One of our themes all during the holiday season has been to ponder what the Hall of Fame is all about. The Hall is something different to everybody, I think. Some want a big, inclusive Hall of Fame. Some want a small one with only the true Mount Olympic baseball players. Most, I suspect, want something in between. Lines are drawn.
There are those, as described here, who believe it really is a Hall of FAME — and as such, it should be open only to those who had that certain aura, that is, men who truly felt like Hall of Famers to us. This, I think, is really the most passionate case for Jim Rice and Jack Morris and Dale Murphy and others like them. People who grew up in their era, as I did, mark the time by those players. And even if their careers flamed out prematurely, even if they did not quite put up the career numbers we associate with Hall of Famers — even if they were overrated in the first place, it doesn’t really matter. They’re like art. Know a Hall of Famer when I see one.
* * *
Morris tangent: I have noticed, based on a couple of comments and emails about the Jack Morris post, that a couple of people decided to jump on the concept of Win Shares as a way to judge Jack Morris, and may have missed my point. I was only using Win Shares because it’s an easy and convenient way to rank people (and because I like it). But if you would prefer more conventional statistics, that’s OK too. Here’s ERA:
1980: Morris finished 71st in baseball (4.18)
1981: Morris finished 30th in ERA (3.05)
1982: Morris finished 63rd in ERA (4.06)
1983: Morris finished 25th in ERA (3.25)
1984: Morris finished 44th in ERA (3.60)
1985: Morris finished 26th in ERA (3.33)
1986: Morris finished 19th in ERA (3.32)
1987: Morris finished 13th in ERA (3.38)
1988: Morris finished 67th in ERA (3.94)
1989: Morris finished 75th in ERA (4.86)
You like that better? Admittedly, this also includes NL pitchers, who have the obvious advantage of not facing DHs, but he never finished better than fifth in his own league, and don’t you think that when you’re arguing that someone was the best pitcher of the 1980s, it would help your case if finished in the top dozen in baseball in ERA just once?
Maybe you prefer WHIP (Walks + hits per nine innings). That’s not too complicated. By year he finished: 54th, 23rd, 46th, 8th (yay!), 40th, 32nd, 16th, 14th, 62nd and a delightful 72nd to finish it off.
For the entire decade (minimum 1,000 innings), Morris was 43rd in ERA, 33rd in WHIP, 18th in winning percentage, 30th in ERA+, and he allowed by far the most runs (in part because he pitched by far the most innings, but also because he gave up a whole lot of runs).
You don’t need Win Shares. You can break it down a lot of different ways — Jack Morris was never the best pitcher in baseball. He was never second best, never third, never fifth best, probably never 10th best, often not in the Top 25. He is a creature of circumstance. He had a rubber arm, a high-scoring team and a reputation.
As for the person wondering how Nolan Ryan’s Win Shares stack up — Jack Morris’ career high in Win Shares is 21. Ryan had four seasons at least that good. Ryan had 334 Win Shares for his career. Jack Morris had 225. Not close.
* * *
Sorry … after an exchange of punts we move to action later in the third quarter. We were talking the Hall of Fame and how people view it. There are those who are married to career numbers, who believe the true mark of a Hall of Famer is the tangible — 3000 hits, 500 home runs, 300 wins, .300 lifetime batting average, 3,000 strikeouts, whatever. These sorts of numbers demand that a player not only be great, but STAY great, or at least stay good, at least stay. When you break down these big numbers, you can see their magnitude — 3,000 hits is 150 hits every year for 20 years, and 500 homers is 30 homers every year for almost 17 years, and 300 victories represents fifteen 20-win seasons.
Every time I think about those numbers like that, it staggers my mind that players reach those plateaus. But, they can only be reached through longevity. Look: A baseball player tends to have his peak years between, what, 27 and 33 or so. Most players begin a fairly rapid decline once they get to 33 or 34 (unless, you know, they have a stringent workout routine like Roger Clemens).
Since the deadball era … the record for wins by a 33-year-old belongs to Bob Feller with 239.
The record for strikeouts by a 33-year-old is Nolan Ryan with 3,109. Nobody else has 3,000.
The record for home runs by a 33-year-old is Jimmie Foxx’s 519 (A-Rod will pass him) and only 17 men even had 400 by that time.
The record for hits by a 33-year-old is Ty Cobb’s 2,856. Only six have even reached 2,500.
What’s the point? Unless you are a freak of nature, to become a “statistical” Hall of Famer, you have to pile up some numbers after your peak ends. At 33, Dale Murphy had more homers than Ted Williams, Eddie Murray, Willie Stargell, Stan Musial, Yaz, Dave Winfield and Gary Sheffield. But all of those are guys ended up with more homers than he did — in some cases a lot more — and it’s because they were all good old hitters.
Or, at least, they all stuck around. Eddie Murray is a good example. He was a truly great player until he was 34, which is longer than usual. Then he played seven more years. In a couple of those years, he was pretty darned good — in 1995, for instance, he hit .323/.375/.516 for that terrific Cleveland Indians team. But more often than not in those later years, he was pretty average and at times he was a downright liability. In 1996, for instance, as a DH for two teams, he got 566 at-bats and put up a brutal 87 OPS+. Remember 100 is league average.
But — good, bad or indifferent — Murray smacked 125 home runs after his 34-year-old season. That’s why he got to 500. He wasn’t always good, but he kept on churning, and he kept on piling up the numbers. Dale Murphy, meanwhile, was pretty well through at 31. He hit only 20 home runs after his 34-year-old season, and that’s why he didn’t even get to 400 homers (though, somewhat sadly, he went to Colorado at the end to try and do it).
I don’t want to make this about Murphy and Murray. I’m just trying to point out the obvious — that these Hall of Fame standards are often achieved by mediocre old players who are no longer anything close to Hall of Fame caliber. Bruce Sutter finished with a nice, even 300 saves, which is probably why he got into the Hall of Fame (while few even stopped to consider his equal, Dan Quisenberry). But Sutter picked up 40 of those saves when he was absolutely finished in Atlanta — his ERAs those three years were 4.48, 4.34 and 4.76. If his name wasn’t Bruce Sutter (with a contract to match) he never would have been the closer in the first place (though in those days with Atlanta, you never never know). Clearly those three years were not a reason anyone would vote for Bruce Sutter as a Hall of Famer. … And yet, in many ways, those three years WERE the reason, in my opinion, that Sutter was elected. Because without those three years, he would have had 260 saves (Quiz had 244) and I don’t think that would have been enough.
All of this leads to a discovery I made while fooling around on Baseball Reference. i was sorting the greatest hitters in baseball history through age 33. I was doing it using OPS+ — you know, just to see who were the best hitters through the primes of their careers. There on top were the expected names. Ruth. Williams. Gehrig. Cobb. Hornsby. Mantle. Musial. Shoeless Joe. Frank Thomas (he really was some kind of amazing young hitter). Jimmie Foxx. Barry Bonds. Tris Speaker. Willie Mays. Willie McCovey.
And then, a name emerged … a surprising name. A non-Hall of Famer. He was 15th all-time. He was ahead of Frank Robinson. Ahead of Hank Aaron. Ahead of Joe DiMaggio. He was ahead of Schmidt, Reggie and A-Rod. FIFTEENTH all time. We’re talking about a legendary hitter.
So, here’s the question for you: You take a guy who at age 33 has appeared in seven All-Star games at two positions. He’s won the Rookie of the Year (one of the greatest rookie seasons in baseball history). He was a runaway winner for an MVP award. He’s led his league in on-base percentage twice, in slugging percentage three times, in runs once, in RBIs once, in home runs twice, in triples once, in extra base hits three times, and in OPS four times. Now, it’s true, he fell off quickly at 33 and retired at 35 and did not pad his numbers with those hang-on seasons. He also was a troubled character who made more than his share of enemies and was not often viewed as a winning influence. Or ever.
Still, through his prime, he was one of the greatest hitters and most dominating offensive forces the game has ever known. The guy had a 159 OPS+. That’s for a CAREER. This year’s Hall of Fame ballot guys — Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell — these guys never had a 159 OPS+ for a SINGLE SEASON (Dave Parker did have one season with a 166 OPS+). With a bat in his hands — through his prime years — he was better than almost anyone you can name, in the stratosphere with the all-time greats.
The question: Is there room in your Hall of Fame for Dick Allen?
Loading ...
34 Comments, Comment or Ping
John
If you’re talking about a player with an “aura” who felt like a Hall of Famer I would got with Fernando, Gooden and Herschiser over Morris. Morris really is a longevity candidate but because of game 7 he gets talked about as if he were a strong peak guy (”if you could have one guy on the mound…”)
Dick Allen was before my time, but I recall stumbling across his numbers in the stats books and being flabbergasted that he wasn’t in the Hall. Bill James’ essay on him in The Politics of Glory shed a lot of light on the situation for me.
Dec 31st, 2007
Matt
Dick Allen is, IMHO, the most egresious curent omission from the hall - the guy was a terror with the bat.
Also - IJust recently stumbled across your blog, and I must say it.s by far the most entertaining read on the ‘net. So, thanks, and Go Kuip!
Dec 31st, 2007
Clayton
I think Dick Allen WAS perceived as a good and winning influence for a brief period of time with those Whitesox teams. The year after his MVP they were the trendy pick to take the A’s in the west, and every article that I read pointed to Dick’s leadership skills as a primary reason.
Dec 31st, 2007
Ryan
Gotta say, your analysis of Allen sounds a lot like Albert Belle. Stopped playing at 33. Troubled (to say the least). But dominantly productive while he played. Just his black ink: Slg x2, OPS x1, R x1, RBI x3, Total Bases x3, 2b x1, HR x1, All-Star x5, top 3 MVP x3, Silver Slugger x5.
Dec 31st, 2007
Blue
That Puckett is in and Allen is not is a crime, just a crime.
It’s too bad the Vets didn’t put him in when they were making a mockery of HOF standards.
And I think Belle should be in as well.
Dec 31st, 2007
DosCarlos
It seems the main argument against Allen is that his personality was destructive to his teams. I don’t know how that could be proven, but if the Hall has room for a guy like Ty Cobb, it ought to have room for Allen.
Dec 31st, 2007
TC
Using the common, but fallacious Recollection Argument: my father was 10 years old when Dick Allen was a rookie with the Phillies. Dad thought Allen’s bat was on par with anyone he’s seen. B-R indicates that, before Age 32, there’s Frank Thomas, Pujols, Frank Robinson, and Allen. And they’re pretty damn close together.
I believe the “most average” Hall of Famer, statistically, is Enos Slaughter. Enos’ best OPS+ is Dick Allen’s career average. There’s room in my Hall of Dick Allen, but I put a lot less stock into counting numbers than some.
Dec 31st, 2007
Mike Bagnall
Now there you go again. Bruce Sutter didn’t get into the HOF because he had better stats than Quisenberry. He was AHEAD of Quisenberry. By the time Quisenberry achieved his stats, everybody and his nephew had stats like that. In the eyes of the unwashed, Sutter invented the closer role and the split-finger fastball and the save, the only stat that is aimed at closers. He got a lot more saves than Quisenberry in fewer seasons. The only guys anybody ever judged by their WHIPs were Whip Wilson and Lash LaRue.
Editor’s note: Sorry, Mike. I’m all for freedom of comment and all, but can’t let you just get away with that. Quiz set the saves record with 45, not Sutter. And when Sutter broke the 40-save plateau in 1984, Quiz was on his second 40-save season. And Sutter did not have a lot more saves in fewer seasons; Quiz averaged 32 saves per season as a closer (including the strike year and his last rough year); Sutter before he went to Atlanta averaged 31 saves (and a lot less than that after he went to Atlanta). Quiz had four seasons with 35+ saves; Sutter had three. And I don’t really care what it looks like in the eyes of unwashed … Hall of Fame voters should shower every so often. Quiz was every bit the equal of Sutter in advanced stats but also in good old-fashioned unwashed stats like saves and ERA.
Dec 31st, 2007
Paul White
Oh Lord, the Dick Allen question again. To avoid another thread hijacking, I’ll just give my simple answer without comparing him to anyone or criticizing his defense. Yes, I would have room for Dick Allen in my Hall of Fame.
On the Quiz vs. Sutter issue, I take exception to the statement that “by the time Quisenberry achieved his stats, everybody and his nephew had stats like that.” That’s just flat out wrong. When Quiz retired after the 1990 season, he had the 6th most saves in the history of the sport, with two of the guys in front of him having padded their numbers with a lot of one inning saves while Quiz was regularly throwing 130 innings as a closer. It’s also wrong to say that Sutter compiled his numbers in fewer seasons than Quiz. They each pitched 12 seasons and a nearly identical number of innings, but while Sutter was used as his team’s primary closer in 11 seasons, Quiz was only used primarily as his team’s primary closer in six seasons, sharing that role in two others. It’s also only fair to note that Quiz was the same age as Sutter but didn’t get to the big leagues until three years later due to his unorthodox style. It was the Royals use of him, rather than anything to do with Quisenberry’s performance, that kept him from posting equal or better saves totals to Sutter.
Dec 31st, 2007
John McCann
I play around with spreadsheets all the time mixing peak and career numbers trying to find who the best players not in the HOF are. Allen pretty much always comes out on top for post WW2 hitters. Also, almost all of his teammates still stick up for him to this day, so he may not have been as bad as his rep. But he only played in 3 post season games and his team lost that series, so that counts too.
Anyway, the HOF is not going to kick anyone out, so we need to deal with what it is. I think most people accept the de facto standards, and just ignore the few players that were really not deserving. We usually focus on who the best players that are not in, which is as it should be. One day they may come up with some kind of inner circle tho.
P.S. I think Quiz was mostly ignored because he was a soft tosser, but Sutter maybe didn’t deserve election either. But Sutter did K 100 three times and his 2 best seasons were better than Quiz’s best 2.
Dec 31st, 2007
Perry
James’ essay on Allen in TPOG is one side of the story, and probably the most popular side. But for me, Craig Wright did a pretty good job of demolishing it by interviewing scads of Allen’s old managers and teammates, all of whom contradicted in no uncertain terms the idea that Allen was a clubhouse cancer or any kind of negative influence. Guys like Gene Mauch and Chuck Tanner had only the most glowing things to say about him. Tanner even said that on the White Sox Allen was a co-manager. I don’t know where you could find it, it appeared in a SABR publication back in the 90s, but it certainly turned me around on Allen.
Dec 31st, 2007
Josh
The Craig Wright article can be found here…
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=11&id=2065
It is very in-depth and does give a good counter to the Bill James article/essay.
Dec 31st, 2007
Jeremy
Bringing it around to the current ballot…
Sutter: 300 saves, 136 ERA+
Nen: 314 saves, 138 ERA+
Now, that’s a shallow comparison, because Sutter did pitch more than 300 more innings than Nen. I’m not at all trying to say that Nen is a Hall of Famer; just that nobody would even consider electing him, and they’re right. I’d be surprised if he got the 5% necessary to stay on the ballot. And somehow Sutter is in.
More fun with comps:
Sutter: 1042.3 IP, 300 saves, 136 ERA+
Franco: 1245.7 IP, 424 saves, 137 ERA+
In about three years the Franco discussion will begin, but right now I know of no campaign for his election. Nobody writes “possible Hall of Famer John Franco.” Yet, by almost every way I measure it, he was better than Sutter.
Dec 31st, 2007
Joe
Ok, Dick Allen had a very nice career, but is he a HoFer? Take a look at his comps…Jim Edmonds, Reggie Smith, Andrew Jones, Ellis Burks, Jason Giambi, etc. All really good players, but none of them HoFers (in my mind). Granted, his age breakdown comps are much more impressive. David Wright, Scott Rolen, Manny Ramirez, Chipper Jones, Gary Sheffield and Willie Stargell. I guess I am one of those people who like both excellence AND longevity. Looks like this may be very much along the lines of Dale Murphy. Was VERY good during his prime, but fell off the maps shortly there after. Very blurry line, but for me longevity is important. I don’t want any Albert Belles or Mo Vaughns in the Hall. They were absolutely dominant for several years, but could not maintain that for long enough to be one of the all time greats. Dick Allen and Dale Murphy fall a little more into the grey area for me than Mo and “Joey”, but where do we draw that line. I guess mine is in the area of Murph and Allen, give or take. Tough calls, but fun to investigate/debate none the less!
Dec 31st, 2007
Keith K.
Jon Heyman of SI exemplifies the “I can just feel when someone is a Hall of Famer” argument. He wrote this week that because he has been around long enough to watch the whole careers of the current ballot entries, “I don’t feel the need to study the stat sheets too hard. I look, but I don’t obsess. I think I know who was great.”
Well, all of us have players that “felt” great when we were watching them (especially in our youth), but whose numbers don’t hold up to scrutiny. Garvey. Mattingly. Dale Murphy and Dave Parker. Conversely, there are the guys who somehow were superb without us realizing it, like Biggio and Raines.
So why do players “feel” great when they really weren’t? Some were products of large media markets (e.g., Mattingly); some had great moments that indelibly etched them in our minds (like Jack Morris). Some were lucky enough to be on great teams (again, Morris); some had outsized personalities that helped their image (like Kirby Puckett). Also, we are all biased when it comes to our favorites – you can’t expect a Red Sox fan to be completely rational about Jim Rice, and good luck trying to convince a Detroit fan that Alan Trammell isn’t worthy.
The point is, if you are going to make a rational decision about whether someone is Hall-worthy, you have to put “feel” behind you. It just isn’t reliable. If votes don’t have an objective basis, the whole exercise has little meaning.
Dec 31st, 2007
maiuchuck
Well Keith let me tell you where I, and I’ll bet you too, got my “feelings” from. So Dick Allen was a “cancer in the locker room”. Is there a stat for that? Albert Belle was a “bad teammate”. Where did I get that from? The same place I got the Hall of Fame criteria from - sportswriters.
I personally know a coupla pro baseball players. The persona projected by the sports writing media does not jibe with my personal experience. One guy is described as “haughty - aloof- egocentric” by the media and the other as a “salt-of-the-earth” type. Both descriptions are way off base. I love having a beer with the “haughty” guy, while the “salt-of-the-earth” dude plays the writers like Josha Heifitz played the fiddle. We only “know” the players personalities through the sports writer’s reporting – and that is highly – that’s right I said highly – biased.
As to the longevity issue, to me it comes down to this – how long does a player have to be great to be a Hall of Famer and how good does he have to be? Personally I want to see 4 to 6 years of great – and I mean great – play before he’s a HoFer in my eyes. Longevity is nice but not essential. So I’m all for Dick Allen and Albert Belle and Sam McDowell.
Dec 31st, 2007
Paul White
I like to refer to the longevity issue as The Reggie Smith Rule. I’ll use Jim Rice as the counterpoint here only because it’s expected of me - this is not another Rice argument, it’s really just an illustration.
If you look at Reggie Smith’s career, everyone will agree that he had a good one, but he’ll also almost universally be judged as short on HOF qualifications. It seems you have to have a Reggie Smith career, plus something else. Smith, of course, had just a Reggie Smith career and nothing else, hence he’s not in the Hall of Fame and there’s no massive campaign to get him in.
Through age 33, Jim Rice had a Reggie Smith career - 1790 games, 1104 runs, 2163 hits, 351 homers, 1278 RBI, .303/.355/.518/.873, OPS + of 133. Solid. Not enough to get in if he just stopped there, but certainly on a Hall of Fame track if he added anything to it. Of the 10 most comparable players to Rice through age 33, six made the Hall of Fame, and two others, Rafael Palmeiro and Gary Sheffiled, have great cases if you ignore those pesky chemical enhancement issues.
Looking at just the six Hall of Famers, one doesn’t fit too well, Duke Snider, because he played a premium defensive position. I’ll substitute a first ballot Hall of Famer, Carl Yastrzemski, instead. That gives us a group of Billy Williams, Orlando Cepeda, Dave Winfield, Al Kaline, Eddie Murray and Yaz. Through age 33, their average career looked like this: 1927 games, 1120 runs, 2120 hits, 318 homers, 1181 RBI, .295/.368/.493/.861, OPS + of 137, so Rice is right in line with them.
The difference is what came next. Those six guys, with the exception of Cepeda, each played anywhere between 4 and 8 additional seasons worth of games. For the most part they didn’t play at their previous level, but there was some production there. Their remaining years looked like this on average: 865 games, 426 runs, 855 hits, 119 homers, 488 RBI, .276/.355/.447/.802. Basically, after age 33 each of these guys posted an Ellis Valentine career, and when added to their previous Reggie Smith career, that was more than enough to get each into the Hall.
Rice didn’t do that. Rice posted these numbers after age 33: 299 games, 145 runs, 289 hits, 31 homers, 173 RBI, .263/.330/.395/.725. In short, after that age Jim Rice posted a Butch Nieman career, and that apparently makes his case a bit more dicey. It’s no accident that Rice’s closest comp, Cepeda, also tailed off quickly after age 33, and therefore is the only one of those 6 Hall of Famers who had to wait for the Veterans Committee to get in.
So, in essence, the question is how far past Reggie Smith do you have to go to be a Hall of Famer? How close was Reggie himself? To me, he wasn’t qualified, but was much closer than the support he actually received, hence I give Rice and players like him the benefit of the doubt. You don’t, in my view, have to be Ellis Valentine in your decline years to be Hall-worthy if you already matched Reggie Smith in your prime. A little Butch Nieman will do.
Everyone thoroughly confused now?
Dec 31st, 2007
James
Dale Murphy has the same problem as Allen. What does he look like if you just examine his stats through age 33? I know he wasn’t nearly the offensive force Dick Allen was, but comparing a Gold Glove centerfielder to a defensively shaky 3B/1B should bring them a little closer. With Murph’s good guy bonus and Allen’s bad rep, I bet they come out even in the minds of most voters, and if either of those guys had played at all past 35, he’d be in. People seem to freak out when a career goes off a cliff inexplicably instead of gliding down to a stop, as though you can’t trust the early, great years were real without at least a little padding.
More than the alleged character issues, it’s the old peak v. career debate that torpedoes Allen. Who’s “greater” when all is said and done, Mickey Mantle or Hank Aaron? I go back and forth on whether I’d vote for Allen, but most of the time I say yes.
Jan 1st, 2008
Jon
I think the reason why Allen is not a HOFer is because he was never on one team long enough to get the city to love him and essentially be his rallying voices for the hall.
Just look at somebody like Jim Rice, he played his entire career or most of it anyway (I don’t know and am not bothered enough to look it up) for the Red Sox and the people who have this tendency to believe he should be in the Hall are, not so suprisingly, Red Sox fans.
Or look at Joe and how he touts a lot of the 1980s Royals as HOF candidates like Frank White and Quiz. I would guess (though I don’t know him) that some of that support comes from him living in KC for a very long time.
We take a look at players we like then we find the numbers to support our cause that x player should be in the hall. Dick Allen never played anywhere long enough and had enough bad rep from sports writers that he couldn’t find anybody to like him enough to rally for his cause despite the numbers being there or at least the peak was there. Then because he didn’t have enough counting stats he didn’t have enough support to get into the hall.
One person I think should be in the HOF who isn’t is Ron Santo and when you look at him compared to others 3Bs in the hall he very much looks like he should be in. However I am also biased in that I am a Cubs fan and I think that one of the best Cubs 3Bs of all time should also be one of baseball’s best 3Bs of all time.
Jan 1st, 2008
Butch
You could also play this game with Mattingly, who quit at age 34 but surely could’ve held on another three years on rep/adoration alone. (If he hadn’t walked away, would even Steinbrenner have the chutzpah to let him go?)
Jan 1st, 2008
joeficarra
Personally, while I would not consider him an “inner-circle” HOFer, Dick Allen would be in my HOF.
To me, the BBWAA has become a complete joke, and the HOF needs to divorce itself from the organization completely. People who cover the game on a close, personal, level should not be making decisions about who goes into the game’s “official” HOF.
Separate these players from their various supposed “character issues” DURING their careers, and consider ONLY their performance on the field:
Dick Allen
Albert Belle
Kirby Puckett
Who’s in the Hall? The guy every reporter loved because he was such a great guy, a joy to be around in the clubhouse, whose career was tragically cut short by injury.
Who then turned out to be a pretty despicable individual when the reporters and cameras weren’t around…but the other two don’t even get a sniff…
This “responsibility”/privilege needs to be removed from the BBWAA. (Nothing personal, Poz…)
As for the Quiz issue, Sutter is one of the worst HOFer’s elected, but Quiz deserved a lot more press and a greater push for the HOF. I’m not totally sold on him as a HOFer, but I’d at least be open to the argument, and wouldn’t be upset if he was in. Sutter does upset me…
Joe
Jan 1st, 2008
Snowman
As far as Quiz/Sutter goes, neither makes my hall. My Hall of Fame would have very, very few true relievers in it. They just don’t pitch enough innings to make me believe in their value unless they are completely dominant.
Basically, I’d have Hoyt Wilhelm. That’s it. Five years after he retires Rivera can join him. Sutter, Quiz, Eck, Gossage, Hoffman, and especially Smith would all be on the outside looking in.
Jan 1st, 2008
Mike Bagnall
The adoption of the “closer” into the game changed the game considerably and the new position deserves to be recognized even if I find it rather silly. As I recall, there was no such stat as a “save” back in the ’50’s. It was Sutter (among others) not Quisenberry that got the save recognized as a useful commodity. So far as numbers are concerned, when I studied arithmatic, 300 saves were more saves than 244 saves, but I was too early to get taught the new math. Quisenberry had more saves than Sutter just like Maris hit more HR than Ruth. One difference though. Closers have to depend on their managers to put them into the right ballgames at the right times. Did Sutter have as many save opportunities as Quisenberry? I have no idea–do you?
Editor’s note: I do know.
Sutter: 300 saves, 401 opportunities, 74.8 percent.
Quiz: 244 saves, 304 opportunities, 80.3 percent.
As far as Sutter being one of the pioneers of the save … I think you are remembering him a little earlier than he was. The save was invented by Jerome Holtzman in 1960, it became an official stat in 1969, it was pretty prominent in news reports by the early-to-mid 1970s (Clay Carroll’s record 37 saves in 1972 and John Hiller’s record 38-saves made them two of the first relievers to get serious Cy Young consideration) and it was in full vogue when Rolaids started giving its award out in 1976. Sutter’s great year was 1977. Many credit Sutter for being a pioneer of the ONE-INNING-SAVE, but that was in the 1980s, after Quiz had already established himself.
Jan 1st, 2008
Jesus Melendez
“I don’t want any Albert Belles or Mo Vaughns in the Hall. They were absolutely dominant for several years, but could not maintain that for long enough to be one of the all time greats.”
Okay…I’ll bite.
If you can’t look at Albert Belle and him being “absolutely dominant for several years” and NOT put him in the Hall of Fame…how can you justify Sandy Koufax?
Yes…I’m serious.
I made a basic comparison between Koufax and Ron Guidry over on my page The Hall of Very Good, but ‘ll refrain from posting a link because SOME people get all bitchy about it. Basically, take away the four (yes, four) years where Koufax was dominant, and he was average. Was Belle EVER “average”?
People bash Belle and Allen because they don’t LIKE them (it’s the same with Barry Bonds)…whereas Koufax was well regarded in the lockerroom and and likeable.
Nevermind…SOMEONE can bitch away. Here’s the spcific link! http://hallofverygood.blogspot.com/2007/06/louisiana-lightning-versus-sanford.html or just go to http://hallofverygood.blogspot.com
Toodles!
Jan 1st, 2008
Snowman
Well, I probably wouldn’t vote for Koufax (I’ve always been sort of iffy on him, actually… ask me next week and my answer may have changed… same for Belle. Mo Vaughn, OTOH, is not even close), but he had five great seasons in a row, not four. That 141 ERA+ in ‘62 is nothing to sneeze at.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Joe
Jesus,
I can’t justify Kofax, other than to say I wouldn’t have voted for him either. In my eyes he did not maintain it for a long enough period of time. Just like Belle and Allen.
Personality does have a small amount of weight for me, so all things being equal, I would take the “nice guy” over the “not so nice guy”. And to me there is a difference between “bashing” someone and deciding if he is Hall worthy or not. I bash Barry Bonds on a regular basis, but I ABSOLUTELY think he is a Hall of Famer. I will definately bash players I do not like, but when it comes down to Hall consideration it is basically a tie breaker for me. If Albert Belle were the nicest guy on the planet, I still wouldn’t think he would be a HoFer.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Jesus Melendez
My bad, Snowman…I was only looking at his last four years.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Jon Tuttle
Regarding Koufax, I suggest you back up another year to 1961, when he finally started putting it all together. Granted, it doesn’t look as “dominant” as the next five years at first blush, but look closer. His ERA was “only” 3.52, but that was a good hitters’ year in the NL, which made it good enough for 7th best in the NL, and since the LA Colesium was a hitter’s park (3 year park factor of 108), his adjusted ERA of 123 bumps him up to fifth best. He was also fourth in WHIP that year at 1.205, first in K’s with 269, first in K/9IP with 9.47, fourth in Innings at 255.2, and first in K/BB ratio at 2.80. That’s an awful lot of top five finishes (with several “Black Inks”) in some fairly substantial categories for a 25 year old making more than 30 starts (actually 35) for the first time in his seven year long career. There is enough “there” there to say he deserves credit for a six year run of greatness, in my opinion.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Aaron
Here’s the thing about Koufax though. He showed a level of dominance at his position that was unprecedented and unduplicated until Pedro Martinez came around. He redefined what it meant to be called a “power pitcher” (was that term even coined in the 60’s?) posting strikeout totals and K/9 rates that were completely unheard of as well as leading the league in nearly every statistical category for all 4 years of his dominance. Koufax isn’t necessarily in the HOF because he had a hall-of-fame career but because he revolutionalized the position.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Jon Tuttle
Sorry Jesus, but your analysis of Guidry versus Koufax is off the mark on several fronts.
First, you start off by saying that Guidry “never didn’t bring it” (perhaps you’re overlooking 1984 and his ERA+of 84 that year). You don’t mention that Guidry’s formative years were spent playing college ball and in the minors until 1977, except for two cups of coffee in 75 and 76. He was already 26 by then. Koufax, on the other hand, was signed as a bonus baby at 19 and had to learn by doing at the major league level, with little instruction (rookies were basically ignored back then, as he makes plain in his autobiography). By the time he was 26, he’d been in the majors for seven seasons and had already made an all star team after finally putting it together in 1961.
Second, Guidry’s best six years are actually not consecutive – they actually occurred over a nine year period from 77 to 85, with a few pretty good years and his stinker in 1984 mixed in. During this period, his ERA+’s were 140, 208, 146, 110, 129, 104, 113, 84, and 123; his best six in descending order were 208, 146, 140, 129, 123, and 113. Compare those to Koufax’s six year run, in descending order, of 190, 187, 160, 159, 141, and 123. Guidry is +18 better in their single best season, then Koufax blows him away the rest of the way - +41, +20, +30, +18, and +10.
There’s more. During his run, Koufax pitched 335.2, 323, 311, 255.2, 223, and 184.1 innings, for a total of 1632.1, and an average of 272 per season. Guidry, by comparison, had his best years of 273.2, 259, 250.1, 236.1, 222, and 219.2, a total of 1461 (171.1 fewer) and an average of 243, about 29 fewer. There is a substantial amount of value in what amounts to around 4 extra starts per year for a six year period.
Finally, let’s look at “Black” and “Grey” ink, not a terrible way to value their relative performance compared to their peers. While their Grey inks (top ten finishes) are close at 151 for Koufax to 140 for Guidry, Koufax blows him away again in Black inks (league leading finishes), 78 to 29. Koufax was by far more dominant compared to his peers than was Guidry. The comparison between the two is at best superficial, and they really are not that comparable at all – Koufax was simply a much better player.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Mr. Leisure
As I was reading the age 33 description and trying to guess who it was, you know what name I came up with?
Albert Belle. However, Joey only shows up on strict stathead numbers, not totals, since he didn’t get started until he was 24, while Allen made first full season impact at 23.
Joey was actually done with the game when he was 33. Poor surly fellow.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Matt
My first thought was Fred Lynn, but then I realized, with time to spare, it was Allen. Yay! I feel smart! Also, Allen and Belle were my two write-in votes for Pozcars (Joe, you didn’t mention the Allen vote–that’s one of the ones you lost?).
I have always felt precisely the same way–it is odd that the decline years are the years that separate Hall of Famers from non-HOFers, more often than not. I never knew so clearly that this made me uncomfortable, but thank you Joe, like a good shrink, you have just brought my feelings to the surface.
So now I am embarassed that I did not post a Pozcar vote for Alan Trammell. Not only was he a great player–he was almost single-handedly responsible for my shared stratomatic title in the winter of 84-85. What was I thinking?
Jan 3rd, 2008
Simon Oliver Lockwood
Sutter’s period of dominance was slightly longer (1977-84) than Quiz’ (1980-85), and since he started earlier it made more of an impact. Sutter was being compared to Gossage and Lyle whereas Quiz was being compared to Sutter. Sutter was also unhittable in the All-Star game in the late 70s which increased his visibility.
Mind you, I’d vote for Quiz as well. But I can see why some people would vote for Sutter and not Quiz.
Jan 3rd, 2008
SkeptiSys
Reggie Smith was a significantly more valuable player than Rice. They are comparable based on slugging, but otherwise:
1) Rice was more likely to create an out, which is undervalued by OPS+
2) Reggie played over 800 games in CF and won a Gold Glove as a CF. Rice played 530 games at DH, otherwise in LF.
3) Even though OPS+ overvalues a player like Rice, Reggie had a much higher peak season (167-157) and career (137 - 128) with this measure.
4) Reggie’s offensive winning% (which adjusts for outs created) is tied for 84th all time. Jim Rice is tied for 285th.
They are just not of comparable quality.
Jan 7th, 2008
Reply to “The Hall of Something or Other …”