Well, not sure I quite made the intended point with the earlier post … I wanted to show that there are a LOT of good players outside the Hall of Fame with not a whole lot to choose between them. I listed off 26 and left off numerous really good players like Joe Torre, Vada Pinson, Rocky Colavito, Ted Simmons, Ken Boyer, Graig Nettles, Frank White, Steve Garvey, Maury Wills, Joe Carter, Darryl Strawberry, Jack Clark, Dave Concepcion, Boog Powell, Dolph Camilli, Fred Lynn, Jimmy Wynn, Eric Davis, Rusty Staub, on and on and on.
There are a lot of good players, and I’ve come to believe that mostly we separate them with … emotion. It doesn’t matter how many numbers you throw at a certain kind of Jack Morris fan, he will not believe that Bert Blyleven was a better pitcher. It’s something he just knows in his gut. Blyleven was like another guy; Morris was a star. I had this conversation with one of these people. I pointed out that if Jack Morris was inducted into the Hall of Fame, he would have the highest ERA in there.
He said: “Well, he pitched in an era when 4.00 ERA was good.”
And I said, “No he didn’t. He pitched in a low-scoring era, when the league average was about 4.00.”
So he said: “Well, he pitched in a great hitting ballpark.”
And I said: “No he didn’t. Tiger Stadium was for most of the 1980s either a neutral or good pitching ballpark.”
So he said: “Well he was the best pitcher of the 1980s.”
And I said: “No he wasn’t — don’t you read my blog? The guy had the 15th best ERA in the American League in the 1980s (1000 inning minimum). And yes I can talk in parentheses.”
So he said: “Morris had this amazing won-loss record.”
And I said: “No he didn’t. His career .577 winning percentage is not historically special and it’s not dramatically better than the .538 winning percentage his teams had when he did not pitch. He just played on high-scoring and good baseball teams.”
So he said: “Well, Morris was incredible in the postseason.”
And I said: “Blyleven had a better postseason ERA.”
So he said: “Well, if I had just one game to win, I would rather have Jack Morris than anyone.”
And I said: “Well, you’re an idiot.”
No, I’m joking, I didn’t say that. But that’s usually what it comes down to … someone saying something ridiculous like “If I had just one game to win …” Hell, if I had just one game to win, I’d take Don Larsen circa Oct. 8, 1956.
But — I want to be clear about this — I’m not saying that sort of passion is wrong. The Hall of Fame wouldn’t be much fun if it was all about numbers, like the LPGA Hall of Fame or something. It should involve emotion, passion, rage — the Hall of Fame, in the minds of most, separates the good from the great, the memorable from the fantastic, the Al Olivers from the George Bretts, and it should be hot-blooded. I keep saying this, but we all have a different image of what the makes up a baseball Hall of Famer, and that’s why it enraptures so many (unlike the Pro Football Hall of Fame; I think many of the most passionate football fans in America have absolutely no idea who is and is not in the Pro Football Hall of Fame).
For many, the Baseball Hall of Fame is like an exploration; you can go back into a person’s career, study it, break it down, determine how the player stands up to the time. That’s what I like doing. That’s why I don’t really buy the argument some make that because on-base percentage was not a prominent statistic in the 1980s, it’s not fair to point out that Andre Dawson did not walk. I don’t buy it for three reasons:
1. OBP is not that prominent a stat NOW in many circles (see: Raines, Tim). That doesn’t make it less viable.
2. We are judging those players against their own time … Andre Dawson’s. 323 on-base percentage isn’t just subpar now. it was subpar then too. It would be considerably lower than any other outfielder in the Hall of Fame — and those players played under the same conditions.
3. To me — and this is just my opinion — saying that someone would have walked more had OBP been a more prominent statistic shows too little respect for that unique ability to get on base. I don’t believe Dawson or anyone else would have had a significantly better OBP just because someone told them walks are kind of important. We are not changing history — we’re trying to understand it. On-base percentage is likely the most important single offensive statistic, and it was in 1985, and it was in 1975 (Joe Morgan knew it) and it was 1965 and 1955 and 1935 too.
If Dawson had hit .260, his Hall of Fame case would either be very shaky or, probably, it would be dead in the water. Well, OBP is much more telling than batting average. His .323 is even more telling than a .260 batting average would be.
Yes, for many it’s an exploration, but for many others the Hall of Fame is about something in the gut, that sense of wonder you get when watching a player that you believe, truly believe, is an all-time great. Nobody likes being told the player they idolized was really good, but not quite great. There’s no doubt in my mind that there are people who went to games with their Dads, and their fathers pointed to Jack Morris and said, “Watch that man son. If I had one game to win, I’d want that guy on the mound right there.” So who am I to tell you that his ERA was bland or that his big-game reputation may have been overblown by one great game or that he wasn’t the best pitcher of the 1980s. Keep fighting the good fight. That’s what makes it all fun.
Now, I’ll tell you who all those players are I listed — maybe throw a comment in or two:
* * *
Player A: .266/.353/.515, 1877 hits, 340 2B, 14 3B, 462 homers, 1186 runs, 1407 RBIs, 132 OPS+.
Special considerations: Won MVP, stole 200 bases.
Player — Jose Canseco.
Most of you figured him out … that 132 career OPS+ reminds you that a roided-up Jose could really swat.
I want to throw something out about steroids, by the way. I’m not going to go into it in great detail here, because I haven’t put that much thought into this, but something struck me today. It’s not new, but I had never really thought about it quite like this before. You know, many are all riled up about steroids and PEDs, in part because they are illegal, but more (I think) because they’re unnatural, they are about cheating nature, they hurt the kids, they give players an unfair advantage, not only over their counterparts but, as we saw with Bonds this year, over history.
So my thought is this: Tommy John surgery, as I understand it, is unnatural too, isn’t it? Remember, in TJ surgery, you are not replacing a torn/worn elbow ligament it with another elbow ligament. That would be one thing. No, you are are replacing an elbow ligament with a SIGNIFICANTLY STRONGER ligament from the forearm or hamstring or knee. I don’t know if this makes the elbow more powerful (there are reports of some people throwing harder after Tommy John, though I’m dubious) but, assuming it heals properly, it definitely makes the elbow stronger and less susceptible to further injury. Very few pitchers with Tommy John surgery hurt that particular elbow again (though some hurt their shoulders).
Isn’t this cheating nature too? I know this has been asked before, but I mean, when you REALLY think about Tommy John surgery, it does seem odd and bit creepy and not too far from replacing muscles with stronger muscles or giving runners better lungs or taking Steve Austin, a man barely alive, and rebuilding him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better. Stronger. Faster.
* * *
Player B: .298/.352/.502, 2452 hits, 373 2B, 79 3B, 382 homers, 1249 runs, 1451 RBIs, 128 OPS+.
Special considerations: Won MVP, led league in total bases four times.
Player — Rice. Jim Rice.
Fear the man. … He will go in next year.
* * *
Player C: .292/.378/.534, 1848 hits, 320 3B, 79 3B, 351 homers, 1019 runs, 1119 RBIs, 156 OPS+.
Special considerations: Won MVP and Rookie of the year, led league in OPS four times.
Player — Dick Allen.
The Hall of Fame, it seems, is a blend of peak and careers. If someone has a legendary peak, like Sandy Koufax, he may not need a long career to be a Hall of Famer. If someone has a long and successful career, like Don Sutton, he may not need a spectacular peak (though Sutton had three or four darned good seasons). Most Hall of Famers have both peak and longevity (some don’t have any of this stuff and should be thrown out).
People will rate the importance of peak and career differently — usually depending on their favorite player. With most of these borderline candidates, the question comes down to two things:
1. Was his peak Hall of Fame worthy — was he, for a time, one of the very, very best to ever play the game?
2. How long did the player last?
Jim Rice’s peak was not nearly as high as Dick Allen’s, in my opinion. But Rice lasted longer. He will get in. Allen won’t.
* * *
Player D: .265/.356/.469, 2111 hits, 350 2B, 39 3B, 398 homers, 1197 runs, 1266 RBIs, 121 OPS+
Special considerations: Won two MVPs, five Gold Gloves and stole 161 bases.
Player — Dale Murphy.
I think at their very best, Murphy was a better player than Rice. But, again, Rice lasted longer.
I will say one thing on behalf of my man Murph — I’ve heard some people from the Northeast say that they just don’t remember Murphy as a great player. I love Boston. I love New York. I love Philly. But that really bugs me. Murphy was a God in the South when I was living there. An absolute God. The Braves sucked, but he was the South’s Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays. He was a power/speed guy who won Gold Gloves in center field and hit home runs for kids in hospitals and signed every autograph. He might not have a Hall of Fame career, I can see that (and he obviously was not as good as Mantle or Mays) but I’m simply not going to buy the concept that Murphy was plain in any way when he played.
* * *
Player E: .277/.362/.464, 2254 hits, 365 2B, 67 3B, 342 homers, 1128 runs, 1331 RBIs, 125 OPS+
Special considerations: Won five gold gloves, led league in walks four times.
Player — Ron Santo.
I purposely did not put the players’ positions because I wanted you to judge them entirely based on their numbers. Santo’s numbers hold up, I think, with many of the best players who are not in the Hall of Fame. Throw in that he was a third baseman and a good one … he should be in.
* * *
Player F: .279/.323/.482, 2774 hits, 503 2B, 98 3B, 438 homers, 1373 runs, 1591 RBIs, 119 OPS+
Special considerations: Won MVP and rookie of the year and eight Gold Gloves. Stole 314 bases.
Player — Andre Dawson.
But you knew that already. The .323 on-base percentage gives him away. Dawson, to me, has a Hall of Fame case even with that low on-base percentage. But, like Morris’ high ERA, you have to ask yourself: Was he SO special, that he’s a Hall of Famer even with that pedestrian OBP. He had 400 homers and 300 steals and very, very, very few players have done that. He won Gold Gloves in centerfield. So maybe he was special enough to overcome. I think Dawson will get in.
* * *
Player G: .290/.339/.471, 2712 hits, 526 2B, 75 3B, 339 homers, 1272 runs, 1493 RBIs, 121 OPS+
Special considerations: Won MVP and three Gold Gloves. Two-time batting champion.
Player — Dave Parker.
I shorted him 25 homers in my original list … I apologize for that. Dave Parker was a truly great player for five years in his prime (even though he didn’t walk much either) but you do have to say that he he has only himself to blame for being in Hall of Fame purgatory.
* * *
Player H: .280/.356/.465, 2866 hits, 488 2B, 49 3B, 384 homers, 1299 runs, 1628 RBIs, 120 OPS+
Special considerations: Led league in slugging and is 18th all-time in intentional walks.
Player — Harold Baines.
He was never a great player, but he was a good player for a long, long time. Professional hitter = Harold Baines.
* * *
Player I: .273/.359/.487, 1921 hits, 295 2B, 48 3B, 370 homers, 1105 runs, 1274 RBIs, 120 OPS+
Special considerations: Won three Gold Gloves and was beloved.
Player — Gil Hodges.
As mentioned here … I hope he’s the first recipient of the Buck O’Neil Lifetime Achievement Award (after Buck himself, of course). Excellent player, beloved figure, manager of the 1969 Mets.
* * *
Player J: .307/.358/.471, 2153 hits, 442 2B, 20 3B, 222 homers, 1007 runs, 1099 RBIs, 127 OPS+
Special considerations: Won MVP and nine Gold Gloves and was beloved.
Player — Don Mattingly.
Still love the Bill James line about him: 100% ballplayer, 0% bullshit.
Now, some of the stuff that people say to get him in the Hall of Fame … that’s a different story.
* * *
Player K: .296/.384/.436, 2182 hits, 426 2B, 60 3B, 162 homers, 1124 runs, 1071 RBIs, 128 OPS+
Special considerations: Won MVP and 11 Gold Gloves.
Player — Keith Hernandez
You can’t put up Mattingly numbers without putting up the numbers of his New York twin.
* * *
Player L: .272/.370/.470, 2446 hits, 483 2B, 73 3B, 385 homers, 1470 runs, 1384 RBIs, 127 OPS+
Special considerations: Won eight Gold Gloves and twice led league in OPS.
Player — Dwight Evans.
When I went back through to put together this list of names, I instinctively and immediately remembered every player … except this one. I was looking at those numbers for a minute or two and going — “Damn, who had a 127 OPS+ and almost 400 homers and eight Gold Gloves? Oh yeah. Damn, he was good.”
Dewey is a perfect example of that gut feeling I was talking about. As a rule, Boston fans seem to remember Dewey as a very good player, Rice as a great one (or maybe both as great players, but Rice as slightly greater). As an outsider looking in, there’s no doubt in my mind that Dewey was a better all-around player and a more deserving Hall of fame candidate. But I don’t get to make these decisions.
* * *
Player M: .295/.369/.564, 1726 hits, 389 2B, 21 3B, 381 homers, 974 runs, 1239 RBIs, 143 OPS+
Special considerations: Led league in hits, homers, 2B, RBIs, total bases, runs produced over 8-year span.
Player — Albert Belle.
I once rode in a cab with a guy in Shreveport who was close friends with Albert — I know he was close friends because this was at a time when no one was openly admitting liking Belle. The guy said Belle was misunderstood, which he may or may not have been, and he told me several stories about good things Belle had done, which I’m afraid I don’t remember. Anyway, I don’t think his surliness is what’s keeping him out of the Hall. It’s the shortness of his career. The peak’s there. The career isn’t. Belle supporters — and these are my people — tend to compare him to Kirby Puckett (the Patron Saint of the Short Hall of Fame Career). But remember that even with the injury and shortened career, Kirby still had 1000 more plate appearances than Albert. If Belle had 1000 more plate appearances (and the 350 hits, 7- more homers, 200 more RBIs, etc), he would have a more compelling case.
* * *
Player N: .288/.371/.532, 3020 hits, 585 2B, 38 3B, 569 homers, 1663 runs, 1835 RBIs, 132 OPS+
Special considerations: Won three Gold Gloves.
Player — Raffy Palmeiro.
I threw in Raffy even though he is not eligible yet because I wanted everyone to see how his numbers just pop out. I know there have been all sorts of comment arguments about Palmeiro’s place in the game year-in, year-out, but a 132 OPS+ and seven seasons with a 140 OPS+ or better seems to say he stood up pretty well in his own time. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. He’s a presumed steroid cheat and will not get even close to the Hall unless the world changes pretty dramatically.
* * *
Player O: .303/.384/.497, 2176 hits, 440 2B, 47 3B, 284 homers, 1186 runs, 1205 RBIs. 137 OPS+
Special considerations: Won one Gold Glove and had cool nickname.
Player — Will Clark.
Will the Thrill had a little bit lower peak than Albert, and a little bit longer career … but nobody really took up his Hall of Fame case. Was he better than Mattingly/Hernandez exacta? You could argue it pretty strongly.
* * *
Player P: .266/.371/.424, 1833 hits, 320 2B, 47 3B, 224 homers, 1033 runs, 864 RBis, 125 OPS+
Special considerations: Won four Gold Gloves at premium defensive position.
Player — Bobby Grich.
Add that “premium defensive position” hint in the special considerations — Grich has no real case if he had been an outfielder. But as a terrific defensive second baseman, his 125 OPS+ looks awfully good (as compared to, say, Ryne Sandberg’s 114 OPS+).
* * *
Player Q: .263/.394/.588, 1626 hits, 252 2B, 6 3B, 583 homers, 1167 runs, 1414 RBIs, 162 OPS+
Special considerations: 12-time All-Star and rookie of the year. One of the game’s all-time great shows.
Player — Mark McGwire
There’s nothing new to say on steroids — hasn’t been for months — except that I’m sort of sick of Roger Clemens complaining that he’s not getting the benefit of the doubt despite “all that he’s done.” All that he’s done? Did I miss the time Clemens brought peace to Northern Ireland. Funny, I recall him as a pitcher, a great one, a nasty one, a nutjob who pitched up and in, threw a broken bat at Mike Piazza, cursed out an umpire and demanded billion dollar contracts that allowed him basically to sit in his pajamas in Houston when he wasn’t pitching. I don’t hold it against him, and I don’t know if he used steroids or did not, but I’m not sure he should be acting like everyone has forgotten about that time he cured polio.
* * *
Player R: .273/.352/.499, 1774 hits, 245 2B, 35 3B, 382 homers, 864 runs, 1119 RBIs, 142 OPS+
Special considerations: Won rookie of the year and finished Top 10 in homers nine times.
Player — Frank Howard.
My Dad’s favorite player. Him and Musial. And maybe Andre Thornton. I kept pushing him on Andre Thornton.
* * *
Player S: .271/.374/.488, 1820 hits, 241 2B, 41 3B, 377 homers, 1046 runs, 1103 RBIs, 139 OPS+
Special considerations: Had one season with OPS+ greater than 200.
Player — Norm Cash.
He had a much better career than most people remember — that 1961 season WAS a fluke, but it wasn’t a ridiculous fluke. He had seven or so really good seasons besides that one.
* * *
Player T: .287/.366/.489, 2020 hits, 363 2B, 57 3B, 314 homers, 1123 runs, 1092 RBIs, 137 OPS+
Special considerations: Won one Gold Glove, played in four World Series.
Player — Reggie Smith.
That OPS+ is pretty startling. He was a really good player. Career, again, not quite long enough, but his peak from 1969-1978 was truly outstanding … he had a 143 OPS+ over those 10 years, which placed him fourth behind Stargell, Reggie Jackson, Carew and ahead of Joe Morgan.
* * *
Player U: .285/.352/.415, 2365 hits, 412 2B, 55 3B, 185 homers, 1231 runs, 1003 RBIs, 110 OPS+
Special considerations: Won four Gold Gloves at premium defensive position and was World Series MVP.
Player — Alan Trammell.
I gave him 236 homers originally — that’s how many stolen bases he had. He’s a guy who doesn’t look good in this sort of exercise but looks very good if you compare him to other shortstops. Here’s a question: If the San Diego Padres in 1979 had traded Ozzie Smith straight up for Alan Trammell … who would have gotten the better player?
* * *
Player V: .303/.353/.476, 1917 hits, 329 2B, 48 3B, 220 homers, 870 runs, 947 RBIs, 131 OPS+
Special considerations: Won Rookie of the Year, one Gold Glove and three batting titles.
Player — Tony Oliva.
Career too short, wrecked by injuries. Bill James says he never saw anyone hit more vicious foul balls than Oliva, which doesn’t help his Hall of Fame case, but is interesting. Very nice man too.
* * *
Player W: .294/.385/.425, 2605 hits, 430 2B, 113 3B, 170 homers, 1571 runs, 980 RBIs, 123 OPS+
Special considerations: Led league in steals four times, stole 808 bases.
Player — Tim Raines.
If only that jerk Henry Chadwick had not dismissed walks (and baseball had not let him) … we might see the whole game through a different prism:
We could say: Wow, Tim Raines reached base 3,977 times, roughly 800 more times than Jim Rice.
We could say: Wow, Tim Raines had a .385 lifetime on-base percentage, which is awfully, awfully good.
If only people would think of runs the same way they view, say, hits or home runs … we might see the whole game through a different prism.”
We could say: Tim Raines scored 1571 runs, which is more than ANY ELIGIBLE HALL OF FAME CANDIDATE dead or alive.
If only people would respect the stolen base — and stolen base percentage — the way they do great shortstop defense or something like that …
We could say: Tim Raines stole 808 out of 952 stolen bases, and that makes him the greatest base stealer in baseball history.
Yeah, I’m REALLY disappointed by how few votes Raines got. He was, in my opinion, the best player on the ballot, including my guy Blyleven.
* * *
Player X: .303/.375/.409, 4256 hits, 746 2B, 135 3B, 160 homers, 2165 runs, 1314 RBis, 118 OPS+
Special considerations: Won rookie of the year, MVP, World Series MVP, and two Gold Gloves.
Player — Pete Rose.
Who else would be Player X?
* * *
Player Y: .303/.344/.451, 2743 hits, 529 2B, 77 3B, 219 homers, 1189 runs, 1326 RBIs, 121 OPS+
Special considerations: Won batting title and finished Top 10 in average nine times.
Player — Al Oliver.
There are six players with between 2700 and 2800 hits who will never get into the Hall — Vada Pinson, Oliver, Rusty Staub, Bill Buckner, Dave Parker and Doc Cramer. Oliver had the best batting average. Parker had the best peak. Staub might have been the best overall player.
Speaking of Rusty, don’t you find it amazing that those early Houston Astros teams had OBP monsters Joe Morgan, Jimmy Wynn, Rusty Staub and Bob Watson? That’s a lot of walks right there. Someone was teaching patience in Houston … probably someone who had driven in Houston traffic.
* * *
Player Z: .291/.364/.427, 2169 hits, 425 2B, 166 3B, 83 homers, 1112 runs, 1176 RBIs, 136 OPS+
Special considerations: Led league in homers, doubles and extra base hits over 10-year span, second in virtually every other category to one of the all-time great players.
Player — Sherry Magee
Were it not for Honus Wagner, Magee would have semi-dominated a big part of the dead-ball era.
Loading ...
35 Comments, Comment or Ping
Old Man Duggan
It really is shocking how little support Raines got. Maybe it can be chalked up to first ballot nonsense, but how does he not beat out Tommy John or Jack Morris? Unfathomable.
Jan 10th, 2008
McKingford
You know,
Player XX’s: 276/363/426, 2369 hits, 420 2B, 65 3B, 244 HR, 1386 runs, 1084 RBIs, 116 OPS+
Special considerations: ROY, 3 GGs at a premium defensive position, and 5 AS appearances…
compares pretty favourably to
Mattingly: .307/.358/.471, 2153 hits, 442 2B, 20 3B, 222 homers, 1007 runs, 1099 RBIs, 127 OPS+
Special considerations: Won MVP and nine Gold Gloves and was beloved.
Hernandez: .296/.384/.436, 2182 hits, 426 2B, 60 3B, 162 homers, 1124 runs, 1071 RBIs, 128 OPS+
Special considerations: Won MVP and 11 Gold Gloves.
and
Alan Trammell: .285/.352/.415, 2365 hits, 412 2B, 55 3B, 185 homers, 1231 runs, 1003 RBIs, 110 OPS+
Special considerations: Won four Gold Gloves at premium defensive position and was World Series MVP.
I include Trammell, because Player XX was his double play combo partner for 19 years - Lou Whitaker.
Funny thing, though. Whitaker got all of 15 HoF votes and dropped off the ballot in his only appearance. Trammell, the very next year, got 74, remains on the ballot and his totals keep increasing.
Must be the colour of his sk…er his leadership.
Jan 10th, 2008
Mike
My best friend and I (hey Bill, also a reader) were sitting at a Twins game several years ago, talking about Bert Blyleven’s Hall of Fame merits and candidacy. The guy behind us, who had spent the entire game explaining to his date how good a player Darrin Erstad was, or some such nonsense, leaned forward, tapped us on the collective shoulder, and said, “You know who should be in the Hall of Fame? Al Oliver.” This was in the late ’90s, when no one was going to Twins games, so we promptly moved to different seats. We had heard that crazy was contagious.
Jan 10th, 2008
Eric
Raffy - “He’s a presumed steroid cheat”, that is not quite true he is the only big name guy to actually have been caught by MLB’s crappy testing system. He should lose HOF potential based on stupidity alone.
Jan 10th, 2008
Dan
Joe,
An excellent exercise, it might be interesting to do it with pitchers sometime in the future.
On the question of whether or not Dawson might have “learned” to take walks more frequently - look at the results the Yankees and Red Sox have had recently. They preach patience at the plate, from the bottom of the organization to the top. And the result is a lot of “professional at-bats” and relatively high OBPs up and down the lineup (usually). So while the point is valid that his OBP was poor in his era, too, I do think that its a skill that can become ingrained if it is emphasized.
Or, who knows, maybe Hawk would have raked even better if he had simply concentrated on getting into hitter’s counts and then pounced? That’s neither here nor there, I guess I am really saying that even with the coaching, he might not have had that much higher an OBP but would have come up with bigger numbers anyway with a smarter approach at the plate.
Regardless, I have no problem with Hawk going in based solely on the 400 homers/300 RBI thing.
Jan 10th, 2008
Ryan
how about this guy:
.303/.383/.442, 2,454hits, 511 2B, 45 3B, 173 homers, 1,179 runs, 1,146 RBI, 119 OPS+
Special considerations: won 4 gold gloves and 2 all-star games. Also, didn’t wear batting gloves. Lol!
that’s Mark Grace. If anything it probably proves that Mattingly, Hernandez and Clark weren’t HOF’ers. Although there is a pretty good discrepancy in OPS+.
Jan 10th, 2008
Butch
Joe, regarding whether Tommy John surgery is “cheating nature”… I’ve thought the same thing about laser-eye surgery. If this was some secret technique they only did in some mad scientist’s lab in the jungles of Costa Rica, would we think of it differently? No one really talks about how laser eye surgery helps batters. And I don’t just mean “wow, I don’t have to wear my big goofy Bob Hamelin glasses anymore,” I mean, instead of seeing 20/40 or even 20/20, now they see 20/10.
Jan 10th, 2008
Chris Dankberg
Joe,
I’ve been wondering the same thing about TJ surgery for months. It’d be great if you could pool all of your sportswriter clout together to raise awareness. Seriously, though. It is unnatural. It’s an advantage pitchers (and offensive players) didn’t have 20 years ago. And it’s been reported fairly extensively that a lot of guys do enjoy better arm strength after the fact.
There have been a lot of inconsistencies in this entire story. I used to blame the media. But lately, I’ve come around to thinking that baseball management just hasn’t managed the story very well. Instead, they’ve been content to let the media collectively steer the story, while also humming “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.
You’re not going to find anybody to disagree with you about TJ on the surface. At least I didn’t. But then you hear the “yeah, but…” It’s not a “drug”.
Ugh.
Jan 10th, 2008
McKingford
Re: Raffy Palmeiro
First off, and more as a btw, according to the references I’ve checked, Palmeiro’s Slg is actually .515, not .532. It doesn’t change a whole lot about what I’m about to say, but .017 of slg over a career ain’t nothing…
I realize it’s hard to look past the steroid thing with Palmeiro, but let’s try for a minute - assume no steroids. Are we still making the “compiler” argument with him? Is that just the fall-back position of those who want to keep him out because of the juice?
I will grant that I never thought of Palmeiro as a HoFer for much of his career - for the very reasons that his detractors (post-steroids) now make: he was never considered one of the best in baseball or even at his position. Never even top 5, really (although, in fairness, I don’t know how I square this statement with his 2 Silver Slugger awards). And that’s what we look to when we think of the Hall, generally. That’s not a bad criteria for the Hall, as a rule of thumb.
But, when you look at his career stats, it’s pretty hard not to think that they don’t merit enshrinement. In short, even if he was a compiler, he compiled HoF numbers. His counting stats put him there, and it’s hard to complain with his career rate stats that got him there (ie. 132 OPS+). And, I will say this: there’s no way Mattingly or Hernandez deserve a vote before he does.
[Palmeiro also deserves some kind of special mention for once-and-for-all debunking the worth of the Gold Glove, with his 28 (!) game stint at 1st that got him one in '99].
This brings me to Bert Blyleven. I’ll say right off the bat that I think Blyleven should be in. But having said that, is the case for Palmeiro and Blyleven really that different? In short, it seems like they were both players who never stood out as “best in the game” while they played, but nevertheless plugged along, putting together year-after-year of very good performances, until finally, at the end of the day, totaled some impressive career numbers which *aren’t* negatively impacted by a career rate analysis.
Am I wrong? Steroids aside, can you believe in Blyleven but not Palmeiro?
Jan 10th, 2008
McKingford
Dan,
Re: Organizational OBP
It is certainly true that as organizations have come to understand the value of OBP, they’ve tried to instill this in players coming up through their farm systems. And you can see the impact of this organizational philosophy by looking at the team OBP numbers. The problem - or at least question - is whether preaching OBP results in players adapting so that they learn patience, or whether it simply weeds out the players who don’t walk.
IOW, the question becomes whether plate discipline is a talent that is bred or borne. I’m not yet convinced that it can be taught (or, at least, that to the extent it can be taught, that it has much of an effect). So, while clubs may preach patience in their farm clubs, this isn’t necessarily the reason high OBP players end up on the major league roster; rather, it is simply that only high OBP players get selected.
If this is the case, then Hawk doesn’t suffer because of changing evaluation metrics. Had he been a Bosox 2005 prospect he likely wouldn’t have learned to walk, he simply wouldn’t have been a prospect that the Bosox would value (except that his other skill sets would likely have been good enough to get the team to overlook this deficiency).
Jan 10th, 2008
SBG
I’ve watched Torii Hunter play for years. The man is a hacker beyond belief. When he has tried to be more patient, his power drops off. The last couple of years, he’s walked almost zero and his power has gone way up. I think some players are just who they are and teaching them to be more patient doesn’t work. If I were Hunter’s hitting coach, I’d tell him to keep swinging. I think, based on what I recall from his days in Chicago and games on WGN, that Dawson was the same way. Not everyone is Bonds or Williams. Some are Puckett and Berra.
Jan 10th, 2008
Perry
What do y’all think of this guy, who’s not yet eligible?
.295/.371/.444, 2340 hits, 441 2B, 76 3B, 198 homers, 1329 runs, 960 RBIs, 116 OPS+.
Special considerations: Won MVP, 12-time All-Star, 3 Gold Gloves at premium position, 9 Silver Sluggers.
Jan 10th, 2008
Perry
On learning to take walks, I remember an anecdote about a modern player, a veteran guy who was a borderline star, meeting his idol, Ted Williams. This guy had worn out copies of Williams’s book on hitting and was a total disciple of the Williams approach. So they meet and Ted asks him something like, “What’s the most important thing to do?”) or maybe it was “the first thing”) and the player replies “Something I can’t do — get a good pitch to hit.” This guy knew all about the importance of selectivity and plate discipline, he just couldn’t train himself to do it.
In case you’re wondering, it was Dante Bichette.
Jan 10th, 2008
John
A day late and a dollar short, but here’s another guy, not yet eligible.
.297/.381/.477, 2336 hits, 449 D, 55 T, 287 HR, 1366 runs, 1257 RBI, 125 OPS+
Special considerations: Won one LCS MVP, 5-time All-Star, 5 GG’s
Jan 10th, 2008
John 2
The thing I struggle with in the HOF voting is that I don’t think everything should be simply assigned by stats as well and include how players were viewed and considered in their respective eras, hence assigning value to the metrics that were important to the players while playing. Not necessary to override the more valuable advanced stats that have been developed (re. Rice) but to supplement them. But since the main “awards” were voted on by the writers, its almost impossible to take them as valid anymore. After reading the “reasons” most writers have given for their HOF votes (think heman or Paige or any Rice/Morris backer or Raines hater) or MVP votes (think the Mags votes this year) its really a laughable process. Even today, when reading about Teddy Williams historic 1941 season (.550+ OBP!) and seeing that he lost the MVP to Dimaggio mainly because of his RBIs, its always been a biased and flawed system.
I don’t think there was a point in any of that. I’m submitting anyway because I’m bored at work.
Jan 10th, 2008
Wayne Tollison
Just wanted to defend some North-Easterners who DID know of Dale Murphy. Back in those days we could watch 3 teams in NY: The Mets, the Yanks, or the Braves on TBS. The ’80s was a dark era in Yankees history, but the only solace I ever got was watching a perpetually terrible Braves team do even worse year in and year out. All except for Murphy.
Jan 10th, 2008
Brian Gunn
Hear hear on Dale Murphy. If people don’t remember Murphy’s reputation as a ferocious player back in the day, then I can only conclude that they have short memories. If you had asked me, back in the mid-’80s, which players were locks for the Hall of Fame, I probably would’ve said Schmidt, Murphy, Yount, and Brett. And I doubt many of my friends would have disagreed. (This is not to say I’m advocating his candidacy now; I’m just saying at his peak he was feared in much the same way Rice was c. 1977-1980.)
Jan 10th, 2008
Alex
Perry,
That player you name is easily a top-10 all-time player at his position and should be inducted in the HOF.
Jan 10th, 2008
Mike
Joe, just wanted to say that I’m happy that someone else supports my thought that certain people deserve “Lifetime Achievement” enshrinement in Cooperstown. Gil Hodges is perfect example - borderline as a player + solid managerial record = HOF’er. Joe Torre will get elected as a manager, but had he, say, only won titles in 1996 and 1998, I’d toss him into this group, as well.
John2, completely agree on the awards losing legitimacy. I mean, look at just the last three years alone - 3 absolutely awful choices in Colon as 2005 AL CY, Morneau as 2006 AL MVP, and Rollins as 2007 NL MVP (and that’s not even including all of the terrible individual votes, i.e. Maggs’ first place vote for MVP this season).
Jan 10th, 2008
Josh from Boston
I’m from the Northeast. I don’t understand why Murphy doesn’t get more support for the Hall.
Jan 10th, 2008
McKingford
Well, I don’t see how Larkin gets in while you keep Sweet Lou out…
Jan 10th, 2008
Rob
When it comes to Mattingly and Hall worthiness, I always say if he gets in (which he shouldn’t), then Steve Garvey (rings and an MVP), Keith Hernandez (Ring and an MVP) and Will Clark should all get in that same year as well. I agree on Raines with the post of “First ballot nonsense”, and when you look at Dick Allen and Dwight Evans, both deserve a longer look at Hall worthiness. I also think Alan Trammell AND Lou Whitaker both belong in, and should actually share a plaque they were so attached to each other’s careers. Oliva should be in if Tony Perez is, and Luis Tiant if Catfish Hunter is (check those stats, and I hate to sound like a seam-head pansy like Rob Neyer, who continues to use his national pulpit at ESPN to degrade Jim Rice’s career, a career he probably never saw one game off, the man’s a tool). I won’t argue Jack Morris vs. Bert Blyleven, because that’s as nonsensical as wondering if Dustin Hoffman is a better actor than Tom Cruise, Blyleven made TWO All-Star teams in his career, he was a compiler and not a stand out. Morris may also not be a HOFer, but at least he stood out WAY more in his career and more often on a National stage than Mr. Curveball ever did, enough said there.
Jan 10th, 2008
Rob
Oh, and I forget to mention–Dale Murphy was a stud and a great person who deserves more mention than the voters have given him.
Jan 10th, 2008
Dan
There are some good points made about “learning” to be more selective, but I still wonder … for instance, the Red Sox teams that Theo only had a partial hand in creating (since so many were traded or signed by Duquette) - were all of those players high OBP guys to begin with? Or did any still show improvement after Theo started instilling the philosophy? I’m too lazy to check, but did Millar or Mueller show the same discipline earlier in their careers?
I think the ability to instill an approach is greater than some seem to think, even as it is true that there are other players who are better off hacking.
Jan 10th, 2008
Charlie
So he said: “Well, if I had just one game to win, I would rather have Jack Morris than anyone.”
And I said: “Well, you’re an idiot.”
And I say, I was at Game 6 of the 1992 World Series, Jack Morris on the mound, as the Blue Jays take a 3 run lead, and I tell the person I’m with, as would have the person you quote Joe, “it’s over, they’re going to win, because Jack’s on the mound.” I went to the washroom, grabbed a couple of beers, when I hear a roar, or maybe it was a groan in Skydome. Lonnie Smith had just hit a grand slam. Lonnie Smith for crying out loud! Just say no to Jack Mo.
Jan 10th, 2008
Carltonh
Good stuff. Murphy was a king of the South and for good reason. IF you liked the Braves (I’m a Cardinals man) he was one of the few reasons to watch them. He’s not a HOFer though. He fell off the planet after going to Philly. Looked it up until then though.
The coolest thing was watching Murphy and Horner hit back-to-back. Dale has this incredibly long, round-house swing. He looked like he was throwing hay with a pitchfork. Then Horner’s swing was quick as a wink. Over in a second, just a short, quick powerful stroke. The juxtaposition was awesome.
My theory? It was the Braves (well Ted Turner and the Superstation) that saved baseball. If you grew up in the 60s and 70s…there was only one stinking game a week. Usually the same teams too. Once the Superstation hit, one could watch baseball almost every day. Yeah, they stank. But one could watch baseball LIVE from the West coast. That stuff was powerful in 1978!!!
Norm Cash? Wasn’t his super year and admitted cheat? Ala corked bat?
Jan 10th, 2008
Chris
Joe -
Thanks so much for bringing up your thoughts about TJ surgery (and other performance-enhancing technologies) vis-a-vis PEDs. In my opinion, what people don’t realize is that THIS is the major issue/dilemma facing baseball, and really all sports. Sure, it’s a big deal that people cheated, and that history is harder to judge, and record books are tainted, and people on ESPN get to yell a lot about the same thing for years now. But, as baseball fans, what do we really care about? I, for one, care about the future!
The HOF, while important and fun to argue about, isn’t really relevant to the future of baseball. But technology, and PEDs, are incredibly relevant to the future of baseball. We’re all perfectly fine with a pitcher getting Tommy John surgery; a hitter getting laser vision correction; a speedster regaining his speed and agility after ACL surgery. Why aren’t we fine with HGH? What happens in a few years when there are LEGAL drugs on the market that are even better than HGH? That thanks to the magic of science and progress in technology make people better at sports…and everyone on Earth can take them! Sports leaders and fans need to come to grips with the simple reality that the issues of technology and science will continue to creep into athletics. And this won’t stop just because of the Mitchell Report or the WADA - no matter how hard Dick Pound works!
My point is that, sure, history is affected by steroids. But what’s really important to me, as a baseball fan, is that the FUTURE of the game is protected. And we can’t just sit here in 2008 and say, “Oh well we’ve rid the game of steroids. That’s that!” And we can’t even really say that. What we have to do is start really doing some heavy thinking about what sorts of technology, medicine and, yes, drugs are going to impact sports. 10, 15, 50 years from now there will be all sorts of crazy, legal, and awesome things out there. Sports will be affected, but to what extent, who knows? I’d love for more people to be thinking and talking about this, but, alas! It’s apparently much better for ESPN to perpetuate the yelling instead of promoting the thinking. Who’s Now is better than Who’s Smart…which is a sad, sad thing.
Anyway, I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on this subject when you’ve had more time to think about it than during an aside on a HOF blog post. Thanks so much for this blog and the discussions in generates!
-Chris
Jan 11th, 2008
Old Man Duggan
Rob,
Your analogizing of Dustin Hoffman vs. Tom Cruise to Jack Morris vs. Bert Blyleven as both being nonsensical is flawed. Hoffman is clearly a better actor. That would not be nonsensical.
Jan 11th, 2008
Dan
Chris,
Your assertion is flawed because these PEDs will never be legal in sports or, if they have some legitimate medical use, will be legal only via prescription to the general public.
If you are saying that the cheaters will always be ahead of those trying to police drug use, you are right. But we can only commit to do everything possible to catch PEDs and PED users on an ongoing basis.
But your vision of a brave new world where everyone has access to wonder drugs that will allow me to hit 120 MPH serves or whatever belongs in a Philip Dick novel.
Jan 11th, 2008
Chris
Dan,
Fine, forget drugs. There won’t be scientific breakthroughs that help all people (not just athletes) do crazy, awesome things 100 years from now? Things that are “unnatural” and “performance-enhancing”? 50 years? 20 years? Who knows what the future holds in terms of science and technology? 50 years ago, microfracture knee surgery wasn’t around. 50 years ago, people weren’t having their eyes surgically corrected with lasers. 50 years ago, Tommy John was 15 years old. 50 years from now, there will be some other “performance-enhancing” thing that we don’t even know about right now.
Science is certainly outpacing sports. The point is that we have to realize that things are going to keep progressing, and the relevant “controversy” about PEDs isn’t the past. It’s how we deal with the decisively eventual scientific breakthroughs that is relevant. And I just wish that more people were talking about that instead of yelling about Mssrs. Canseco, McGwire, Bonds and Clemens.
Jan 11th, 2008
Rob
Dustin Hoffman is Clearly a better actor than Tom Cruise, the same way Jack Morris was CLEARLY a better pitcher than Bery “Be home” Blyleven. My anaolgy was that Morris was clearly a stand-out over many years in more important games, the same way Hoffman was a standout in way more important movies. How anyone can find flaws in that logic and analogy is beyond my comprehension. Stats be damned, leave that nonsense up to that seam-head pansy Rob Neyer.
Jan 11th, 2008
Doug
Two totally unrelated points
I know GGs are voted on by the same, ahem, dedicated, rigorous individuals that vote on the HOF, but can us more enlightened folk not use them as an accurate indicator of fielding prowess? Please?
Rob - Jack Morris is CLEARLY a better pticher than Bert B how? Answers that include win totals and opening day starts will be ridiculed mercilessly. (Career ERA+ 118 v. 105, career WHIP 1.2 v. 1.3, both in BB’s favor). I know I shouldn’t feed the trolls, but sometimes the little buggers won’t stop biting your ankles until you throw them something else… And as an exercise for Rob, look up ad hominem…
Editor’s quick note: Gold Gloves are not voted on by the BBWAA. They are voted on by managers and coaches.
Jan 11th, 2008
Donald Evans
Hey to any one who is interested I have started my own baseball blog. I tried to keep it interesting and I am happy with it so far. Any comments or feedback would be greatly appreciated. My email is donald.j.evans@gmail.com and you can find the blog here; http://donaldjevans.blogspot.com/
Thanks
Don Evans
Jan 12th, 2008
Doug
Drat it…this is why I shouldn’t post from work. Thanks to the Editor for the notation. What I was THINKING was:
“…GGs are voted on by the same sort of, ahem…”
Jan 12th, 2008
Andrew
When I saw Perry’s mystery player, I immediately thought “looks like Roberto Alomar.” Never realized how similar Alomar and Larkin’s careers were.
Jan 15th, 2008
Reply to “The Last Hall of Fame Post”