the field and make crap-headed decisions about what someone’s fielding range should be? (Again, not you personally but, these so-called experts).
Not sure why you don’t like Beltran but as far as the choices for Hall of Fame induction, this guy blows away most of the list. 2700 hits, 400 home runs, 300 steels, almost 600 doubles, and he was one hell of a centerfielder. .279 avg isn’t glorious but it’s also not horrible, especially combined with all the other numbers he put up. But he banged on some trash cans so he’s going to get punished as well. He may be just shy of traditional benchmarks across the board but in a time when most people are, and the supposed “experts” are looking for people to get behind, he’s one of the closest things to it on the list.
Sign stealing has been part of the game since day one. Obviously the Astros were a little more elaborate in their approach but the result is no different than a guy standing on second base, deciphering the catcher signs and relaying them to the dugout. That’s happened for decades upon decades and no one was ever kept out of the Hall of Fame for it or suspended indefinitely.
Once more, this is never personal between fans and some people let it get that way but, for those of us who are passionate fans and have watched this game our entire lives, accepting nonsense is not part of the plan. And this is just where we come to vent.
At the very least, they’ll give Jones a better rating than someone who calls his defense “some gold gloves and good fielder.”
If the best defensive center fielder since Mays hit more home runs than Stanton, I don’t need to analyze too closely and think he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
I see your view but you also said you don’t understand Beltran being on the list. He was an excellent defender, hit more home runs than Jones and beyond that blows him away and every other statistic.
400 home runs used to be pretty much a lock if you piled up any other meaningful stats. Konerko and Delgado not only have more home runs but more hits, doubles, higher averages etc and we’re basically afterthoughts in Hall of Fame voting. Torii Hunter may only have 350 homers but he has almost 500 doubles, nine gold gloves and again beats Jones all over the map. So I guess my point would be not so much, don’t elect Jones but how the hell do all these other guys fall so short in comparison? There is something drastically wrong with that system.
Believe me, though I’m no retired pro ball player, I played center field for years and I played it as hard as I could. I learned by watching footage of the greats and blew out my knees playing that hard. Backing up the right shielder, the left fielder, the two middle infielders and I played every game with the belief that there wasn’t a ball I wasn’t getting to. I love the value of great fielding as much as anyone and it was right up there with hitting and stealing bases as far as I was concerned, as my favorite things to do on a diamond. But if we’re going to look at guys with 400 plus home runs, .280 averages, at least 400 doubles and at least 2,000 hits, I can’t see how a guy who falls short of all of that except for 400 homers and great defense goes in while so many other guys who accomplished all of that do not.
I think Jones’ defense should be treated more like Ozzie Smith’s, not Torii Hunter’s or Greffey Jr’s.
The fact that he was the best defender of all time at a key position should make any issues with his hitting stats go away.
Of course, the reason I hate Beltran is because of the trash can. Because of him, even when I see a player like Acuna Jr. whose K% changed dramatically in just one year and all his batting stats improved, I always suspect he cheated first.
Personally, when it comes to Hall of Famers, I prefer players with unparalleled skills over players who have consistently achieved 20-20.
When I explain about Hall of Fame players 50 years from now, I don’t want to give a one-hour presentation to explain how great Abreu was. I think Hall of Fame players are the ones whose greatness is immediately obvious to everyone.
However, everyone has their own values, and your opinion has been formed through long experience, so I respect it.
Mostly I think we look at things the same way. But I can tell you I spent a lot of years wondering about guys cheating and how I felt about it. Long before we heard of trash can banging or anyone cared about steroids. When I first saw Jose Canseco at Fenway Park in the ’80s, there were people yelling steroids and laughing just because it was so obvious. I had a minor league baseball card of him and he looked like he was probably about 70 lb lighter only a couple of seasons before he got to the majors. McGwire was a beast when he showed up on the scene and nowhere near what he looked like in St Louis when he was about the size of a small mountain. But there were so many guys that started to look like that in pretty short order and everyone was just astounded by the power displays (the 98 Home run race was one of the greatest eras in baseball, gave the writers something to follow and rave about only for them to now take a crap on the same guys and pretend they are up in arms). And not every guy could provide it. That was part of why it wasn’t such a big deal. Before there were people telling us math equations to judge output, we could all see who was really good and who wasn’t. Felix Jose was a pretty good sized dude when he came up for the Athletics but he couldn’t hit his own ass with the toilet seat.
Beyond that, there have been guys who took amphetamines, snorted coke (Tim Raines nickname Rock was not because he was solid and he’s in the Hall of Fame), scuffed balls, rubbed any number of things on balls, corked bats and on and on. Stealing signs has been part of the game since long before I was alive. So now, when I’m coaching Little League kids, I have given those things a lot of thought over time. Every time I see a kid trying to do the hidden ball trick or trying to “frame” a pitch, the reality hits me that baseball has never been a clean game. Banging trash cans is simply the evolution of a runner standing on second and memorizing signs to later relay them to batters. We get worked up because we’d love to believe that to baseball players facing off is the epitome of gladiators doing battle in the arena. One-on-one, you against me, let’s see who gets the best of who from purely the standpoint of athleticism and talent. But that’s not baseball. No one ever calls a pitcher a cheater because he watches film. But he watches that film to pick up nuances and tendencies based on the batter’s history. He’s not facing that guy one on one from a clean slate, he’s going up there armed with knowledge that certain guys, standing a certain way will, 95% of the time go after a specific pitch. He’s basically playing the odds, just like Vegas. Where are things more impure than Vegas? I’m not saying it’s cheating but what I’m saying is that as long as there has been baseball, there have been players trying to get one over one way or another. But in this day and age, everyone seems to think they are a Puritan and that there is some glory to be gained by catching people doing something shady. What we really are doing is making fools of ourselves because, in reality, none of us are perfect or ever will be. When we have a Hall of Fame full of guys who have used drugs, displayed racism and employed any other tactics, not pure to the game, banging on trash cans kind of pales in comparison for me. And my real thought on sign stealing of any kind is that, I can tell you all day long what’s coming but it’s not automatic you’re going to hit it. And even if you do, there’s no guarantee you’re going to hit it well or well enough to get a base hit. Several guys on that Houston team have produced pretty good careers with or without the trash cans. And it’s not like Houston went 162 and 0 because they employed such a foolproof plot to foil the entire Major League. But, as you said, everyone’s going to have their opinion. That’s just how I’ve come to break it down in my time. By that same token though, holding guys accountable for shady behavior would definitely preclude a guy like Jones. I can’t think of too many things done to get a leg up in baseball that are worse than manhandling a woman.
As far as the defense, like I said, I value defense greatly but at the same time, from your standpoint of Hall of Famers being obvious, which I wholeheartedly agree with, Jones falls on the other side of that line to me. I feel that a kid looking at a list of the Hall of Fame center fielders would wonder why most of his numbers ended up pretty pedestrian across the board except for the 400 home runs. I saw the guy play and he was a great defender. I also saw Kenny Lofton play and he was just as good in my eyes. He also stole 600 bags and rapped 2400 hits. He didn’t, however even get to 400 doubles but he did have 116 triples. And that guy is kind of borderline to me. Which brings me to Ozzie Smith. I don’t quite think Ozzie Smith belonged in the Hall of Fame. Yes he was a great defensive player. But he also barely hit 400 doubles in 11,000 plate appearances. And it wasn’t because he used his speed and athleticism turning them into triples since he only ended up with 69 of those. If you’re going to be a Hall of Famer with 11,000 plate appearances and only hit 28 home runs, I’d like to see at least 500 doubles and 500 steals for a guy with that kind of speed and athleticism. He really wasn’t much of a hitter at all. About average and maybe a little below when it matters most.
I think the reason I would have trouble saying either of those guys is a Hall of Famer without a doubt in the scenario that a Hall of Famer should be obvious is that, without the subjectively great defense (because let’s face it, a pretty good amount of the plays any guy makes are fundamental to the point that we teach little Leaguers these are easy outs and catches that should be made by anyone playing the position), there is still too much to explain. Without the gold gloves, Jones offensively is not much more than Dave Kingman. Omar Vizquel has a much better fielding percentage than Ozzie Smith but he was not likable and so no one has made concessions for his otherwise average career. So, like I said, I value defense greatly but I also think a large part of defense should be pretty fundamental and if you can’t do it, you probably don’t belong in the major leagues to begin with or at least not at that position. I could watch footage of an athletic savant like Bo Jackson running up and down the outfield walls all day long but if the rest of his game doesn’t quite match up in the end or even look remotely comparable to his historical peers, I feel like there’s too much explaining to do for him to be in the hall. And then if he throws his wife down the stairs, I can’t see how that’s ignorable when peds and trash can banging are not.
I respect that you like Jones and don’t like the trash cans and I get why you would feel that way. Obviously there are many who agree with you on those things. And I appreciate that you respect my views. That’s what makes this such a great forum at times.
Just because there have been worse people in the past doesn’t mean I can ignore the bad people out there now.
My favorite team and player lost to the Astros in 2017, and it’s still fresh in my memory, so I may be severely biased.
When I started watching baseball, Jones was late in his career, so I knew very little about what he did with woman until you told me. If I had known Jones since he was younger, I think I would have disliked him.
Well I know that sucks. I like the Dodgers too. I actually like several teams as I just live baseball and family influences from around the country turned me on to different teams growing up. Ohio relatives made me a Reds fan very young, same with the Mets and Queens relatives. Being a New Englander I had plenty of Sox family, and several older family members were Dodgers and Braves fans since they were in Brooklyn and Boston way back.
86 was a great and crappy Series since I like both teams and 90 is the last time the Reds delivered.
Anyway, the losses suck but at least ‘Dem Bums have grabbed a couple of recent ones and have been pretty relevant for a long time now.
I don’t think they lost the ’17 series because of trash cans though. I think they lost because Puig, Bellinger, Turner, Seager and Taylor all went to sleep at the same time. They got mostly no offensive production from the guys who had delivered the most prior to the series and still were able to go seven games. Houston didn’t put on a great offensive display either for a team that supposedly knew everything that was coming. George Springer happened to catch fire and things fell for Houston in game seven. I know it was frustrating but remember, the trash cans didn’t stop the Dodgers from hitting that series.
And, again, sign stealing was done long long long before this. Guys on base, someone watching from the bleachers, clubhouse TV’s catching the live feed from center field. This was just the one that was blown out of proportion to make an example. I wanted LA in that series too but if you let people convince you that teams lose entire series over these types of things you’ll spend forever being paranoid about the game. You can tell guys all day what’s coming and what’s not but the ball still gets thrown and the batter still has the same chance to read it. No one forces him to do anything.
And sorry about the Jones news. I think anyone sincere deserves the chance at redemption but the voters haven’t given that benefit to anyone else so why now? Roger Clemens, among others, never failed a test and his use of PEDs was never proven concrete, beyond a shadow of a doubt yet, they kept him out and this is one of the top 5 pitchers in history.
There are no experts. Expert is someone who knows everything or pretty close to everything about something. Sports awards and Hall of Fame votings are based on opinions. You might think it’s based on numbers but they are really based on what people think of those numbers. Opinions. You can’t be an expert in opinions.
Good post-thank you. In addition to what you wrote, Murphy had 2 MVP Awards and 4 Silver Slugger Awards
From Statcast website….
“DRS uses Baseball Info Solutions data to chart where each ball is hit. Say, for instance, a center fielder sprints to make a nice catch on a fly ball. Then, say data from BIS tells us that similar fly balls get caught 60 percent of the time. That center fielder gains, essentially, 0.4 bonus points for difficulty. If he can’t make the play, he loses 0.6 points. At the end of the day, that player’s overall score gets adjusted to the league average — and then that score gets adjusted for how many runs the once-adjusted score is worth.”
What? Break this down in your head.
“Runs to make a nice catch”:
“Nice” is subjective. It can’t be quantified. Based on who’s determination? If the guy weighs 75 lb more than the other guy, is it a nicer catch because he has to work a lot harder?
“Similar fly balls get caught 60% of the time”:
Similar how? Like they land in the same spot? He traveled the same exact path to get there? The ball traveled the same exact path at the same exact angle of every single ball that landed in that spot ever? Every scintilla of an inch from the bat to the spot is determined at every single infinite possible combination of scintilla’s of inches in order to determine two guys made the same exact play on the same exact ball?
“Awarded .4 bonus points if he makes the catch….”:
Based on what? What the hell is .4? Some ridiculous determination just to have a number? So why would you gain .4 if you make the catch but lose .6 if you don’t make the catch?
“At the end of the day, that player’s overall score gets adjusted to the league average — and then that score gets adjusted for how many runs the once-adjusted score is worth.”
Adjusted for what? By who? And based on what reasoning?
These are the type of things that need a control and the control is determined by who? Some audacious, presumptuous, self-proclaimed wizard of baseball?
I don’t know how anybody argues in favor of these things. Society of followers just blindly believing nonsense. Why would you want to pretend to be rating talent with made up dungeons and dragons rules?
Very true. How can things that depend on human input determine greatness of actual accomplishments?
Saw an article in the last couple of days discussing Jimmy Rollins’ Hall of Fame case. The guy is going crazy with these kind of metrics and calls them “advanced metrics”. What is advanced about guessing? Reading that same breakdown you gave here there is nothing advanced about it. Nobody decides if someone hit a double. The guy is on second base. It’s a double. Obviously unless he got there on a series of errors but in a normal situation, it’s a double. Nobody gets to determine if it was a “nicely hit ball” or a better double than someone else hit.
Rollins was a great defensive player. Another thing the idiot said was that Rollins made easy plays look easy and hard players look hard. All the more reason to not apply this kind of crap. How do you know if it was hard or not? Have you made that play? Where does DRS or any other supposedly advanced metric take into account physical attributes of players? Do you not think a guy who is over 6 ft like Jeter or A-Rod has a better reach and longer legs to get there a little quicker? Rollins was 5’7″ so you’d have to imagine that him getting to the same ball that a 6’3″ guy with comparable athleticism gets to it’s going to go somewhat differently. I’m not saying Rollins is or isn’t a Hall of Famer overall but these ridiculous fantasy numbers do not tell any story worth reading. If the people coming up with this garbage or as smart as they think they are, why don’t they know you can’t account for uncontrollable values like human size, unknown injuries and other intangibles? The only guys you know have an knee injury are the guys who make it known and go get surgery. Plenty of guys tear cartilage and play their careers through the pain because different people have different pain tolerances and different values as to what’s important. What do you know? Another thing the silly numbers can’t measure.
I look at WAR, which is more transparent, and still think nonsense. Ichiro 60, parker 40, tells you nothing. WAR devalues some skills without a clear explanation. Why are some of the best closers in the twenties? Arbitrary devaluing of one skill. I would feel better about it if it said Ichiro 100 Paker 60 and the best closers were 40 +. Was Rivera, was Hoffman that much better than Wagner? I dont know who was better until I check ERA, Blown saves, clearly identifiable stats.
neither is Jones???? 10 straight Gold Gloves with an average of 34 homeruns over those ten seasons. I don’t know how those are not hall of fame numbers. The only other outfielders to win more are Clemente and Mays. Overall, there have been 15 non-pitchers to win at least 10 Gold Gloves. Only four of them also hit at least 400 home runs: Mays, Griffey, Mike Schmidt and Jones.
His dWAR was like 24.4, the highest in MLB history for any outfielder.
During his full seasons in Atlanta, from 1997-2007, he had 26.7 defensive WAR, 10.2 more than any other defender at any position in that span (Ivan Rodriguez). That difference between first and second on the list was the same as the difference between Nos. 2 and 56 on the list. That’s a hefty lead, and again — among all defenders.
The biggest one for me is something called Total Zone Runs, sort of a precursor to defensive runs saved and outs above average. Jones TZR was 230, the most out of any centrefielder. Willie Mays is second with 176. That’s quite a gap.
Add 434 HRs onto that and I don’t understand why he isn’t in yet
You’re talking about subjective numbers like gold gloves and hypothetical metrics. Among many other reasons I and others have outlined already throughout these posts, these numbers you’re talking about or not ironclad statistics but, numbers created by people trying to define something that’s not definable. Too many variables unaccounted for and too fallible. Yes he put on quite a show out there in Atlanta and then sharply fell off a cliff at 30 years old. I also find it very difficult to compare a guy who played in a center field that was about 400 ft at its deepest with a guy who played several years in the Polo Grounds where, not only were the power rallies deeper than Turner Field’s deepest point but centerfield was 480 ft away and measured 505 ft at its deepest point and then spent the rest of his career in a pictures park like Candlestick. Again, if you want to look at modern metrics and think they have made all the necessary adjustments for fields and eras and you can sincerely believe in something that fallible, that’s up to you my friend. So I can say he’s a great defender but I can’t say he’s the greatest ever and I don’t even think he deserved 10 gold gloves. Maybe half that. Offensively, yes 400 home runs is a good chunk but take the rest of his statistics and go look them up against all time players. Not very impressive where he stands everywhere else. Are you trying to set the benchmark for lowest batting average in the Hall of Fame among everyone not named Ray Shalk ever?
The guy bashed 400+ home runs sure but so did Dave Kingman, Adam Dunn and multiple other guys who are not in the Hall. Okay he was a better defender than them but let’s not pretending this guy was the greatest defender of all time when the only basis is a bunch of craptistics to make his situation look more extravagant than it is. That other dude was right, that pitching staff gave up a ridiculously low batting average on balls hit in the air and that wasn’t all to Andruw Jones. And pretty obviously as soon as he didn’t play behind that pitching staff he was no longer a gold glover?? Come on man. Keep believing the hype if you want to. It’s none of my business but it’s beginning to sound a little ridiculous.
It’s the tenth inning and I’m still thinking that there’s not enough between Abreu and Hunter to justify voting for either of them. If you actually play baseball fielding matters, so I give a clear edge to Hunter, but I’ worry about that when Andruw, Dwight Evans and Jim Edmonds are in the HOF. Last call on Utley = Kinsler, I’d rather vote for Pedroia and Jimmy Rollins.
Evans is a no doubter for me. Edmonds is a no doubter as well. They were unfortunate victims of bad analysis. I don’t care if Jones caught a fly ball jumping over the empire State building, I can’t see working this hard to come up with excuses to put the second lowest batting average ever into the Hall of fame. Yes defense means a lot out there and I did play baseball for many years so I certainly appreciate it but to an extent. .270 average, .370 OBP, 400 home runs and 1500 RBIs, okay great defense like a gold gloves puts you over the top. Sounds like Evans. Edmonds, pretty inarguable stats across the board as well and great defense. Jones is not that
For the love of all that’s holy, will you people stop being brainwashed??? Stop following like sheep!!!
Metrics are ridiculously inaccurate, incomparable to other generations and sound insane when you say them to someone else like it’s real. It’s like the grown adults who follow “wrestling” and lose their minds like these are real fights.
Jones was a better than good outfielder. Jones suddenly sucked when he didn’t play behind Atlanta’s pitching staff. Jones hit 400+ home runs. Jones did nothing else offensively that spells Hall of Famer. Please stop with ” 10 gold gloves and 24 dwar”. Watch games, truly analyze, and form real knowledge and opinions. The breakdown theory of Atlanta’s pitching staff has some legs man. No it’s not his whole career worth of defense but he racked up a lot of pretty easy plays there. And then he left Atlanta and sucked completely. And please don’t come out with he got out of shape. He got fat way before he left Atlanta but was still able to rack up a pretty good amount of numbers there. Not a coincidence. Don’t fool yourself. Look at the numbers and look at when he really got out of shape in the first place.
For those who say stupid things like “you only don’t like metrics because you don’t understand them”, grow up. They’re not that hard to understand. The harder part is figuring out what in the hell it’s being done for. Defensive rating and zones and all this nonsense. Maybe you need to go read how they are done because they say right in the definition, a bunch of things that are opinions and decided by humans. That’s not a statistic. A statistic measures something real. Something that can’t be decided by a person. So Jones has a high rating because some “human” decided over and over again how many points to allot him for great plays etc. What the hell were you people watching all these years? Edmonds and Hunter made great diving and running catches all the time. Now we’re going to pretend that they didn’t? Or they didn’t make nearly enough of them? We have to keep hearing 10 gold gloves about Jones but 9 and 8 for Hunter and Edmonds were not just as good. How does that work? What garbage. Watch baseball man. And then at the end of a career, look at what the guy really did in real life and not a bunch of made up stuff that makes him look amazing because he got better made up ratings than someone else. I’ve watched an awful lot of them play and if I’m starting a team and my choices are among the guys we’ve discussed who played in the last couple of decades? Abreu in right, Edmonds in center and Hunter in left it’s going to be the outfield because, two of those guys are amazing defenders in their own rights and all three of them were the complete package at the plate and on the base paths. That’s where runs are scored which is how winning is done. So Jones beat them in home runs. What else? His defense was great but not at the cost of his boom or bust offense. 400 home runs is not enough for me to suffer through a .254 hitter when these other three guys bring all they brought to the plate. And we have people who think it’s enough to put the second lowest batting average ever in the Hall of fame? Wow.
400 home runs? Kingman, Darrell Evans, Canseco, Dunn, Konerko……
Where does Jones rank all time in hits, doubles, triples, stolen bases, walks, batting average and OBP? These are all the tangible things a great hitter does so look up all of those categories and show me where he is a Hall of Famer. Also look at how many guys have gold gloves that their detractors say are meaningless.
So a better than average fielder but with somewhat overblown and under analyzed defensive “metrics”, a whole bunch of below average stats and 400 home runs and that’s it? Where does that say Hall of fame?
I think Rock would feel less aggravated about Andruw if he saw him play on a regular basis. He really could be a highlight reel on a daily basis for years. Regular centerfielders are the best fielders among outfielders, and he was the best of the best for years. After that he was a liability. call it like you see it, Rock has some valid points about Andruw’s long-term hitting.
Actually, I saw him play quite often and I imagine so did many other people because Braves games were broadcast on TBS and available all over the place.
The guy was an extremely gifted athlete. He could run like crazy and made Spider-Man catches on the wall but at the same time, I think gets a little over glorified due to those plays. I don’t have anything against what he did well but several factors come into play for me in regard to Jones’ career. Let me say, the stuff HC brought up about the pitching staff makes a lot of sense. His play, I’m sure, had something to do with their pitching numbers being what they were but those league-low numbers on home runs given up and batting average against on fly balls were definitely not all a byproduct of Jones being an all-world fielder. They didn’t give up only hits to center field, and the rest of the defense looking pretty good in those years shows that. They didn’t just happen to have the seven best defenders around the infield and outfield in the whole league while coincidentally pitching guys like Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz et al. So, while I don’t believe all of his plays were a result of the pitching staff, and I do believe he was an amazing fielder, he certainly didn’t make 4486 put outs in his Braves career on circus stunt acrobatic catches.
I also think, also brought up in this thread and ignored, I have a hard time looking past the amount of glorification a guy like this gets once everyone is in love with him. Jones was very talented and showed some early power but this guy wasn’t even leading his team in home runs every year, never mind, the league. Then between 2000 and 2002, Ken Caminiti and Gary Sheffield were in that locker room. Following this development, Jones had his best power years ever. And not because he suddenly found his stride as some have suggested, because that would have looked more like another decade of awesome numbers. No, he put up a few years of blistering home run numbers, and then collapsed under all the weight he suddenly gained. Some say he got fat for lack of a better expression but many have said, he was relatively lazy about keeping up with himself. He had relied on natural talent for so long that he never found the need to actually work out. Well, oddly, that body is exactly what steroids will look like if you just take them and don’t work out. Strangely, with all of the supposedly brilliant minds recognizing the evolution of statistical analysis we were all supposedly too stupid to see for 150 years, no one recognized this as a recipe for possible ped disaster? Guy balloons, guy slows down, guy hits ridiculous amount of home runs, guy falls off cliff because his knees tear up cartilage trying to support a bunch of extra weight that so quickly piled on unnaturally. The media and the voters have a funny way of distinguishing between actual proof of using, suspicion based on circumstantial evidence and completely ignoring suspicious activity. Therefore, fans have just as funny of a way of accepting these recognitions as Bible. Everyone wants to break down opinions like they had their own brilliant thoughts. Yet, when someone like Jones is the flavor of the month, no one recognizes this? I-rod had a similar trajectory. Comes up in a hot bed of steroid use, suddenly produces outlandish numbers and then as the investigations kick in, loses 35 lb and never puts up those numbers again. At least in his case, he lost that weight and redefined himself to finish a solid career. But because everyone liked the guy and wanted to see a Hall of Fame catcher, that was the end of the ped talk. Juan Gonzalez came from the same place and, because Canseco mentions him in his book without any substantiated evidence, he’s on the radar. Guess what, Gonzalez hit 43 home runs for the first time before Canseco even showed up. Canseco showed up at the very end of that year and obviously could not have retroactively impacted Gonzalez before he was even in that locker room. Then there was “the bag”. A carry-on bag presumed to be in Gonzalez’s possession but also claimed to belong to a trainer. Either way, the trainer said the bag contained ephedrine and painkillers and no one ever proved who the bag belonged to anyway. But there was apparently no love among voters for Gonzalez because he promptly fell off the ballot. To this day, no ironclad proof has been produced against Roger Clemens. But several people have decided he’s an asshole and they don’t like him so that suspicion is treated as knowledge. Maybe baseball allows this nonsense to go on because it values its relationship with the hall and, thereby, the BBWAA but, we don’t all have to accept this and sit around pretending we are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid all over. I’m not someone who really cares about what everyone else sees because, unlike many of the voters and their flock of sheep, I value the ability to think, analyze, apply logic and recognize reality. It’s suspicion is applied to ABC and D then it should be applied to E as well if the circumstances fall that way. Overall, I think keeping guys out on suspicion, no matter the level, is counterproductive, stupid and unfair but this case is based on the idea that it is being done anyway. So if you’re going to do it two players who are far more deserving than jones, then it should be done to Jones as well.
Yeah he kind of did have that kind of career didn’t he? And they decided Gonzalez was guilty without proof. They have the same number of home runs and then Gonzales runs away from the guy offensively. Maybe not on defense but definitely as a hitter.
I agree with nearly everything. Any player that was not suspended for using roids, should get elected. Palmero, AROD etc should still be considered after getting suspended. The minute Ortiz was elected (as he should be) all the other players who didn’t fail a test, should be allowed.
I also think Utley is a difficult player to put in. I do agree Abreu should be voted, but consider Jones a much more deserving player. The gold gloves are not a side note. He was one of the greatest OF ever.
Great post. Hopefully Jones, Abreu , Manny etc eventually get the call!!
I don’t necessarily think gold gloves are a side note, I just think they are not grounds for the Hall by themselves. He was a great defensive player but so were several other guys. Among those guys are Griffey Jr, Mays, Mantle, Snider, Speaker and Cobb. The last 3 played before gold gloves existed and in Snider’s case, only a handful of seasons at the end of his career when gold gloves were new and he was old. These are the greatest center fielders ever and outside of his gold gloves and 400 homers, make Jones look like Tony Armas. Kenny Lofton was an excellent center fielder. He’s been ignored despite several other comparable and better stats than Jones. Abreu, on the other hand, stacks up pretty well all the way around compared to right fielders. He wasn’t the best ever or even close but his all around game was far more complete than Jones. I also can’t see a guy batting just over .250 or not even reaching 2000 hits as a real Hall of Famer.
I think a lot of concessions have been made in lieu of having great , obvious players to vote for and I think that’s why certain guys become the sudden flavor of the day and a bandwagon effect happens. I can’t recall anyone thinking this guy was a Halloween of Famer when he finished his career. And for the argument that we’ve somehow “evolved” statistically since then, we haven’t. We’ve just invented several supposed metrics, many of which are subjective or hypothetical, and applied them to justify a means to an end. But no metric spins .254 avg and 1900 hits into a hall of famer I don’t think.
Just my opinion.
Can we agree that defense is half the game? Should it be ranked as less important than offense? What do you think?
Ed I don’t know that it should be ranked as less important necessarily per se but I don’t think it is actually half the game. I’ll tell you why. You go up to the plate, it’s you against the pitcher. While the pitcher’s goal is obviously to keep you from getting on base, the outcome of that at bat, at least from your end of the responsibilities, is dependent solely on you. What do you swing at? What do you let go? How do you set yourself in the batter’s box? How do you attack the ball when you decide to swing? How well do you control the strike zone? How efficient are you at putting a ball in play or putting a ball out of reach of opposing defenders? Can you control a pitch to the opposite field consistently? And then of course, once the ball is hit, how adapt are you at baserunning? Once on the basepaths, how well do you time the pitcher out of the stretch and successfully beat the catcher’s throw? How well do you gauge your teammates’ contact and run the bases correctly or competently enough to give your team every chance to score?
Again, the opposition’s job is to get you out but you are basically in control of everything you have to do on offense to beat them.
Defensively, yes you are in control of what you need to do to make a play but, the opportunities you are handed depend heavily on who is pitching, how they pitch and, at times, how other defenders on your team respond once the ball is in play. If you’re an infielder, backing a guy like Derek Lowe, who was known for inducing a lot of lazy ground balls, you’re going to probably make a lot of easier plays than a guy who plays behind a pitcher who hands out frozen ropes and moonshots around the diamond regularly. For some guys, it may be easier to make a diving play to your right or left then it is to snag 104 mph liners right at your face because you just don’t see it as well. There are so many intangibles like this that cannot be quantified that I think we cannot possibly judge defense, especially years in hindsight, the way we can, offense.
I think we can certainly watch people play defense and have a pretty good idea of how capable they are and we can also keep track of how many plays they make versus how many chances they are handed. I don’t begrudge anyone anything for trying to quantify statistical accomplishments in some other fashion than those that we’ve known forever but, I also don’t think handing out Hall of Fame plaques based on questionable measurements is valid practice.
If Jones had the same quantity of home runs he has but also batted .284 as opposed to .254, rapped out 500 doubles and maybe 24-2500 hits , this is a much different conversation. Given his defensive accomplishments, though I don’t think they are what many seem to think considering he was able to play very shallow defense and scoop up a lot of gimme stats due to playing behind the best pitching staff in the league for several years, he would then be easily borderline, if not a shoo-in. And that is while ignoring the domestic violence arrest which I’m not sure why that is happening. That’s just my perspective.
If Gold Gloves aren’t a side note, there must be a ridiculously strong argument brewing for Keith Hernandez, the greatest defensive first baseman of all time, to be in the Hall. Where are you, Eras Committee?
Agreed. How come they are a side note for guys like Edmonds and Hunter? Dwight Evans? Keith Hernandez, as you said? But for Jones they are the Holy Grail?
Actually, put the logic this way:
Even if all of those guys and many others mentioned, don’t compare to half of Jones’ defensive ability, they are all far better than him offensively so how does that not wash? Never mind the fact that he is not twice as good as everyone on that list but just for the sake of argument let’s pretend. And then, other than his home runs, they were all far more complete and accomplished offensive players than he dreamed of.
Keith Hernandez might get in if the voting committee is set up that way. Mattingly, Garvey, Pujols, Cabrera might cloud the issue. But I do like the comment about 10 gg being a ” holy grail”. I look at Hunter and Edmonds and think the whole picture was not considered. Check Edmonds slugging pct. There was a time when that alone was a ticket to HOF.
Let me think now: Berra, Bench, Carter, Piazza, Irod… I can see Posey adding something to that list, but I can’t see Martin or McCann as peers. Munson, yes, but the catchers on this ballot don’t measure up.
I think of great centerfielders who get ignored: Paul Blair, Gary Pettis, Mickey Rivers, Devon White. Is Andruw really a clear cut better? I still think that we answer “Yes”. Does he have more than his share of imperfections? I guess every voter has a different answer. I’d rather look at the 10 good years and ignore the last 5 awful ones.
I agree Jones is a cut above those guys but I don’t see him blowing away Hunter or Murphy and definitely don’t put him any cuts above Edmonds.
I think Piazza, Bench and Berra are incomparable at the top as catchers. And obviously Rodriguez, in spite of ped speculation, is up there as well. I don’t see Martin anywhere near that area but McCann I see differently. He batted the same as Carter, right behind Bench and Fisk and, while he would be lower on the list of Hall of Fame catchers, he tops Carter and others in OBP and SLG. He would be 7th on the list and home runs and 10th in RBIs and was a far better than average defensive catcher. Tops Mayer in several categories though, I don’t know how much I apply Mauer to the all time catcher list since only roughly half his appearances came there. He was a good hitter and piled up doubles but McCann out slugged him, out homered him and out RBI’d him. McCann never drummed up a lot of fanfare around himself so I think he’s a little more easily overlooked. I wouldn’t say he’s one of the top five catchers all time but he’s definitely worth more analysis that he is getting.
And of course Posey would land 7th in batting and tie Piazza for sixth in OBP. His power numbers don’t quite match up but not horrible either for a hitter of his caliber. If he had matched McCann’s plate appearances then he would probably be pretty close. And I would say they were pretty comparable defensively but Posey easily wins the popularity contest since he was the face of the Giants all those years.
Remember Jones is compared against the best CF HOF and Abreu is compared with the best RF in the HOF. Different JAWS metrics evaluations. But Abreu has a few things against him, he wasn’t a good defender, never hustled in outfield and during his time his piers were much better than him.
Well let me start by saying, war is hypothetical by nature and Jaws is based on war so unless we are talking about a shark movie, I rank my respect for those numbers right along with the tooth fairy and the great pumpkin. But if you want to look at those numbers, go to the baseball egg and look up the best right fielders of all time. Using prime war, short peak war, long peak war as well as career war, Bobby Abreu is is ranked as the 15th greatest right fielder of all time. So that puts him not far behind guys named Aaron, Ruth, Ott, Clemente, Robinson and ahead of multiple Hall of Famers and guys who should be Hall of Famers.
While there was a perception that he did not hustle, and maybe he just didn’t move that fast, from 98 to 09, he led all outfielders in assists with 120. Not right fielders, all outfielders. So I guess that would be comparing him to his peers. And 15th all time looks pretty good against all time right fielders. Out of how many right fielders in history? No idea. The list only goes to 100. The man was a dominant hitter all the time and unfortunately, received less attention because he played for Philadelphia during crap years. I think his accomplishments would be far better appreciated had he played on winning teams throughout his career. But that goes for a lot of guys. He also produced very well and consistently across the board. We want to put guys in the Hall of Fame who have 400 home runs, 10 gold gloves and an otherwise, lackluster stat line. But a guy who did everything well we ignore?
The unsatisfactory part of this process, is that the writers’ jobs here are to see past those things. They somehow don’t see how much Jones’ otherworldly defensive numbers were aided by the pitching staffs he played behind. And this isn’t just made up hyperbole, look at the positive numbers for all of his outfield teammates in those years. Yes he was a hell of a fielder but I think his situation makes him look in hindsight, like a much better fielder. Why didn’t he continue piling up gold gloves the day he left Atlanta? Unfortunately, you do have writers who depend on fictitious, hypothetical numbers nowadays. I can’t depend on things like that. I’ve looked at them, I understand them and, having done so, I realize how massively imperfect they are. For instance, defensive runs saved. So someone is going to analyze every play a player makes and allot points for the perceived difficulty level of that play and in comparison with how other players make that play. That’s ridiculous. Difficulty of the play? Based on who’s judgment? People who don’t play? People who’ve never played a major league game in their lives and couldn’t possibly discern what a ball looks like coming at you at 105 miles per hour, what the grass feels like that day, how the wind is blowing and affects the ball movement and maybe even what a professional athlete’s body feels like in the middle of 162 game season? I hope you’ll pardon me if I can’t rely on these antics to tell me who can do what. I can rely on a .982 fieldng percentage across all three outfield positions in a career though. I can rely on a .290 career hitter every time he gets penciled into the lineup. I can rely on 574 doubles to be pretty productive for me. I can rely on Bobby Abreu to go 20/20 season after season with a couple of 30/30s mixed in there, provide far better than average, consistent offense and field his position at a .982 clip. How many of his peers did that exactly? He may not have been the fastest, flashiest or greatest outfielder ever but it’s not like this guy was remotely Dick “Dr. Strangeglove” Stuart here and this sudden lovefest everyone has with defense has not always been the case and completely ignores the subjectivity of the game. Pitching staffs, lights, weather, teammates and several other conditions play factors in defense and it is way too difficult to quantify with strange little mathematical equations that are adjusted and adapted based on who knows who’s opinions regarding fielding capabilities. And certainly not dependable enough to keep and otherwise highly qualified candidate down. And if defense is such a deal breaker, how do 17 combined gold gloves and all of their high level offensive production render guys like Edmonds and Hunter perennial afterthoughts? Anyone says a word about Jones and there is an immediate “what are you talking about? He’s the greatest center fielder ever, he has 10 gold gloves!” But bring up Hunter’s nine gold gloves and Edmonds 8-year-old gloves and there is somebody ready to poke holes in them as though theirs don’t count as much as Jones’. I don’t see it. Especially when both of those guys, shy of home runs maybe, out produced Jones offensively across the board.
I am surprised by the lack of love for Torii Hunter. Bill Virdon, Gary Pettis, Mickey Rivers were all high-quality centerfielders without any flicker of hope for HOF. In my mind Hunter and Abreu are clearly a cut above. How Andruw fits into the issue is feeding a debate the result of which is not yet clear. I think Bernie Williams should be added to Jim Edmonds and considered to be that cut above. The problem is that Carlos Beltran is still on the table. He should already have his plaque. If Enos Slaughter (8 yrs with MVP votes) is a standard why is there still debate about Dwight Evans. When I spoke to Jim Edmonds during a game, the fire in his eyes lit up the stadium. Some of these guys are really driven to excel.
Beltran should definitely be in already. This God complex thing is becoming a big problem. By most accounts I’ve seen, though Beltran is the scapegoat, they say he was involved in conceiving the idea and not the actual physical carrying out of the idea. All sounds like a big mess of crap really and the guy lost his management shot over it while being punished by MLB. So now the other question that brings up for me is, since so many guys have been kept out on simply suspicion without ironclad proof of ped use and, Joe Jackson is still out though, they could never produce the alleged paperwork for a confession that he supposedly made, how does suspicion affect Houston astros? Not that the 17-18 Astros were loaded with Hall of Famers but, what day Altuve will surely show up on the ballot. Does he pay the price for suspicion? Currently, McCann doesn’t look like he’s going to make it off the first ballot anyway but he was also on that squad. Perhaps most importantly though, Justin Verlander was on the team those two seasons. Pretty hands down case for Hall of Fame but is he going to pay the price for suspicion? If not, why not? You either can prove something beyond the doubt or you can’t, it shouldn’t work both ways depending on who the guys are or what you suspect them of. Again, this whole system is a trash can.
“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
This is right in the voting instructions for the BBWAA. I think domestic violence violates integrity and character so how do you ignore that for 10 gold gloves and 400 fingers?
*dingers
It seems that Andruw’s 10 outstanding years are getting more votes than Abreu’s many excellent/very good years despite the undisputed facts that Andrew’s bad years were really bad. If the voters who hide behind anonymity don’t prove again to be naysayers Beltran may get a fair shake and gain entry. That still leaves Andruw in limbo and Abreu neglected. Jim Edmonds and Dwight Evans should get another shot, say from the veteran’s committees, but there are so many Lou Whitakers, Tommy Johns, Don Mattinglys, Vern Stephens, Thurman Munsons, Cecil Travis’, Ed Reulbachs, etc. to be considered in this glacial process. (Reulbach top 10 in ERA and W/L for pitchers with 2500 IP). HC nailed it on Nov 18.
Reulbach is 9th on the ERA list and 24th on the W/L pct list. With the 2500 inning caveat Clayton Kershaw is presently #1 and the highest ranked post deadball pitcher on the ERA list.
Abreu blows away Jones and a lot of categories. Maybe Jones has him in home runs and questionable gold gloves but Jones faded at 30 and Abreu was consistent for years. He also didn’t choke his wife so I’m not sure how 60 something percent of voters are missing that. I would definitely vote for more complete, well-rounded players like Abreu over guys like Jones who bring one or two aspects to the game and fade away so quickly. Popularity contests suck and so do bad voters
I’m still trying to figure out Utley. Stats are not too different than Kinsler, as has been noted before. Are half the voters from LA or Philly? He doesn’t compare with Lajoie, Hornsby, Gehringer, Lazzeri, Jackie Robinson or even Billy Herman. Joe Gordon was an all-star in 9 of his 11 years, got MVP votes in 8 years and despite losing 2 prime years to WWII hit 253 home runs. Joe Morgan? Of course, Joe was in a class by himself. Even Mazeroski and Schoendienst were each all-star 10 times; Mazeroski got 8 gold gloves. I don’t get why Utley gets votes and Kinsler, Madlock, Whitaker, Willie Randolph. and, once again, Jeff Kent don’t.
I look at Pedroia the same way I look at Dizzy Dean, Sandy Koufax, Addie Joss, Ross Youngs Don Mattingly, Barney McCoskey and Vern Stephens. They had HOF written all over their first years and then were derailed by injuries. Cecil Travis is a special case. He had 8 years with MVP votes before giving 3 years to WWII and wasn’t close when he returned. In Dimaggio’s big year, Travis out hit him by .002. On the other hand, Hoyt Wilhelm had shrapnel in his hip from the Battle of the Bulge and still managed to put it together; others were less fortunate.
You can add David Wright to that list too! No reason to think he wouldn’t have hit 375-400, drive in 1600-1700 runs, and have 2500+ hits if he was healthy. Gold Gloves, 30-30 man!
Wouldn’t be first ballot, but certainly by the 3rd, he would have been in!
I picked Robin Ventura as a control because he was much coveted by other teams when he was a young White Sox player. When he was on the HOF ballot there were 12 current HOF members, Mattingly, McGwire, Dale Murphy and Andres Galarraga on the ballot ahead of him. So (Don/David/Robin): 6 consec. early years: runs(582/598/497), hits(1219/1072/910); homers(257/155/139) RBPs(684/624/563); BA(327/306/282); slugging(530/515/463) Robin was a much-desired player, Mattingly was truly Donny Baseball and had 9 gold gloves. Not much of a dap between him and David Wright.
Good exercise. Which also brings up the voting maximum problem. With 10 votes as the maximum per writer, there have been several years like that one where guys who probably deserve some more consideration are gone in the blink of an eye. One argument is always, overcrowding the hall. I think this is a silly point because if a guy is Hall of Fame caliber, then he’s Hall of Fame caliber. I’d rather have a Hall filled with deserving guys than this institution of the most obvious, a bunch of questionables that make you constantly yearn for more or question more deserving guys omissions, and then a pseudo-phony heaven that keeps out only certain mistake makers.
There were so many guys who eventually got in on the one ballot Ventura was on that Galarraga was also one and done. And that was another guy that was nothing to sneeze at. Not that removing the maximum would have automatically put those two in there but I would assume they would have gotten more votes, or at least enough to stay in the conversation had the maximum not been there. Also, without the maximum it would have been more likely that several of the other guys would have gotten the votes they needed and cleared that ballot quickly. Obviously the PED guys were already getting stoned in the village square by the self-proclaimed apostles in the BBWAA but the rest of the future Hall of Famers who were splitting votes would not have needed to split votes. That’s how you will clear the ballots quickly. Who cares how many guys get in at one time? Preserving the integrity of the Hall of Fame? What integrity? The myriad of ghosts and skeletons already in there will not be undone so integrity went out the back door a long time ago. And that’s a fact. And besides, this would not be a yearly occurrence, where you would have 20 guys going into the Hall. You should easily clear a large log jam like that quickly and then minimize the returning guys on a following ballot. There are not 15 guys per season showing up on the ballot who are Hall of Fame locks.
I know you used Ventura as part of your David Wright analogy but he also, again, raises the “why all this support for Utley” question. Offensively, extremely similar player and Ventura was also a hell of a defender. And for those who like awards and metrics, 17.9 dwar and six gold gloves. Also did a great job head-butting Nolan Ryan’s fist several times which no one else can really say. Yes, he obviously had the misfortune to be on an overloaded ballot but still only received 1.3% of the vote. This ballot may not be nearly as loaded but this much support for Utley? There are certainly 10 more deserving guys on this ballot.
Dead on. Pedroia and Wright are perfect examples of the guys who get screwed all the time. Great career, obviously heading for the hall and unfortunate injury strikes. Can’t just blow that off like they weren’t great. It’s stupid. And I think Utley and Kinsler we’re pretty close to the same guy during their careers. Utley somehow scored a few more fake bingo points but watching both of them play all those years I didn’t really see a huge difference. The paparazzi machine at work baby.
I don’t know how one votes Beltran and not Andruw.
I think it’s because Beltran blows him away and pretty much every offensive category show all Jones really has on him are a few questionable gold gloves.
beltran 1582 runs, andruw 1204; beltran 2725 hits, andruw 1933; beltran 1587 rbis, andruw 1289; lifetime ba: .279 to .254. Beltran’s numbers fit in with all-time greats, Andruw’s less so. Now I saw Andruw play in his good years and he was a show in the field. You want to capitalize on his 10 gold gloves- he was a very rare talent in the field. Maybe that will work for him despite his canyonesque character issues. Andruw is on my list of “vote fors” but note that Dave Kingman hit 442 homers,1210 rbis and siugged .478. Who would you rather have? Andruw or Dave?
Let’s take out the last 5 years of Jones’ career after he was injured and became a part-time player, plus his first year where he barely played. That leaves 11 full-time seasons where he averaged 94 runs, 32 doubles, 33 HRs, 100 RBI, OPS .826. Plus he was the greatest fielding CF of all time with a dWAR of 24.4, 6 points higher than Mays, who played longer. He deserves to be in. So do Beltran and Lofton. The only CFs who are ahead of them, IMO, are all HOFs except Trout, who will be.
Yes, Beltran has complete player written all over him. Extremely well-rounded game across all levels of offense and an excellent defensive player as well. Voters applying for sainthood are the only reason he didn’t go in in year one and is still fighting his way there. Signed stealing has always been legal in baseball with obviously the caveat that you’re not allowed to involve technology. This guy was involved in the conversation of how it could be done but, in spite of being the punishment scapegoat, by all accounts was not involved in carrying out the plan physically. Okay, you punished him, he lost his managerial spot for the Mets and suffered a suspension. Let’s stop pretending he committed genocide in the middle of the outfield and let it go. Anyway, his all around resume easily speaks for itself. They are not comparable players.
Which, again, speaks to the gross negligence of the current voting system. When rules are set in MLB, punishments are determined, pre or post, and carried out. Nowhere does it say that the BBWAA shall be responsible for playing God and carrying out endless punishments for the rest of time. And please don’t argue integrity and character while you’re ignoring domestic violence etc. and hiding behind the convenient and cowardly excuse that it didn’t happen on the field. Kind of like robbing a bank and excusing it because no one caught you.
dwar is useless. So for multiple reasons, look at Paul Konerko. Say what you want about Fielding percentage but it’s the only accurate statistic you can follow. In 17,000 opportunities the guy made 85 errors. Good for a .995 Fielding percentage. Was he the most athletic first baseman ever? Nope. But with only 85 errors in 17,000 chances how bad could he have been? But somehow he has a -17.1 dwar. Range, rating, zones? Where do you want him to go? He’s a first baseman. His job is to generally be close to the bag to receive put outs. When he gets the chance to make put outs, his job is to make them. With only 85 errors in 17,000 chances, how was he not doing his job? Sorry, just can’t get into fiction like that.
Stop comparing Jones to Willie Mays until you can produce a field with the dimensions of the Polo Grounds that Jones went out there and fielded better than Mays. Or even pitchers’ haven, Candlestick Park.
Jones showed up fat pretty early on which slowed him down but he got away with a lot of it because of great pitching. Slice it how you want, argue with all you want but you can’t undo the numbers those pitchers put up if you go back and look at them. He was an athletically gifted defender and played the position well but let’s get off the fairytale merry go round that makes him sound like he was the most amazing fielder of all time any of us ever saw. I saw Edmonds and Hunter make many, many, many great defensive plays as well. I’ve seen Andrew Benintendi make some of the most amazing plays you can make in the outfield, is he going to the hall of fame for it? So of course you will say he doesn’t have 400 home runs. Kingman, Dunn and Darrell Evans, guess what these three guys have in common? They are the only guys to hit 400 home runs and have lower batting averages than Andruw Jones. Did he hit well for about 5 years? Sure but that’s not a Hall of Fame career.
Injury? What injury is that? Getting fat and lazy? He tore some cartilage in 2008 with the Dodgers and had a simple procedure which generally takes about a month to a month and a half to recover from. I had it and I was back out playing sports in about 3 weeks. Is it uncomfortable? Yes. Is it career ending or detrimental to ever playing again? No. Certainly not a reason to suck the rest of your career away. Guys have these cartilage tears all the time in professional sports. Hell, people have these little cartilage tears all the time everyday without playing professional sports.
He also didn’t lack opportunities. The Rangers gave him a starting spot when Josh Hamilton went down. He sucked. The Yankees gave him a starting spot when Brett Gardner went down. He sucked again. Chicago gave him an opportunity and guess what he did? Yep. Sucked.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who like to ignore these things but be realistic. We are not ignoring these things because suddenly his career was awesome. His first two ballots he didn’t even get 8% of the vote. That’s not an accident. He got a blistering 19% in his third ballot. Again not an accident. But now that we are in a time where we have less and less great players on the ballot who will get voted in because of ignorance over peds, political opinions and so on, we have come to justifying things that we somehow didn’t see five years ago? We are so evolved 5 years later that suddenly this is a Hall of Famer? If you need proof against such a theory of evolution, just watch TV or the news or read all the fictitious so-called articles sports writers are now writing. Nonsensical wild guesses at salaries and signings. Trumped-up, phony “insider” reports. Look up every baseball team you want, find their list of front office employees and decision makers and show me John Heyman listed anywhere. He’s not. You know why? Because he knows nothing. Nothing anymore than the rest of us would know if we spend all our time listening to and concocting rumors so we have something to report. Let’s get back to reality and put players in whose real stats cannot be argued. Not fictional, hypothetical equations based on opinions that can be disproven.
Let’s not take out any years and compare him stat for stat with actual deserving guys. No Toyland metric equations, no subjective, adjusted, “awarded” point system, no hypothetical zones or ranges. And no opinionated, voted-on awards. Just real tangible stats. 400+ homers puts him in a club of 58 guys ever. Now let’s hear the rest of his TANGIBLE accomplishments that rank him in Hall of Fame caliber company……. Still listening….
I agree with your comments. Abreu held his own on defense, with a career -1.0 D War and one gold glove. I enjoyed his few years as a Yankee. I also panicked when Ortiz and Ramirez were at the plate.
What happens when the ballot is loaded with worthy candidates? Some get washed out. Is Hanley Ramirez worth a better deal? The numbers show Hanley = Utley.
The war guys will point to an almost 30 point difference between Hanley and Utley. Utley has a 17 plus dwar and Hanley’s is of course negative. For as little emphasis as I give to any war though, Fielding percentage alone sets them apart defensively. Even there, Utley was a good defender whereas, Hanley played primarily shortstop and then split some time between 3rd, outfield and first before DH. The only position he fielded better than a .969 percentage was the one year he played first base as his primary spot. On the flip side though, Hanley was easily as good and probably a better offensive player. His percentage numbers like batting average, OBP and slugging all top Utley and and the other statistical areas where he doesn’t top him, the difference is so minimal that it’s easily attributable to the 700 less split appearances Hanley had. But they definitely are not so far apart anywhere that would put Utley where he is in the balloting and justify Hanley getting no votes at all.
Really we have snowball voting. Take a snowball roll it one way and see what it picks up. Roll the same snowball in a different direction and see what it picks up there. We have 4 candidates who are not much different from each other, I think slight edge to Pedroia, and one gets more votes than the other three. I get the positives that stand for Utley, but I don’t understand the voters’ logic in dumping Hanley and Ian. Maybe the problem is the 10 vote limit. On some of the ballots there have been `20 players who are currently in the HOF. Can’t blame the voters for that. If Kinsler had spent 10 years in Dodgerville what would hi vote be?
Agreed. There are a lot of guys with careers that are not that far apart overall from each other you’re in and you’re out. Really, without much of a stretch at all I think Hunter and Wright full pretty comparably overall with these four. And of course the wars are all over the place so the guys who swear by Jaws are only going to lean toward the highest wars which is crazy. I’ve always thought the 10-vote limit is ridiculous but that’s been there forever. If there are a dozen or 17 where the guys, why shouldn’t you be able to vote for them? I also think that, while there are definitely guys who see some kind of ordained pecking order by determining if a guy is a first ballot, second ballot etc Hall of Famer, there are certainly other voters who look at it and think they are going to put the 10 best guys in their ballot and hopefully be able to vote on the next best guys in coming years but that kind of depends on those guys getting at least 5% and staying on the ballot so again, the 10 vote limit screws up that theory. And you’re right, that’s not the fault of writers who are casting 10 votes, that falls on guys who cast two or three. And if you think there are only two or three worthy guys as a voter, your powers of analysis are probably lacking.
It would also stand a reason that voters should analyze in a manner commensurate with what a player did as opposed to what he could not do due to injury. Obviously if a guy has a good seven years and then a crappy 7 years, you’re going to weigh out the man against the good and get the ending numbers but if a guy has a great 10 years like Pedroia and then his career is suddenly ended, that goes back to what time where they looked at guys like Kiner and Koufax and appreciated their dominance for what it was in the comparatively short time they had to display it. Like I said, I can see coming up with 10 guys ahead of bedroya right now on this ballot but for the guys who are only putting in two or three names, sorry there are definitely more worthy guys on this ballot that you are just ignoring.
Have a question how can someone vote for a player one year and the next year not vote for that player. If player deserves vote one year why not the next?
Really good and age-old question. I’ve wondered that myself for years. Some guys put out little articles explaining their ballots and the logic they have applied. I’ll tell you it’s sometimes pretty strange to try to decipher the thought processes. I saw one recently that explained how guys who got pinched for peds after the penalties were instituted will not get their votes but guys who used them before that time were not the same so they would vote for them. It appears to make sense on the face at first but then you realize, steroids were not legal prior to the most recent institution of punishments. And they also were not permitted in baseball. It just wasn’t enforced the same way. So to say the difference between Manny Ramirez and Jose Canseco is anything along the lines of, Manny did it knowing the penalties involved so it’s different, is ridiculous. The Mitchell report didn’t come down from heaven to suddenly enlighten everyone to something we didn’t know. The FBI had investigated and warned baseball for several years that the Day of Reckoning was coming. Baseball decided to keep playing Russian roulette as long as they could to reap the benefits of the power display. They still were not permitted during that time frame so if you’re going to hold it against people then hold it against everyone. I wouldn’t hold it against anyone personally because, there was a time when it was likely that more than half of baseball was doing it. It doesn’t make anyone a superstar if they can’t play the game already. And most of all, if Bud Selig is a hall of famer, knowing everything he knew about it and doing nothing, how do you possibly justify everyone else being out? Sorry for the ramble, the point is, what kind of justification is that in the voting process?
I’ve also seen a few guys say they had voted for so-and-so for 3 or 4 years but they weren’t gaining any traction so they weren’t going to vote for them anymore because other people weren’t voting for them. That’s your process of analysis? Bob and Joe don’t like so and so so instead of applying your own opinion, which you previously already had, you just give up? Good plan. This whole thing is a mess.
Did you see Juan Gonzalez numbers? And he is not in HOF?? Please…same with one of the best defense ss in history…Omar Vizquel…amost no one vote for him because he wasnt a slugger. Look for Dennis Martinez, Carlos Delgado (he is not a HOF because of his attitud), Luis Tiant, and other hispanic with great numbers.
Carlos Delgado is easily a hall of famer. Very sad omission there because there is just no excuse against it. Juan Gonzalez too. But he’s one of those unfortunate guys where PED was attached to his name long ago and never forgotten. He never failed a test and no one ever proved he used any PEDs so he sits in a weird purgatory with guys like Clemens who are paying a punishment for a crime they’ve never been factually convicted of.
El Tiante should have been in long ago. You can compare him to many Hall of Fame guys and he sits right there. Very similar career numbers to a guy like Catfish Hunter so that is another terrible omission.
Vizquel though, is a little bit different story. You can look at his numbers and say he had a bunch of hits and was a great fielder but if you dive a little deeper, his case is not as amazing. Look at all the shortstops with over 10,000 plate appearances. Mainly, because it took him that long to reach the numbers he did get offensively and a really become less great when considering how long that is to pile them up. Of the guys with 10,000 played appearances, many have 3,000 hits, a lot more home runs or just better overall offensive numbers. He compares to only a few offensively like Aparicio, Maranville and Ozzie Smith. Everyone else in that club has an ops higher than 7. Those four guys don’t. And the fact that he compares to those three Hall of Famers is probably more of an indictment against those guys being in the Hall of Fame than it is a plus that he belongs. I get the defensive argument in favor of Smith and, okay, obviously enough people with votes thought that was enough to make his case. Many people also feel the same way about Vizquel but if you take the people who believe Smith’s defense put some over the top and then apply the fact that he is considered the best, that puts Vizquel somewhere behind him.
Also, many people are blindly looking at things like range factor now and pretending it has some profound meaning. It basically adds up put outs and assists and divides them by innings played. Very subjective considering it’s just assumes everyone has a similar amount of chances. Also as soon as everyone is facing the same type of batted balls, at the same exit velocities off of the same pitching and so forth. Or at least that these things all come out in the wash in the end. Again extremely subjective nonsense. But if you are a voter who has hitched as wagon to these kind of statistics, Vizquel goes from being a guy with the top fielding percentage to only 72nd on the range factor list at shortstop. So, as convoluted as that becomes, and as pedestrian as his offensive stats look against other guys, that’s an uphill climb already.
Now add in his wife saying he choked her and a sexual assault allegation against an autistic batboy and you have a recipe for disaster.
I completely agree with those character issues at the end but I find them a little funny because of how many times we hear things like, “Andruw Jones didn’t assault his wife on the field so it has nothing to do with his performance on the field”. Why does it apply to one and not the other?
I’m not sure that your inference is that these omissions are racially motivated but at the same time, I would sure hate to think that Ian Kinsler, who compares suspiciously closely to Chase Utley, is being ignored because he played for Team Israel for instance.
Beltran ABSOLUTLY NOT a Hall of Famer!!!
Wtf arw you talking about?? Andruw has 450 homeruns
434. Juan Gonzalez, Paul Konerko and Carlos Delgado have more and belonged in well before Jones. Now Beltran still not in? Several other guys belong in way before the guy who would have the second lowest batting average in the hall.
Good comments
Finally, Hall of Time once again!
This one is going to be very interesting. Too many candidates will be up for election. That could either be good or bad. Some pretty good candidates might fall off because of the too many candidates on the ballot. I would like to compare some candidates here.
I would like to begin with CC Sabathia, Mike Mussina and Felix Hernandez. Of course, Mike Mussina is a hall of famer, but it took him several years to be there, like 6 years if I’m not mistaken.
CC Sabathia 251 Wins, 3,093 Ks, 3.74 ERA, 62.3 WAR Cy Young
Mike Mussina 270 Wins, 2,813 Ks, 3.68 ERA, 82.2 WAR (HOF) No Cy Young
Felix Hernandez 169 Wins, 2,524 Ks, 3.42 ERA, 49.7 WAR Cy Young
Mike Mussina clearly was the better pitcher here and it took him about 6 years to make the hall of fame. Why should CC be first ballot? You be my guest.
I would also like to compare Chase Utley, Dustin Pedroia and Ian Kinsler, none of these are hall of famers so far, but would like to compare them.
Chase Utley .275 avg., 1,885 hits, 259 HRs, 64.5 WAR, 6 All Stars, no gold gloves, no MVPs
Dustin Pedroia .299 avg., 1,805 hits, 140 HRs, 51.9 WAR, 4 ALL Stars, 4 gold gloves, 1 MVP, ROY
Ian Kinsler .269 avg., 1,999 hits, 257 HRs, 54.1 WAR, 4 All Stars, 2 Gold gloves, No MVP
Why this comparison? Because a lot of people out there keep saying that Utley was the better second baseman of the three here above. Clearly, we can see that’s not the case. I’m not saying the other two are or should be hall of famers, but if Utley receives over a 28% of the vote for the hall of fame, then Pedroia and Kinsler should be near that as well.
One more comparison and the last one. I would like to compare Russell Martin with Brian McCann.
Russell Martin .248 avg., 191 HRs, 38.9 WAR, 4 All Star Games, 1 Gold Glove, 1 silver slugger, 0 MVPs
Brian McCann .262 avg., 282 HRs, 32 WAR, 7 All Stars, 6 Silver Sluggers, 0 gold gloves, o MVPs
Why that last comparison? I know neither are hall of famers or will be, but….heard a lot of people saying that Russell Martin was better than McCann…not true.
I meant hall of fame at the beginning of the post.
Excuse my grammar mistakes on the post above.
Yeah I definitely don’t see the Utley over Kinsler thing. Pretty neck and neck right down the line. Pedroia was pretty awesome and I know there will be plenty of sentiment against his longevity. However, if you want to hold war against a candidate, where does it end? The real war leaders are all in the 90s and well over 100 so making concessions for guys at 70 as though that’s amazing puts people like Scott Rolen in there. How is his 70 good enough but Lou Whitaker at 75 is not? Even being finished for all intents and purposes by 33 years old, Pedroia has a higher war than Hall of Fame second baseman. I have no use for war but just making your argument for you. War doesn’t tell you who the best are. For instance, Ted Williams has a lower war than several other guys all because he missed roughly six combined years between real wars and injuries. Anyone in their right mind would take him over most of the people ahead of him on the war list.
In reality, a guy should be judged on what he did in the time he did have not how much time he didn’t have. Not that we should be inducting people who have a great three or four years and do nothing else ever but for a guy to hit.299 with 1800 hits and win championships, you should just consider what he did in the time he did it.
Utley will probably get more consideration than Kinsler and Pedroia because his peak was better. (Best seven seasons: 49.3, compared to 38.1 and 41.0, respectively). Utley’s JAWS score puts him between Ryne Sandberg and Lou Whitaker (who should be in the Hall), and above guys like Alomar and Biggio. Pedroia and Kinsler’s scores put them close to guys like Kent and Altuve (right now), and they don’t have the counting stats those guys do so they might be overlooked. Second base is underrepresented in the hall right now, unfortunately, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
The problem is that Utley doesn’t have the counting stats either, only 1,885 career hits. In fact Kinsler had more hits than Utley (1,999 career hits) Pedroia had over 1,800 hits as well, same as Utley.
Sad but the voting body gets younger so you get what we’re getting. They’ll go so far to justify wars and zones and jaws and hypotheticals that the real accomplishments are ignored. Voting for a guy who’s big offensive contribution is 430 home runs and then so-so because he has 10 gold gloves is ridiculous. The guy batted garbage, hung on too long and threw his wife down the stairs. That’s a hall of fame resume??? Get real.
Agreed with you 100%
Really I see Utley and Kinsler have obviously higher totals than Pedroia but clearly due to his unfortunate knee circumstance. I can actually get behind Pedroia because the guy just screamed Hall of famer pretty much his whole career until the injury wiped them out. The other two guys piled up some numbers but if they were in there they would be among the very lower echelon of Hall of Fame second baseman. Like Joe Gordon, Lazzeri and Evers. Three guys I’m not even sure belong in there in the first place. And then there are guys beyond that like Bid McPhee who probably don’t either. Every other second baseman in there had at least 2000 hits and many of them batted .300 or close to it. Even Lazzeri batted over .290. no we’re going to watch guys go in there who didn’t even get to 2000 hits or bat at least .280? Getting a little silly I think.
Sabathia: Cy Young, 3,000 strikeouts and a World Series champion.
That’s why he’s a first ballot guy.
Yeah, but his ERA is a little high. If I compare CC with Mike Mussina here is because Mussina was better than him and it took Mussina about 6 years to make it. So, to my point, CC will probably make it, but it’s going to take him a couple of years for it.
Sabathia’s ERA is 3.74, Mussina’s is 3.68, that’s not a significant difference. Mussina took 6 years because of the state of the ballot at the time, it was overflowing with HOF because the writers were too stingy in the years leading up to 2013, and then got hit with a tidal wave of qualified layers, many of whom had PED issues, which the writers couldn’t come to a consensus on so those players lingered on the ballot soaking up many of the 10 spots voters are limited to. They’re both worthy HOF pitchers, Mussina went in and CC will, too. How long it took them is irrelevant.
Agree 100%
If I had a vote it’s Manny, Suzuki, Sabathia, Abreu, Wagner, Rodriguez, Beltran, K-Rod, Pedroia and Petite. I don’t care about wars and jaws and hypotheticals, these are the guys who did what needed to happen and produced more than admirably in the time they had. Pedey might not have high numbers all over the place but blowing out a knee wasn’t his choice. What he did in the time he played was more than great.
Agreed!
Whitaker, Kent and Madlock. Cecil Travis and Bill Dahlen. Vern Stephens and Willie Randolph. They all have stats that would fit in with those already in. I like Pedroia and Utley, have no complaint about Kinsler, but I think Kent, Whitaker and Madlock are all better candidates.
“CC Sabathia 251 Wins, 3,093 Ks, 3.74 ERA, 62.3 WAR Cy Young
Mike Mussina 270 Wins, 2,813 Ks, 3.68 ERA, 82.2 WAR (HOF) No Cy Young
Felix Hernandez 169 Wins, 2,524 Ks, 3.42 ERA, 49.7 WAR Cy Young
Mike Mussina clearly was the better pitcher here and it took him about 6 years to make the hall of fame. Why should CC be first ballot? You be my guest.”
It’s due to the players on the ballot and the 10 player limit for voters. Mussina debuted with starting pitchers Glavine and Maddux. When you’re the 3rd best SP debuting, you typically do not fare well in the voting. Add to that returning SP Clemens and Schilling, and it’s 5 HOF caliber pitchers (Jack Morris was in year 15 and Lee Smith was also returning, neither of whom were better than Mussina, IMO) he’s competing for votes with, on a ballot limited to just 10 total. Looking beyond pitchers Big Hurt debuted and Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell, Raines, Bonds, Martinez and Trammell were also on the ballot and finished in front of Mussina. The only players in that list who haven’t subsequently gone in are Bonds, Clemens and Schilling. It was a VERY crowded ballot. Sabathia will debut with only one other pitcher worth considering, two others with whom he’s a competitive candidate, and no overwhelming candidates without controversy associated with them as a position player. This makes it a LOT easier for him to get onto a ballot than the situation Mussina found himself in.
Should he be first ballot? If a voter thinks that it is some sort of special recognition or category, then I suppose they would have to make that decision on their ballot. If they don’t, then they should vote for him if he’s worthy by their criteria.
As a Yankees fan, I must always back my ex-players here. My ten votes are:
Alex Rodriguez Ichiro Suzuki C.C. Sabathia Curtis Granderson Bobby Abreu
David Wright Billy Wagner Troy Tulowitzki Andrew Jones Andy Pettitte.
Not bad Vic but if you’re going Arid then the juice doesn’t bother you, in which case, how do you leave out Manny?
Tulo had 7 solid seasons in Colorado and one decent one in Toronto. You’re voting for him because he played 5 games with the Pinstripes? As far as infielders go, he doesn’t touch Pedroia, Utley or Kinsler and you leave them out. Over 5 Yankee games? Just wondering..
I already said that I’m a Yankees fan. A Rod was a Yankee. Manny Ramirez was not. I didn’t like him playing for the Red Sox or Dodgers.
I like Utley, but don’t care about Pedroia or Kinsler. I miss the days when you can put 15 names instead of 10.
So if you were a Royals fan you would just put Bob Hamlin, Danny Jackson and Buddy Biancalana in there just because they were Royals?
I don’t have a vote, but if I did, I would vote for Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltran, Mark Buehrle, Andruw Jones, Andy Pettitte, Alex Rodriguez, CC Sabathia, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, and Billy Wagner.
Huh? All those guys, including ARod, but no Manny? Please explain.
Usually this argument and with “Manny failed a test”. Pretty sure A-Rod did too so I never get this reasoning either..300 and 500 bombs? Pretty sure only like seven or eight guys ever have done that
Very close brother. Ruth, Foxx, Ott, Williams, Mays, Aaron, Thomas, Ramirez and Cabrera. So nine including Manny and Cabrera should walk right in as well. Steroids is a ridiculous argument already. It was more of a social movement than anything and a dumb one at that. Simple question, how come no one cared until Congress cared? Anyone who says they were not going to vote for ped guys before the Mitchell report happened is a liar. No doubt about it.
CC Sabathia’s case was pretty much or very similar to Andy Pettitte and Andy doesn’t seem to be getting more support. Sabathia had a Cy Young and 3,000 k’s and one world champion. But….Pettitte was a five-time champion, and his case is not moving forward.
Pettitte’s overall body of work was not bad but he falls short of guys like Frank Tanana, Jerry Koosman, Chuck Finley and several others. Pettitte’s ERA is 756th all time which kind of screams mediocrity to begin with. He didn’t even get to 3500 strikeouts and the guy threw four shutouts in his entire career. The biggest reason he’s made at this long is probably that he’s one of the better options in the last several years in an age where hands down, lights out dominant pictures are fading from existence. Sabathia is 18th all time in strikeouts and we’re not going to see too many guys hitting big victory numbers or strike out numbers for a long time because the focus has become for guys to throw as hard as they can until they blow their arm out which is making it difficult for anyone to pitch more than five innings so they’re not going to rack up victories too often since many times games are won in the later innings after the guy has already left the mound. So then we have guys like Felix Hernandez who win the Cy Young award with 12 or 13 victories. Granted the rest of his numbers that you were good but 10 years before that he never would have won that award because too many guys pitched deeper into games and want a lot more while still hammering out all the other numbers. That’s because guys used to know how to pitch and didn’t rely on velocity velocity velocity. The game is going backwards to a caveman mentality. I have bigger muscles than you so I can punch harder me win fight. Sure, until Bruce Lee comes along and kicks your ass at 170 lb with finesse. On top of all of that, Pettitte admitted to ped use so the tight pants, cancel culture voting body besides his apologies and admissions are not good enough because they can’t strike out Mario Mendoza. There’s your difference in a nutshell.
**He didn’t get to 2500 Ks it should say
This should never have been this difficult. Hall of famers are pretty easy to spot, they are the guys who set or break the standard in their respective roles. Which means your real Hall of famers on this ballot are Manny, Arod, Wagner, Suzuki and based on hitting the 3,000 strikeout plateau, Sabathia. Although Sabathia’s ERA is the highest of anyone with 3,000 strikeouts ever. At 3.74 he is a good chunk higher considering no one ever had 3,000 strikeouts and a 3.50 ERA. That should leave Beltran, Abreu and K-Rod as the arguables. Everyone else is basically a concession in lieu of PEDs and trashcan banging so we’re crapping up the hall with silly excuses like 70 wars and several gold gloves. What the hell is that?
Agree completely. There have always been guys that are so much close and they hang on for a little while and maybe finally get in which is fine because hey, who else is going to go if they’re just aren’t enough top of the list superstars around? Trout looked like he was going to be a shoe in from day one but he sure is making it difficult to keep thinking that way. Is this guy ever going to be healthy again? But I think it’s Arod, Ramirez, Wagner and Suzuki for sure. And CCs higher era is pushing it but I always liked the 3,000 strikeout barometer myself. Guys like Utley are troublesome for me because he had a better than average career but when I think about true Hall of Famers he doesn’t quite make it.
This makes perfect sense. And 3,000 strikeouts is a pretty impressive number. Yeah the ERA was a little higher than everyone else in the club but not too many guys strike out 3,000. And probably a lot less will now because they only pitch a thousand miles an hour for 5 minutes a game and leave.
I think you can certainly see a case for 10 guys without Sabathia but it would be such a close case for a few of those guys that his 3,000 strikeouts would win out. You have voters who are still on the PED bandwagon, voters who either don’t like relievers or value them as lesser players and only throw them a vote when they don’t have 10 guys they like better. That of course you have this strange idea among several voters that the first ballot, second ballot and so on thing controls the value of somebody’s candidacy. Obviously you’re a hall of famer, you’re a Hall of Famer and it doesn’t really matter when that is in many people’s eyes. But at any rate, those kind of guys will hold their support off for a few years as you see in cases like Lee Smith and Billy Wagner. Yes his era is the highest for anyone in the 3000 K club but it’s not like it was 7.74. so 3000 Ks are 3000 Ks and certainly buffer a pretty respectable resume overall.
If you’re tired of the stale PED thing, think the Beltran trash can thing is blown out of proportion and value guys who laid it all out there though they may have been cut short by injuries beyond their control and value relievers as well, I can see attend vote valid saying Beltran, Manny, A Rod, K Rod, Wagner, Pedroia, Wright, Petitte, Suzuki and Abreu. Perfectly respectable and all arguable from those standpoints but I don’t think so much so that you would sacrifice a 3000 K guy overall 10 of those. We are not going to see 3,000 too often for a long time now.
I can’t understand how somebody would vote for Arod and not Manny. If the peds don’t bother you then how are they possibly not both locks? If you’re trying to differentiate ped use, Arod tested positive for actual anabolic steroids while Ramirez tested for estrogen. THE GUY TESTED POSITIVE FOR BREAST ENHANCEMENT!!! I’m very aware they are considered to be a cover-up after steroid use but one guy actually tested positive for steroids and the other guy tested positive for trying to grow a pair of boobs. How do you vote for one and not the other?
I can get the rationale. Ramirez has the statistics of a Hall of Famer, but Rodriguez is statistically one of the 10-15 greatest baseball players ever. If A-Rod stats were decreased by 20-30%, he would still be a Hall of Famer, and I don’t think you can make that same argument about Manny. Manny also failed two drug tests, so people are not going to be as charitable when it comes to his candidacy.
Likewise I can see that rationale however, no matter how you slice reduction of statistics, Manny still outbatted Arod, out slugged him, got on base at a higher clip and therefore bests him in OPS. Arod I had 2500 more plate of appearances than Manny yet only beat him by 140 home runs and pretty similar in RBIs. So while he may have racked up 600 more hits and 300 more steals than Manny, he did it in 2500 more plate appearances and still ends up behind or very close to manny. Doubles for instance, they are one apart. But the hands down stat Manny posted that makes him pretty automatic no matter what is this list: Ruth, Foxx, Ott, Williams, Mays, Aaron, Thomas, Manny and Cabrera. Only nine guys ever to hit 500 home runs and bat over .300 for a career. All in the hall except Cabrera who very likely will be pretty soon.
Personally I don’t care about the PEDS because I’m not jaded enough to believe there weren’t way more guys doing it than we ever found out or ever will find out. And if PEDS were the answer to greatness then why didn’t half the league post the same stats these guys posted? We all know what peds really do to the body so we should all be just as aware that they do not create the greatest players of all time. Strength is only strength and if you do not have the “great responsibility to handle great power” then I guess you are Gabe Kapler, Greg Luzinski or any number of guys who could punch out a horse by somehow did not become Hall of Famers because they were super strong.
Every generation has had it’s downfalls and it’s share of guys trying to get one over. Whatever your era did not have was a bunch of bandwagon jumping, holier than thou, mindless internet riders with their own platforms trying to be the next great sage.
That was just Manny being Manny
Manny being awesome baby
Voting for Utley and not for Pedroia or Kinsler is a joke. The three of them look pretty much the same way. They are on the same level. Dustin Pedroia is the one with more accolades from the theee of them and the best batting average as well.
You can add David Wright to that list too! He is as good or better than the other 3, when comparing many stats!
I think he’s comparing second baseman but you’re right, Wright is definitely comparable. Especially from a Pedroia/Mattingly point of view where, these guys were clearly headed for the hall and still put up great careers, considering they were cut short my injuries. All three still deserve to be in there.
As far as the second base argument, I don’t see the great Utley appeal either versus Kinsler or Pedroia. Other than penalizing Pedroia for the injury of course.
Yes it’s a second baseman argument but I agree with Wright being a valid candidate. The “only have so many votes and there are more deserving guys” argument will somewhat apply here but, at the same time, anyone who has left blank spaces or not supported some of these other guys only to suddenly find them worthy should probably rethink their analysis process. The guys didn’t add or subtract from their careers since you didn’t find them worthy before. Obviously this doesn’t apply to people exhausting 10 valid votes but casting one or two and then clogging it up in future years with guys you ignored signifies a certain lack of capability in the analysis department.
It’s a shame Jeff Kent was overlooked
Exactly
Kent was a no-brainer. Voting body is a circus act.
Kent’s pickup truck agrees
It’s a shame that Lou Whitaker was also overlooked
True
Whitaker too. He had a hell of a career but I think he was more a victim of the era where voters still looked for standout Hall of Fame numbers. He didn’t get to 2500 hits, 400 or even 300 homers or even 250 as a second baseman and we used to look past avgs under .280 when those other things were also missing.
But I think he’s got one of those really solid all-around bodies of work that looks even better now. Now we’re talking about Utley and Kinsler when Sweet Lou was better than both of them.
I don’t know how Whitaker and Kent didn’t get in.
Because the voting body likes to scoff and chuckle over fans who know what they’re watching. These clowns need ridiculous made up crap like jaws and war to tell them who the hypothetical hall guys are now. And the longer it goes on, the more people don’t want to seem foolish for ignoring it so they jump on board and now we’ll go on having a Hall of Who the Hell are these Guys???
Because the voting body sucks
Yes they do
Whitaker, Kent and Madlock. Cecil Travis and Bill Dahlen. Vern Stephens and Willie Randolph. They all have stats that would fit in with those already in.
Shame Kinsler is going to fall off this ballot while Utley gets all these votes. Does anyone in the BBWAA watch baseball or do they just sit around reading fakermetrics?
Since when was Utley better than Pedroia?
Since never. Utley played longer because Pedroia blew out the knee. Still batted .299 with only 80 less hits than Utley in less at bats. Pretty close everywhere else and superior defender to Utley and Kinsler. Utley and Kinsler are pretty similar guys and Utley just happens to have the something factor that attracted some talking heads and the following has rolled from there. You can’t look at actual stats and say Utley was a Hall of Famer and Kinsler wasn’t without holding in a chuckle. Where did Utley blow away Kinsler? A few more “wins above hypothetical mythical characters”? They’ll say Pedroia didn’t have enough longevity. Maybe not but bating .300 with 1800 hits, 4 gold gloves, ROY, MVP and multiple championships in less time than with guy, he already looks better than the other 2 in reality. Just a really sad system.
Agreed 100 %
3.74 career ERA doesn’t scream hall of fame to me. At least, not first ballot.
You have to look at CC for what he did do. Besides Verlander, Scherzer, Greinke and Kershaw, we probably are not going to see another really obvious Hall of Fame starting pitcher anytime soon. Maybe some Old-Timers will get in through the committees but beyond that, with guys only pitching four innings now if they are lucky, who’s going to rack up those kind of stats? The last four guys to retire with 100 complete games are probably Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Eckersley. Nowadays, if a guy pictures to complete games in a season he is probably damn well going to be the league leader that year. Which also means, after the guys I mentioned, you’re not going to see somebody strike out 3,000 batters anytime soon either. 3.74 would be, by far, the highest of anyone in the 3000 Club, and a good deal higher than the average Hall of Fame pitcher as well but, his last several seasons after age 32 are responsible for the climb. So in essence, he’s kind of the jumping off point or segue between the old workhorse and the modern, babied starter. Which makes him relatively historical in and of itself. Until recently, nobody strikes out 3000 guys and doesn’t get in. Clemens and Schilling are exceptions who obviously belong in the hall and have so far been screwed. So while I think the era is a little high, I also think a 19-year career and 3,000 strikeouts is pretty worth memorializing.
I think he will make the hall of fame, but it shouldn’t be first ballot. Yeah, I get, and I know the whole pitcher Like I said before Mike Mussina was better than CC and it took him about 5 to 6 years to make it in. I think that the fact that he was a Yankee pitcher and there are too many voters who represent New York here will support CC. In fact, Sabathia matches Andy Pettitte on almost every category. Andy Pettitte was a 5-time world champion, and even though he never won a Cy Young his playoff performance as a pitcher was far better than CC’s. If I compare CC with Felix, The King for me was better. The difference between those two? CC pitched many years for the Yankees, while Felix pitched for Seattle. That’s why CC got most of his wins. Just compare the ERA and their peak years and you’ll see what I’m talking about. But yeah, he will make the hall of fame, just don’t think he’s worth first ballot.
I think Sabathia should go. 3000 Ks is pretty awesome and I don’t think it matters where he got his wins. Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine got most of their wins in Atlanta but you don’t get wins because you suck. Some maybe but not 200+.
And I don’t get the 1st ballot, 2bd ballot, 10th ballot thing. If a guy is a Hall of Famer he’s a Hall of Famer. His career is over so it’s not like he does anything different between 5 and 15 years after retirement.
Compare the ERA of CC with Maddux ERA or Glavine. CC Sabathia could pitch 6 inmings and could allow 4 earned runs, but the Yankees score 5 or even 6 runs. They will win due to the great hitting tesm they were. Can we say the same thing about Felix Hernandez? His ERA was better than the ome from Sabathia, he couldnt win that many games because his team was not a good hitting team. Get my point now?
Well I got your point all along. All I’m saying is we can’t hold wins against guys because of who they played for. How many wins do you want the discount Mussina, Clemens, Wells, Pettitte and any other pinstriper because they played for loaded Yankees teams? Sabathia actually had pretty good eras until age 32 or 33 and then he started giving up four or five runs a game and if you look at Hernandez, he only had three full seasons with a sub 3.00 ERA. He was also done by 33 years old so we’ll never know what he would have done in those same years after that age that Sabathia was actually pitching. Hernandez took the covid year off after signing with Atlanta so he never even played there and then he caught on with Baltimore the next year and had about an 8.00 ERA through spring training and couldn’t even make the club. So most likely, he would have sucked for the rest of his thirties since he couldn’t even get past 33. So they were pretty even type guys through the age 33 seasons but Sabathia was able to stick around another several years, pile up some winds and at least get to 3,000 strikeouts. If Hernandez was able to make it to 3,000 strikeouts we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation and they’d be neck and neck for the Hall no matter how many games Hernandez didn’t win.
Felix had 5 seasons of an ERA of 3.06 or better including two era titles of 2.14 and 2.27. Sabathia never did that good on the ERA category not like Felix. Of course, he will make the hall of fame mostly due to the 3,000 ks. I feel Felix should have won at least two cy young awards. I think we both had our points and it was a good analysis. See? At least we are analyzing and debating friendly and peacefully, that’s what voters should do, this type of analysis.
Too many false martyrs and followers. Obviously there are still some writers who discern between what’s important and what’s not but way too many jumping on the phony morals bandwagons and relying on half-tales like wars and jaws.
Agreed.
Me too.
I think that there needs to be a fan committee. Players who are obviously HOF caliber need more opportunities and the fan voice needs to be heard! My first HOF ballot would be this class! Without these men along with prob 100 more the HOF just don’t make sense, AKA Harold Baines!!
Dale Murphy
Don Mattingly
Roger Maris
Curt Schillings
Pete Rose
Maury Wills
Lou Whittaker
Curt Flood
Ken Boyer
Darrell Evans
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Manny Rameriez
Mark McGwire
Dave Parker
Steve Garvey
Right on Nick. Never been a hypothetical metrics guy and I’m never going to be. These are a great representation of guys who built the game or continued to make it the greatest game in the world. I would add Luis Tiant and Dwight Evans and then I think it would be a really good start for correcting what ails the Hall.
And Jeff Kent
Agreed! After all we watch the games, we go to the parks, we buy their jerseys and buy baseball cards too. You’re right!
Actually thought of a few more
Allie McReynolds
Johnny Sain
Alvin Dark
Don Larson
Harvey Kuenn
Carmelo Pascual
Elston Howard
Curt Flood
Cletus Boyer
Bill White
Manny Mota
Mickey Lolich
Wilbur Wood
Dennis McLain
Craig Nettles
Sparky Lyle
Andy Messersmith
Bobby Bonds
Vida Blue
Dave Concepcion
George Foster
Greg Luzinski
Jose Cruz
Bob Boone
Ken Griffey Sr
Bill Madlock
Keith Hernandez
Fred Lynn
Ron Guidry
Willie Randolph
Dennis Martinez
Jack Clark
Lance Parrish
Pedro Guerrero
Willie Wilson
Rick Sutcliffe
Kirk Gibson
Jeff Reardon
Mike Scott
Fernando V
Dave Stewart
Brett Saberhagan
John Franco
Vince Coleman
Joe Carter
Andres Galarraga
Will Clark
Dave Cone
Mark Grace
Jim Abbott
Marquis Grissom
Omar Vizquel
John Orleud
Gary Sheffield
Kenny Loftin
Andy Pettitte
Is Allie McReynolds the love child of Allie Reynolds and Kevin McReynolds?
Thanks for proving the point of why fans are not allowed to vote… now where’s my other sock?
I don’t think his idea is bad Curt. There are definitely some guys that should be in and some knowledgeable fans that know it but, you’re right they can’t just have the entire fan base going crazy or everybody’s favorite players would be in the Hall.
I’ve always thought that Bill Madlock should’ve been in the Hall of fame. What a great hitter he was!
Kenny Lofton should.be in the hall of fame. I mean if Tim Raines is in then Lofton should be in too.
I would go El Tiante, Cobra, John for sure. I know people have a big war problem with Garvey but he was a star for a long time in his day and so was Allen. There was a time when I wouldn’t think Boyer but with things being the way they are today, a guy with a pretty good all-around game like that probably deserves to be there. Not all that dissimilar to Scott Rolen so I wouldn’t have a problem seeing any of these guys in there.
Are you aware of the 5 and 10 year requirement in order to be considered for voting? For example, Maris fails both. Don Larsen, Kenny Lofton, John Olerud would all appreciate the thought. My favorites include Sherry Magee, Sam Leever, Jesse Tannehill, Barney McCoskey, Cecil Travis and VERN STEPHENS.
Not sure what five and 10 you are referring to. But I do find it funny how often John Olerud is dismissed. Especially in light of how many times you have mentioned a guy like Sherry Maggee. Not that Maggee had a bad career but, he basically out tripled and out stole Olerud. And then he pretty much falls below him everywhere else. In some cases not much but Olerud crushes him in homers but more importantly, walks and OBP. In fact, Olerud is 52nd all time in walks and 72nd all time with a pretty ridiculous, almost .400 OBP. The guy got on base more often than almost everyone in his generation never mind everyone in every generation except for 71 guys out of about 22,000 who have ever played the game.
These lists are always fun, seeing who everyone remembers the most and who everyone’s favorite guys were in different eras. The problem with lists like these though is that they are trending in the opposite direction of the Hall’s original intention. It was supposed to be the best of the absolute best and is already not that. And this is why. When you put Ron Santo in there, you open the floodgates for why not Ken Boyer? Pretty similar players. Though I’d be more interested to know, if you put Tony Oliva in there, why not Al Oliver? How do you put Bruce Sutter in there and yet, Billy Wagner has struggled to get in for a decade? Andruw Jones versus Jim Edmonds? Keith Hernandez and Bobby Grich both top tier defenders in their time yet, at a time where everyone is harping on defense, both have been ignored. You can find dozens of comparables to a guy like Vern Stephens so do we just keep adding guys because every time you drop the bar a little bit, there’s another guy very comparable to that guy? I love remembering these guys but now we are having conversations about guys in some cases who don’t even have 1500 hits. How far can we go?
Not to mention guys like Delgado, Murphy, Abreu, Clemens, McGwire, Sheffield, Rose, Schilling and Joe Jackson who all belong in there before pretty much anyone on these lists.
Sherry Magee was a major run producer during the dead ball era. 4-time Rbi champ, twice the leading slugger. Compare him to Zack Wheat, Elmer Flick and Harry Hooper, not Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb.
The way I read 5 and 10 was: 5 MVP type years (STEPHENS} or 10 years leading (or close to it) in some major category (Andruw Jones). In other words, forget years lost after they struck gold
I see where you’re going. I thought you were referring to some kind of actual rule but you’re talking about one of those self-imposed oddities that the writers have come up with to help them judge things we used to just be able to judge by watching baseball. Along with the obvious hypothetical nature of many of these current metrics, I find it difficult to go by things like appearances in top 10 simply because, you could hit 30 home runs for 10 straight seasons, five of those seasons only two guys hit more than you, you’re in the top 10. The other five of those seasons happened to be homer-happy years and 15 guys hit 35 or better in those seasons. Now you’re lucky if you’re in the top 20. But the point is you still hit 30 home runs for 10 straight seasons, making you extremely productive and reliable consistently. How are your 30 home runs any more or less valuable in any given season because you did or did not appear in the top 10 list with the same exact number annually? If the guy hit 300 homers in 10 years, I’m pretty impressed and I don’t really care how many lists he appeared on. Same thing with awards. Too many of them are subjective and opinionated. Jones’ 10 gold gloves are a very popular argument to put him over the top with nothing else but his 400 home runs. Eight and nine gold gloves though, are somehow not impressive enough to keep Hunter and Edmonds in the conversation when, other than home runs, they both offensively outplayed Jones without question and still won those gold gloves. So then we hear about how amazing Jones’ defense was, completely ignoring the fortuitous situation he played in behind that pitching staff and the dramatic fall off when he no longer played behind that pitching staff. We can look at every single year the MVP has been awarded. Or any award for that matter, and probably debate pretty well who did and didn’t deserve the award. Most often, the argument can be made both ways for anybody and any number of guys could have half or twice as many MVP awards as they currently have. I think we are all aware of the cronyism and favoritism that has long existed in all sports. Larry Bird deserved twice as many MVPs as he won and Michael Jordan should easily have had a few more as well but, when the voters decide they are not going to give it to a certain guy anymore or consecutively too many times, doesn’t anyone else find it odd that the entire voting body suddenly voted that way? The whole thing is a mess and it’s only getting worse. It’s really a shame. And I have no problem with a guy like Maggee being in there because, you’re right, he was consistently productive at a high level for many seasons and, in an era where the home runs just didn’t fly so you really can’t hold that against him.
Carlos Delgado should be very high on your list. 27 more home runs and this guy would have been a lock. Better fielding percentage than about 8 or 10 Hall of Fame first baseman, 280 average, 483 doubles and probably would have made a lot more all-star teams if he spent his career as a Met or even a Yankee or Red Sox.
Yeah I can definitely think of a lot of fans who should not vote for Hall of famers. But I do agree with some of these guys. And Delgado is definitely a high one. For all the times we hear about how many all-star teams a guy made, Delgado missing all-star teams was not an indictment on his talent and production. That guy was awesome for about 13 straight seasons and just happened to be hiding in canada, playing possibly the most loaded position of his era. Kind of tough to make all-star teams playing the same spot as Frank Thomas, Mo Vaughn (before he malfunctioned), Jim Thome, Mark McGwire, Albert Pujols, and then in his later national League seasons there were Ryan Howard and Derek Lee who just happened to be in the midst of their 20-minute primes at that time.
Fans cannot be solely responsible for voting or you would have people like the guy on this thread who vote in anyone who was ever a Yankee just because he is a Yankee fan. Many if not most teams already have their own Hall of Fame and that’s where your favorite players from that team belong. But I do agree the system is highly flawed. The idea originally that writers could be unbiased and keep it fair has been unfortunately tainted by the idea that many writers have now transformed that responsibility into a sense of omniscience and believe they know more than the rest of us. You need a system where there are specific guidelines. Inarguable. Like the automatics would be 500 homers, 3,000 Ks and so on. And then the second tier guys that come close and need to be examined a little bit would be voted on. But not by the writers alone. Maybe you’d have a committee of 10 highly vetted writers who are not witch hunters and who’s credentials as knowledgeable baseball people are the least questioned in the business, 10 living Hall of Famers and 10 managers/executives. That committee’s output would equal 50% of the vote. Then maybe another 25% would be fan-based and the last 25% would be veteran, active players with at least 10 years of service. Something of this nature would have far more voices involved from different standpoints, allow the fans some say on who they want to see in there but also maintain enough equilibrium that you wouldn’t have outlandish, fan-elected outcomes based on just who played for my favorite team.
I can think of a lot of fans who shouldn’t vote for Hall of Famers too but I can also think of a lot of writers who shouldn’t either…
I agree, but then I think of Manny Ramirez, Sammy Sosa, Rafael
Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds. Who said Ken Boyer and Ron Santo weren’t the best of their particular era.
Each of these guys should be already in. PEDs are silly already. So what, they had some workout help, so did probably half the league but no one cared because human nature is to take down the people who accomplish more than you. When steroids were booming and everyone knew it, no one gave a damn because the early guys saved a dying game at the time. Once Congress stuck their noses in it, suddenly everyone cared. Another media-created witch hunt frenzy. These guys didn’t snort coke while running a daycare full of kids or blow up a bank full of people or even throw their wives down the stairs and choked her while threatening to kill her. Nope. They got a little help in playing a sport. A game. And a game an awful lot of guys have done a lot of shady things to get a leg up in. Blacklisting them from some clown museum doesn’t take away the great careers they had. In fact, the writers bullying them makes them even more likeable and memorable to a lot of fans. Schilling was right to tell them not to vote for him. You don’t agree with my opinions so you ignore my baseball career?? Whatever losers, keep me out then. The prestige was lost long ago when you started putting in all these concession guys to avoid certain guys and still have guys to induct. You still keep out a guy who couldn’t be proven to throw the world series and a gambler while your sport is advertising gambling on the back of the mound during games. Lot of character and integrity there
Yes I would put them in. We are not talking about mass murderers here, we’re talking about guys who potentially did damage to their own bodies in the long term to help them keep their bodies working now to perform at the levels they were paid for. If MLB had made a case out of Mickey Mantle using the steroid that caused his abscess and suspended him for life, this would all have been a different conversation and most likely, not involved anywhere near the amount of people involved in it today. If MLB had investigated the massive physical change of Jose Canseco between the minor leagues and Oakland, determined he was juicing and made a game altering example of him, we would not be discussing this today. Did they violate rules? Sure. And so did countless other guys doing countless other shady things over 150 years. The game has never been cleaned and never will be. Too many people involved and too much money at stake so a bunch of writers pretending that they are the purveyors of Justice, cleaning up some pristine Puritan pastures, trampled by the dastardly ped users is preposterous at best. Aaron said he tried the greenies once and it made him feel like he was out of control and never did it again. Kid Nichols injected himself with some horse testosterone crap. Bob Gibson told stories of handfuls of amphetamines being eaten out of boels in the clubhouse everyday. Spitballs, sign stealing, corked bats, pine tar, cleating, tipping and on and on. This is what we are going to hold the line on all of a sudden? Nobody became a great ball player because of steroids. They were already great and it only helped to keep them going physically. If you weren’t a great ball player already, this wasn’t going to make you one, as evidenced by the amount of jacked up dudes coming out of systems like Oakland and Texas who still sucked even though they looked like they could lean on a building and push it off the foundation. Still couldn’t consistently hit a baseball. Keeping them out means they are forgotten? Hardly. I think we still all know who are the all-time leaders in home runs and we are all still aware of where baseball was before the ’98 home run race that made us all fall in love again. Thanks for the memories guys but now we are going to put our foots on your necks because we are a bunch of power happy writers who otherwise bear zero importance in the overall scheme of this game but to take wild guesses at salaries, make bad predictions and enforce accountability on people who can do things we couldn’t dream of.
And, yes, Santo and Boyer we’re definitely two of the best in their era. I would say Robinson, Perez, Allen for a handful of seasons and these two guys would have been the top choices of most teams at third base if they could get their hands on them at that time. I was simply using them for comparative reasons as to how each small step down between one guy to the next will eventually lead to a bunch of guys we all look at and say, “how the hell did that happen?”.
How did Jesse Haines and Chick Hafey happen? Why Travis Jackson and not Glenn Wright? Rube Marquard, but not Jesse Tannehill, Ed Reulbach or Sam Leever? Tommy McCarthy and Joe Kelley, but not Pete Browning or Jimmy Ryan. Now that you mention it, why not Jim Edmonds, Torii Hunter, Dwight Evans and/or Dale Murphy. Maybe a better question is who voted Rabbit Maranville in and zeroed Bert Campaneris and Dave Concepcion? There must be 100 worthy candidates who stoke the conversation and what we get are answers that underline the inability to establish an objective vote. Surely there isn’t one now. A-Rod, Barry Bonds And Roger Clemens would have been in on the first ballot without apologies.
Yes several good points here and really expounding on the point I guess I was trying to make. Tannehill had better numbers then Marquard in multiple categories like ERA, walks per game, hits per game and a 10% better winning percentage. And Concepcion outperforms Maranville all over the place. Of course you will get arguments about dead balls, era adjustments, so on and so forth but I think that brings about the point that, what the hell is the Hall of Fame all about then? If we’re going to have guys like that in there then, you’re right, you should be considering every similar guy to them because why wouldn’t you?? Is the Hall supposed to be a shrine for the absolute greatest ever or a historical museum, displaying the upper echelon of every generation? It’s already pretty mixed up considering you have guys in there whose careers don’t quite match up to guys who are on the current ballot getting minimal attention.
Of course there are several factors at work here and certainly not easily solved. Obviously the people voting today were not voting in 1960 and the people who voted in 1960 were certainly not the same exact people who voted in 1937 so it’s not like we are dealing with a controlled basis for induction. Also, we are now in a generation where, people as a whole, have come to look for the easy way to do everything. Maybe it’s too difficult to analyze actual statistics, watch baseball, make your own actual judgment call and fairly discern case by case situations with a modicum, as you said, of objectivity? I don’t think it’s that difficult if you really love the game and you really paid attention to what was going on. Think the thing through. I know people don’t like to think anymore so they cling to status quos and hypothetical metrics but those are clearly not all adding up to a shrine for the greatest of all time. Abreu, for instance, has a better war than Scott Rolen. Yeah I get it, they played a different position and blah blah blah but if war is an overall value of a player, why wouldn’t five more points be more valuable? I don’t care if he’s the bat boy, five points is five points. But there is always some unprovable argument to be made against logic. Again, complete lack of objectivity. If Rolen is more valuable by some unjustifiable means, then why the hell wasn’t he catching balls in right field?
Another good point, as a couple of other guys have said here, is that, in any given year, there may be a pile up of candidates that make it difficult for a somewhat lesser candidate to get votes. Another easily solved conundrum. Stop the stupid limit. If there are 15 guys on the ballot worthy of induction why in the hell shouldn’t I be able to vote for all 15 of them?? I’m sure the rhetoric involves overcrowding the hall but what sense does that make if all 15 guys on that hypothetical ballot are deserving? And furthermore, if the voters would dispense with this nonsensical first ballot, second ballot, 9th ballot silliness, these log jams wouldn’t happen. Or at least nowhere near as frequently. If a guy had a Hall of Fame career, it didn’t change from year one to year 9.
You’re not going to change human nature which is why I think, as I proposed in an earlier post, there should be some kind of system based on actual accomplishments. The most unattainable numbers equal automatic enshrinement, in lieu of any of those numbers, some combination of multiple other numbers at an acceptable rate for enshrinement would get you in. Then you would appoint a committee only for the purpose of discussing that very next year of guys on the edge. But not a committee of writers. You’re talking about guys who are now on the internet every day, proposing ridiculous trades, guessing salaries and otherwise talking complete nonsense while pretending to be “insiders”. If “insider” actually meant anything beyond “kissing asses and harassing the hell out of actual team personnel”, then these supposed “insider” reports shouldn’t be so off base all the time should they?
The committee should be made up of living Hall of Famers, executives, managers and include a small percentage of some kind of fan vote. I definitely do not think fans as a whole good fairly control the responsibilities of Hall of Fame induction but if you polled fans and then counted their collective votes for maybe 15 or 20% of that portion, you may actually have a better shot at something resembling what fans want to see rather than a bunch of self-important writers screwing the whole thing up. Not that all of the writers are this way but, given the outcomes of countless elections, a pretty good chunk of them should not be given this responsibility. Anyone relying solely or, putting large amounts of faith in hypothetical measurements while ignoring realities has proven as much. And anyone who can argue with a straight face that a guy with 10 gold gloves and 400 homers is easily a Hall of Famer while guys with eight and nine gold gloves and better offensive stats all around than the first guy or not, should not have this responsibility either.
You have some pretty fun guys on these lists. Not sure every one of them is a Hall of Famer but definitely a great who’s who of a couple of generations of upper tier Major Leaguers. I think the Hall was originally designed to be the absolute best of the best, baseball’s oversized Mount Rushmore. It has since then become pretty watered down and that brings a lot of those guys into the conversation. But even in a time where we don’t have Lou Gehrigs, Hank Aarons, Walter Johnsons, Tris Speakers, Cy Youngs, Ted Williams or Honus Wagners, you still need to look for the guys who truly mattered in their eras. Dwight Evans, Carlos Delgado, Dave Parker, Lou Whitaker, Jeff Kent and several guys from the first list here who have been blackballed because of the PED nonsense, the Pete Rose fiasco and Curt Schilling having the audacity to think he’s allowed to have his own opinion here in communist America are the guys who should be in there due simply to performance on the field. But you can’t replicate the value of seeing the game played and several guys mentioned here certainly looked like they could have been Hall of Fame material at one time or another.
Thurman Munson the Best post season player of the group.
Absolute World Series monster. Very sad case. You’d think he’d have gone in on a committee ballot by now but what power he had seemed to disappear a couple of seasons before the crash. But he was still a good hitter and great defensive guy too. I’d bet even without the power, if he has a couple more seasons of similar production he’d have gone by now. Even as a combination production/sentimental pick.
Not being a Yankee fan I gave 5 more Years to THURMAN MUNSON and what I got was a power hitting Rick Ferrell. Lots of MVP and all-star consideration and many years of excellent defense. Why Ray Schalk; is that some kind of reward for cleanliness?
Ray Schalk was elected in 1955 — did you bother to read HC’s lengthy reply to you above… People looked at the game differently 70 years ago…but to answer your question: Regarded as the finest defensive catcher of the Dead Ball Era, Ray Schalk pioneered an athletic approach to the position, catching three no-hitters and leading the AL in games caught seven times, including his 1920 season when he caught 151 of Chicago’s 154 games. His defensive prowess stands out even more since he was excelling during many years where the spitball was legal.
Hubie Brooks, Todd Benzinger and Dale Berra should be in there
Today the new version of the Veteran’s committee will announce the new inductees… curious to hear your thoughts as to who they will be… My choices are Tommy John, Luis Tiant and Ken Boyer
Think there is a strong case for six gentlemen. Hope third time a charm for Allen. Pulling for Parker and John so they can celebrate with their families while still alive. It’s sad Allen and Tiant cannot …also what happened to Santo and Minoso getting elected right after passing is terrible IMO.
Agreed. They are all good choices…
Happy for Allen and Parker, both deserving… Very disappointed that Tommy John was not chosen he ALSO is very deserving….
Yes, good for those guys. I too would have liked to see John go in as well as Tiant but I guess it is what it is.
All of the guys of the ballot are deserving.
I would have been happy to see Tiant, Allen, Parker, Boyer, Garvey and John go in. Looking up information on Donaldson and Harris, not really sure why they are even on this ballot. I understand they played a lot less games in those leagues but Donaldson appears to have had a couple of solid seasons and otherwise never had more than 31 hits. And that was only once every other season he played had less. Harris seems to have shown no power, no speed and not much of anything else and who on the voting committee was possibly around to see this guy play live to make any major judgment on his defense one way or another? Again, aware they played less games than the regular major leagues but there were some guys in those leagues that really stood out like Charleston and Gibson and the baseball reference stats don’t really show that for these two guys. Maybe I’m missing something but I can’t really fault the voting committee on those two.
Harris was being considered as a manager. He has the highest winning percentage of any manager in Major League history, at .663, with at least 500 wins. As for Donaldson, he did not play for very long in the Major Leagues but achieved 428 wins and 5,295 strikeouts in a barnstorming career. I recommend this website (https://johndonaldson.bravehost.com/) as it can give more justice to Donaldson’s career than I ever could.
Interesting information. Obviously we’ve seen a tremendous movement toward integration retroactively in baseball in recent years. While many historical aspects of this country are unfortunate, and a guy like Donaldson’s statistical output appears impressive in retrospect, it is probably accurate to assume the voters for this ballot struggle to reconcile barnstorming statistics with Major League standards. While some of those games may have been played against some professional players, many were played against semi-professional teams and whoever else would give them a game. Since we generally do not put minor league players into the Major League Hall of Fame, presumptively, this would be a difficult case to advocate. The sentiment of this integration is understandable but begs the question, why do we not integrate NPB players into the Hall of Fame? Granted there may be some minor disparities between rules of the game like a slightly smaller baseball ( which actually is probably more difficult to hit), tie games, etc but, many of those players have come here and proven able to play in either league. And NPB has also surely shown a propensity to compete on the international stage.
Agreed. The attempt to integrate is understandable but sites like baseball reference are now listing guys with barely 4000 plate appearances at best as all time leaders. And by definition, barnstorming relates to exhibitions so it’s kind of hard to justify electing people who built careers on barnstorming. As far as NPB, I get the comparison but it is called the National Baseball Hall of Fame so it would stand to reason that it is for this “Nation” argumentatively. Though it doesn’t specify only this nation. But also by that token, it doesn’t say “Major League” anywhere in the title so why aren’t others considered such as prominent minor league lifers?
There is a sad logic to the thinking that if Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds are not in then none of these contenders measure up. The sooner that this issue is cleared up and the ex-post-facto witch hunt is overruled, the better for fans of baseball and the Hall.
Agreed. First of all, other than is obvious physical increases which we could all see, the only indictment on Bonds is Balco documentation. The only indictment on Clemens is hearsay. Neither guy ever failed a test so who made the writer’s gods? You can not like them all you want but to keep playing judge and jury when no one cares who the hell you are in the first place is ridiculously presumptuous of your own importance and extremely self-aggrandizing at best. End it already, this has become just silliness.
Right. Aside from saving face among peers, how many of the writers who actually have votes watched baseball pre Mitchell report? And of all those that did, how many can honestly say they were up in arms over ped use during that time? Many will probably say they were but many are probably liars and really need to get over themselves. This is what happens when society becomes a place where no one has their own opinion, not shaped by what others think of them or the fear of being canceled by people who don’t matter anyway.
I read an article that claimed electing Dick Allen was a mistake because it should have been done sooner. I’d like to see the same mistake made for Luis Tiant, Cecil Travis, Barney McCoskey, Vern Stephens, Tommy Henrich, Sherry Magee, John Beckwith, Frank Howard and Rocky Colavito.
You guys keep lowering the bar I keep hitting my head on it.
These are guys who had great runs but not great careers. Howard, Colavito, Stephens and Sievers were important parts of some teams for relatively decent stretches but when they fell off a cliff they really fell. All very similar guys in terms of homers, hits, RBIs and overall on base ability but baseball history is literally littered with guys who fall into this category. Some of those other guys barely racked up a few thousand plate appearances and their numbers accordingly pale in comparison to even some of their peers in their own generations never mind all time. You could put all those guys in there but then you would wind up with the Hall of Every Tom, Dick and Harry not named Mario Mendoza, Bob Uecker and Mickey Morandini because there are a lot of other guys very similar to them that would then have a case. I do think Tiant should go but there are several far more deserving guys who still aren’t in there and produced more impressive careers than a lot of these guys. It’s kind of unfortunate in the respect that some of these guys could certainly stand to be remembered my future fans. Obviously you go to the hall and see the greatest of all time and then some guys that maybe aren’t quite the greatest of all time but I guess it really has to end somewhere. There are only so many Ted Williams, Willie Mays and Randy Johnsons so it would be a pretty small place if you only went there to see the actual elite which, necessitates consideration of the next level or two down. Going down another level or two from that would require doubling the size of the building because those tears are very highly represented throughout baseball history.
The article should be about how people who don’t really know the game, talking about the game is a mistake. I can see putting down some of the one-and-done guys who don’t even get or deserve 2% of the vote but harping on a guy who was a legitimate consistent stud in his time is silly. Especially in light of some of the guys we already have in there
Dustin Pedroia and Ian Kinsler are not hall of famers I get it, but neither is Utley. Come on!
Neither is Jones for that matter and he’s getting votes. And please spare me the “greatest center fielder of all time based on magical “metrics” that can only be applied to certain eras and somehow pertain to fielding prowess while ignoring fielding percentage, errors, assists etc. He hit 400+ home runs and was otherwise nothing that amazing on offense. So he was a better than average, athletically gifted fielder. So were a lot of guys.
We can make a case for Andruw Jones as one of the best, if not the best center fielder of all time. He won 10 gold gloves if I’m not wrong, what a center fielder he was! He could go in a la Ozzie Smith style
Shouldn’t have to make a case. Should be a lot more obvious. I don’t necessarily believe Smith was a lock either. Gold gloves are a prestigious award but your job is to make plays at your position. If you can’t then you are Masataka Yoshida or any number of guys who’s only value was on offense, hence the DH. Yes she was graceful, athletic, instinctive and made an awful lot of great place but, when I grew up, I was still at the center fielders job as to back up the left fielder and the right fielder and the two middle infielders. That’s your job. You have a glove, go catch the ball. But please do us a favor, when you’re at the fleet, please don’t hit .254 with less than 400 doubles and not even 2,000 hits if we’re going to pay you to be a top tier producer. Jim Edmonds and Torii Hunter we’re also great center fielders with 8 and 9 Gold gloves respectively. They may have had less homers (not that many less) but all their other offensive numbers are much better than Jones. But somehow they are ignored and they’re gold gloves are not as important as Jones when making their cases. That’s crap. Carlos Beltran was a great center fielder and also blows away Jones offensively but he’s struggling for votes because he banged on a trash can. Let’s see, stealing signs, which has been done for decades and no one cared, or whacking your wife around… Hmmm .. and of course his supporters will say he made a mistake or it was not on the field. It’s still a black eye for the game and one of the standards for voting is character. Okay, he made a mistake and maybe him and his wife are over it and maybe he deserves to move forward, Beltran, Schilling, Rose and everyone else who made a “mistake” don’t deserve to put it in the past and move forward? Why? Because of 10 gold gloves? Who cares?
I agree with you, but that’s basically the same reason why Ozzie Smith is in the hall, because of his glove.
Right, but thatthe same issue with Chase Utley, a guy has a .275 lifetime average and not even 1,900 career hits.
Depending on what you value, Smith is a little bit different case. It’s why many of us have little use for these clown metrics.
Who decides the basis for things like range factor? Zone whatever? Who gets to determine what should be playable and what’s not? Based on what supposed expertise? Catching a ball??
If you those crazy things and value hypotheticals, Smith has a far higher defensive war # than Jones and, at a far more demanding position. This number supposedly says he’s the greatest shortstop or actually defensive fielder of all time. Ok. But he was still not a great or even upper echelon offensive player.
If you want to look at reality based stats like, guy gets chance to play a ball and either makes the play or doesn’t, also known as fielding percentage, Smith isn’t even in the top 25 shortstops of all time , never mind defenders overall. And then of course, that pesky little subpar offense thing.
But I think overall, his showmanship, heart, hard work and of course pretty great defense anyway made him a tough case to vote against.
HC on Ozzie Smith
“Depending on what you value, Smith is a little bit different case. It’s why many of us have little use for these clown metrics.
Who decides the basis for things like range factor? Zone whatever? Who gets to determine what should be playable and what’s not? Based on what supposed expertise? Catching a ball??
If you those crazy things and value hypotheticals, Smith has a far higher defensive war # than Jones and, at a far more demanding position. This number supposedly says he’s the greatest shortstop or actually defensive fielder of all time. Ok. But he was still not a great or even upper echelon offensive player.
If you want to look at reality based stats like, guy gets chance to play a ball and either makes the play or doesn’t, also known as fielding percentage, Smith isn’t even in the top 25 shortstops of all time , never mind defenders overall. And then of course, that pesky little subpar offense thing.”
Are you smoking crack or what? Reality based stats like fielding percentage don’t measure range or arm. Ozzie would get to far more balls than other SS, which is clearly reflected in his Chances, Putouts, Assists and DP. Not even in the top 25 for SS fielding percentage all time? So you’re going to try to tell me that Paul Dejong, Trevor Story, Jose Iglesias and Miguel Rojas are better SS than Ozzie because they have higher fielding percentages in fewer than half the innings played? Get a grip! Vizquel has the top fielding percentage in about 1200 more innings at SS than Ozzie, but he had about 944 fewer chances (there’s that pesky range again). He also has 149 fewer putouts, 699 fewer assists, but he did have 144 more DP at least. Still Ozzie accounted for more outs in fewer innings than Vizquel despite the lower fielding percentage. But hey, if you really think Dejong is a better SS than Ozzie because fielding percentage is .9787 over .9782, fine by me.
Calm down angry little elf. Not sure what crack has to do with it or getting a grip but this probably not much need for millennial style arguments. You don’t like the point someone makes so you lied over what they’re saying half-heartedly and then try to insult the shit out of them. I didn’t walk out of a Cracker Jack box yesterday afternoon.
Chances and put out to clearly illustrate range? I think they clearly illustrate feeling percentage. So again, range based on who? Who decides what guys should be able to get to? Smith very obviously, again just by watching him play, had amazing range and got to plenty of things other people didn’t get to. Clearly demonstrating, along with his array of backflips, an extreme level of athleticism and speed. Athleticism and speed, that also should have gotten him a lot more doubles, steals and offense in general. From the, missing the point department, again, great great defender and not an offensive Hall of famer. And clearly I didn’t say anything about Vizquel or Dejong being better either way.
People want something to believe in and far be it from me to crush that. But for everyone who likes to believe in these so called modern statistics, there should also be an ability to apply such statistics in an overall analysis before making nonsensical judgments. Andruw Jones is an anomaly in that, his first few years of flashy and spectacular fielding set a tone for those who watched him and no one ever bothered to really think about what went on through his entire career. He was anointed a great center fielder and the legend only grew. Now, in light of the fact that, beyond 400 plus home runs, he has no offensive case for the Hall of Fame whatsoever, this ridiculous idea of Jones being the god of center fielders is all that’s left to make the argument. Forget about the fact that he pulled his wife down the stairs, choked her and told her he wanted to kill her, especially since many of the BBWAA seem to have already forgotten it. If you break down the career of Andruw Jones, all of his amazing defense happened in his first 11 seasons. He might as well have been sleeping on a park bench under some newspapers after he left Atlanta.
During Jones first handful of seasons, he showed an amazing propensity to cover a lot of ground, make spectacular diving catches and quickly turn and go back on balls that would have seemed impossible given how shallow he played in the field. Jones then started to put on weight and didn’t move anywhere nearly as quickly as he did in those first handful of seasons. He made an awful lot of outs on shallow drop in hits because he was standing about 10 ft off of second base. Many of those balls would have normally fallen in for a hit or should have been played by the second baseman or the shortstop. The reason for this? How about that the Braves pitching staffs in front of him spent several years as the best, can of corn producing staff in all of baseball? Don’t think so? Look at the positive defensive numbers for his outfield teammates during those seasons. Yes he had a strong arm and therefore was able to accumulate a good number of assists because he was almost standing in the damn infield! And maybe you could make an argument that the fly ball rate was not necessarily a gimme but they also had the league’s lowest home run rate allowed for years. Jim Edmonds, Torii Hunter and others were already great center fielders so imagine how much better their numbers would have appeared with a pitching staff basically forcing pop-ups all day long, allowing you to stand so shallow in center field that you can basically make a bunch of simple catches and gun people down from 20 ft away. Argue it all you want but that’s the reality of Andruw Jones defensive “metrics”. Don’t get me wrong, he was a superb fielder but he was definitely not the greatest fielder of all time. And if you add all of this together, it’s certainly not enough to make up for all the missing offensive numbers outside of his home run total. And certainly doesn’t add up to Hall of Famer.There are modern defensive numbers that would suggest Andrew Jones is basically twice the center field or Willie Mays was. No shot in hell. That’s just simply ridiculous. His voting trends suggest he will eventually get in but they also suggest a severe lack of knowledge among the BBWAA. His defensive war number alone looks so ridiculously out of place among his peers, anyone with half the ability to do an eye test should be able to resolve that this is a ridiculous anomaly. Yes he was a great fielder, no he was not so much better than anyone who’s ever played the game that almost half of his war value came from his defense. A pretty solid chunk of that is owed to his pitching staff. Otherwise, how was he suddenly not that amazing anymore and never won another Gold Glove as soon as he left Atlanta? He forgot how to play defense? Or he no longer had that same pitching staff? One seems a little more realistic than the other.
Right, and the same is going on with Chase Utley, clearly not a hall of famer. Less than 1,900 career hits and a .275 career hitter. That doesn’t scream hall of fame to me.
Right. I don’t get the Utley thing either. Take a look at this guy’s “baseball card” and about five straight seasons jump out at you as potentially Hall of Fame. But that makes him borderline at best and the rest of his seasons were pretty pedestrian. And that’s both actual, tangible stats and the hypothetical metrics other people believe in.
In 400 games and 1100 more at bats than Pedroia, the guy amassed an “amazing” 80 more hits, 17 more doubles and 100 walks. Granted he has over 100 more home runs than Pedroia and 300 RBIs but, again, 400 more games and 1100 more plate appearances. Also, that wasn’t Pedroia’s thing. His job was getting on base from the 1 or 2 hole and playing awesome defense. And he did the job extremely well and extremely consistently. Look at his career and there’s no drastic drop-off or outlying crazy seasons that he never replicated, just a consistent, decade-long peak.Too bad the knee wasn’t as consistent because that guy had Hall of Fame written across his face. Not to mention the championships, ROY, MVP and gold gloves.
So, all that in mind, if he just doesn’t have enough meat for the Hall, neither does Utley. Also talking about one guy who was a .300 hitter for about 5 years and dropped off badly and one guy who was a .300 hitter for his whole career. When Pedroia went down, he was still putting up strong, consistent production. Utley became relatively Joe Blow well before that.
Strange what some voters see and appreciate I guess.
“People want something to believe in and far be it from me to crush that. But for everyone who likes to believe in these so called modern statistics, there should also be an ability to apply such statistics in an overall analysis before making nonsensical judgments. Andruw Jones is an anomaly in that, his first few years of flashy and spectacular fielding set a tone for those who watched him and no one ever bothered to really think about what went on through his entire career. He was anointed a great center fielder and the legend only grew.”
How good of a CF does he have to be given his offensive performance? And for how long? Here you say a “few years,” then just a bit later you say his first 11 seasons. He did win 10 straight GG. Were that many voters asleep at the wheel and just rubber stamping him? He led the league in putouts 6 times and is 15th all time for CF, assists 3 times and 41st all time, DP twice and 54th all time. Seems like he ranks pretty highly amongst CF all time and was clearly one of the best of his era by these numbers. So how good does his offense have to be to get him into the HOF level as an elite defensive CF?
“He made an awful lot of outs on shallow drop in hits because he was standing about 10 ft off of second base. Many of those balls would have normally fallen in for a hit or should have been played by the second baseman or the shortstop. The reason for this? How about that the Braves pitching staffs in front of him spent several years as the best, can of corn producing staff in all of baseball? Don’t think so? Look at the positive defensive numbers for his outfield teammates during those seasons.”
Well, this is an interesting take. Many of the balls he caught by being able to play shallower than other CF “would have normally fallen in for a hit” but you manage to hold this against him? I thought it was a good thing for defenders to record outs on balls that would ordinarily be hits. His ability to play extremely shallow and still make the outs on balls hit deep was one of his strengths, not a weakness. As to his pitching staff, they were not extreme flyball staffs, basically league average. Glavine and especially Maddux were good groundball pitchers. How about you show how the pitching staff was “the best, can of corn producing staff in all of baseball” since you’re making the assertion? What is it based on?
“There are modern defensive numbers that would suggest Andrew Jones is basically twice the center field or Willie Mays was. No shot in hell.”
Actually there aren’t. The metrics measuring Jones are different than the ones used by WAR to measure Mays’s defense because there isn’t enough data available for Mays era. You can’t make an apples to apples comparison of the two by looking at Rfield on B-R. All it will tell you is that both were elite CF in their eras given the data available. You can make direct comparisons of Jones versus his peers though given the same data and metrics were available for all of his peers. But you don’t have to if you’re skeptical of the defensive metrics.
“Otherwise, how was he suddenly not that amazing anymore and never won another Gold Glove as soon as he left Atlanta? He forgot how to play defense? Or he no longer had that same pitching staff? One seems a little more realistic than the other.”
There was nothing sudden about it. By the time he left Atlanta he had already played more games in CF than DiMaggio had for his career. He led the league in games played in CF for his first five seasons and then was 2nd, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, and 3rd the next five seasons. That takes a toll. Age related decline and poor conditioning, in other words his body was beat up from playing CF almost every game (averaged 157 games for 10 years) and he stopped taking care of himself and got fat. The latter was obvious, but the former is still clear if you look at the careers of CF. It’s the most demanding position, by far, in the OF. All the running takes a toll on the body, the years take away the speed, age slows reaction time. You can look at the career games leaders for CF and see it. He played almost exactly the number of games and innings as Mantle, a bit more than DiMaggio. With just one more of his average number of games during his 10 year run as a starter in CF he would be top 10 in games. That number of games and number of innings wears you down, and if you let yourself get fat, it’s only going to be worse. This is way more realistic than your theory of Atlanta’s pitching staff being exceptional at inducing weak flyballs, especially given the fact that the staff was not the same over the 10 years he was the CF in Atlanta. You’re not seriously saying that Russ Ortiz, John Thomson, Jaret Wright, Mike Hampton and Paul Byrd were inducing easy flyballs in 2004 the same way Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz (and their GB/FB numbers don’t suggest they were either) were in 1997, right? But I’m open to your evidence they were, if you have any.
Well that’s a lot.
Let me say that, while we obviously have differing views on the situation, I do appreciate how much more thought you put into this than the average “he was the best ever you don’t know what you’re talking about” argument based on nothing.
Also, while I have mentioned a few times, forget about his domestic violence issue, when we are ignoring guys who took peds to keep their bodies going, gamblers, unproven game throwers and a guy who is not in because the writers don’t like his political opinions, I don’t understand why Jones is even a debatable topic after what he did to his wife. It’s kind of hard to respect the opinions of writers who blackballed all those other characters while ignoring this little fact.
At any rate, I mentioned his first few years because that’s when he first on the scene, flashing outfield greatness and ingraining himself in the minds of viewers as a highly athletic and skilled glove man. 11 seasons is where he piled up all this defensive credibility with Atlanta. And yes, that is what’s known as a sudden drop off, when a guy wins a gold glove, leaves the team, signs for big dollars with another team and proceeds to suck for the rest of his career. I’m very aware he put on weight which I believe I mentioned, I’m very aware he became out of shape but those things are part of being a great player. You are paid $20 million dollars to keep yourself in shape, not hit the HomeTown buffet every night on the way home and then use it as an excuse to suck.
For a referential point of view, center field was my main position my whole life. Was I Ken Griffey Jr? Likely not but I was a good enough overall player to have a professional tryout, show up hungover from the night before and suck my way out of the opportunity before deciding it was over and, for personal reasons way too ridiculous to get into here, giving up and moving on with my life. But having played the position as long as I did, I fully realize the importance, difficulty and attributes of it. I also know personally, how many times I made a play that would send teammates and viewers into hysterics, only to know that, the play really wasn’t that difficult to make in the first place. But a quick burst of speed and a dive go a long way to wow people. Obviously, I didn’t end up playing at the level of the guys we are discussing here but the position is the position regardless. So, yes, I do have some idea that the pitching staff plays a pretty sizable role in the place you make because they can dictate the type of balls you see. From 97 to 2002, Jones racked up the majority of his most serious numbers, relatable to the argument regarding his otherworldly defense. During those six seasons, the Braves pitching staffs allowed the lowest batting average against on fly balls in the entire league. Now you can certainly make the argument that the outfielders bared a lot of responsibility for that, and unlikely they did but, it also stands to reason that, the positive defensive statistics for the entire outfield relied on a little more than that. So then we look at home runs allowed. Again, in that six year period, the Braves pitching staffs allowed the fewest home runs in all of baseball. By about 80 less than the next closest team. This clearly illustrates their ability at keeping fly balls in the yard. Therefore, having three athletic defenders manning the outfield, you’re going to get an awful lot of fundamentally, routine outs. Also, allowing a guy like Jones to play up closer. Now the point here, isn’t that he couldn’t go back on balls because clearly he could. The point is that his numbers were inflated by his arm. Playing shallow allowed him to basically “rob” out from his middle infielders and rack up assists as well. All on balls that wouldn’t normally be the center field as responsibility. You can believe that or not but that’s pretty much exactly what happened.
In no way shape or form did I say he was a terrible outfielder. He was a great outfielder. But, definitely somewhat inflated by what I’ve described. And if you watched him play defense and watched Jim Edmonds play defense, there really wasn’t a huge discrepancy in athletic ability, instinct and complete disregard for the body when it came to making the tough plays. Edmonds shot didn’t begin in Earnest until he was 24, Jones at 19. Edmonds clearly outpaces him in most offensive categories, one two less gold gloves and basically was walked in the front door and out the back door of the ballot in no time flat. But now we suddenly want to overanalyze the hell out of defensive metrics for this guy.
If you look at dwar, take the ratings and divide them by any fade, this is where Willie Mays is purported to be roughly half the fielder Jones was. So, I see you kind of reiterated my point but in different words but, I was actually making the point that you cannot call this guy the greatest center fielder ever when you’re using defensive metrics that cannot be applied equally across generations. My point, is that I don’t rely on any of these metrics because of exactly these reasons. Too many discrepancies, too many inaccuracies and too little information is available to say that Jones was better than Speaker, DiMaggio, Mantle, Mays, Murphy, Armas oh the best center fielder on your local American Legion team.
I also am not going to say that a case should not be made for a great defender but, I don’t think that defender should be a guy with almost the lowest batting average in the Hall of Fame and, overall, lower tier offensive statistics than most of his peers or Hall of Fame potential brethren.
No one was in that house when the domestic dispute went down so I’ll never pretend to be one of the apostles or a baseball media saint casting judgment on something I can’t possibly speak completely intelligently on given I don’t have all the facts and I didn’t see it happen. But I also wouldn’t cast judgment on all the other guys they’ve kept out either. Also, if I have 10 votes, there are 10 guys I find more deserving than a guy who’s best cases are 400 home runs, which is now done far more often than it used to be and hasn’t been enough to get just everybody in and, the debatable defensive case based on what numbers you want to look at and believe. So yes, I would say skeptical is probably the right word but however you slice it, I certainly can’t go with a list of Gold glove seasons since that subjectively depends on biased voting, perception and only matters for some guys apparently.
So, while my “theory” regarding the involvement of the pitching staff may be only that, I certainly can’t ignore the realities of those numbers and pretend they didn’t exist. You’re definitely right that he got out of shape though and that makes his case even harder for me. One, he shouldn’t have gotten out of shape and two, whatever the reason was, yes he did fall off the face of the Earth in one season between leaving Atlanta and robbing the Dodgers.
Couple of grammatical changes there by the stupid microphone. But should say divide by innings played
“In no way shape or form did I say he was a terrible outfielder. He was a great outfielder.”
OK, so how much offense does he need then to be a HOF outfielder? That’s what it comes down to. We’ve both gone on at length, but lets get down to brass tacks. If he’s a HOF caliber CF, which he is, then how much offense does he need to have to go with it? Yes, his BA is low, but when you look at OPS he’s above average. His power is plus, especially for a great defender at an up the middle position. More HR than Doby, Puckett, Ashburn, Snider and basically the same as Dawson (who moved off CF very early, ending up with more time in RF than CF). Those are five of the eight HOF CF with careers beginning after integration. He has more total bases than Doby, Puckett and Ashburn, and only slightly fewer than Snider. He has more 2B than Doby, Puckett and Snider. He stacks up just fine offensively with the typical Integration Era HOF CF, and he’s a better defender with more time in CF than all of them. No, he’s not a Griffey, Mantle, or Mays, the other post 1947 HOF CF, but clearly you don’t have to be as good as them to be elected.
“From 97 to 2002, Jones racked up the majority of his most serious numbers, relatable to the argument regarding his otherworldly defense. During those six seasons, the Braves pitching staffs allowed the lowest batting average against on fly balls in the entire league. Now you can certainly make the argument that the outfielders bared a lot of responsibility for that, and unlikely they did but, it also stands to reason that, the positive defensive statistics for the entire outfield relied on a little more than that.”
Lowest BA against on fly balls sounds like a fine example of what a great CF Jones was. I really don’t understand how you think that can be an argument against his defense.
“So then we look at home runs allowed. Again, in that six year period, the Braves pitching staffs allowed the fewest home runs in all of baseball. By about 80 less than the next closest team. This clearly illustrates their ability at keeping fly balls in the yard. Therefore, having three athletic defenders manning the outfield, you’re going to get an awful lot of fundamentally, routine outs. Also, allowing a guy like Jones to play up closer. Now the point here, isn’t that he couldn’t go back on balls because clearly he could. The point is that his numbers were inflated by his arm. Playing shallow allowed him to basically “rob” out from his middle infielders and rack up assists as well. All on balls that wouldn’t normally be the center field as responsibility. You can believe that or not but that’s pretty much exactly what happened.”
From 1997 to 2002 Atlanta Braves pitching flyball percentage/NL flyball percentage: 22.1/22.4, 23.5/23.3, 25.4/25.9, 26.6/27.9, 27.8/27.5, 25.2/25.7. They were basically a tick below average in terms of flyballs in four of those seasons and a tick above in two. They did not allow, or cause, any exceptionally high number of routine flyballs. If they had, their flyball percentages would have been much higher than league average. The quality of their pitching may have resulted in fewer HR than league, but it didn’t result in more flyballs. And what does it matter if he caught flyballs infielders might otherwise have caught? He had the range, he made the plays and he recorded the outs. And, again, how can you use the fact that he was recording more assists than other OF against him? He was racking up assists, that’s a GOOD thing.
I said batting average against on fly balls allowed. Fly ball percentage has nothing to do with it. They could have allowed 90 or 300. The point was the batting average allowed was about.138 I believe. Being the lowest at home runs allowed illustrates that the fly balls they allowed we’re not necessarily hard hit contact. Sure guys Rob home runs but definitely not at the rate you would need to insinuate Jones was responsible for that. And of course making outs and assists are a good thing. You’re ignoring the point though, he was in other people’s territory making their outs and plays. Once again, I I didn’t say 100% of his output was any of this. The very clear and obvious point is, was he great? Sure he was? Was he faring away better than anyone who ever played the game in center field? No. Did you actually watch the games? Did you just see some highlights of the guy recently and jump on the argument? If you watched him play and you watched other guys that we’ve discussed here play, he’s impressive but not so impressive that he made other great centerfielders look stupid. Hall of Fame caliber defense? Sure. How much offense should he have? Okay, 430 home runs is a good start. And then it ends. 319th all time in OPS it’s not that amazing. 715th all time in OPS plus is not that amazing. 1900 hits is far from amazing. Yes you named Hall of Famers that he may sit closely with but you also named Hall of Famers that many people have argued, maybe are not necessarily Hall of Fame caliber Hall of Famers. Trying to have the lowest batting average possible for a Hall of Famer is not much of a goal. Obviously he’s not that but damn close.
HC says, “You don’t like the point someone makes so you lied over what they’re saying half-heartedly and then try to insult the shit out of them. I didn’t walk out of a Cracker Jack box yesterday afternoon.
Chances and put out to clearly illustrate range? I think they clearly illustrate feeling percentage. So again, range based on who? Who decides what guys should be able to get to?”
OK, my bad. Seemed to me when you tried to belittle Smith’s D by saying he was only 25th in fielding percentage, and that fielding percentage is the stat to look at since it reflects whether someone got to a ball and made a play or didn’t, you were putting far more emphasis on FPct as a means of judging defense than it is worth. Apologies for the misunderstanding, and honestly the smoking crack thing is not meant to be mean but it’s just like an expression of shock at something wildly unbelievable.
Chances and putouts/assists are much better measures of defensive skill, and, yes, they do represent range pretty well. If you look at groundballs vs. flyballs, as we did when we looked at Jones, the distribution is pretty even across the leagues. IOW, one team doesn’t have a significantly higher amount of groudballs than any other team, so if there are roughly equal amounts of opportunities for fielding a batted ball between teams, then a position player with more chances is almost certainly displaying better range than others at his position. The answer to your last question is the Official Score, and this is why FPct is a poor metric to use for judging defense. The Official Scorer makes a judgment call on an error, it’s entirely subjective AND it doesn’t take into account range because they don’t know where a player started from when the ball went into play, they don’t know how far the player went to get to the ball, they don’t know how hard the ball was hit. They may makes some judgments on these, they may try to makes some approximations, but they can’t do it accurately and so two players will not be treated the same. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that Ozzie picked up at least a few errors on balls that other SS would not even have put a glove on.
I think you’re offbase on his offense as well. If you want a poor offensive performer who’s known for his glove, you should be looking at Vizquel, who was truly atrocious at the plate. Ozzie was a poor hitter early in his career, but he improved significantly and, especially when his baserunning is considered, he was a solid offensive performer in the middle of his career, and then poor in his last years as age related decline kicked in. If you don’t consider the offensive environment he was playing in, you may mistake his offensive numbers throughout his career as being substandard, but by 1984 jis BA of .257 was basically league average, .261, and his OPS was nearly league average as well. Then from 1985 to 1989 he was able to maintain that level, had a poor year in 1990, and then 2 more good years in 1991 and 1992. In fact, he hit over .300 four times in those 9 seasons. From 1985 to 1993 his BA was .294 to a league average of .281 and OPS was .709 to .721. So there you have nearly a decade of a SS who is basically a league average bat, who is far and away the best defender, and who stole 322 bags at an 82% success rate. But, yes, for about 40% of his career he was a really poor hitter, though always a plus baserunner who was also above average at staying out of the DP, along with being the best defender at the most important defensive position other than Catcher.
I’ll always be partial to fielding percentage because it’s pretty straightforward. Chances, plays made, done. Assists and putouts are pretty straightforward. You make them, they’re obvious, the more you make, great. And I know official scorers determine hits/errors/etc. But that’s the point. It’s already subject enough to human error and opinion. I’ll never have use for more useless human error than we already need to have. Some clown is going to judge what’s a good play and award points for it? Sorry, not really interested in fiction. I know plenty of people are getting into following along with the fictional stuff but then a lot of people follow along with a lot of ridiculous things in life. I prefer to have my own opinion, mind, eyes, judgement and I’ve never had a problem knowing who is a bad, good, great player.
Smith was obviously a great defensive player. My point is, WAR is nonsense, as are pretty much any purported metric that uses the words, adjusted, points awarded, etc to insinuate any realistic validity. Some people want to believe in them or pretend they make sense, great. Not my business. Some people like to watch WWF and talk like it’s a real fight as well so there’s always that..
Watching smith, it was not hard to tell he was a hell of a fielder and as I stayed earlier couldn’t extremely athletic, quick and instinctive. Best ever? I don’t know. That’s kind of a hard label for me to put on a defender. There are so many variables involved in playing defense that I think is pretty impossible to say that. There have been guys that could be just as great and maybe didn’t play anywhere near long enough to add up phony war numbers don’t have enough opportunities for other members but, it doesn’t change that they were great. But, all in all, he was usually one of the best ever in the field.
Offensively, I think you’re off a little bit. I’m pretty sure he only been at 300 once in his life. I believe it was .303. and I believe he only added .280 or better six times in 19 years. That’s kind of a minimum mark for me if someone is to be considered a great hitter or Hall of Fame worthy hitter. He did have speed. Above average but I’d be more impressed with 500-600 steals with his speed and athleticism. Especially if you only bring 28 home runs to the table in 19 seasons. Doubles, again, not extremely impressive, given his plate appearances.
As far as offensive environment I think Busch in those years was maybe 325-330 down the lines, 375-380 to the power alleys and 400 to center. Not that difficult to reach for a good power hitter but those teams were built to hit and run with Her, McGee, Coleman ets and the minimal power coming from Clark or Brunansky, given the year.
I get why he’s in. I just can’t place such a detrimental amount of weight on defense. It’s obviously important but it’s the job. The extremely vast majority of plays made are expected to be made by a guy playing the position. Fundamental stuff. No one’s spending 30-100% of their career making astounding, mind boggling plays . Those are exceptions so basically, you’re looking at a small faction of difficult plays in contrast with how many normal, run of the mill plays a guy makes and portraying them as something amazing. I think, more amazing than the reality. That said, relatively pedestrian offensive numbers don’t combine with that to equal obvious Hall of Famer.
And to tell you what brothers me the most about Jones, no ope bring it up but, he has all the earmarks of a PED guy. Some like to say he got out of shape blah blah blah. I’ve always watched as much baseball as I could get my eyes on and the Braves were on a lot back then. He came on the scene just before the big McGwire/Sosa chase and had his best years right through the heart of the PED period. After the first handful of years, he began bloating and his speed went down. But the bloating didn’t stop him from clobbering home runs. But it did make his already suspect hitting even worse, pretty much ended his base stealing and slowed him down in the outfield. I know there is this love affair with his ten gold gloves and his outlandish war number on defense. Shall I looked further into my theory regarding the pitching. Apparently I’m not alone. I came across an article where a guy was breaking down those numbers and how shallow he was allowed to play due to lack of hard contact to deep center field against those pitching staff. So I obviously didn’t dream that if somebody else was aware of it who actually researchers the hell out of everything. When this article he also quoted a guy named Dial, who, apparently, is a member of the SABR defensive index committee, if I have that title correct, and this guy said, something to the effect of, after the first few years, Jones’ defensive stats were largely inflated by “discretionary outs” or taking out away from his infielders and what strength was left in his arm racking up shallow assists. In the same article, none other than Bill James was quoted discussing Jones’ perceived defensive prowess and basically stated, Jones is a fine defender but given several underlying circumstances, he was not nearly ready to proclaim him the best of all time.
But I think my most unanswered quandary in all of this is, if Jones were married to your mother or sister, grabbed her by the leg and threw her down the stairs, choked her and said I’m going to kill you, would you consider that a drastic enough case of domestic violence to think it violated the character and integrity portions of the bbwaa voting instructions? I know I don’t really need it to be my mother or sister to understand the severity of it but somehow it seems to be blatantly ignored by, so far, 66% of voters. But God forbid, Curt Schilling has his own opinions on anything political, he’s not getting in.
So if I whacked my wife around instead of “allegedly” juicing I’d have been a 1st ballot lock??? Damn!
How is Billy Wagner’s % dropping?
I don’t know why. The guy was one of the best closers ever!
It’s still just 21 ballots out of approximately 400. Nothing in the totals here is statistically significant yet. Check back when about 100 ballots are revealed to see what the general trend will be.
Good point. I too, think Wagner belongs in and maybe he will finally get there but it is not going to be a runaway if he does.
FOR a guy with 25 votes out of 29, 25 yeses and 4 noes, another yes raises the percentage minimally, being only 1/26th of the total yeses, but another no does more damage because it would be 1/5th of the no total.
When you talk about careers falling off the table, I think we can consider why it happened. With Ross Youngs, Addie Joss and Urban Shocker: they died. With Don Mattingly, Barney McCoskey, Vern Stephens, Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax: injuries ruined each career, in terms of statistical output. Cecil Travis was a consistent all-star and potential MVP candidate before WW II. He outhit Di Maggio in 1941 (by .002) and was not a factor after he returned from his 3-year stint. I don’t think that considering .320+ hitters is ” lowering the bar”.
Agreed. For the most part, I think a lot of guys’ careers fall off the planet due to declining skills whether it be physical or mental or a combination of both. But I also agree there are cases like Mattingly and Pedroia where, unfortunate physical circumstances cut a career short for an otherwise, still capable player. And when that player was pretty much awesome right up until that devastation, I think that is definitely worth a different approach as a voter. Certainly not a guy who had two or three great seasons and blew out a knee or a shoulder because, you really can’t know that he would have continued such production 7 years into the future. But a decade is a pretty good amount of time for a guy to be at the top of the game, go down with an unfortunate circumstance while still on top of the game and not have all the reason in the world to think he would have continued that production at least a few more seasons.
I know that Bruan McCann is not a hall of famer, but his career was pretty good. The voters should at his numbers closely and what he did as a catcher.
I meant Brian McCann.
You’re right, McCann did have a good career. Might have been the best power hitting catcher in his era and batted over .280 lifetime. Pretty damn good considering not too many catchers do that. No, his numbers don’t spring off the page compared to the majority of Hall of Fame players but when you look at them as a catcher, they should. But this just goes to show you that too many people are now relying on war and jaws which clearly don’t tell you the story. If you lived through his career and paid attention to baseball at all, he was widely considered an elite framer (for whatever that’s worth), a very strong defensive catcher and had a powerful and accurate throwing arm. Coupled with his above average offense for the position, he should definitely be getting some attention. This guy finished his career in the top 10, 20 and 25 of all catchers ever in several offensive categories as well as being a high above average defensive catcher. Pictures of his era loved throwing to this guy and, for good reason. But he’ll be forgotten just like Hunter and Abreu, two other guys who deserve some serious attention and, way more than they have gotten.
I think McCann (and Russell Martin, too, for that matter) will be better appreciated in time as defensive analytics continue to evolve. I believe they will be looked back on in the same way Gene Tenace is looked back on now: overlooked in their time, but with modern statistics, we can find a greater appreciation of the value they provided to their teams. Unfortunately, that time is not now.
Tennace is probably a little bit more difficult case to make on the face than McCann. 200 home runs, 1000 hits, 178 doubles aren’t much to write home about. And then of course, a.241 batting average is pretty terrible. However, he did get on base at a .388 clip due to how often the guy walked. Kind of absurd how often he walked comparatively to his other statistics. But, this has not been a well-kept secret. It’s right there in the statistics. He was also a pretty average defender behind the plate but, a monster at first base.
I don’t know how many more metrics can be invented to tell people what we already know but I’m extremely saddened by how many people think they need them to determine the quality of a baseball player in this day and age. Again, getting on base has never been a secret. Suddenly, we have all these people preaching how much more valuable on base percentages than batting average. I don’t see where that was ever a secret. Seems pretty obvious. The more times you are on base, the more opportunities you have to score runs which in turn, is more valuable to your team. Pretty basic math. I can remember learning to hit decades ago and I can still remember one of the most commonly reiterated phrases from my father, grandfather and uncles was “a walk is as good as a hit”. None of us had ever heard of metrics but somehow we already knew this valuable nugget of information. I’m pretty sure, in fact, the values of a walks and on base percentage were no secret this far back as Ted Williams and beyond so I’ll never see the need to keep pushing these convoluted modern metrics to over-explain things we should already know.
I realize the digital age has increased and overarching sense of boredom around most common-place things because, in general, our society has now become so fast-paced due to not having to think anymore since something digital does that for you if you let it. But why over analyze the hell out of something that doesn’t need to be when you can just sit back and enjoy it for what it is?
Besides that, “Ichiro 60”, “Parker 40”. Doesn’t that tell you immediately to tread with care before considering WAR as the last word? I would have more respect for “objectivity” if it read “Ichiro 85”, “Parker 65” and the best relievers were in the forties instead of the twenties.
Right. I’ve heard many arguments on these metrics yet they all fail to substantiate concrete evidence. And I hear people say things along the lines of, “we have evolved and understand statistics better”. Seems to me, someone dictating hypothetical zones, values and capabilities with so-called adjustments and guesses is exactly the opposite of evolution. Obviously many of us know what a good baseball player looks like and what that’s spectacular baseball player looks like which now leaves us to accept the devaluation of the Hall of Fame but I guess it’s just like a million other things in current society.
I guess by this point we can have an idea of what is going to happen if this keeps up. Suzuki, Sabathia and Wagner. I hope Billy Wagner makes it in. This is his last year on the ballot. The guy deserves to be in Cooperstown.
Checking the name of Chase Utley on many ballots and not the names of Dustin Pedroia or Ian Kinsler is laughable.
It shows a severe lack of actual analysis on the part of the voters. Kinsler and Utley are obviously very similar players, only separated by fictitious metrics.
Pedroia was clearly on a path to the Hall, derailed only by unfortunate circumstance, probably caused by how hard he played the game. You take certain cases like Ralph Kiner and recognize greatness over a shorter period because a back injury ended his career prematurely. David Wright, Dustin Pedroia and Don Mattingly, among others, fall into that same category. But instead we now have to hear about peaks and other argumentative quandaries as though the ultimate goal is how to keep people out. Are we creating a historical monument to those who brought their best of the game in the time they were allowed to do it or just an adolescent boys club governed by writers with unfounded agendas and too much power in their hands?
Exactly
Well, let’s see. You can only vote for a maximum of ten players. I assume most people will vote for Ichiro, Sabathia, and Wagner, and more than half will vote for Beltran and Andruw. If you don’t care about alleged/confirmed steroid use, there’s A-Rod, Manny, and Pettitte. That’s eight names. So if you wanted to vote for all three, you couldn’t. Then there are underappreciated guys like Abreu and other short but sweet careers like Wright, Hernandez, and Tulowitzki. I think the ten-player limit is dumb, but that’s the rule, so inevitably, guys you could make good cases for will not get voted for.
I’d go Abreu, Beltran, Manny, Wagner, Suzuki, Arod, Hunter, Buehrle, K-Rod and Pettitte. Then Sabathia, Pedroia and Wright go right on to my ballot next year.
Coke Hamels is the only thing close next year so plenty of space.
Cole
Although I am 100% convinced that Ichiro is for the HOF, my votes would include CC, Wagner, Beltran, Andruw, ARod, Manny Ramirez Pettitte, KRod, Pedroia, and DWright. There are some very good arguments to the contrary for some of these, but I think these 10 guys should be HOF. If Ichiro is spurned by the voters, I will feel worse than foolish, but Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Musial were not 100% so I’m not feeling that Ichiro NEEDS to have 100% of the vote. I am not opposed to Abreu = Hunter nor Rollins, nor Utley = Kinsler, but there are too many more deserving players not currently HOF. Similarly, for Buehrle. I really liked Hunter and Buehrle as players. I thought that they were gold. But I had no trouble thinking of 10 pitchers who I would put in the Hall ahead of Buehrle: John, Clemens, Tiant, Reulbach, Leever, J Tannehill, CC, Pettitte, Verlander, Kershaw, Scherzer, Greinke. Got the idea. I wanted to add Curt Schilling, but the ghosts of Mickey Lolich, Paul Derringer and Dennis Martinez objected.
Thanks to Ryan, Anthony and Adam for running this site year after year after year.
Definitely some good pictures on your list including old timers. Unfortunately they are not on the ballot so they really are not options for voting. But I would go with Buehrle in this round as well. I throw him my support because he’s been there a while and not climbing very fast. But there’s something I love about a guy who came within less than two innings of pitching 200 innings per year for 15th straight years. And it’s not like he was just hanging on with a five or six era and being a bum.
Just curious; with the election results to be announced in nineteen days, why is there very little movement with the votes cast?
Everyone is taking their time to decide who they want to screw the most
The answer is always Sammy Sosa.
Yes sir and Curt “Don’t you dare vote for me Schilling.
What’s the hyper with Chase Utley’s candidacy for the hall of fame? Come on! The guy just had five great seasons, that’s it, just five!!! Pedroia has a better case than this guy and still some people think he was way superior to him. Jeff Kent had a caliber hall of fame career and you guys DENIED him! Kent never even made it to 50% on the ballot. Are you going to tell me that Utley was better than Kent? Utley was not better than Pedroia! No gold gloves, no MVPs and Pedroia has a 30 plus career batting average than Utley. What are we talking about here? How do you voters come up with your analysis? If the guy was so good with the glove where are his gold gloves? Answer me that question. Not even one!
The hype I meant.
Awards are awarded based on popularity, not necessarily merit. For example, Derek Jeter won five Gold Gloves based entirely on reputation and popularity. If you’ve never had a differing opinion on who should have won an award at the end of a season, I can understand using awards as the basis for Hall of Fame worthiness. But I feel a lot of people go back and scrutinize past award results (like Porcello’s 2016 Cy Young, for example). As for Kent, he was a victim of timing on the ballot, as there was always a ton of others candidates being considered a head of him on every ballot he appeared on. But just because the writers whiffed on Kent shouldn’t be a valid reason to deny every other subsequent second baseman. Utley is getting more consideration than Pedroia right now because of sabermetrics. Whether or not you like it, that’s the reality. They aren’t looking at batting average, they’re looking at OPS+ and wOBA. They aren’t looking at MVP voting, they’re looking at WAR. They aren’t looking at Gold Gloves, they’re looking at DRS. Why do you think baseball is more strikeout-liberal than it used to be? Why do you think pitchers are blowing out their arms at alarming rates in pursuit of the highest velocity and the maximum spin rate? Because what players value is changing. What teams value is changing. What baseball values is changing. Likewise, what voters value is changing. You can lament those changes and the implications they bring to baseball, but that’s the reality of the sport. Stats like WAR and DRS are not infallible, as they have lots of problems, and I’m sure in twenty years there will be new statistics that will make them obsolete the same way they made stats like batting average, RBIs and pitcher wins obsolete, and there will be a push back from people who subscribe to that philosophy just like it is with the traditional philosophy now. It’s not like Utley or Pedroia are going to waltz into the Hall in the first couple round of balloting. If they were to make it, it would be by the skin of their teeth. They were always going to be borderline cases, anyways. Utley got 28% last year. Plenty of guys have gotten that and never come close to 50% on subsequent ballots.
Having talked baseball with approx. 30 other devotees for over 30 years it is interesting that WAR has not been mentioned even once, to my knowledge. We all get a laugh out of “Ichiro 60”, but it’s a private laugh. It so clearly means nothing. On the other hand, the obsolete metrics : RBIs, HRs , wins, ERA, etc. are frequent subjects. I really approve of WAR, etc. because they are intelligent attempts to look from a different angle. They spark conversation. But “Ichiro 60” needs no justification for being a first ballot electee; “Lou Whitaker 75” for a guy with no immediate chance ought to do more than raise eyebrows. The year that Bill Madlock got blown away there were 10 guys ahead of him now in the HOF. Who else? Steve Garvey, Pete Rose, Vida Blue, etc. WAR didn’t create that problem, but I think that anyone who thinks WAR makes Utley more desired at peak than Whitaker or Kent is missing something.
Yeah no one I know mentions war, jaws or anything like this when we talk baseball. Just the game and the stats. To each their own.
Yeah, but WAR doesn’t mean that much..let’s put it this way. Utley had a WAR of 64, so that proves what? The guy didn’t even reach 2,000 career hits. He was a .275 career hitter and to say that he was good defender without a gold glove, not even one. I just dont think he was that good. Actually, there’s a reason why ball players win gold gloves. The guy was good, but not for a long time. He was never great.
And DRS is another circus. Subjective and dependent on perception of great plays. Bishop defensive stats show Kent was a .980 fielder and second base and Utley, .982. not much of a difference there in provable statistics. And offensively, Jeff Kent makes Chase Utley look like Brett Boone. So if DRS and a 17 WAR on defense are the difference for voters, why play offense? Yes there were guys like Clemens etc on the mallet but most of them were not receiving large chunks of votes and in no way, was there 10 guys or deserving than Kent for the entirety of his time on the ballot. But this many voters are finding a spot for Utley?
You broke it down very well and I think a lot of us agree and are aware of what you’re saying but one thing we will probably not all ever agree on is we don’t have to accept anything really. I don’t, you don’t and anyone else who doesn’t want to, doesn’t have to. The age-old statistics are not obsolete, they are just hiding in the background as people like to pretend they are useless. But they can’t figure out the new phony ones without the real ones so they will never be useless. And like anything, it may take time to happen but the Hall is who should be concerned because they will lose patronage over the years. It may not hurt them now, but if they continue permitting what goes on now that a lot of people don’t want to see, they will continue to alienate fans who know what the real stats are and don’t need to pretend. 25 to 30 years ago did you think Sears was going to go out of business? I don’t know your age but I can tell you 30 years ago I wouldn’t have but people would be interesting their entire livelihoods to computerized devices but here we are having to chase down banks, change all of our information and worse, paying huge ransoms to keep our businesses alive every time some jack off decides to hack it and can’t be found. Again, people love the easy way so if you give it to them, I would say 85 to 90% of the people will blindly take it regardless of not knowing the consequences. The one thing that will not change throughout the course of the world is that nothing worth having comes easy, only a larger amount of people nowadays than ever, disregard that reality. And pay the price. Eventually any business that lets itself go down the toilet gradually will pay the price. Changing the the game with stupid little rule tweaks and larger bases and every other ridiculous thing in the name of speeding it up for people in today’s society with shorter attention spans is a bad idea. It’s too late, it’s been done and no one is going to fight against it but any ass could have foreseen that when those things happened, more stupid ideas would follow. And sure enough, this year we hear about the golden at that rule. Now it’s being shrugged off as though it was never anything but it was obviously the machine floating the idea to see what people thought. Unfortunately it takes seeing stupid things happen to the game before people finally have enough and then you see Hall of Fame players come out and say what a dumb idea this is. Or even current players like the pitcher the other day who made a relatively unveiled remark regarding not believing Manfred and the garbage he spouts. There are plenty of people who have no use for the modern rhetoric known as metrics or safer metrics or whatever you want to call all this crap. But what happens more often than not is, they grow frustrated and just ignore the argument rather than bother beating their head against a brick wall. I certainly understand that feeling but, I also believe it is incumbent on older generations to at least try to offer voices of reason and experience in a lot of cases. No one has to listen and the majority won’t but that doesn’t mean everyone should just roll over and die or accept any crap they don’t want to.
Yes there have always been changes in the game, in any game. You may not read it all over the Internet and maybe you do, I don’t spend much time on it I just like this forum, but, in real life, I know an awful lot of people who are die hard NBA fans when we were growing up and right through the ’80s and ’90s. Now, I know an awful lot of people who don’t want to watch an hour long 3-point contest every night where no one is allowed to sneeze on anyone else show that the floor can be left open for everyone to fire off from beyond the arc all night long. Very boring for those of us who watched Jordan, Bird, Magic, Jabbar, Moses, Gervin and all the true greats who came before those times have to fight their way through bruising defenders, hand checks and maulings. Now we listen to the new generations tell us we are crazy if we don’t understand that LeBron James is the greatest. We saw the NBA before and we see it now and we certainly never all had a problem knowing who the greats were and who the greatest of the greats were before new generations came along and led us out of our collective slumbers and enlightened us on what the game is really all about. But back to baseball though, we have always known what batting average, on base percentage, walks, strikeouts, slugging percentage, fielding percentage and every other statistic on the diamond means. Now you have people who want to add them together as though we couldn’t figure out who the sluggers were and who the on base guys were prior to this stroke of genius. Most importantly though, the fact that many are realizing how undependable and an exact these metrics really are, should lead people to realizing they don’t really serve much purpose. Real, tangible things surf purposes. They always have and they always will. Convoluting the conversation in an attempt to show older generations how stupid they are and how much they didn’t know about watching a game they’ve watched for 150 years is really serving no purpose but to deface the hell out of a beautiful game. And to now be arguing statistics of guys who are oftentimes borderline at best.
Baseball’s cool.
Only one of them could play it.
You are my sunshine…
R.I.P. Rickey Henderson
God bless you Man of Steal – greatest leadoff hitter ever
Miss him!
Chase Utley is not a hall of famer. Voters you need to study each case before voting. Dont go.with the flow, make your own desicions based on your judgement after doing some research.
Some people say he was a hard-nosed player. I don’t think trying to injure people it’s hard-nosed I think it’s pretty dumb. Yeah he had five solid seasons but all the rest is just okay. I don’t know how you would put him in there and not Kinsler. Pedroia was better than both too bad his knee ruined him.
Nothing against Chase Utley he was a very good player, but seriously how could you not put in Jeff Kent? What was the highest % of votes that he received?
This needs to be addressed….
I think his high was around 46% in his last year on the ballot. I always thought he was a pretty ridiculous omission. You can look at other guys and argue one way or the other and maybe even see either side of the argument. Whitaker was great and I have no problem seeing him in the hall but, I can certainly understand arguments against maybe his batting average etc. Kent batted .290 though. Add in 560 doubles, almost 2500 hits, top 100 in career home runs and most all time for a second baseman. He was clearly a case of writers disliking him. You here arguments about appearances in top 10 lists, awards etc. Okay, five time all star, four-time silver slugger and he won the MVP in 2000. I’m not a big proponent of adding awards together since they are subjective at best but, for those who like that sort of stuff, he had awards and plenty of top ten appearances on leaderboards. I don’t really care about those either because leaderboards are obviously just that and only for a specific season. In any given season you have guys on leaderboards who are in the midst of one awesome campaign or maybe a three or four year run of good seasons. But it’s a ridiculous way to gauge performance overall in a Hall of Fame career because top 10 lists don’t necessarily show consistency for guys like Kent and Abreu who, consistently, achieve above average output. Maybe not always top 10 but even top 20 is impressive. You don’t get to 560 doubles by accident. And you don’t have to lead the league every year to do it. But you do have to perform at a relatively high level for a long time and he did that. Simply more proof that the system is a joke. Guys didn’t like his attitude, his mustache, his personality, whatever. Let’s go back to a time before the last 20 years where people had some pride in their work, everything didn’t come easy off the face of a digital screen and writers’ main concerns didn’t involve clicks on garbage, opinionated articles about nothing. When people had pride in themselves and cared about not looking like clowns. Even then, you had favoritism and cronyism but it never sounded as silly as some of the arguments you’re here today and no one depended solely on hypothetical nonsense to determine Hall of Fame qualifications.
Jeff Kent had the misfortune of being on the HOF ballot with Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Curt Schilling and Gary Sheffield. Consequently, the best hitting second baseman since Rogers Hornsby got lost in the fog. There definitely is a herd aspect to the annual vote. There’s a popularity aspect, a payback aspect, but most of the voters seem to vote on a quality basis. The ones who turn in blank ballots should be banned.
Clemens Bonds Sheffield all reached highs of around 65-66% and not until the very end so I don’t think Kent was losing too many votes to those guys. Schilling went over 70% and then they backtracked because they didn’t like his personality. Showing the childish nature of an awful lot of voters. Which I think also displays that a lot of voters do not vote on a quality basis. But I do agree that voters handing in blank ballots should be banned. There were never 10 guys on the ballot who should have blocked Kent at any one time. Especially since so many guys were against the PED guys already anyway and if you’re not going to vote for the best hitting second baseman since Hornsby, you’re certainly not doing it because you are a quality voter. You’re a child and shouldn’t have the privilege of voting.
Exactly, good point!
Exactly, agreed 100%
Exactly, Jeff Kent deserved to be in Cooperstown, not the case with Utley.
Kent was great. He had plenty of good numbers but really what do you need to know beyond most home runs ever by a second baseman? Obviously has plenty more than that but that’s pretty awesome right there.
Let’s talk about K – Rod, what do you guys think about him? He saved a lot of games, just behind Jansen and Kimbrel. I feel that he should be a hall of famer once Wagner gets rhe call, even if it takes him 10 years to make it. What do you think guys?
Good one. Clearly one of the best closers in the game and member of a very small club with 400 saves. Still the single season leader with 62 and no one else has ever touched 60. Also, Rivera and Hoffman each had nine seasons a piece with 40 saves, the only other closer with six is K-Rod.
You won’t hear a million ridiculous arguments. Closer is not a position, closers are failed starters, closers only pitch one inning on average, their stats are subject to other variables, blah blah blah blah blah.
Yes, they pitch one inning on average. That’s their job, duh. Many guys have been given that job and not been able to hold on to it. That’s not because it’s so easy that any idiot can do it. Yes their stats depend on other variables. For instance, MLB does not have a long-standing practice of tracking a useful stat such as save percentage. Pretty simple, saves divided by save opportunities. If you try to look up this number, it is not easy to find and when you look at a site like mlb.com, they list saves and save opportunities. You can do the math from there however, before 1999, save opportunities is the same number as saves for most players as no one was apparently tracking this. So Lee Smith has 100% save percentage for example. Obviously not realistic but the information is not there to easily access. Again, probably due to a belief in some circles that this number is not useful. I think it is because you would apply it like you apply anything else. If you look at it on base percentage and see a guy with a four something OBP, you can then look at his other statistics and see he basically had a cup of coffee and is not comparable to guys who have reached minimum plate appearances for consideration. Same thing here. You’re going to look at a guy and see a 90% save percentage but maybe he only had 20 opportunities and saved 18 games. Well obviously you’re not going to say he’s the greatest closer of all time. But to look at, say, guys only in the 400 Club, Trevor Hoffman is over 92% and Rivera is just under. Not counting Lee Smith and John Franco, who’s numbers are not readily and accurately available, K-Rod is around 85%, the lowest in the 400 Club but certainly still respectable. The rest of the guys are generally around 88% like Wagner, Jansen and Kimbrell, with the last two obviously being still active. As far as variables, of course there are variables. But an argument regarding variables could generally hurt or help the guy. Come into the game with the lead in a safe situation, error at second, that’s row from the first baseman, etc, blown save. So not actually your fault. On the flip side, give up a hard liner that could be a big hit but the short stop dives and snares it in midair, game over, save. But this is the case for most to change that. Just like it’s the case for many defensive stats. While individual performance stands out more in baseball than most team sports, these variables exist throughout the game every single night. Errors obviously change the course of a game but then so do bad place that are conceivably not ruled errors. The same way great plays can reverse a would be hit into and out. Obviously affecting era, hits per game, hits and so on. With all the talk of framing in the last several years, you can certainly watch a game and pick out several gifts pitchers receive as well as several bad calls by umpires that go the other way. It’s a fallible game and it always will be. Or at least it always should be because that’s just how the game is built. It’s why I have no use for attempts at modern metrics because there will always be the subjective aspect to it that relies on human interaction and discretion. My convolute the hell out of something beautiful when it was just meant to be enjoyed?
That being said, only a handful of guys have ever received 400 games and, for something that many describe as easy or not that difficult, it certainly isn’t done very often and, looking at the current leaderboards for career saves, isn’t going to be done very often anytime soon. The guy had a good ERA, saved 400 games, is the only player ever to save 60 in a season and did it all in spite of not always playing on the best teams. Rivera was clearly great but Rivera also played on some clearly great teams for most of his career. Yes he was part of the greatness and what made it great but not everyone got to close games for dominant Yankees teams. I’d vote him in.
*you will hear
*Bad throw from first base
*Why convolute
Sorry, speaking out loud
I agree. K-Rod would get my vote every time.
Wow well thought!
Didn’t KRod face charges of domestic violence? People here keep bringing that up when Andruw Jones is being discussed. I don’t know much about the details of each case. Are there significant differences that make Jones’s past worse than KRod’s?
So I was not there obviously and clearly none of us were but from my recollection, K-Rod was a bit of a hot head. I believe he had a first altercation with his father-in-law where the father-in-law said something derogatory about Rodriguez’s mother and Rodriguez whacked him. If you have a mother, I’d say that’s understandable. At least for me it is. The other one I believe, involved allegedly and altercation with his girlfriend but the case was dropped as she told the DA or the police he did not hit her and then nothing further ever came of it. Unfortunately we can’t know what really happened or didn’t happen since no one corroborated it and it went away. Could he have hit her and she just didn’t want to get him in trouble? Sure but that’s kind of pure speculation. I know that doesn’t matter to the writers since that’s kind of what they’ve done with many of the PED guys as well. But Jones’ case is a little different and his wife clearly reported that she asked him to help her clean up the house or something like that and he became belligerent, they argued, she tried to run up the stairs and he grabbed her by the ankle and pulled her down the stairs. Then she said he wrapped his hands around her throat and said something to the effect of, I want to kill you. I think she also said he had been drinking so she was able to push him off and get away and she ran out of the house to her friend’s house or her parents house or something like that. So I would say the difference has to be what we know versus unsubstantiated accusations. Again, none of us were there so no one ever really knows the real stories but none of us saw Roger Clemens use steroids either and that doesn’t seem to matter when it comes to speculative views.
I’m not employed by the morality police and it’s not my job to decipher what did or didn’t happen. I’m just wondering how a guy like Joe Jackson is still not in the Hall of Fame based on basically hearsay since he went into court and said he did not do it, no one could produce the supposed written confession and yet MLB just decides he did it without proof but something like this is brought to light and no one seems to even remember it happening. Some ped guys came forward and said yes I did it I’m sorry and strangely, they are still being castasized by the martyrs in the BBWAA. Whatever. But some guys have maintained they did not do it and have been held out on pure speculation. This kind of leads to the conclusion that the self-serving antics of the BBWAA ruin the Hall of Fame more than any player.
Pretty stupid. Jackson batted .375 in that world Series with 12 hits, three doubles, a home run and six RBIs. Also 16 put outs, and assist and no errors so even if he swore with his hand on the Bible, why the hell would anybody believe he threw the World Series? There is definitely something wrong with MLB and the voters. MLB for suspending the guy for life in spite of those stats and with no proof and the voters for just going along with it. People protest an awful lot of stupid things nowadays, why wouldn’t you stand up for a case like that?
Don’t know what happened in the girlfriend case since it disappeared but if the guy was talking about my mother I’m pretty sure I’d whack him too.
“Pretty stupid. Jackson batted .375 in that world Series with 12 hits, three doubles, a home run and six RBIs. Also 16 put outs, and assist and no errors so even if he swore with his hand on the Bible, why the hell would anybody believe he threw the World Series? There is definitely something wrong with MLB and the voters. MLB for suspending the guy for life in spite of those stats and with no proof and the voters for just going along with it. People protest an awful lot of stupid things nowadays, why wouldn’t you stand up for a case like that?”
Hey MAC, I’m not a Black Sox expert, but I believe Jackson was suspended because he knew of the conspiracy, and even if had changed his mind and didn’t participate, he didn’t report it. There was ample proof, I believe, that he was aware of the conspiracy. That’s why Landis suspended him. Also, the suspensions took place after the 1920 season, the HOF didn’t even exist at that time, there were no HOF voters to go along with it or to protest it. When the HOF was established he did receive a couple of votes in the first election, then got a couple of votes on a nominating ballot in 1946 (perhaps the same two voters?). But the HOF did not want to be associated with a scandal like that, and it needs to maintain a strong relationship with MLB, so at some point it was determined that anyone permanently banned by MLB would not be eligible for the HOF ballot. Given his lack of support, I assume contemporaries of his believed it was justified for him to be excluded. Rose got way more support as a write in than Jackson did so it sure looks like the voters of the time felt it was appropriate to make him ineligible at least.
Doesn’t look like the guy said anything about standing up in 1920. Obviously there were no voters yet since the first class wasn’t announced until February 2nd 1936. Many years have since passed though and anyone with a spine could stand up and organize such a protest. Spines generally belong to people who deal in reality and logic. If the Hall is concerned with staying on the right side of MLB, why was there no redaction of the inductions of Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle when they were banned for life by MLB for taking jobs in casinos? Why is Roberto Alomar enshrined when he remains banned for life to this day? Lazy, inconsistent excuse making, dependent on the parties involved is the reason. Granted the Mays and Mantle decisions were overturned later but nothing happened in between. The sad reality is that the hall and the voters do not deal in reality.
Reality is that there is no document to prove the alleged confession. Also, the jury acquitted the players. Never mind obviously several accounts regarding the events of the unfortunate scandal. From a part-time player being paid just to keep his mouth shut to Jackson making a supposed confession under oath that no one could ever find. Chick Gandil was the alleged mastermind for who knows what reason beyond money. Eddie Cicotte was 29-7 that year for a $6,000 salary. He had a bonus provision in his contract that would pay him $10,000 more if he won 30 games. Idiot Comiskey supposedly ordered Gleason to bench him for the last five games he could have pitched in to keep him from earning the bonus. Sounds pretty shady to me. Why is Comiskey in the Hall of Fame? Buck Weaver received no money though he was banned for life. He batted .324 with 11 hits and four doubles in the series. Doesn’t sound like throwing it to me. And anyway, none of this can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. But big man Landis decided to blanket them all and throw them out. If you’re going to have a Hall of Fame and parade it around as some sanctimonious Ring of Honor, monitored by integrity and rules, that should apply right down the line and to everyone. It clearly hasn’t in decades upon decades I never will if the Hall and the voters it relies on prefer to tender to MLB’s various whims as opposed to decency, integrity and dignity. This is still America as far as I’m aware so you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Obviously that doesn’t exist in an awful lot of places and this is just a clear indictment on that fallacy. No confession, no proof and a body of work in that series that would stand to reason he did not participate, but ban him anyway? Mac is right, stupid.
“Closer is not a position, closers are failed starters, closers only pitch one inning on average, their stats are subject to other variables, blah blah blah blah blah.
Yes, they pitch one inning on average. That’s their job, duh. Many guys have been given that job and not been able to hold on to it. That’s not because it’s so easy that any idiot can do it.”
Closer is not a position, it’s a role. That’s not ridiculous, it’s a fact. Presumably you believe it’s reasonable to compare relievers to relievers for HOF consideration. If so, then what’s your justification for this?
Starters are failed closers. That is typically true, and it’s a valid point. Rivera might have had a decent career as a starter, but he thrived as a closer because he had one great pitch. Hoffman was actually a failed shortstop, but he thrived as a closer because he had one great pitch. Wagner was a failed stater. Look at his minor league numbers, he walked 4.7 per 9 IP. Try to find a starting pitcher who had a great career walking that many. He still walked 3 per 9 IP in his MLB career, but he could offset that because he had one great pitch. You CANNOT be a successful starter, let alone a HOF caliber starter, with one pitch. You CAN make it through one inning though. None of those guys would be on a HOF ballot if they had been starters with just the one pitch because they couldn’t have made it through the lineup 3 times without getting lit up. Hitters will adjust.
That’s their job, duh? Then what makes their job HOF worthy? It is easy to pitch one inning at a time, or at least it is easy relative to what a starting pitcher has to do to qualify for the HOF, which is pitch 6 or more innings on a regular basis. As noted above, it can be done repeatedly and successfully with only one pitch if the pitch is good enough. So saying it’s their job doesn’t make it worthy of HOF consideration.
Well you definitely check all the boxes of the classic naysayer. Call it a position or a role or whatever you want but it is a job. Either way, they get paid for it and are expected to do it well. I played every position growing up and I am not audacious enough to say any of them is easy, especially at a major league level. If it was that easy, why haven’t you and I ever run into to each other on the field at Fenway or Dodger Stadium. When you start a game, you have several innings to get it right and make adjustments. When you close the game, whether there’s a run difference of one or three, you’re not very likely to see this guy again and you didn’t see him already today so there’s no adjustment. Only, block out negative distractions and deal with the pressure. Parts of your argument depend upon a realization that a three-run lead is easy to protect. I’ve never played or seen that game. And definitely not when you are facing Major League hitters whose job is to tear your head off. Anytime I ever played baseball, a couple of hits or a couple of walks etc and a home run erases that lead pretty quickly. So if you’re a closer and you are closing out three run leads regularly, that’s pretty damn good. It means you didn’t go out there and hand out that couple of walks and the home run that would have erased it. Strike out, walk, single, back to back doubles. Lead gone. So I guess saying he saved 97+% of those opportunities is pretty good. 97% of anything that has to be done is usually a pretty good number. So is 85-88%. Not as good as 97 but still pretty good, especially when done over the long haul.
You also list a bunch of guys who “could have” matched his statistics given more save opportunities. I can’t generally find it in my makeup to compare people who did to people who “would have”. It would seem more reasonable to me to wonder why didn’t they have those save opportunities? Did they become a closer later? Okay, why? Did they become a closer early and not last as long? Okay, why? Honestly, who cares. The fact is they didn’t match his opportunities for one reason or another. The only fact I can go on is, they didn’t.
And listing a bunch of guys who did not match his opportunities makes him look better.
Do I presume to compare closers to other relievers? No probably not. I would presume to compare them to other closers I guess when the comparison needs to be made because other relievers’ jobs might be set up man, long man etc. Not, come in with three outs to make and “save” the game as opposed to handing the lead over to the other team. Everyone’s job is to stop the other team from scoring but only one guy’s job tends to be, doing it in one inning most often.
No, saying it’s a job, does not make it a Hall of Fame caliber role. But the fact that it is a job on a Major League baseball team and bears the importance of not giving the game away in the final inning in situations where the pressure is higher than the rest of the game, makes it a Hall of Fame Worthy role. Clearly you don’t agree and that’s up to you but saying saves is a garbage stat doesn’t make it true. Closers don’t write the rules as to how those saves are acquired, they are simply tasked with going out there and doing it as many times as possible correctly. So I guess, saying he pitched in so few situations where that was attainable and yet somehow piled up more saves than almost anyone who ever played the game would be a plus.
But the same rhetoric could be applied to anything. Home runs are a garbage stat. Batting average is a garbage stat. And for those who prefer modern metrics, putting aside their already hypothetical nature, they can all be termed garbage stats even if they weren’t already. Simply do one of your breakdowns and figure out how many home runs, doubles, hits, RBIs and whatever any given player hit off of nervous rookies, has beens, never weres and the otherwise worst pitchers you can find in their records and then compare them to guys that did a higher percentage of their damage against better competition. But we don’t really do that. And by not doing that, we just assume relatively equal platforms for every hitter across the board. We accept the game for the fallible, imperfect beauty that it is. Are there guys out there trying to quantify everything to the absolute nth minutiae they possibly can? Sure. That’s called modern metrics, saber metrics or whatever else you want to call this waste of time based on something someone says should be done or could be done or has been done etc. and are more fallible than the game itself. No matter how much they bastardize the game for short attention spans with stupid things like larger bases, limited pickoff opportunities, ghost runners who haven’t earned a base, applying morals only where they are convenient relevant to the argument and even sillier “floated ideas” like the golden batter, it will never be perfect. If it is, it won’t be baseball. Therefore, we only have what we have and I can only realistically look at what someone really has done to judge their career. If you want to apply things like “would have done with the same opportunities as another guy”, then that goes both ways and makes guys like Mattingly, Pedroia and Wright, automatic Hall of Famers because we’ll just guess that they would have continued to be as awesome had they not lost their opportunities through no faults of their own.
For now, I’ll take Wagner’s saves, era and 1200 strikeouts in 900 innings, and put him in the hall. Apparently I’m not alone.
Me too. Wags was awesome. John Franco belongs in there too.
Wow that was an impressive volume of utter nonsense, congratulations!
“So if you’re a closer and you are closing out three run leads regularly, that’s pretty damn good. It means you didn’t go out there and hand out that couple of walks and the home run that would have erased it. Strike out, walk, single, back to back doubles. Lead gone. So I guess saying he saved 97+% of those opportunities is pretty good. ”
No, it’s not. You completely missed the point, unsurprisingly. Every closer does that, which shows that it’s not pretty good but in fact quite easy. If Joe Table can do it 99% of the time in 102 chances, it’s not good but common place. It really should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with baseball, especially an expert like you who played every position! Baseball is a game of failure. Hitters who fail 70% of the time over a long enough career end up in the HOF. Pitchers succeed more often than hitters, but shutouts are still extraordinarily rare, just 16 of 4,858 games last season! And yet closers regularly have a success rate of over 80% in terms of save conversion.
“You also list a bunch of guys who “could have” matched his statistics given more save opportunities.”
No I listed other closers from his career who converted 3 run saves at the same, better, or slightly worse rate to illustrate how easy it is to record a 3 run save. Again, you miss the point by a mile.
“Clearly you don’t agree and that’s up to you but saying saves is a garbage stat doesn’t make it true.”
No, it doesn’t, but showing clear examples, even if they sail far over your head, does make it true.
“But the same rhetoric could be applied to anything. Home runs are a garbage stat. Batting average is a garbage stat.”
Really? That’s a fascinating take. Please explain how HR and BA are garbage stats. I’ve already clearly shown how Saves are a garbage stat, and with multiple examples. The 3 run save being converted at nearly 100% by even bad closers and career Save Percentages well above 80% clearly illustrate the Save is not a metric that identifies accomplishing anything exceptionally difficult. The high number of Saves by pitchers with horrible ERA numbers show the Save is a garbage stat. Find any starting pitcher who finished in the top 10 in W’s with an ERA over 7 as Lidge finished in the top 10 in Saves in 2009 and Shawn Chacon did in 2004, and then you can tell me that Saves aren’t a garbage stat. Find me a starting pitcher who led the league in W’s with an ERA over 5 as Borowski led the league in Saves in 2004 with an ERA of 5.07, and then you can tell me that Saves aren’t a garbage stat.
You do realize you’re comparing a guy with 422 saves to people with barely a third of his accomplishments right? I think it’s your head the point of sailing over. What the hell is 102 chances compared to wagner? Get a grip man.
I guess every circus needs its clown.
What’s truly unsurprising is that you are the one who’s missed half the point you are trying to argue. If you’re going to argue that several other guys did the same thing as Wagner then you should not use several other guys who didn’t come close to his actual career production. Joe Table saved 99% of 102 opportunities? So where was Joe Table while Wagner was cementing the rest of his career? You’re not making an argument of any merit and you don’t have a single thought in your pez dispenser that doesn’t revolve around spitting out a baseball encyclopedia which any of us can go read and then expecting everyone to read along in all as though you have just unleashed some mystical element of baseball acumen we’ve all been so bereft of. Instead of your inane attempt at insulting the shit out of people who’s thought process clearly sails miles over your head, you should put a little effort into paying attention. You want to compare Billy Wagner, who’s output sits in the top tiniest percentage of all closers ever, to a handful of also-rans and call it a valid point? So then we should compare Tris Speaker or Mickey Mantle to Mike Cameron and call that a valid argument?
And you think the entire point was that I am calling home runs a garbage stat? Did your reading comprehension completely elude you after the first two sentences? For a genius such as yourself, you should clearly have recognized that those two sentences you quote and ask for justification on were sheer sarcasm, leading into the following points. Clearly illustrating how ridiculous your statement about saves being a garbage stat is. Let me break that down for you further if you’re paying attention now: if you want to prove home runs is a garbage stat, you could take any handful of guys at random and show how many home runs some of them hit off of guys like Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Rodger Clemens and Pedro Martinez as opposed to another hitter who predominantly homered off of guys like Wes Gardner, Anthony Young and your favorite guy, Joe Table. Then you could regale us all with your brilliant findings as to how player F hit as many home runs as players A-E but, since they were against crappier pitching more often than not, his were not as impressive, thus rendering home runs a garbage stat in your opinion. Get it yet?
What really is fascinating is how you can take two sentences out of context and argue them as though they were a point on their own worth arguing in your ludicrous attempts at outsmarting anyone. Comparing an apple slice to an apple pie and then calling someone an idiot for not agreeing with your failed approach is very impressive. In case it sails over your head, perhaps you have noticed that the vast majority of this forum is people having valid conversations about a passion without insulting each other but since that appears to be how you like it, happy to oblige. Remember, the smartest man in the room is never the one spouting bullshit and defensively insulting the hell out of people who don’t agree with him.
Relivers/Closers are already over represented in the HOF. Adding Wagner this year will only exacerbate this, and there’s certainly no reason to add Rodriguez to an already over represented role. The writers grossly overrate the contributions of relievers/closers to their teams. Although they’ve moved away from the absurdity of awarding both the CY and MVP to a guy who only pitched 78 or 80 innings (Fingers in 1981 and Eckersley in 1992), they still believe these guys are somehow more worthy of HOF recognition than pitchers whose contributions to their teams are much more significant. I’m not going to bother digging into Rodriguez because it’s not worth the time, but I’ve already done it for Wagner so I’ll share that to illustrate why these guys are not worthy of election. But first let’s be clear of our criteria: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. I’m not going to deal with integrity, sportsmanship, or character because those are subjective measurement beyond my knowledge, I’m only going to be talking about the record (which is documented in the stats), ability, and contributions to the player’s teams.
Wagner’s record is comprised of 903 career IP, that’s it. The average HOF pitcher in the modern Era (beginning in 1900, but excluding Negro League selections, not because of lack of quality or merit but because of the lack of historical record) threw 3,591 IP, and this includes all of the relievers elected to date. That’s nearly 4 times the IP of Wagner (or Rodriguez). If you exclude the 6 pure relievers (Wilhelm was not removed due to his significant IP), it goes up to 3,809! Limit it to the Live Ball Era beginning in 1920 and it’s still 3,510 (I removed 3 HOF pitchers with fewer than 2,000 IP after 1920 because the bulk of their career IP were before 1920, but left 6 others who had also pitched prior to 1920 although I did NOT include their full career IP). If you exclude the relievers again, it goes up to 3784! Take it to the Expansion Era and it’s 3,548 (I removed 4 pitchers with fewer than 2,000 IP from this group due to their significant IP prior to 1961). Exclude the relievers and it’s 4,092! So in every case Wagner has thrown only about 1/4 of the IP of the average HOF pitcher. There’s simply no way his contribution to his team measures up to the HOF standard with so few IP. But let’s look more closely at those IP.
He has 4 seasons where he wasn’t even a closer totaling 95 2/3 IP, so now he’s down to 807 1/3 IP in the role he’s being credited for. Then you can look further at individual seasons and see that of his 853 games he has 422 saves and 69 blown saves, or 491 appearances in a closer role. This means even in those seasons where he was a closer, he often did not appear in that role. Now it’s true he still appeared in high leverage situations in some of those games, but he also often pitched in a plain relief role with his team either behind or ahead by more than 3 runs. For example, in 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006 (the only seasons he pitched more than 70 IP) he had 105 such appearances totaling 105 1/3 IP. So you can take that 807 1/3 down to 702 (and well below that because I’ve only looked at those 5 seasons, but it’s about 25% of his IP in those seasons).
But let’s not forget that the Save is a garbage stat. It does not correlate well with a pitcher’s performance. A pitcher might earn a save for recording a single out in some instances, it could be earned by a pitcher who allows 2 runs in an inning as long as it was a save situation, which allows for up to a 3 run lead. Examples include Joe Borowski who led the league in saves in 2007 with an ERA of 5.07. Recording 30 or more saves is a mark of someone who is a full time closer, and often put you in the top 10 for saves. Lidge did that with an ERA of 7.21, Chacon did it with an ERA of 7.11. Point being you can be a closer and rack up saves but not be an effective pitcher. Now Wagner did not pitch poorly as a closer like these other guys, but he did rack up a bunch of saves during his career when his team was ahead by 3 runs, and that is simply NOT a HOF caliber achievement. A 3 run save should NOT be used to justify someone’s HOF case, and yet this is what is being done when these guys are being elected. No one is looking at the difficulty of the performance, it’s simply assumed that they were doing something so extraordinary as closers that even though they have only pitched about 25% of the IP of a typical HOF, they are worthy of election.
So what about the 3 run save? Limiting it solely to Wagner’s career, 1995 to 2010, there are 25 guys who had at least 200 saves. So we’re comparing like to like here, these are all guys who had extended periods of time as full time closers, they directly overlap with Wagner, and they run the gamut from Rivera and Hoffman to Jose Mesa and Roberto Hernandez. If you look at all of these guys they had a combined 2,104 save opportunities of the 3 run variety, and they had a 97.3% save percentage in those opportunities. Basically every 3 run save is being converted, across 16 seasons only 50 were blown, about 3 per season in all of MLB. Wagner’s career save % is 85.9, but it’s 97.7% for 3 run saves. The big 3 here (Rivera, Hoffman and Wagner) all had well over 100 save opportunities of the 3 run variety, but two other guys also had at least 100. Jose Mesa had 102 and only blew 1, 99% save percentage, better than Wagner, Isringhausen had 106 and blew 2, 98.1%, better than Wagner. Another 5 guy had at least 80 chances (Todd Jones, Robb Nen, Francisco Cordero, Armando Benitez, and Roberto Hernandez), Jones and Benitez had a 98.8% save rate, and the others 96.5, 94.1 and 92.8%. So you could have a really poor closer like Roberto Hernandez and given the same number of chances as Wagner had you’d only have 6 more blown saves across the 12 seasons of Wagner’s career where he was a closer. That’s no difference at all, 1 blown save every 2 years.
Where does that leave us with Wagner, or Rodriguez, or closers in general? Far from a HOF level of contribution to their teams! Specific to Wagner we have a guy with fewer IP than anyone in the HOF to date at 903, fewer still in the closer role at 807 1/3, about 1/4 of those IP were in non save, low leverage situations the same as any other reliever would appear in, and roughly another 1/4 were 3 run save appearances, which are clearly not difficult or high leverage situations. That leaves only about 400 IP that might fit the sort of level of achievement he’s being credited for as a vaunted, HOF caliber closer. 400 IP is not sufficient for a HOF pitcher.
I don’t know what over represented means. Is there a limit on how many of every type of player should be in there? I think there are only three DHs so does that mean we should just put in the next best 17 to get it up near the 20 range like all the other positions? Or is DH not a position either?
“I don’t know what over represented means.”
How embarrassing for you.
“Is there a limit on how many of every type of player should be in there?”
Nope.
“I think there are only three DHs so does that mean we should just put in the next best 17 to get it up near the 20 range like all the other positions?”
Nope.
“Or is DH not a position either?”
No, obviously it’s not a position, it’s a position in the batting order a team can use if they choose to in order to remove its worst hitter from the batting order. HTH
I think it’s more embarrassing for you because you’re trying too hard to prove something that doesn’t need to be proven. I don’t know what overrepresented means because there’s no such thing. If a guy is a Hall of Famer then what does it matter what position he plays? I’m not embarrassed at all to live in reality but maybe you should be since you seem to not yet the satirical notion of the entire comment.
Wow guy are you that hell-bent on the word position? And did you really just break down that guy’s statement line by line to try to make a fool out of him? It’s not working. Holy crap!
So just to prove how things need to change and any writer that does not take the vote seriously, in what world does Russell Martin Brian MCcann, And Ian Kinsler deserve a vote for the HOF, they are in no way HOF players
Martin I agree with. I don’t see what’s special there. I think the point of Kinsler is more, if Utley deserves votes then why not Kinsler? If you are tied to fairytale metrics then you’re going to separate them a bit but if you watch them play in reality, one didn’t change your championship aspirations over the other in real life.
18 catchers in the Hall of fame. McCann would be 7th in homers, 10th in RBIs, tied with Carter for average and a little below Bench. He would be 15th in hits out of 19 if he was in and on the lower end in obp. So I would not argue he’s a lock but I wouldn’t chuckle or be disgusted if he got in because there weren’t many catchers you wanted over McCann if you had the choice in his time.
Exactly, feeling same way here. McCann was a great hitting catcher, maybe not a hall of famer, but his case should be analyzed a little bit deeper.
Same with Kinsler. If Chase Utley is way up there, then Pedroia and Kinsler should be there as well.
Too easily confused? Maybe. I’m trying to get a clear difference in value between Torii Hunter and Bobby Abreu so I turned to BaseballReference.com to look at best matches. Abreu’s are Luis Gonzalez, Bernie Williams, Dwight Evans, Garret Anderson, Torii Hunter and Dave Parker. Hunter’s are Chili Davis, Dave Parker, Carlos Lee, Dwight, Luis, and Garret. Hunter is a better match with his first 5 than Abreu is with any of his. Whatever their metric, it confirmed my thoughts. Like Kinsler and Utley, in the overall picture, there’s not much difference between Hunter and Abreu. Both excellent. I don’t see best ever, but none of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial or Ted Williams got 100% of the vote.
Trying the same match for Utley and Kinsler, out of more than 20000 former players the one whose hitting best matches Utley is Ian Kinsler (92%+) and vice versa. Utley’s next best matches are Bret Boone, Hanley Ramirez, Bobby Doerr, Brandon Phillips, Bobby Grich, Vern Stephens, Ray Durham, Travis Fryman, and Joe Gordon. Kinsler’s other matches, in order, are Durham, Phillips, B Boone, Jose Altuve, Grich, Ryne Sandberg, Jay Bell, Hanley and Toby Harrah. By comparison Beltran’s matches include 8 HOF members and further down the list Luis Gonzalez and Dwight Evans. Beltran’s best matches are Andre Dawson, Al Kaline and Billy Williams, all-time greats.
I have long thought it was pretty remarkable how similar Beltran and Dawson were. Beltran had 200 hits on the guy, 60 doubles, about 500 more walks which gave him 27 more OBP points but they were otherwise a handful of numbers apart in every category. They even finished with the exact same batting average. Dawson had more gold gloves but overall remarkably similar players. Oddly, it took forever to put Dawson in and you still have people who think maybe he doesn’t belong there. Makes you wonder what the hell people are looking at. For instance, in Dwight Evans first year on the ballot, out of all candidates, he was first in runs, 6th in hits, second in home runs, 5th in RBIs, 4th in OBP, 6th in SLG and first overall in walks. Neikro was the only player elected. Second season, first in runs, 5th in hits, first in home runs, 4th in RBIs, fifth in OBP, 5th in slugging and again, first overall in walks. Don Sutton was the only electee. 3rd and final year on the ballot, 3rd in runs, seventh in hits, second in home runs, 6th in RBIs, 4th in slugging, first one more time in walks and 3rd in OBP. Brett, Yount and Ryan went in that year, all very deservedly but Evans fell off the ballot with less than 4% of the vote. What the hell are these so-called analysts looking at? Granted, he didn’t hit the big numbers like 3,000 hits or 400 to 500 home runs but he was very comfortably up there and over a good chunk of the guys on the ballot across the board. .272 average may have hurt but his OBP was always one of the better ones. And eight gold gloves to top it off.
If Billy Wagner falls off the ballot that’ll be a huge mistake.
He’s going to fall off one way or another since it’s his last BBWAA ballot. The next VC window for his cohort will elect him, not to worry.
Let’s face it …it will probably be just Ichiro as this year’s inductee.
It should be Ichiro and Wagner. The others can wait.
I see that coincidently, Utley, Martin and Abreu all had time in Dodgerville. That explains why they are scored above Kinsler, McCann and Hunter. Are there more writers from Dodgerville?
I don’t know how many Dodgers’ writers around the panel but I do find this interesting. If you go down this ballot and look at every major offensive category, including hits, doubles, home runs, runs scored, stolen bases, RBIs, batting average, walks, OBP, SLG, OPS and even OPS+, one guy is in the top seven in every one of them. A rod. Two other guys are in the top seven in all but one category. Ramirez and Abreu. Ramirez stole only 38 bases in his career and Abreu comes in at number 9 in SLG. Guess who comes in almost never in these categories? Jones and Utley. Uttley only makes the top seven in RBIs. Jones makes the top seven in home runs, RBIs and SLG. So how do you see analysis and these strange metrics working but not see Abreu in the Hall of Fame?
As far as what you’re saying here, I think we have pounded the Utley / Kinsler thing into oblivion and, it definitely makes no sense. I also have never seen why Hunter doesn’t get the support he deserves versus Jones. And the only reason I could see someone voting for Martin and not McCann is maybe because they are holding a grudge over him being on the trash can Houston team.
This makes BBWAA look pretty silly.
I’m on those stats note that he is second on the ballot in OBP to only ramirez, third on the ballot in ops to only Ramirez and A-Rod and fourth in OPS+ to Ramirez, A-Rod and Wright. But consider Wright didn’t even have 6,000 at bats so who knows where he would have landed if he played through his 30s.
Well, let’s not act like these vote comparisons are all equal. As of now, Jones has 50 more votes than Abreu and 68 more than Hunter. Utley has 42 more votes than Kinsler. Martin, on the other hand, has only one vote more than McCann. If both those catchers survive to see more than one ballot (which seems unlikely), the discrepancy could grow to the level of the other two comparisons, but today it’s entirely different. In other words, while plenty of writers are voting for Jones and Utley, almost nobody this year is voting to induct Kinsler or Hunter or McCann…or Martin..into the HOF.
When considering voting for Chase Utley, this play from 2015 should be considered == https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/chase-utley-illegal-slide-dodgers-mets/
Here’s another from a history of dirty plays:
https://youtu.be/w8evFhh74Pk?feature=shared
The numbers speak for him… Carlos Beltrán has impressive numbers. There’s no doubt that it’s a hall of fame.
If Utley is a hall of famer, then Pedroia and Kinsler are as well.
The voters denied Curt Schilling for the hall of fame, but they continue to support Buehrle. I don’t get it. Not much analysis while casting your votes.
Agreed. If you can only point to subjective metrics as a reason for induction that should tell you you’re doing it wrong.
This part of the first post says it all-
“The easy for Jones, he has 150 home runs, 11 slugging points and 9 gold gloves on Abreu. On the flip side, Abreu has him by 600 walks, 250 steals, 200 doubles, 550 hits, 250 runs, 25 triples, 60 OBP points, 50 ops points, 80 RBIs and he batted almost 40 points higher than Jones.”
9 gold gloves – again, subjective
150 dingers and 11 SLG pts.
That’s it. Abreu crushes him in EVERYTHING else. What the hell are you guys analyzing?
And Utley too. Cheap shot artist with a good 5 year run. And nothing for Kinsler?
Circus
Agreed!
Why does anyone waste their votes on Ramirez & A-Rod? If Bonds & Clemens couldn’t make it in, why do Manny & AROD deserve it?
Jerry Mejia is the only MLB player banned for life due to PEDs. Therefore he is the only ineligible player for Hall of Fame induction due to PEDs. Like any offense, the crime has its own set of punishments and keeping guys out of the Hall on purpose is not one of them. These are not murderers and thieves so any voter treating them that way doesn’t deserve a vote. Steve Howe was suspended seven times for cocaine, banned from the game and then reinstated by an arbiter. He wasn’t good enough for the Hall of Fame anyway but that’s irrelevant. Roberto alomar was banned, post induction, but remains in the Hall of fame. This is stupid.
Very true. Guys have taken stuff forever. Back to the Brown Sequard Elixir (animal testosterone injections) in the 1800s. If they fail a test now they get punished. Who does the BBWAA think they’re supposed to be? The morality police? Try telling the truth when you write instead of spreading “rumors” you made up and pretending to be “hearing” information. Hearing from who? Yourself saying it out loud to yourself?
Not so much that they do (or don’t) deserve if, but that one arguably could be more strategic in giving those votes to candidates who have a better shot at induction, in the short or long term. Or say the heck with all that meta stuff and just vote for them if you think they belong anyway.
Still strange that Manny is within 4 points of A-Rod, given the vast gulf in their overall value.
Makes sense. If you have a vote and liked the guy’s career then vote him. I don’t see a vast gulf between Manny and A-Rod though. A-Rod piled up a few more numbers with his 2500 more plate appearances but Manny actually averaged more doubles, RBIs and walks per season with a substantially better avg and OBP. Not that A-Rod was Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith but he probably was a little better defending his positions than Manny who was relatively serviceable in left. After watching those careers simultaneously though I think I’d rather have Manny in my everyday lineup just because you got more production on average and he was a pure monster in the clutch.
The best thing about Ichiro batting 1.000 in the vote is that are no blank ballots this year!
That is what every year should be like. So far, the minimum ballot is two. That was for Ichiro and CC.
Johan Santana should’ve been in the hall of fame. He had better numbers than all the pitchers on this ballot. It was a mistake he fell off after the first ballot.
When I compare Addie Joss, Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax to Johan Santana and Felix Hernandez, I think there’s very close to a match. Santana and Felix lacked the press, not the talent.
Santana is one of those guys that makes me have to really think about the effect of press coverage, fanfare and popularity. I really liked him when he was pitching but I also felt he disappeared a little too soon. I don’t think Felix Hernandez is a Hall of Famer and Santana compares to him in several aspects. But another guy Santana compares pretty closely to and actually falls short of in some ways is David Price. And I definitely don’t see him as a Hall of Famer either. I think in the overall career department, Price tops Santana in several areas and they are otherwise pretty even. But I think Santana piled it up in a few dominant seasons and faded in a little bit whereas, Price piled it up over the long term.
But with the Hall becoming what it has, I guess I’m not going to share any tears if all three of them were in honestly at this point because there’s just no rhyme or reason anymore anyway.
Santana should’ve won 3 cy youngs, instead of 2. I think that was a mistake. They gave it to Bartolo Colón when Santana had a better year. Then Santana would’ve probably be a lock with 3 cy young awards. Santana’s is to me pretty much compared to Sandy Koufax in terms of his strike out seasons and ERA. Both pitchers had short careers, but if you check Sanatana’s career ERA none of those pitchers were at his level, only Koufax who did better than him.
Santana was awesome when he was awesome. About 04-08. Yes I would have given him the Cy Young in 05. I probably also would have given it to Jon Garland before Bartolo Colon that but that’s why I have pretty little use for voted on awards. They’re nice to see guys win but when deciding on Hall of Fame candidacy, I pretty much ignore them all together. So many years you can look at and see somebody else should have won any given award. 56 games is a wonderful hitting streak but it certainly didn’t make DiMaggio’s entire season better than Williams who batted over .400 for the last time in history. But DiMaggio got the MVP. I’m sure plenty of fans, especially Yankee fans, would argue in his favor but that argument seems like I reach to me. Again very opinionated.
Santana vs Price is a closer comparison than Santana vs Koufax. Yes Santana had some great strike out years but not quite as great as Koufax. And at the end of their careers, Koufax had a pretty dominant 2.76 ERA, about 45 points lower than Santana. Santana, at 3.20 was only 12 points lower than Price at 3.32. Price and Santana also very close together in strikeouts per game, hits per game etc. and for overall career numbers, Santana didn’t even get to 2000 strikeouts and won a good chunk of games less than Price or Koufax. Like I said, I think Santana had a great run for 5 years and okay for another 3 maybe but for the length of his career, I would have liked to see an ERA under three and at least 2000-2200 Ks before I throw him in the Hall. If Santana had even 200 more Ks and an ERA around 2.80 then you are talking about much closer to Koufax and this is a different conversation. I still loved watching him pitch but there are quite a few guys I love to watch who I don’t wear a little bit shy of the Hall.
hi everyone, I wanted to stop in and personally thank everyone for leaving my name out of the hall of fame conversation, since I do not belong
love,
Omar Vizquel
I could not have said it any better myself
Adios hombre
Voters need to analyze better their choices when voting.
They kind of suck at it.
Unless if in the unreleased ballots either Andruw Jones or Carlos Beltran pick up more votes than they are currently picking up, it looks like the writers will only be putting in 3 guys this year…
Ichiro Suzuki
C.C. Sabathia
Billy Wagner
With Andruw Jones and Carlos Beltran being poised to get in next year, and Chase Utley coming up short next year. And of the new comers only Ryan Braun staying on the ballot, unless if Edwin Encarnacion, Cole Hammels, Matt Kemp, Chris Davis, Nick Markakis, Alex Gordon, Daniel Murphy, Rick Porcello, Hunter Pence, Gio Gonzalez, Matt Wieters, Jason Kipnis, Kelvin Herrera, Shin-Soo Choo, Edison Volquez, Howie Kendrick, and Jeff Semardzia can get enough votes to stay on the ballot past next year.
Of course, there were only 28 on this year’s ballot with 14 returnees and 14 newcomers. 2 of the new comers and one of the returnees is likely to get in this year, with 2 new comes on track to return next year, with 3 newcomers and 1 returnee on the bubble to falling off and not making it to next year and 9 newcomers not yet having received any votes. So, maybe only 14 of the 18 potential candidates who are eligible to get on the ballot actually making it.
—
Next year, I project Andruw Jones and Carlos Beltran get in with Chase Utley ending with 60 to 70 percent of the vote. It will be interesting which candidates make significant vote jumps. My guess is Andy Petite, Jimmy Rollins, Felix Rodriguez and Mark Buerle will be among those making the largest jumps with Omar Vizquel, Bobby Abreau, David Wright, Dustin Pedroia, and Francisco Rodriguez also making noticeable jumps, though none of those jumps will put them in range to make a run in the next two to three years.
—
In 2 years, Buster Posey and Jon Lester will be the headliners of the new class. My guess is only Chase Utley will get in on the writer’s ballots maybe alongside Buster Posey, unless if some one starts making a run next year to position them to join Chase Utley and maybe Buster Posey, on a scale like what Larry Walker did a few years back.
—
In 3 years, I think 2 first timers get in with Albert Pujols and Yadier Molina going in with Robinson Canoe and David Price returning for the following ballot. David Price and anyone in the 50 to 60 percent range in the prior year has an outside chance of getting in that year.
—
The following year, Miguel Cabrera and Zack Greinke will likely be 1st ballot electees, with Nelson Cruz, Joey Votto, Adam Wainright, Corey Kluber, and Madison Bumgarner being the other headliners who will likely remain on the following year’s ballot. And again this may end up being a four person class.
Next year I would assume Hamels will get enough votes to stay on the ballot. Not sure Braun even had Hall of Fame stats to begin with but add on PED problems and he’ll have a tough time. The following year, I agree, Posey and Lester will stick around. Molina and Pujols are locks when their time comes and so is Cabrera. Probably Greinke too unless too many writers remember not liking his attitude and hold that against him. You know, because that’s what voting for great players should really be about.
Cano has a few stats over Kent and some less than Kent so if Kent isn’t a Hall of Famer then I don’t know how Cano could be. And then Cano had a couple of PED suspensions so that will easily give him the Manny Ramirez treatment since it happened after the new testing rules. Votto and Wainwright should get some serious attention and then guys like Price, Ryan Zimmerman and maybe even Strasburg will be in the conversations as well.
If CC Sabthia makes it on his first ballot, then Zack Greinke should be a first ballot as well.
Greinke had a great career and the type of career we are not going to see for a long time after guys like Scherzer, Verlander and Kershaw wrap it up. The new “wisdom” of the game has dictated that it’s more important for pitchers to go out there and destroy their arms for four innings then it is for them to actually pitch anymore. You now hear how rare a shutout has become. Well, obviously, you can’t pitch a shutout if they don’t let you get past the 4th or 5th inning. And from this standpoint, that would mean no pitcher would ever get into the Hall of Fame again since they are basically becoming just a reliever who starts the game and there are many who don’t think relievers are worthy of Hall consideration. Then again, there are many who will concoct new ways to evaluate them based on ridiculous metrics that illustrate they’ve done something of value while averaging 4.5 innings a game in their careers and ending up around maybe 1500 strikeouts if they can avoid having five Tommy John surgeries that keep them out every third season.
Anyway, Greinke certainly has the qualifications in comparison with several other guys who are in. If you compare him to Sabathia, he is a little short on the strikeouts but only 21 short of 3,000 and, otherwise, actually had a better overall career and should walk right through the door.
He compares less favorably though to a guy like Schilling. Not by a hell of a lot but enough to consider how his personality will affect him. Schilling is a no doubter, only kept out because the children in the media don’t like him. From this standpoint, Greinke was kind of a weird guy, speaking his mind and saying not so popular things at times. Some have accepted emotional/ mental issues as the reasoning and, while that seems likely and understandable, others think he was a surly jerk who thought he was above the fans and the game. So I imagine it will come down to sorting out those perceptions to define his case, as ridiculous as that is. He has not officially retired yet but, assuming he doesn’t pitch again, we should find out around 2029 I guess.
Exactly, but compare Greinke’s WAR with Sabathia’s. Compare the ERA also, Greinke’s ERA was better than Sabathia’s too. Greinke was just 21 ks away from 3,000 and thank God he retired, cause his last season was awful. But Greinke was way better than Sabathia. If Greinke was a Yankee pitcher and Sabathia was with the Royals we shouldnt talking about CC here.
One of the teams I have always liked his Boston, therefore I have never been a big Cleveland or New York fan. And I have liked Cleveland even less since they went with this new high school sounding name of theirs. If they were so hell bent on changing the name to appease the woke crowd, they should have gone with one of their former names like the Lakeshores or the Broncos or my personal favorite, the Spiders, which was the name of their American Association team that disbanded prior to the current incarnation.
Anyway, that gets me off track but Sabathia pitched for Cleveland and New York for basically his entire career with the exception of about 15 minutes in Milwaukee. So for obvious reasons, he would not be one of my favorite players but Boston did tune him up pretty good twice in the 07 playoffs and again in 18, both on the way to championships. At any rate, he was still one of the top pictures in the game, like him or not. Yes, I have said his era was a little high for my taste and would be the highest of anyone in the 3000 strikeout club. But it’s not like it was five or six and he was just out there getting shellacked day in and day out while mysteriously piling up strikeouts. He had some really good seasons and 3,000 strikeouts is 3,000 strikeouts so I certainly don’t begrudge him a spot in the Hall. Seeing these infantile voters keep Schilling out makes it a little more difficult but that is not Sabathia’s fault. At 3.49, Greinke did have the better era and I probably would have also given him the Cy Young in 2015 which would have given him two. However, the argument can be made that he never had a 20-win season, in spite of pitching for three first place Dodger teams in a row and some pretty good Houston teams. Unfortunately he was well on his way downhill by the time he got to Houston and a good chunk of his career was spent pitching for that triple a team in Kansas City. I don’t care about war but everywhere else, they happen to be relatively even. Strikeouts per game, walks per game, hits per game etc with Greinke, again, having the better ERA and Sabathia having the better winning percentage. I think there is no doubt that Sabathia would get into the Hall of Fame and if you’re concern is about first ballot, second ballot whatever, I have to imagine Greinke will probably also go his first time around. Think about who’s coming up and you’re going to have guys like Pujols, Cabrera and Molina walk right through the door in classes that will likely see most guys fall off the ballot pretty quickly. So there won’t be a hell of a lot of reasons to hold Greinke down when his turn comes up. No matter what teams I like, I’m a baseball fan first and foremost and you are right, Sabathia doesn’t overwhelm you to the point that you don’t have a question but he want a lot of games and struck out 3000 guys. Yes I would like to see any ra more like 3.25 but he is what he is.
Cleveland Spiders were an NL team for 11 years (1889-1899). They played for two years in the AA as the CLEVELAND BLUES.
Yes that is correct. They were also in NL team which I did not mention but that brings to mind that, out of the two other names they used while in the AA, either of those would have been better as well. Blues might be a little overused between St Louis’ hockey franchise and it’s attachment to Blue Jays and Blue jackets etc but the Cleveland Forest might have been a nice take as well in salute to the Forest Cities name they briefly used in the AA as well as the first professional team in Cleveland and a nickname for the city itself. So I guess I might be torn between the Cleveland Forest which would be pretty cool and different compared to most professional sports teams names and the Cleveland Spiders which, I think, has a really cool nostalgic feel to it. But I’m sure some group of bored-out-of-their-minds, “do-gooders” would eventually come along and determine that Cleveland ownership as insulted arachnids or trees and ruin the whole thing anyway.
I think they should have gone with the Cleveland Buckeyes.
The Cleveland Spiders played in the National League. They have nothing to do with the current Cleveland AL franchise. And the Spiders never competed in the American Assocation.
This is going crazy.
That team started playing in the AA in ’87 as Cleveland Forest Citys, a nickname for Cleveland and the name of the first pro team in Cleveland. They were also referred to as the Blues because of the uniform colors. They moved to the NL in ’89 and took the name Spiders in their first NL season. The owners, Frank and Stan Robinson I believe their names were, purchased a team in St. Louis that took the place of the first St. Louis Browns NL team after they were expelled for not being able to pay their dues etc because they were doing very poorly. The Robinson brothers abandoned the Browns nickname looking for a fresh start and some local reporters started calling them the Perfectos. This team eventually became the Cardinals due to the cardinal Ted uniform trim and socks. The Robinson brothers bled the Cleveland team and sent the best talent to the St Louis team because the area had a denser population and they wanted to build a better product there. Burkett, Young and Wallace helped St Louis quickly become respectable while the Cleveland Spiders went to complete crap. Spiders still have records for 101 road losses in a season (unlikely to be broken since no team please not many road games with the normalized schedule now) and 134 losses in a season overall. The NL contracted from 12 teams to 8 and that was the end of the Spiders.
No, the Spiders were not the Indians and I believe I mentioned in the beginning of all this that the AA team (which became the NL team), disbanded before the current incarnation.
Anyway, I was just trying to say I liked the Spider name best of former Cleveland team names. Not the same team as the Indians obviously, but any pro team Cleveland had. You know, part of the historical fabric of the city’s sports landscape.
Guess I just like spiders. But I still think Cleveland Forest would be a good take on the old city nickname too. And no one else has it.
Yeah I think Greinke should easily go. I don’t really care about first and second ballots and all that garbage. That’s just writers thinking to have some power to wield.
Baseball fan, so if that’s where you see Greinke and Sabathia, how do you see Hamels’ chances next year? He did not accumulate the wins but he pitched 160 less games than Greinke. Better strikeouts per game, half a walk more per game and exactly the same hits per game. And he had a better era than both of them. Again, less games and less innings but not so short that it wasn’t a full career. It comes up next year, do you think he goes in?
Don Newcombe has 149 career major league wins and he’s not in the Hall of Fame. Dizzy Dean has 150 career major league wins (not to mention getting lampooned in a Merrie Melodies cartoon) and he’s in the Hall of Fame.
Joking aside, then was a folk hero in his time yes he had six really good seasons four of those were better than really good and two of them were awesome. But the Cardinals became wildly popular because there was no team south or west of them at that time so they had a pretty big fan base and they were very likable. Especially due to Dean’s wacky personality. The guy said crazy things before Berra said crazy things. “Fractured? Hell, the damn thing’s broken!” But I would guess between the popularity of the Gashouse Gang and the release of The Pride of St Louis, Dean’s life story, the year before he was elected probably played a large role. These were crazy times on the ballot. The balance were extremely overloaded in fact, Dean’s first ballot contained 56 future Hall of Famers. Guys like Foxx, Ott, Gheringer, and so on waited years for induction. I don’t discount Newcombe at all but you can see there were a lot of circumstances at play here and you also could never discount the power of a Hollywood movie in 1952, a time where motion pictures were one of about five things people had for entertainment back then.
Dean had a 30-win season, Newc had 27. Welch had 27 and more than 200 wins, career, and there’s no ground swell for Welch and 20 other guys who had 20-win seasons and won more-or-less than 200 games. Tiant and Tommy John, etc. on the shelf.
I think the Merrie Melodies cartoon puts you over the top.
Xray of Dean’s head finds nothing. Voted in on the 3rd or 4th ballot by BBWA.
The context of time – with modern baseball and the Hall of Fame both in their infancy…of course the public was excited about the efforts of Dean…his first 6 1/2 years were legendary for that time period… One MVP and 2 second place MVPs…Overuse and all of the “sideshow’ business ruined his career. But by 1930 standards – he did stuff never seen before in baseball.
Now time moves forward 90 years and 1000s of more players and we have the context of time to reexamine his career and the decisions of the BBWA…We cannot go back in time – we can complain – but 90 years ago Dizzy was special. And he put together six straight years of some of the greatest pitching EVER seen.
So no – I don’t agree we can now lower “counting” standards because Dizzy only had these many wins, strikeouts, etc. Otherwise we would have another 100+ pitchers in the Hall. In the context of time – although he had some great years – Bob Welch’s 17 year career doesn’t not compare to Dean (let’s not forget Steve Stone won 25 games in a year). Newcombe had five solid years ,and it’s a shame he missed two years due to WWII, but we can’t start making up numbers and scenarios based on military or injuries. We can even make a negative scenario that Don pitches in 1952 and blows-out his arm and 1955-56 never existed. What happened on the field – happened on the field…no excuses that David Wright WOULD have been better than so-n-so if his back was stronger.
So in 1930’s America – Dizzy Dean was the nation’s Lebron, Ohtani, etc … Athletes bigger than the sport.
4 days left for the announcement of who will be elected and only 40% reported….why?
Some voters hide their votes from all but the HOF. It is, after all, a “secret” ballot. Some are in process of revealing their choices now.
This is pretty much the way every year Steve. I wouldn’t anticipate it’s ever going to be any better than this. But hey, it’s certainly better than years back when you had no idea at all until it was all announced. At least now we have trickling anticipation to piss us off along the way and give us all a reason to be debating on this forum.
ichiro is legend
Interesting to see Beltran trickle higher and Jones stay flat recently. I was seeing many projecting both to fall short but Beltran might just hold on.
BTW, love this site and the service it provides. Is there a way, for next year, to add an option for the newest comments to be at the top? It’d make it easier to navigate and engage.
Was thinking about that as well. I think if everything stays at the top though you would still only be answering the most recent comments since you have to keep scrolling down to find the subject you are more interested in. Maybe some way to put a little search bar in there where you could enter specific player names and it would bring up the comments involving those players? I don’t know. With all of the different stuff going on you still might miss it. I don’t know if there’s a way to alleviate that. It is pretty fun the way it is anyway and just takes time to go through and find stuff. It is pretty fun either way. It’s too bad we only do this until the votes are announced and then everyone kind of goes away until next year.
I do hope you’re right and Beltran stays hot. I feel he belongs in there. How much punishment can you give the guy when he was literally the scapegoat for the entire thing while no one else was named or penalized?? They said he was part of the conception of the idea and that he did not necessarily carry out the actions. So he should take a lifelong punishment for things a bunch of other people did? Thankfully, it seems a lot of the voters have figured that out. They clearly are not going to put the PED thing in the past but at least they seem to be getting this right.
Just took a quick look at article posted by Bradford Doolittle. He’s maintaining that Jones and Suzuki are similar in that, they would have both been Hall of Famers after the first 10 years of their careers. Did this guy really write this?
At 10 years Suzuki was batting over .330 with a .376 OBP. And about a thousand more hits than Jones in the first 10 years. Starting with Jones first full year, and aggregating that 10-year period, his average was in the 260s with 337 home runs, less than 300 doubles and again, a thousand less hits than Suzuki. Defense was great but the only way I could see this argument as if Jones suffered some terrible fatal disaster at 30 and everyone just assumed his career would have continued on the same way. But in fact, we know it would not continue that way because he played it and it was pretty terrible after 30. Like him all you want but that’s not a very valid argument.
only 50%+ of the votes have been shown?
It should’ve been 50% back on New Year’s Day!
Why do the BBWAA do this to us?
Right now at 2pm EST, 4 will get elected.
Cowards
Why are you posting links to the same article over and over again?
Now post-results, a couple things shine out (Congrats to the 3 inductees):
– Beltran, Jones and Utley took big hits from the unknown voters, while saving Hunter. I’m assuming many of the unknowns are the old-timers. Jones has 2 years left…can he make it?
– Of course…someone had to be That Guy and prevent Ichiro from 100%. Looking forward to hearing some pretentious writer’s pathetic justification for that (and curious if they have a Yankees association).
– As a Red Sox fan I’m happy to see Petey over 10%.
With all those votes cleared out, and (to me) only 1 or 2 remotely viable, but not 1st ballot, candidates coming in (Hamels and Braun), next year should be wide open and very interesting!
Congratulations to the turd who did not vote for Suzuki. You are now in the D-Bag Hall of Fame with the 20 clowns who didn’t vote for Ted Williams, the 23 putzes who didn’t vote for Stan Musial, the 43 boneheads who didn’t think Mickey Mantle belonged and every other fool who didn’t vote for the most obvious guys just because they were jackasses who shouldn’t have ballots in their hands. Way to go clown, you’ve enlightened us all with your amazing powers of stupidity to make a statement of some kind that impresses only you.
Must feel pretty amazing to be the loser who doesn’t vote for Suzuki. What a skidmark in the underpants of society.
Idiot. In ’16 the writers voted 80-9 to require publicizing all ballots. The Hall rejected the proposal. Find out who the 9 were and your lone dissenter is likely in there.
Congratulations to Ichiro and CC! Well deserved!
Looking forward –
Matt Kemp, Rick Porcello, Alex Gordon, Shin Shoo-Choo, Edwin Encarnación, Hunter Pence, Nick Markakis, Cole Hamels and Ryan Braun
Hamels is the closest thing to deserving of any votes next year of the new guys. I don’t think Braun is even borderline and that’s before his admitted PED use. Don’t think any of these other guys are even close.
Next year I’d vote Beltran, Pedroia, Wright, Ramirez, A-Rod, K-Rod, Abreu, Hunter, Buehrle and Pettitte if I had a vote.
Looks good to me. Hopefully the veterans committee can correct some long overdue wrongs.
I like your choices, but I still think Andruw. Tough question is who from your list to omit. Ten months to consider.
This was my ninth season following the tracker. Always amazed at the self-indulgence, pomposity and outright arrogance of some of the BBWAA members who vote. There is only one question a voter needs to ask when marking the ballot: is this player worthy of the Hall of Fame? You are not saying is the player one of the greatest of all-time. All you are asking is while the player was active, did he perform at a HOF-level?