In the end, it’s probably self-defeating to play the “If he’s in, then HE should be in” Hall of Fame Game. It’s fun to play, no doubt, and it allows us Frank White fans to unleash all sorts of moral indignation because his career is virtually IDENTICAL to that of Bill Mazeroski*, and yet Maz is in the Hall while Frank never even got close. There’s something unfair about it all.
*When I say identical, I mean it’s hard to imagine two players being so similar. Both were brilliant defensive second basemen who won eight gold gloves. Maz hit .260, Frank .255, and Maz walked a touch more (neither walked much), but Frank had 100 more doubles and 20 more homers. Maz hit one of the most famous homers in World Series history, Frank was the first ever ALCS MVP. Maz made seven All-Star Games (not counting the years that had two All-Star Games) to Frank’s five, but Frank stole 150 more bases. And so on and so on.
The “He’s in” game is fun to play, but the truth is that it has pretty much nothing to do with how the Hall of Fame works. The Hall of Fame has been around since 1939, and the standards are constantly shifting because the game is constantly changing.
I remember there being a bit of hand-wringing in the mid-1980s when Dave Kingman passed the 400-homer mark … up to that point (if you can believe this) EVERY SINGLE ELIGIBLE PLAYER who hit 400 homers was in the Hall of Fame. Every one. So the question was: What would the voters do? Kingman was a .238 hitter! He struck out three times more often than he walked! He made twice the league average in errors! He sent a reporter a rat! Now he had 400 homers! What would the voters do??
Well, of course, Kingman’s name came up on the ballot, and he promptly got three votes — all as jokes, no doubt — and was gone from the discussion forever. It really wasn’t that hard. See, Hall of Famer voter don’t go based on anything as plain as “400 homers,” or “3,000 hits” or “300 wins” though those play into the thinking. Hall of Fame voters go on some nebulous combination of statistics, memory, gut reaction, testimony, moral judgements and ego. It’s a messy process, not at all the orderly and logical thinking of “Well, if Ozzie Smith made it first ballot and Barry Larkin is as good as Ozzie Smith, then Barry Larkin will make it first ballot too.” That’s just not how it goes.
So, up front let me say: That’s not what I’m trying to accomplish here. I’m not saying that because Aparicio is in, Concepcion should be in or how absurd it is to have Catfish in the Hall but not Blyleven.
No, I’m trying here to figure out the Hall a little bit, to find that ever-moving line (if there is one) between the Hall of Famer and the not quite. So here’s what I’ve done … I’ve paired up a few Hall of Famers with non-Hall of Famer who played pretty much the same position (except in a couple of cases) and is more-or-less from the same time (repeat: “More or less”). In my mind, the non-Hall of Famer in each case has a reasonable case for being as good or almost as good as the Hall of Famer.
So what kept those people out? I think it comes down to three categories: Longevity, Perception and Uniqueness.
Let’s see if it works.
Hall of Famer: Luis Aparicio.
Non Hall of Famer: Dave Concepcion.
Difference: Uniqueness.
In my book (and did I mention I am writing a book about the 1975 Reds?), Concepcion was a better player than Aparicio. He hit a little better and with a little more power (88 OPS+ to Aparicio’s 82) and from all my intensive research, he was every bit as good a defensive shortstop, possibly even better. But, Aparicio came along first, and he was unique, he led the league in stolen bases every year from 1956 to 1964 and he won the Gold Glove pretty much every year just after they started giving out Gold Gloves.* Concepcion also stole a lot of bases and won Gold Gloves, but Aparicio came along first, and as such he’s in the Hall of Fame.
*For some reason this sentence brought to mind an all-time classic commercial line — I know I just mentioned “Two great tastes that taste great together.” Well how about “Four out of five dentists recommend Trident gum for their patients who chew gum.” Or was it Dentyne?
Hall of Famer: Jim Bottomley
Non Hall of Famer: Bob Johnson
Difference: Perception
Note: Bottomley was a first baseman and Bob Johnson mostly an outfielder, but for the point of this comparison I don’t think that matters very much.
One of the key things, in my mind, that makes up baseball perception is the statistic of choice. For years and years — even now, though to a lesser extent — baseball players with high batting averages have had the potential to be wildly overrated. Pitchers with a lot of wins had potential to be wildly overrated. Recently — and this is still VERY true — closers with a lot of saves have potential to be wildly overrated.
Now, let’s get this right: This is not to say that all players with high averages, a lot of wins or a lot of saves ARE overrated. That’s not even close to true. Babe Ruth hit for a high average and is, patently, not overrated. Tom Seaver won a lot of games and is, unquestionably, not overrated. Mariano Rivera has a lot of saves and is, in my humbly opinion, not the least bit overrated either.
No, what I’m saying here is that players who excel at those popular stats have the potential to be overvalued because while those stats do illuminate some parts of the game, they leave other parts very much hidden in the dark.*
*Love of mine/someday you will die/but I’ll be close behind/I’ll follow you into the dark.
No blinding light/or tunnels to gaze of white/just our hands clasped so tight/waiting for the hint of a spark.
If heaven and hell decide/that they both are satisfied
Illuminate the No’s/on their vacancy signs.
If there’s no one beside you when your soul embarks
Then I’ll follow you into the dark
Sorry, I just happened to be listening to that song while I was typing in that last sentence. Awesome song.
So, Jim Bottomley hit .310 for his career. He twice finished second in the batting race, he won the 1928 MVP award (probably deserved it though Hornsby hit .387 with a .632 slugging percentage that year), led the league in doubles twice and homers once and so on. Bottomley also drove in 12 runs in one game.
Indian Bob Johnson, meanwhile, hit .296 for his career. So that’s obviously not as good. He had about 250 fewer hits and almost 150 fewer RBIs than Bottomley. He never won an MVP award, and only once finished in the Top 5 and that was when he was 38, and it was during World War II.
So what does Bob Johnson offer? Well, he walked 400 times more than Bottomley, and he smashed about 70 more homers. His on-base percentage is 20 points higher, his slugging percentage is higher, he stole almost twice as many bases. Johnson didn’t make it to the big leagues until he was 27 — it was just very hard for outfielders to break through to the big leagues in his era. That doesn’t necessarily add to his case, but it just adds a little perspective.
Most people couldn’t even tell you that Jim Bottomley is in the Hall of Fame, and fewer people care. So I doubt that it has given him much more fame than Indian Bob Johnson. But he is in, and I would say it is for his average and RBIs (“Superb clutch hitter” are the first three words on his Hall of Fame plaque). If people had been more interested in on-base percentage and runs scored, everyone would have believed Bob Johnson was a better player.
Hall of Famer: Lou Brock
Non Hall of Famer: Jose Cruz
Difference: Longevity, Perception and Uniqueness.
In one way, this is really a bad comparison — Brock was a noticeably better player than Cruz, I think. But it does allow me to use all three of my categories:
Longevity: Brock has 3,000 hits. Cruz — because it took him so long to get established which meant he got 2,000 fewer at-bats — has 2,251 hits.
Uniqueness: Brock was a revolutionary base stealer — he retired with pretty much all the stolen base records. Cruz did lots of stuff well, and he really did not have any individual talents that made him unique.
Perception: Cruz was actually Brock’s teammate until he was 27 years old — and he really didn’t do that much in the early years. He then went to Houston and the worst hitter’s park in the big leagues. He did not get 500 at-bats in a season until he was 29 years old. Because of these things — and because Cruz was such a well-rounded player — people probably never appreciated how good he really was.
Cruz has a better career on-base percentage and a better career slugging percentage than Brock. He was probably a better defensive outfielder, and he stole 300 bases himself at about a 70% clip. He also played in a terrible hitting environment but still managed to put up numbers. I do think that Brock was a better player than Cruz*, but it does illustrate that when it comes to the Hall of Fame you are probably a lot better off playing a long time and doing one thing exceptionally well rather than doing a lot of things quite well.
*I’ll admit it … I’m bending over backward here for Brock only because I don’t want to make this an argument over Brock vs. Cruz — I haven’t looked deeply into it. My initial blush is that Brock had more good years (nine years with 95 or more runs created to Cruz’s five) and because he was such a difference maker in the World Series. But I’m not sure if that’s true — Cruz has his advantages, as mentioned. Point is, I don’t want to have this argument now. Maybe I’ll make it a poll later.
Hall of Famer: Jim Bunning
Non-Hall of Famer: Luis Tiant
Difference: Uniqueness.
JIm Bunning’s numbers: 224-184, 3.27 ERA, 114 ERA+, six times in the Top 5 in ERA, once led league in wins, three times led league in strikeouts.
Luis Tiant’s numbers: 229-172, 3.30 ERA, 114 ERA+, twice led league in ERA, three times led league in shutouts, was pitching genius in 1975 World Series.
In this case, uniqueness refers to timing. Bunning became Hall of Fame eligible just before the wave of 300-game winners crashed the Hall of Fame — Perry, Ryan, Sutton, Niekro, Seaver, Carlton. That was a historic wave of 300-game winners, and that definitely changed the landscape*. This is where that messy Hall of Fame voting process comes in — Bunning also came along when the veteran’s committee was still intact — they voted him in. That committee no longer exists. You could definitely make a compelling case that Tiant was as good as Bunning and had an even larger impact on the game. But Bunning came along at just the right time.
*No starting pitcher with fewer than 300 victories — unless you count part-time starter Dennis Eckersley — has been voted by the writers into the Hall of Fame since Fergie Jenkins in 1991.
Hall of Famer: Orlando Cepeda
Non-Hall of Famer: Dick Allen
Difference: Longevity.
It took Cepeda a long time to get into the Hall of Fame because his career numbers (2,351 hits, 379 homers) are the kind that put players in Hall of Fame limbo. Still those counting numbers are better than Dick Allen’s (1848 hits and 351 homers). Allen was almost certainly the better hitter — his career on-base percentage is 28 points higher, high career slugging percentage is 35 points higher, he has an OPS+ of 156 (to Cepeda’s still impressive 133). But Allen played about 375 fewer games. I know a lot of people think that Allen is not in the Hall because of his troubled nature, but I really believe it comes down to the missing years and lost numbers.
Hall of Famer: Bowie Kuhn
Non Hall of Famer: Marvin Miller
Difference: Inexplicable.
This has nothing to do the rest of the post, but the point should be made again. Maybe I’ve misread my baseball history, but as far as I know Union leader Marvin Miller not only pummeled Bowie Kuhn into a crumpled Beetle Bailey type lump throughout the 1970s, he was also on the right side of history while Bowie Kuhn was, on just about every baseball topic possible, entirely and completely wrong. The fact that the guy who shaped baseball as much as anyone West of Jackie Robinson is not in the Hall of Fame while the guy who went to some dinner in Cleveland on the night Hank Aaron broke the home run record is in leaves you to wonder just who in the Hell this Hall of Fame belongs to in the first place.
Hall of Famer: Jesse Haines.
Non Hall of Famer: Fat Freddie Fitzsimmons.
Difference: Perception, I guess.
Again, this is a big fat “who cares” because most people have never heard of Jesse Haines and had no idea that the guy’s in the Hall of Fame. Still, Haines has a contemporary who (1) Won more games; (2) Lost fewer games; (3) Pitched more innings; (4) Gave up fewer hits and runs — I don’t know, seems to me you could make an argument that Fat Freddie was at least as good pitcher. But Haines pitched better in the World Series and he had backers who got him into the Hall through the vet committee in 1970. One thing I like about Jesse Haines is that he was born in Clayton and he died in Dayton — that sounds like a good country song. Born in Clayton, died in Dayton. It took him 85 years to get from C to D.
Hall of Famer: Harry Hooper
Non Hall of Famer: Gavy Cravath
Difference: Longevity
Hooper played in about twice as many games as Gavy (spelled Gavvy in many places but Bill James insists it is just one V) and as such had twice the hits, twice the triples, almost three times the run scored, etc.. But Gavy was a much, much more revolutionary player. Gavy led the league in homers six times in seven years. This was in the dead-ball era, but in 1915 he hit more home runs than four other TEAMS in the National League. This is even more impressive when you realize that Cactus Gavy (apparently “Gavy” wasn’t enough of an odd name — they needed to give him the Cactus nickname) did not play full time in the big leagues until he was 31 years old, and that was after he worked as a telegraph operator.
So you tell me: Who was the better player? Hooper’s OPS+ was 114. Cravath’s was 151. Hooper led the league in plate appearances once and outs twice. Cravath led the league in on-base percentage, slugging percentage, runs, total bases, RBIs, walks, OPS+, runs created, extra-base hits and just about everything else at least once, often twice, sometimes more. Hooper was an outstanding outfielder, but Cravath apparently wasn’t bad either and he apparently had one of the all-time great arms — as best seen by his 34 assists in 1914.
Hooper played a lot more games and he’s the one in the Hall of Fame.
Hall of Famer: Catfish Hunter
Non Hall of Famer: Bert Blyleven
Difference: Perception.
Hunter had the cool name. That overshadows Blyleven’s various advantages such as that he won 63 more games, struck out 1,700 more batters, threw 18 more shutouts, and has a 118 ERA+ to Hunter’s 104. The truth is, Hunter (like Bunning) was well-liked and came along at precisely the right time, before all the big-win guys went into the Hall of Fame.
Hall of Famer: Brooks Robinson
Non Hall of Famer: Ron Santo
Difference: Uniqueness.
Ron Santo wasn’t just a better hitter than Robinson, he was a lot better hitter. His on-base percentage was 40 points better, his slugging percentage more than 60 points better. And Santo was no slouch with the glove either — he won five Gold Gloves in a row and probably deserved them.
But here’s the thing: Robinson, by consensus, is the greatest defensive third baseman ever. OK, I don’t know if there is really a consensus — the Boyer brothers, Billy Cox, Graig Nettles and others would need to be heard on the subject — but I suspect that most people (and more Hall of Fame voters) would say Robinson is the best ever. And that’s why he’s in. He hit well enough, but again he only had to hit “well enough.” He’s the best defensive third baseman, and that’s what gets him in. The consensus best defensive players at all the key positions are in — Robinson, Ozzie, Maz, Bench, Mays, Clemente.
My point is that even if you could prove conclusively that Santo was a better player, prove without possible argument that the difference in their defensive abilities was MORE than covered by Santo’s advantages as a hitter (and I believe this is probably true) it wouldn’t matter. Robinson is in for being the best defensive third baseman.That’s the Hall of Fame.
Hall of Famer: Bruce Sutter
Non Hall of Famer: Dan Quisenberry
Difference: Perception.
I have spent much of my adult life studying Sutter and Quiz — I suspect nobody on earth, including relatives of Sutter and Quiz, has spent more time on this issue — and I can tell you that there is nothing to separate the two as pitchers. Well, that’s not right, there’s PLENTY that separates the two, they were completely different. What I’m saying is their individual advantages even out so completely that there is no way I know to say which pitcher was better.
Sutter had more saves.
Quiz finished more games, had fewer blown saves and a better save percentage.
Sutter won a Cy Young Award.
Quiz finished second in the voting twice, and third twice more.
Sutter had more wins.
Quiz had a better winning percentage.
Sutter had more strikeouts.
Quiz had fewer walks.
Sutter allowed fewer hits.
Quiz allowed fewer homers.
Sutter allowed 32 fewer baserunners.
Quiz had 33 fewer wild pitches.
Sutter popularized the split fingered fastball.
Quiz was probably the most quotable player of his time.
And so on … BELIEVE ME when I tell you that you can go like this forever and ever and never come to a conclusion. And yet Sutter went into the Hall of Fame while Quiz fell quietly off the ballot after only one year. From a logical standpoint, it is utterly baffling.
The reason, I have come to believe, is that Sutter’s advantages (he limped to 300 saves where Quiz stopped at 244, he won the Cy Young while Quiz — unfairly, probably — did not, he built a reputation as overpowering and dominant) tend to be the ones that speak to Hall of Famer voters. That’s perception.
One voter, when explaining to me why Jack Morris was a Hall of Famer, said this: “He just was.” There’s the line.
106 Comments, Comment or Ping
BillP
I was contemplating a quite similar topic earlier today as I noticed that Carlos Beltran is quietly on the cusp of another 100-run, 100-RBI campaign. I’m confident that if the media cognoscenti (talking heads) were polled today for their list of Future Hall-Of-Famers, Beltran’s name would hardly be mentioned, if at all.
At first glance, his typical season stats really aren’t eye-popping: .280-ish AVG, homer totals usually well below the league leaders, OPS solid but not outstanding. Nevertheless, his reasonably spectacular contributions to the game are probably doomed to the perils of the “stat geeks” as opposed to the “wizened old scouts.”
Like several players mentioned above, he doesn’t do one thing strikingly well - but he does EVERYTHING well-above average, and looks effortless in doing so (likely to his detriment). His defensive skills are up there with any CF in the game - glove AND arm. You can pretty much pencil him in for 35 doubles, 25-30 homers, 20-25 steals, great defense, and - oh yeah - 100 runs and 100 RBIs every season.
If he can put up consistent production for another 7-8 seasons, I think he’ll have career numbers that nobody without bias could dispute. Yet I doubt he’d be a first-ballot guy. Perhaps, like Mazeroski and his one big hit, Beltran’s personal assault of NL pitching in the ‘04 playoffs (on the big stage) could prod some of the voters to give him more of a nod.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Jake
Wow… I’m sorry Joe, but this is the first post of yours that I’ve ever read that I couldn’t finish.
I guess, me being in my 20s, that there were just too many people I never saw (or heard of) to pay attention.
You’re still my favorite blogger, though!
Sep 3rd, 2008
Travis M. Nelson
Stan Covelski and Carl Mays are a great example, too, the obvious difference between them being that Covelski never killed anyone with a pitch.
Sep 3rd, 2008
JEFF
i doubt beltran has the longevity to perform at a high level for the next 7-8 years. 4-5 is more like it.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Aaron
I’m sure Joe has read this, but for anyone else that hasn’t, Bill James does a great job of explaining the fallacy of the “if X, then Y” argument for Hall of Fame induction in the book The Politics Of Glory.
Sep 3rd, 2008
JEFF
sorry, my boss walked in and i panicked.
beltran always seems to be banged up (2 knee surgeries last offseason) and those are the type of injuries that pile up and derail careers 3-4 years early.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Creston
I’d like to second a comment from Damon Rutherford from yesterday “I think we need a poll … Twix vs. Kit Kat. I’m guessing Twix easily wins.”
Joe, please put up this poll. This is like the “Pacino/De Niro of candy bars” debate
Sep 3rd, 2008
denopac
“For years and years — even now, though to a lesser extent — baseball players with high batting averages have had the potential to be wildly overrated.”
I don’t know how much the extent has been lessened. There is still an enormous obsession with BA out there. Even on those TV broadcasts that provide OBP in a graphic the announcers routinely ignore it and just mention the batter’s triple crown numbers (counterexamples welcomed).
Sep 3rd, 2008
Paul White
I’ll argue with you over whether or not Lou Brock was better than Jose Cruz. To me, it seems obvious that Cruz was the better player, by leaps and bounds.
Career WARP3: Cruz 101.6; Brock 89.9
Note that WARP3 is a counting stat and, as you mentioned, Cruz played singificantly fewer games than Brock, almost two seasons’ worth, and yet his career WARP3 score is 13% better than Brock’s anyway.
I agree with your broader point, that Brock certainly fits the profile of a player that HOF voters typically support, and Cruz most certainly does not. Brock did flashier things on a bigger stage for a longer time. But that doesn’t make him the better overall player. That was Cruz, by a fairly wide margin.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Blackadder
So Jose Cruz was a better hitter than Brock, a much better fielder than Brock, and a pretty good baserunner himself, but Brock is still somehow the better player? Really?
I think Brock is the best example possible for why you need to consider replacement level. He played for a long time, and accumulated some shiny counting stats, but he was never more than a pretty good ballplayer. As such, his career value is not even CLOSE to that of a legit Hall of Famer (he is one of win shares’ biggest mistakes), even setting aside his non-existent peak. Charlie Keller had just as much career value, without any extra credit for minor leagues or the war, despite only playing 1170 games.
Brock would be a very poor VC selection. Electing him on the first ballot was one of the BBWAA’s greatest errors.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Blackadder
This is the problem with posting before refreshing!
Sep 3rd, 2008
denopac
Following up on my own point: the other day I was listening to the Blue Jays broadcast of their game against the Yankees (I will go to any length to bypass John Sterling). They mentioned that Jason Giambi is a lifetime .287 hitter. Yes, but…. wouldn’t one think that his lifetime .409 OBP is worthy of mention as well? Has *anyone* out there in front of a microphone been paying attention to the statistics revolution that started more than twenty-five years ago?
Sep 3rd, 2008
Marco
In a few more years, someone in cleveland will be ripping off this column to write about Omar and Ozzie.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Eric J
I’m pretty sure Cravath played right field for the Phillies; back when they were in the Baker Bowl, it was a good place to rack up the outfield assists. Take Fenway Park and flip the Monster to the other side. Now bring it closer to the plate, and make it taller. That’s right field for the Phillies in the early 20th century, and it’s why so many of their outfielders racked up ungodly assist totals. Incidentally, it didn’t hurt Cravath’s hitting at all either. A case could be made that he was helped more by his home park than any player in history.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Marco
And yes, twix bars will win.
I’ll also take this opportunity to mention the coconut covered round cousin of the twix bar: the “Samoa” girl scout cookie. Somehow they get away with calling it a cookie when it’s just a candybar that’s been bent into a ring and sprinkled with coconut. Straight or round, they’re delicious and beat the hapless kitkat coming and going.
Sep 3rd, 2008
rpa
for what it’s worth:
i always spelled it “gravy cravat” because it’s much funnier.
of the “why not?” crowd -
in:
concepcion (partial to him because he was a childhood hero, but i still think he’s underrated).
cravath (
quiz
blyleven (the only “no-brainer” in the group, in my opinion)
allen
miller (for better or worse)
out:
johnson
white
cruz
tiant
and all of that’s my personal opinion, some of which is hard to back up. and i have a feeling that’s a pretty similar situation to the one the hall of fame voters are in.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Langer
You know, I keep thinking I’m missing something with this Death Cab thing. Then I play the song again, and realize it does absolutely nothing for me.
Does anyone besides me miss the Dark Fudge Twix variety from the 90s? The only thing that beats a Kit Kat for me. A regular gift from the gods.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Ricky
“Cruz has a better career on-base percentage and a better career slugging percentage than Brock. He was probably a better defensive outfielder… he also played in a terrible hitting environment but still managed to put up numbers. I do think that Brock was a better player than Cruz”
Not to pile on, but this made my head spin.
Sep 3rd, 2008
GRAPHITE
I guess everybody knows this on some level but it won’t hurt to say it again. If Hall of Fame voting every year put the logical candidates in and kept the non-deserving out then the HoF would wither and die. Controversy is the compost that causes the Hall to flourish.
And if the the voting is confined to journalists, and sports writers at that, then phwwfff. I’ve been around these guys pretty much all my working life and while most of the ones I’ve known have been engaging types, full of fun and great company, they share a universal fault — their eyes glaze over when any mathematics higher than addition and subtraction of whole numbers greater than 20 is needed. There are exceptions, of course, and Joe is plainly one of them, but if the BBWAA voting panel comprises a hundred members, then you’ll be lucky to find more than five who aren’t mathematically challenged.
The whole voting process is based on “gut feeling” — and in the end, for the health of the institution, that’s probably not a bad thing.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Zebeer
Cool, a time when this pathetic knowledge comes in handy.
“4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum” ….
I never could figure out why that line worked.
Sep 3rd, 2008
stepbaker
While there is an advantage to playing a long time to hit milestones, it drives me nuts to hear a guy who consistently productive over a long period of time referred to as a mere compiler. Do you know how hard it is to be a good hitter for a long period of time? I tend to think that players with a short peak who then burn out quickly are overrated in comparison to their quiet, consistent counterparts. Which is a long way for this Oriole fan to say: Eddie Murray kicks ass.
This is related to Joe’s other point that well-rounded players aren’t as appreciated as a player who do one thing very well. Lou Brock stole a bunch of bases. He’s in the Hall. But a guy like Cruz who could do everything well, but excel at nothing, can’t even get a sniff.
And nice Death Cab reference. I kind of miss Ben Gibbard being in seemingly five hundred bands and strangely, focusing on Death Cab hasn’t increased their quality. I do love “Follow You Into the Dark” but I feel in love with them with “Styrofoam Plates,” perhaps the most bitter yet beautiful song ever directed at one’s father.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Perry
Just to defend the Lou Brock selection, at the time he retired he was one of only 15 players in history with 3,000 hits, AND he held the all-time steals record. Add his .391/.424/.655 performance in 3 World Series and starring role on one of the most vivid and famous teams of his era, the 60s Cardinals, and there’s no way you could leave him out.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Perry
Jake,
So you stopped reading because a lot of these guys were before your time? Gee…. why not hang in there and learn something?
Sep 3rd, 2008
TC
In regards to Jim Bunning vs Luis Tiant. You mention that Tiant was outstanding in the 1975 WS. Of course, Tiant did pitch a shutout in Game 1. He then gave up 4 in Game 4, and six more in Game 6. “Pitching genius” seems like wild overstatement.
Of course, that sort of singular memory is what makes a HoFer, anyway. Jack Morris doesn’t have a case without his own World Series performance. But Bunning has his own singular claim: he pitched a perfect game, on Father’s Day, in 1964. As has been so romantically, and rightly, written, baseball is a game for fathers and sons, the fathers playing catch with their sons, and teaching them to field grounders and pop-ups and swing and all that. And in 1996, when Bunning was put into the Hall, I have no doubt that so many of the voters thought of that perfect game, and thought wistfully about their own fathers, and their own halcyon days of summer playing golden baseball in the backyard.
I’m not saying that Bunning does belong in, and Tiant doesn’t, or anything like that. But I know that every Father’s Day, when I sit down to watch a baseball game, the game I’m watching will broadcast a few clips from Bunning’s perfect game, and I’ll think happy thoughts about my dad. And, as much as anything, I suspect it’s people who feel that same way, that puts Jim Bunning into the Hall.
Sep 3rd, 2008
EtheGolfman
OK, I’ll throw this one out there as a DBAcks fan - what kind of chance does Luis Gonzalez have?
It sounds absurd but consider these career numbers:
82nd in runs, 1410
76th in hits, 2587
48th in total bases, 4378
15th in doubles, 596
75th in HRs, 353
59th in RBI, 1436
61st in BB, 1153
51st in RC, 1640
26th in XBH, 1017
48th in times on base, 3851
One of the all-time great offensive seasons ever in 2001 capped off by a game-winning hit in the bottom of the 9th of Game 7 against the best closer ever. Plus he spent 6+ years at the beginning of his career in the offensive sinkhole known as the Astrodome.
Brock, BTW, leads Gonzo in hits & runs but lags him in virtually every other category imaginable except SB
Given that he is still a productive player, he will likely move up on a lot of those lists and I could talk about all the players that he has better numbers than (that doubles list especially - excepting Pete Rose, the highest player not in the HOF or headed there is Al Oliver at #30 with 529. . . .) but I think he only gets in if he somehow gets to 3000 hits. . . .
Sep 3rd, 2008
Ed
This post got me thinking of players that I grew up watching who have no chance getting in. They include:
Dave Parker
Bobby Grich
Dale Murphy
Frank White
Lou Whitaker
Alan Trammel
Keith Hernandez (11 time Gold Glove)
Ted Simmons
Dwight Gooden
Rod Guidry
Jack Morris
Bert Blyleven
For kicks, I compared Gooden, Guidry, and Koufax’s best years today and Gooden and Guidry both held up very well. I didn’t realize, but Guidry got completely hosed in the 1979 Cy Young (lower ERA, more K’s in fewer innings and a lower WHIP). If he had won back to back (after the 25-3 1978) he would have been in by now. Koufax was unbelievable for 6 years, but Guidry and Gooden hold their own for similar 6 to 7 year stretches, both won multiple World Series. If we ignore Koufax’s stinky first 6 years, should we do the same with the end of Guidry and Gooden’s careers?
I’m not going to get into a numbers post for all these guys. I just firmly believe that these guys all belong and that there is a whole generation that is being glossed over and ignored because of the long ball era that we’re in now.
Sep 3rd, 2008
B.E. Earl
Just about every “Player A is in, so why isn’t Player B” argument usually ends with me thinking that neither belongs in the Hall.
Blyleven is the clear winner (loser?) in most of those arguments.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Bob R.
You might also look at Bob Lemon and Lon Warneke as comparables.
Sep 3rd, 2008
baclightning
Thanks for the Death Cab reference. My favorite band of this century, by far…
Sep 3rd, 2008
Rob
It’s just a lesson in futility to play the “which guy belongs who is not in the Hall yet, versus the guy who is in and doesn’t deserve it” game.
There’s WAY too many arguments for guys already off the ballot who should be in (Joe Likes to mention Frank White, yet Lou Whitaker is a much more viable candidate) compared to guys who are in and shouldn’t be (say hello to Jim Bunning, Robin Roberts and a man called Catfish!) that it’s just like running uphill on ice—there’s no progress to be attained.
And as for the kid who said he couldn’t follow the post because the players were before his time—do what we older REAL fans did as kids and go and read, learn and FIND OUT about players before our time. I was negative 4 years old when Ted Williams retired, but it didn’t stop me from looking into his career as a elementary school aged Red Sox fan and finding out he was along with Babe Ruth the best two hitters in history. You’re just being lazy like the Yankees fans who think the team started in 1996 and that Derek Jeter is he BESTEST player ever.
Sep 3rd, 2008
Mark P
Another problem for Beltran with HOF voters is that while his numbers are certainly very good, one can’t help but feel that they should be somehow better. As in, with all of the tools this guy has, why isn’t he putting together monster seasons every year?
Sep 4th, 2008
Daniel
I can’t help but feel, as I sit here and thing, “Who the crap was Jesse Haines?” that there is some child, newly born, who will sit (or maybe float?) at his computer 26 years from now and think, “Who the crap was Jim Rice?”
Sep 4th, 2008
Daniel
Gah…think*
Sep 4th, 2008
Don
I also wonder why the Quiz has no national respect. Maybe if he had played for the Yankees.
Of course, the real debate is why was Pete Rose, Brooks Robinson, and Ken G on the all century team, while G Brett was not. George certainly was a better offensive player and won a gold glove. I have talked to many non-Royals fans that are always shocked the George hit 300 homeruns. Actually, one of my fairly knowledgeable baseball friends went and got a book when I told him George’s numbers. My friend then agreed that George should be on the all century team!
Sep 4th, 2008
ajnrules
I’ve always wondered why Jesse Haines is in the Hall of Fame. Sure he won 210 games and threw a knuckleball (which isn’t really a knuckler at all)…but GOOD GRAVY, the man never led the league in wins or ERA, and his 3.64 ERA must have looked ugly even to veterans committee members of the late 1960s. The true reason why Haines is in and Fitzsimmons is not is because Fat Freddie was never a teammate of Frankie Frisch. I mean if there was ever an underbelly of the Hall of Fame, it’s guys like these. (One player that I’d always thought was a Frisch pick was Travis Jackson. I could never figure out what was so special about him outside of being on the Giants at the same time as Frisch, but he was elected in 1982, nine years after Frisch died. Hmm.)
Anyways, you can make the case that the Hunter/Blyleven situation is similar to Bunning/Tiant in that Hunter had the good fortune of retiring before Gaylord Perry and Tom Seaver, while Blyleven finished his career after Don Sutton and Steve Carlton. Voters didn’t really have to consider the issue of 300 wins in 1987, while by 1998 they were inducting the fifth 300-game winner in seven years. Catfish’s name probably explained why he got in via BBWAA while Jim Bunning didn’t. (Well, the super special awesome 20-win streak wouldn’t hurt.)
Sep 4th, 2008
Thomas
What do Pete Rose and Ken Griffey Jr. have to do with George Brett’s failure to get elected to the All-Century team?
Sep 4th, 2008
Geoffrey
Surely electing players on the basis of being the best ever defensive (insert position here) is somewhat silly. What happens when another player comes along who is better defensively (it has to happen right?)?
Sep 4th, 2008
denopac
“You mention that Tiant was outstanding in the 1975 WS. Of course, Tiant did pitch a shutout in Game 1. He then gave up 4 in Game 4, and six more in Game 6. “Pitching genius” seems like wild overstatement.”
Tiant went the distance in game 4, throwing 155(!) pitches. It’s true that game 6 wasn’t until six days later, but three of the runs he allowed were in innings 7 & 8, when he was clearly out of gas. I’m not trying to argue that he was a “pitching genius,” but those particular games shouldn’t be taken at face value. it was truly a different era….
Sep 4th, 2008
Eric C
I still don’t know why Mex didn’t get more consideration, to respond to previous comments. Stellar defense with tons of gold gloves, 5 time all star, (co) MVP, solid production, 1986 Mets team, and the uniqueness of the ’stache. Oh, and if anyone remembers the years they listed “Game Winning RBIs” on the back of baseball cards - Hernandez was the record holder before they realized how silly that stat was.
I am shocked NY baseball writers haven’t brought that stat back to knock poor A-Rod down even more, now that I think of it.
Sep 4th, 2008
Mike N
The post+ of this article would be increased by at least 20 points if links were included to all the players’ baseball reference pages.
Some people would probably argue to use other statistics like VORP (value over replacement post) or words created, but i like the simple nature of post+.
Sep 4th, 2008
Mike
I think the “1st ballot hall of famer” arguement is the dumbest of all. You either think someone is a hall of famer or you don’t. The fact that these reporters conspire to make someone wait is asinine.
There is no hall of fame without Pete Rose or Buck O’ Neil.
Sep 4th, 2008
Mike Reilly
When can I start looking for your book on the 1975 Reds ?
Sep 4th, 2008
Brent
As noted above, Frankie Frisch is the reason for many of the VC absurdities (Jim Bottomley was also a teammate of FF)
I would guess that some of Frisch’s cronies were still on the VC when Travis Jackson got in.
Amazing how all of Frisch’s teammates with the Giants and Cards were HOFers. You would think they must have been the best teams of all time, given the fact that the Giants had 2 1Bmen, 2 SSes and a third baseman and two OFers (not counting Casey Stengel who is in the HOF for his later exploits) who made the HOF from that era and the Cardinas have a 1Bman, a SS (not counting Leo the Lip, who got in for his later exploits like Stengel), a couple outfielders and 4 pitchers. Admittedly those teams won a lot of pennants between 1921 and 1934 (4 by each team with him), although it might be noted that the two teams won a grand total of 1 pennant without Frisch in those 14 years (which might be some proof that the best player on those teams was Frisch himself)
Anyway, that is a lot of HOFers and given Frisch’s participation in the process of picking most of them, that makes their inclusion pretty suspect.
The other factor, of course, was that many were picked in the pitching era of the 60 and early 70s so that the fact that they were all .300 hitters looked pretty good in a time when few batters achieved that goal. Of course in the late 20s and early 30s, hitting .300 didn’t even guarantee a player a starting position (the entire NL hit .306 in 1930 or 1931)
Sep 4th, 2008
Bruce
When convenient, check the stats of Ted Simmons. Not the best
defensive catcher, but outstanding offensive stats. Catching is a
physically taxing position not known that much for its offensive prowess. Offensive catchers are a rare commodity. He belongs.
Sep 4th, 2008
Andy
Twix are WAY better than Kit Kats.
Sep 4th, 2008
Sloth
Lou Brock is a Hall Of Famer. So was Bruce Sutter. So was Quiz. So, in my mind, was Trammel/Whitaker.
Ron Santo? Complete, utter no-brainer. It is nothing short of cruel that the dipsticks in Cooperstown have been torturing him the past several years. Probably 150% the player Brooks was.
Sep 4th, 2008
David in NYC
With regard to GWRBI being a “silly” stat, brought up by Eric C arguing for Keith Hernandez (borderline HoF, IMHO), this is just another example of the ignorance and short-sightedness of much of the BB media. As Graphite correctly observed above, maybe 5% of the BB media is conversant with any math higher than adding and subtracting.
The primary argument, IIRC, was that one could get a GWRBI by driving in the first run, in the 1st inning, of a 22-0 blowout, and that this would count the same as a walk-off 14th inning HR. Yes, it would — the proper response to that argument is “So what?”
If we take that argument seriously, then I guess the starting pitcher in the 22-0 game shouldn’t be credited with a win; perhaps even the team’s win shouldn’t count. What possible difference does it make, in terms of “what run was the deciding run”, when that run was scored or what the eventual final score was? In what other stat do we have a “quality” standard? Why should we have such a standard for ANY stat?
I think pretty much everyone reading and posting here knows that pticher’s wins is a relatively meaningless stat (there’s a recent post on this topic at FJM entitled “Wins Are For Losers, Part Eleven Million”), and for pretty much the same reasons given for the “silliness” of GWRBI. Yet that single stat seems to be the overwhelming factor in most Cy Young voters’ minds.
In one of his earlier essays, Bill James examined the relative useful/useless-ness of stats in a number of ways. One of his criteria was “Does it give reasonable results”, i.e., is the player who is deemed “best” by a particular stat someone who seems like a “reasonable” candidate for “best”. When GWRBI ceased being an “official” stat, the career leaders were Eddie Murray in the AL, and Keith Hernandez in the NL. Seems eminently reasonable to me.
This is a variant of the argument against “quality starts”, which is invariably denigrated because “3 earned runs in 6 innings means a 4.50 ERA”. Yes, it does — and, again, so what? First of all, in the present times, a 4.50 ERA is not all that bad. (Last year’s ERA for all of MLB was 4.47.) Second of all, how often is a quality start of the 6IP/3ER variety, since every other possible QS results in a LOWER ERA than 4.50. A quick check of BB-Ref shows that roughly 10% of all QS in 2008 fall into that category, so therefore 90% of QS result in a lower ERA. It may not be the greatest stat in the world, but it does provide some useful information, especially in modern times when there are so few complete games.
Stats don’t have to be perfect (none of them are). They don’t necessarily have to be even particularly good (e.g., pitcher’s wins). But as long as they provide ADDITIONAL insight of any kind, they are providing at least SOME value, so why not use them. If you think a particular stat is more or less meaningful than some other stat, well, adjust your perception and interpretation of that stat.
GWRBI is a useful stat (as is QS) and it should continue to be used. And not just because it happens to help make the case for Keith Hernandez (who was one of my favorite players of his time, and is currently doing a pretty good job as a Mets announcer).
Sep 4th, 2008
Damon Rutherford
I hope Joe goes out soon to his nearest neighborhood convenience store, purchases both Kit Kat and Twix bars, and then has a good ol’ fashioned taste test.
I should probably do the same to confirm my declaration that Twix is to Kit Kat as Ron Santo is to Brooks Robinson.
Sep 4th, 2008
Brent
I am one who believes that a starting pitcher’s win total still does have some value in evaluating a pitcher, albeit while looking at it in context of his other stats. For instance in 2005, Chris Carpenter’s 21 wins vs. Roger Clemens 13 wins was at least in part related to Carpenter being a 7+ inning pitcher and Roger being a 6 inning pitcher. Of course, this was also reflected in the IP pitched by the two pitchers. I think we can all agree that a pitcher who is getting 21 to 24 outs in a game is more valuable than one getting 18 to 21 outs. And though that is not the only reason that Carpenter won more games, it is certainly a factor in him winning more games.
Thus it was a relevant stat when determining which of them was the better pitcher. (I agree it wasn’t the only stat one should look at)
Sep 4th, 2008
David in NYC
Brent:
I am certainly not arguing that it is completely meaningless; it can provide some useful additional information if other stats are comparable.
But, really, you are arguing that Carpenter’s year was better because he pitched longer, not because he had more wins. Or to put it another way, did Clemens have a better year in 2001, when he was 20-3, or in 2005, when he was 13-8? Based on wins, you would say 2001 was vastly superior. Yet based on almost every other qualitative measure, 2005 was the better season.
Some comparisons:
ERA+: 2001, 128; 2005, 226
Avg. Game Score: 2001, 56; 2005, 63
Win Shares: 2001, 19; 2005, 24
But then there is this:
Run Support: 2001, 5.74; 2005, 3.43
Games with 10+ runs support: 2001, 5; 2005, 2
Obviously, the difference in the W-L record is due to what his team’s offense did, which provides no information at all about Clemens’ pitching. Pitcher’s wins is a stat that tells us more about the team’s performance than about the pitcher’s performance.
Here’s a link to recent FJM articles on the subject. I think you will find them quite insightful on the topic:
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/label/wins
Sep 4th, 2008
Brent
David:
I agree that mostly the difference is in IP, however, I submit to you that because ML managers almost universally try to get the 19th through 21st outs in a game (when the starter is gone) by the 3 worst pitchers on their staff, if you are a 6 inning pitcher, you are asking for games to be blown by your bullpen.
Sep 4th, 2008
Brent
Oops David, I meant that I agree that the difference is in run support.
Sep 4th, 2008
Tom Borcoman
Great analysis…..question for you Joe is:
Do you think Roberto Alomar will be/should be voted in?
I say absolutely SHOULD be…he’s better than Sandberg in virtually every number except MVP awards and homers…..
Sep 4th, 2008
Brent
Alomar should be in, right? His 10 most comparable include 4 HOF 2Bmen (Frisch, Sandberg, Morgan, Gehringer), a not quite good enough to be HOF OF (Pinson), a good enough but somehow not in catcher (Simmons), and 3 middle infielders that either should be in (Whitaker, Trammel) or will be in (Larkin). Oh, and Julio Franco as the 10th comp. I don’t know how to categorize Franco.
Sep 4th, 2008
Mark
Harry Hooper made the hall largely on the strength of his inclusion in The Glory of Their Times. Every baseball fan should read it, but it shouldn’t be used to endorse anyone’s candidacy. Strangely enough, not everything an old retired player says about his career 50 years ago turns out to be true….
Sep 4th, 2008
dcf
One problem I have with the column is that we just can’t say with any certainty why the Hall of Fame electors in any year voted someone in. You can say that “Robinson is in for being the best defensive third baseman,” but how do you know? Did you poll them? All other conclusions you’ve made about why the voters did something fall away, and all we’re left with is your opinion about why they voted the way they did.
As it is, I think the HOF voters have been pretty inconsistent over time, but I don’t think there is a lot of mileage in trying to argue that a player is better than a HOF member when the HOF member is a weak one. Bill James made this argument in his HOF book, saying that you needed more than to say you were better than the worst player in (or the worst player at your position in) the HOF. As it is, Haines, Bottomley, Hooper and Hunter are pretty weak selections, with Haines, Hooper and Bottomley both having been elected by the Veteran’s Committee in the early ’70s, when the VC produced picks so bizarre that their selections justly brought suspicions of incompetence and cronyism. Cepeda, though ultimately deserving I suppose, is,as you note, borderline and a Veteran’s Committee pick (although not from the ’70s). Aparicio, even with the stolen bases, was a pretty weak offensive player. Brock was not my favorite type of player, with low OBP, but I think he goes in, although certainly not at the top of any list. If all you can do is say you’re better than Haines, Hooper, Bottomley, Hunter, Aparicio or Cepeda, that’s not a compelling HF argument in my book.
Sep 4th, 2008
Kurt
Mazeroski was not a hall of fame player in my view. The hall of fame has been watered down. To me a hall of famer is a no brainer. No debate is necessary. If you have to debate the merits of any player, that player is not a hall of famer. It should be as easy as say the players name and it is yes or no. Period. The fact is I don’t take the hall of fame too seriously anymore. It is not just for absolute greatness but for the very good now, too.
Sep 4th, 2008
Cicc
What about Earl Averill and Bob Johnson
Averill (1929 - 1941)
133 OPS +
.318/.395/.534
2019 Hits
401 Doubles
Johnson (1933 - 1945)
138 OPS +
.296/.393/.506
2051 Hits
396 Doubles
Sep 4th, 2008
David in NYC
“I don’t know how to categorize [Julio] Franco.”
Does anyone?
Talk about your one-of-a-kind players/careers. Has there every been anything like this: starts early 20s, plays productively for 15 years, disappears from MLB (except for one plate appearance) for 3 years, then returns to play at least semi-well for another 7 years, starting at age 42?!
If he had played the missing years in MLB instead of Mexico, and gotten 414 hits (not a particularly large number), he would have had 3,000 hits, and would have been part of this would he/should he conversation.
Sep 4th, 2008
Tim
How much of Quiz’s case for the hall is hurt by the fact that he blew 2 saves in the 1980 WS that cost the Royals the series? Was inspired to look at his career on baseball-reference, and was shocked to see that he blew both of Larry Gura’s starts in that series. http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/1980_WS.shtml
Sep 4th, 2008
Brent
Willie Wilson and Darrel Porter have a lot more to do with blowing that Series for the Royals. I remember a lot of runners on base not scoring too. (and was Jose Cardenal’s corpse really the best option for a pinch hitter with the bases loaded in Game 5)
Sep 4th, 2008
Spielman
“My point is that even if you could prove conclusively that Santo was a better player, prove without possible argument that the difference in their defensive abilities was MORE than covered by Santo’s advantages as a hitter (and I believe this is probably true) it wouldn’t matter. Robinson is in for being the best defensive third baseman. That’s the Hall of Fame.”
And this is why I cannot bring myself to give a flying rat’s butt about the Hall of Fame. It’s a fantastic museum, but as for caring about who is enshrined? They could put David Eckstein in and leave Albert Pujols out, and it wouldn’t make me care any less.
Sep 4th, 2008
Brent
Looking more closely at the play by play, Quiz pitched pretty well in the Game 5 loss. He came in the 7th with Gura in trouble, two on and 1 out and got 2 ground ball outs. He pitched around a Brett error in the 8th and was done in the 9th by two infield hits.
Meanwhile, Jose Cardenal pinch hits with a runner on in the 7th for Hurdle (it does make sense to go to the RH batter against the lefty McGraw) and strikes out and then does so again with the bases loaded in the ninth. I suppose Jim Frey had a good reason not to use his usual RH RF in that game (John Wathan, who hit .305/.377/.406 that year), but I am not aware of what that reason was.
Sep 4th, 2008
Baseball Crank
I think the key is to not get wrapped up in one-on-one comparisons but rather to look at a candidate in the broader context of the group of comparable types of players who are above and below the line and figure out which side the guy comes down on. I’ve done that in my Hardball Times columns on this topic.
Among the middle infielders, you can see that White and Mazeroski both fall pretty far below the line unless you give out a very large credit for their glovework and/or number of World Series Game 7-winning home runs. Ditto for Concepcion and Aparicio, although Aparicio was the most durable of the bunch.
Among the slugging corner outfielder/1B types, Bob Johnson’s closely comparable to Bottomley only if you include Johnson’s years during the war. Dick Allen is actually way ahead of Cepeda. Cruz is indeed comparable to Lou Brock except that Brock’s prime years were longer, he was an amazing World Series performer and he had a few extra contributing years at the tail end of his career.
Sep 4th, 2008
Brent
Indian Bob Johnson is also done in by the fact that he played on possibly the worst team in the history of baseball, the post Lefty Grove Philadelphia A’s. Bottomley played for a perennial winner and even though Averill’s Indians weren’t usually a pennant winning threat, they were respectable. But the A’s, after Johnson’s first couple years in the league, were horrid, finishing, from 1935 to 1943 last 7 times and 7th twice.
Finally, at the end of his career, he got to go a respectable team (which surprisingly was the Senators) for a year and then on to the BoSox for a couple seasons where he held The Splendid Splinter’s roster spot while Williams was shooting down Japanese planes. Then, despite having a decent year in 1945, he didn’t have a job when all the boys came back in 1946.
Sep 4th, 2008
dcf
Comparing HOF candidates to groups of players is one of the reasons why Santo is such a compelling case. One can easily argue that he is better than at least half of the third basemen currently in the HOF (not only Robinson, but also Kell, Traynor, Lindstrom and Collins). You could argue he was better than Home Run Baker. Bill James in 2000 rated him the 6th best 3B of all time and one of his top 100 players. There are slightly less than 200 players in the HOF.
Dick Allen’s numbers are also monstrously huge in comparison with his comparables, but there are other issues there.
Sep 4th, 2008
Bellweather Johnson
Ugh…the Hall of Fame. Geez, don’t get me started again.
I will say this: I thought that Harry Hooper was a little better than his stats show. I always thought the first group of 20th century dead-ballers were Matthewson, Pete Alexander, Walter Johnson, Cobb and Wagner, but Hoop belonged with that second group with the likes of Rube Waddell, Willie Keeler and Nap Lajoie.
But looking at everything again, it looks like Hooper was just a little above average, and certainly not statistically in the same group as Keeler or Lajoie. I think he was just a very popular player for (both kinds of) very popular Sox teams. It seems like he was a great ambassador for the game, and perhaps that outshined his playing abilities…but I could be dead wrong about this. Just my personal opinion about the guy, whom I admitedly know little about.
Perhaps he was the Derek Jeter of the Dead Ball Era.
Sep 4th, 2008
Dave
For more analysis of Concepcion’s case, check out this site:
I don’t make anything from it; I’m just pointing out what I think is a fairly noteworthy omission from the Hall…
http://www.davesalisbury.com/concepcion/
Sep 4th, 2008
Steve from Cleve
As a big fan of Omar Vizquel, I almost hope he never makes the HoF.
If he makes it, people will inevitably blast him for being an undeserving selection (I don’t want to get into an argument about whether or not he belongs, but obviously there will be people who are very adamant that he doesn’t). If he doesn’t make it, he will always have that sympathy among writers and fans and he’ll be seen, IMO, in a generally more positive light.
I mean, look at Jack Morris. All the writers love Jack Morris, but I think if he was ever elected, they’d start to blast his high ERA and conclude that maybe he wasn’t such a great choice after all.
Sep 4th, 2008
Rob
Steve From Cleve,
If “all the writers LOVE Jack Morris” as you say—why is he still NOT in the Hall?
Just curious…
Those 80’s Tigers get NO respect….
Sep 4th, 2008
Don
Concerning “Maz”, he is in the hall because he knew the right people to get him elected from the veterans committee. Hence, they changed the rules after he got voted in and did away with changed the composition of the committee and how often they can get someone in. He’s an “anomoly” and you cannot compare anyone to him and base whether they get in or not compared to Maz. They should put a ” * ” next to his name there. I am sure he’s a nice enough guy and he had a fine career but he’s no hall of famer.
Sep 4th, 2008
Chipmaker
One year, for Halloween, I dressed up in a long, white lab smock and wild-eyed glasses and greeted trick-or-treaters with “hello, children, I’m the Fifth Dentist — have some candy” in a weird accent.
Parents got the joke. No kid did.
Sep 4th, 2008
Spielman
“For more analysis of Concepcion’s case, check out this site:
I don’t make anything from it; I’m just pointing out what I think is a fairly noteworthy omission from the Hall…
http://www.davesalisbury.com/concepcion/
”
His argument defensively is based mostly on fielding percentage, which is kinda nuts to begin with. He’s claiming it’s only a 3/1000ths difference, which it’s not; it’s 6/1000ths overall, and 7/1000ths if you just look at shortstop. Saying it like that makes it sound small. I mean, seven thousandths of something? That’s tiny! If you say that Concepcion made errors at shortstop nearly 32% more often than Smith, that seems much, much larger.
Plus, saying that Concepcion was a really good defensive shortstop, and so was Ozzie is like saying that Neptune is a gas giant, and so is Jupiter. It’s true as far as it goes, but if you think the two planets are the same size as a result of somebody saying that, you’d be just as wrong as you would be if you thought Concepcion was as good defensively as Ozzie.
Sep 5th, 2008
Charlie
If you are going to argue for Concepcion fine, but how was he any different from Campenaris?
Same with Frank White, better than Bobby Grich? Lou Whitaker? or Joe Gordon?
And Blyleven, why not Jim Kaat?
Quiz, Miller, Santo, Tiant, and Allen should be in, without a doubt.
Haines, Bottomley, and Hooper should not.
Lastly, being a Cardinals fan I think Lou Brock was a superstar but will willing concede I am biased on that issue.
Sep 5th, 2008
Brent
Personally, if the HOF was going to come calling for a Hispanic infielder from the Big Red Machine, I think they got the wrong one a few years ago.
One reason Davey C. suffers is what I will call the LC Greenwood Syndrome. If he was the 5th best player on the BRM (after the 3 HOFers and Rose), then was he really that great? I mean when Greenwood comes up for the Steelers as a HOFer, I assume people start going, if he is the 11st best player on the Steelers from the 70s (after current HOFers Bradshaw, Harris, Swann, Stallworth, Webster, Greene, Lambert, Ham, Blount, and Shell), then is he really deserving of the HOF?
Sep 5th, 2008
Steve Y
As a lifelong Phillies fan, I may be biased, but I grew up watching Richie Allen and Jim Bunning. Allen was one of the most feared hitters of his time, and certainly should be in given your arguments. Bunning did a few thing Tiant did not, (no-hitters in each league, 100 wins in each league, one of the best hitting pitchers), but I was always angry that Bunning got passed over for so long. That said, Tiant does belong in.
One thing, how can you leave out Mike Schmidt when mentioning the best defensive third basemen of all time? was Brooks Robinson better than Schmidt? Maybe. Was Nettles or Boyer? No way! Of course Schmidt is in for other reasons (e.g., 548 home runs). But if defense is such a significant criteria, I would try to make the argument for Larry Bowa (I think he was as good as Concepcion and Aparicio), but even I do not believe Bowa belongs in the HOF.
Sep 5th, 2008
Brent
And finally, Concepcion’s candidacy is hurt by a cruel twist of fate. As noted above, with the BRM teams he was overshadowed by playing with the greatest catcher ever and possibly the greatest 2Bman ever, not to mention the all time Hit King, so a skinny light hitting SS wasn’t the star.
But look at his stats, by the late 70s, he had developed into a good hitter. Further, Morgan, Rose and Perez were gone and Bench was but a shadow of his former self, so he, Foster and Griff, Sr. were the stars. And that culminated with his best season in the bigs, 1981, where he sported a 116 OPS+ and was arguably the best player on the Reds, a team that had the best record in baseball. Unfortunately for him, the Reds, because of the strike and the silly split season, did not make the playoffs.
What if ML had simply taken the division winners, with no split season? Maybe the Reds, like their divisional rivals did in actuality, win it all. If Concepcion had been a star in the playoffs, we might look at him differently.
Sep 5th, 2008
Creston
I don’t really have a problem with Indian Bob Johnson not being in the Hall of Fame though Jim Bottomly is. I have a problem with Jim Bottomly being in the Hall of Fame period. What the hell is he doing there?
Seriously, a career .860 OPS gets you into the Hall of Fame? They better get themselves a bigger building then, because there’s a WHOLE LOT of players with a career .125 OPS+
And he was a first baseman to boot???
He was a veteran’s committee selection, wasn’t he? Unbelievable.
If Jim Bottomly is in the Hall of Fame, Carlos Delgado, Jason Giambi, Jim Thome, Frank Thomas, Fred McGriff, John Olerud, Todd Helton,
Kevin Youkilis, Carlos Pena and Mark Teixeira will be easy shoo-ins once they reach eligibility.
These are the names I came up with in 5 seconds of thinking about it.
The Hall of Fame needs to be emptied and re-selected. Panel will be voted on by the fans, the panel then decides who gets to be in and who doesn’t. Joe, you’ve got my second vote for the panel. First one goes to Rob Neyer.
Sep 5th, 2008
Astorian
Don, in support of Dan Quisenberry, makes a complaint that MILLIONS of fans outside the New York metropolitan area are always making: “If only he’d played for the Yankees, he’d get some respect!”
Everyone in the South, West, and Midwest agrees that “the New York media” are omnipotent, and that they make sure all the ink, all the awards and all the glory go to New York players!
Only problem is, it’s not true. It never has been. In fact, the record shows that this theory is not only false, it’s STUPID.
Don’t believe me? Quick- name me a couple of New York Mets who’ve won the MVP award. (Humming “Jeopardy!” theme.) Oh, that’s right, NOBODY from the Mets has ever won an MVP award.
But never mind that. Since 1965 (which marked the end of the old Yankees dynasty), how many times has the MVP award gone to one of the Yankees? There was Thurman Munson in 1976, Don Mattingly in 1865, and A-Rod twice. That’s four awards total for the Yankees in the past 43 years.
In that same time, the Texas Rangers have had five MVPs. The Oakland A’s have had seven.
New York media bias, my foot!
Are there advantages to playing in New York? Sure- the yankees and Mets can pay much higher salaries than other teams, and a player in New York has more opportunities to do lucrative commercials or endorsements.
But there is no advantage in getting awards, or in being elected to the Hall of Fame. I can name dozens of undeserving players in the Hall of Fame. but precious few of them played in New York, and the few undeserving New York players (like Phil Rizzuto) were elected by the Veterans’ committee, NOT by the reporters..
If the “New York media” were as powerful as outsiders think:
1) Gil Hodges and Keith Hernandez would have been in the Hall of Fame ages ago
2) Ron Guidry would have won the 1978 MVP award over Jim Rice (who DID have a great year)
3) Tom Seaver would have won the Cy Young award in 1971 over Fergie Jenkins
Seriously, if you think playing in New York is a huge advantage, name me all the New York players that the sportswriters wrongly put in the Hall of Fame.
I’ll spot you Roger Bresnahan. Now name some others.
Sep 5th, 2008
JonR
I think the most important factor in a player’s Hall chances is how he compared to his peers. Was he the best at his position, while he played? Catfish was considered one of the two or three best starters in the league for much of his career. Blyleven never was. There was NEVER a time in his career that anyone would have named Blyleven as one of even the top five pitchers in the AL, much less in MLB. NEVER.That means everything, regardless of the stats comparisons and lifetime records. The baseball HOF is unique in that it is largely reserved for only the very best, at least the very best of their time. Blyleven was never, ever considered as among the best of his time. Hunter was. Case closed.
Sep 5th, 2008
Brent
HOF and MVP/Cy Young are two different things. I believe every market gets two votes for the awards, thus NY media only gets two votes for MVP, just like KC.
To answer your last question, not too many. The BBWA have really not picked too many undeserving candidates over the years from any team. Maybe Bill Terry? He isn’t a particulary strong candidate. Herb Pennock? However, there are a boatload of Veteran’s Committee picks from NY teams that are undeserving, starting with Earle Combs and pretty much every Giant who played with Frankie Frisch.
But I would agree that it is more likely that you are a former teammate of Frankie Frisch and undeservingly in the HOF, than a member of the NY team and underservingly in the HOF.
Sep 5th, 2008
dcf
Yesterday I questioned the validity of this exercise, as I was not sure that this type of comparison could yield any insight into the motivations of the voters. I still have that doubt.
In particular, I don’t think we can gain any insight from a comparison of anyone with Haines, Bottomley, Hooper or anyone else put in by the Frisch-Terry Veteran’s Committee from the ‘70s. Those picks included far too many selections of questionable merit. We may not be able to draw anything more from these picks other than Frisch liked Haines because he played with him and Johnson did not get support because he played with neither Terry or Frisch (although Frisch did play with both Haines and Fitzsimmons and Terry played with Fitzsimmons too). As to what the Veteran’s Committee has thought since Frisch and Terry left, it’s just hard to tell.
Veteran’s Committee picks, even when not tainted by cronyism, are often done well after a player’s career is over and there just seems to be a lot else (like politics) going on. The VC may not consider two players at the same time. Bunning, Cepeda and Mazeroski were all VC picks.
I find these types of comparisons more interesting when the HOF member being compared to was a BBWAA pick. The BBWAA would be more expected to review players that were contemporaries of each other at the same time. For this reason, although I don’t think you can draw any particular insight from it, the most compelling comparison in the article is Robinson-Santo. Hunter’s last year was 1979 (he was inducted in 1987), while Blyleven’s was 1992, which is a long time. Brock was a writer’s selection. Brock retired in 1979 (he was inducted in 1985), while Cruz retired in 1988. He was not eligible for consideration until 8 years after Brock was elected.
Brooks Robinson was a first ballot Hall of Famer in 1983 (getting 92% of the vote). Santo was kicked off the ballot in the first year he was eligible (in 1980) for getting a less than 5% vote. Santo was reinstated to the ballot in 1985.
Brooks Robinson was one of the most popular players of all time with, both with fans and with those who could cast votes for baseball awards. He won an MVP in 1964. He won 16 Gold Gloves. He made the All Star team perennially, even as his offensive performance fell off noticeably in the late 60s and early 70s.
Robinson is 17th all time in MVP award shares. His offensive record is easily the least substantial of anyone near him on that list. Robinson finished in the top 4 in MVP voting in the AL four times. He did this despite not being a strong offensive player for a large portion of this career. He finished third in MVP voting in 1960 when he had an OPS+ of 108.
Santo never won an MVP, despite some years (1963 through 1967) that were much better than anything Robinson ever did. He only won 5 Gold Gloves. He did not make as many All Star teams.
While we can’t say anything about voter motivations definitively, it would seem to me that possible reasons for this disparity in treatment by HOF voters were (1) Robinson getting somewhat of a halo effect from playing on teams that were much more successful than Santo’s Cubs, (2) voters overlooking Santo’s offensive record due to (a) overlooking the impact of Santo’s very high walk totals and (b) not appreciating that Santo’s best years were in the mid to late 60s, when offense was down noticeably for a variety of reasons (including an enlarged strike zone) and (3) Robinson just being more popular than Santo (see above).
Sep 5th, 2008
Brent
Jonr:
Hmm, Catfish was not considered one of the two or three best pitchers in the league for most of his career. I doubt anybody had heard of the Catfish when he pitched for the KC A’s. He got Cy Young votes in 4 years of his career (out of 15). that is hardly most of his career. Admittedly, his votes for Cy Young are higher than Blyleven’s.
I suspect when people say he was considered one of the best for most of his career, they mean from the point the A’s made the playoffs in 1971 through when he pitched for the Yankees and forget about his years with the KC A’s (and the fact that though he might still have been considered a great pitcher with the Yankees after 1975, he actually wasn’t really all that great anymore)
Sep 5th, 2008
Brent
DCF:
One thing I have always thought about defensive players (like B. Robinson) is that before the advent of SportsCenter, most people had to judge defense on a subjective basis with very little eyewitness facts. If you were a NL city fan, you might have only seen B. Robinson once on the game of the week during a year, unless, of course, he plays in the WS, then you get to see him play a few games in a row. And though Brooks obviously had the rep as a great glove man long before 1970, I gotta believe that the show he put on during the WS in 1970 cemented his rep as an incredible defensive player and (given his position) probably overrated him tremendously in the minds of the HOF voters (I say given his position, because it is great that he was a phenomenal glove man, but it is not like he was a catcher or shortstop and it is not 1910, so teams aren’t bunting 15 times a game either)
Sep 5th, 2008
David in NYC
Astorian:
You are absolutely correct in your estimation of the so-called “New York bias”. Bill James actually went through the various awards (MVP, CY, HoF) in his usual analytical way a few years ago, and concluded that, if anything, there was an ANTI-New York bias in awards. Being a huge Mickey Mantle fan, one observation of his that always stuck with me was (paraphrasing) “the AL MVP voting from 1953 to 1964 consisted primarily of writers trying to think of who besides Mickey Mantle should get the award.” Sometimes this was even his own teammates (Maris in 60-61), but Mantle clearly deserved more than the 3 he actually won.
And, along the same lines, there are at least two Yankees who were passed over for obviously deserving awards in favor of someone more popular and/or not a Yankee. I am thinking of the Gold Gloves that went to Brooks Robinson instead of Clete Boyer and Graig Nettles, both of whom were obviously (to me, anyway) better fielders. IIRC, James rates Boyer as an “A” fielder, Nettles as an “A-” fielder, and Robinson as a “B+”. Granted, this is for their entire careers, but surely both Boyer and Nettles had at least one season where they deserved the GG more than Robinson.
Of course, the GG award is surely the least reliable indicator among all the awards as far as recognizing the actual best, as opposed to the perceived best. And we can use another Yankee to make that point, of course: none other than Mr. Yankee himself, Derek Jeter. The fact that he has more GGs than Boyer and Nettles combined (actually, the fact that he has any at all) speaks more to the meaninglessness of the award than it does to his actual fielding abilities.
Sep 5th, 2008
Astorian
Brent- I grant you, MVP voting is not the same as Hall of Fame voting, but the fact that so few New York players have won the MVP award in the past 40 years suggests that, IF there’s any media bias in baseball awards (and I really don’t think there is- even the worst of sportswriters are generally trying to cast an honest, informed ballot), that bias works AGAINST the New York teams.
And for those who still think New York players get too much media attention, here’s a quick test. Tell me everything you know about the personal lives of:
1) Chris Chambliss
2) Bernie Williams
3) Tino Martinez
4) Roy White
5) Ron Guidry
6) Ed Figueroa
7) Paul O’Neill
I could name more, but you get the idea.
Contrary to popular belief, New York is NOT a great town for athletes who crave the media spotlight. When he played for Oakland, Reggie Jackson used to think New Yorkers would love him. He soon learned how wrong he was. Reggie was NEVER a popular player. New York Yankees fans have always embraced quiet, dignified players who do their jobs with a minimum of fuss. Thurman Munson was the kind of player Yankee fans liked- Reggie wasn’t.
If I asked people to make a list of overrated, overexposed New York players, I’m guessing there’s only one name all could agree on and that all could make a plausible case for: Derek Jeter.
But even there, you can’t argue (well, you COULDN’T before 2008) that Jeter is bad, just that he isn’t as good defensively as many of his fans think he is. He was a vital cog on a team that won four World Series. Once you do that, you’re a genuine star (and a legitimate future Hall of Famer) and you have every right to collect hefty paychecks for commercials, to date Mariah Carey, and to seek out the limelight.
Sep 5th, 2008
Brent
Astorian:
Your arguments are very well put. Derek Jeter is a great baseball player, which is lost in the controversy about his defense (which is average at best) and the discussions about how clutch he is (he is not especially clutch, he is a great baseball player on April 15, on July 15 and on October 15, thus he has his share of great moments in post season.)
You just listed all my favorite Yankees, btw. Um, let’s see Bernie Williams likes jazz music (and plays it too, right??). Ron Guidry is from Louisiana. Umm, Paul O’Neill was reputed to have a pretty hot temper, if I recall correctly. Ed Figueroa had his career ruined by Billy Martin syndrome (known sometimes as overuse syndrome) I think I am done. Point well taken.
Sep 5th, 2008
dcf
Brent:
I think you may be right. I am not sure how to explain it. Santo was kicked off the ballot in 1980 with 3.9% of the vote. 3 years later, Brooks got 88% higher, despite the fact that Santo had a career OPS+ of 125 and Brooks had one of 104. Brooks was a great fielder and a contributor to pennant and series winning teams. But 88 points in 3 years?
Sep 5th, 2008
DJ
Interesting comparison. Based on your commentary, if Mike Mussina stops right now and retires we have to wait and wonder if we might see him in the hall (to break your (no 300 game winner comment…). He would be an excellent follow up to your article. Statistically he matches Palmer on career stats, but is lacking in awards.
Over all for a career - Solid
Compare him to Orioles Great Jim Palmer
(Category - Mussina/Palmer)
Years in baseball - 18/19
Winning Percentage .639/.638
Wins 267/268
Losses 151/152
Innings Pitched 3534/3948
Base on Balls 778/1311
Strike Outs 2786/2212
ERA 3.69/2.86
20 Win Seasons 0/8
Cy Young Awards 0/3
OK, Palmer had eight 20 win seasons and three Cy Young Awards to Mussina’s none. Palmer had a significantly better ERA. However, is the ERA a function of era?
I grew up watvhing Palmer and I have great respect for him as a person and pitcher. I have to say the same for Mussina.
I guess we will sit and wait for the final outcome.
DJ
Sep 5th, 2008
ledfut
Hi and great blog topic! I just thought I would throw Keith Hernandez into the mix. Mex never seems to get enough credit, primarily because he played a position many now regard as a “slugger’s” position. But in your blog, you mention that ” The consensus best defensive players at all the key positions are in”. Then where does this leave Hernandez, quite arguably the best defensive first baseman ever (11 consecutive gold gloves!)Hernandez was to first basemen what Ozzie was to shortstops. And on top of that, he was a great hitter, a batting champion, and an MVP with two world series rings. What astounds me is not so much that Hernandez is not in the hall, but that his name is so rarely brought up in these types of discussions.
Sep 5th, 2008
rob
Joe Jackson, Ty Cobb.
Unquestionably great hitters.
Shoeless Joe was involved in a gambling scandal but his numbers don’t back up the fact that he threw the game.
Cobb was involved in a gambling scandal and admitted he threw at least one game.
Different?
Rose vs Cobb is an exercise left to the reader
Sep 5th, 2008
Pat Hobby
Hunter got tremendous recognition for starring for the A’s and appearing in the 72, 73 & 74 World Series. He then went from the A’s to the Yankees and signed the biggest contract in baseball history and appeared in the World Series again in 76, 77, 78.
So he was a key player with the two most successful teams of the 70s, was 10-2 in postseason play (5-1 in the WS), won 20+ games five years in a row, made 8 All-Star teams, won a Cy Young, went 12 years without mising a turn in the rotation, won an ERA title, threw a perfect game, wond 5 WS rings, had a colorful nickname, was the first free agent and became baseball’s highest paid player by a lot.
That is a ton of intangibles and eye catching accomplishments and I am sure that many writers never got beyond that when considering his enshrinement.
Sep 5th, 2008
McKingford
The reason Bowie Kuhn is in and Marvin Miller is out is solely because the selection committee is made up almost entirely of owners’ cronies.
This is pretty much like ranking the Washington Generals ahead of the Harlem Globetrotters…
Sep 5th, 2008
Richard Aronson
Bert Blyleven’s Postseason Career: 5 Wins, 1 Loss, 2.47 ERA, WHIP of 1.08, K/W ratio of 4.5. The man played for a lot of lousy teams, so he didn’t get to accumulate the postseason counting numbers, but those are some of the best stats ever for guys with 5+ postseason starts. Some here say that Blyleven was not considered one of the best pitchers by his peers, but in fact many baseball folks still cite Blyleven’s curve ball as the best ever (or at least the best ever not backed up by contrast with a high 90’s fastball). I suggest you look at his career stats: you will be shocked that he’s not in the HOF: http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml
Simply put, there are rankings where you can argue that somebody belongs in the HOF but isn’t, there are comparisons (which Bill James treats like Mark Twain treated statistics) where is Player 1 is in the HOF then P2 deserves to be, and then there are guys whose numbers are so good they stand out for being the only player with those kinds of numbers not in the HOF. Top of that list, of course, is Pete Rose. But Blyleven has those kinds of numbers. Career Strikeouts - 5th. Career Shutouts - 9th. Career Innings - 14th. Career Wins - 27th. 16 seasons ranked in the top ten in his league in K/W ratio. 13 seasons ranked in the top FIVE in his league in strikeouts. 11 seasons ranked int he top nine in his league in WHIP. 10 seasons in the top ten in his league in ERA. 12 seasons ranked in the top ten in his league in Adjusted ERA+, including a first and thre