Kids in the Hall, Part I

Posted: December 17th, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 100 Comments »

So, I was thinking about Jim Rice and Andre Dawson and Dale Murphy and some of the other everyday players on the Hall of Fame ballot this year, and something occurred to me: There are really only three entry points into the Hall of Fame.

1. 3,000 hits/500 homers.
2. Positional greatness.
3. The Intangible Argument (rare).

And you know … that’s pretty much it. It’s funny, we spend so much time here breaking down every Hall of Fame candidate, their plusses, their minuses, how they compare with players in the Hall, how they compare with players who just missed getting into the Hall, on and on and on and on. And, looking back, it just seems a whole lot simpler than that*.

*I was just reminded of a great review I saw somewhere of DeNiro’s “Rocky and Bullwinkle” — it’s hard to imagine a more misguided effort than that one. There were so many ways you could have deconstructed that fiasco, but the review was beautifully simple. It said something llike: “You know, in retrospect, Bob might have wanted to make it a comedy.” I love that line; it just sort of reminds me that so many things in life are so much simpler than we make them out to be.

I went back to 1969 — the year Stan Musial was elected — and looked at the 41 everyday players elected by the Baseball Writers. So I excluded pitchers (we’ll talk pitchers at some point here), and I excluded all the players elected by the Veteran’s Committee and Negro Leagues Committee and old-timer’s committee, I’m only interested here in how a player gets elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the writers.

And the only three ways to get elected, best I can tell, are, as mentioned:

1. Collect 3,000 hits or 500 homers.

Twenty four of the 41 players who were elected into the Hall of Fame hit at least one of those two magic numbers — that’s 59%. Now, because of the steroid era, those career numbers could move up, especially the home runs — Mark McGwire with his 583 homers waits outside and I suspect Rafael Palmeiro will struggle for support despite being one of only four player to hit both numbers. I think this is one reason why the voters have been so edgy about the steroid issue — it takes away an automatic entry point and makes the job of voting more complicated.

2. Be an excellent defensive player with offensive skills at one of four prime infield positions — catcher, shortstop, second base or, very occasionally, third base.

There were 11 players who were elected in large part because of the position they played — that’s 29%. I’ll get to those in just a minute.

3. Bring a certain set of intangible skills that gets you in even though you don’t meet Entry Point 1 or 2.

Every so often, the writers will vote for someone who did not reach the magic numbers and did not play a key defensive position. But it is rare — only six of these players have been elected since 1969 (15%), and five of them are pretty contentious choices.

* * *

The players who got 3,000 hits or 500 homers are mostly obvious choices. The only one who did not get in first ballot was Harmon Killebrew — it took Killer four years to get elected into the Hall, certainly because of his .256 batting average (though his .376 on-base percentage was significantly higher than numerous first-ballot guys like Ernie Banks, Lou Brock, Dave Winfield, Robin Yount and so on).

The players who were elected largely because they excelled at a premium defensive position are more of a mixed bag. Some were clear choices, some were more difficult for the voters. But all of them had career offensive numbers that, if placed in a corner outfield or at first base, would have made Hall of Fame induction very tricky. The positional players are:

Catchers (5)

– Johnny Bench
Comment: Probably still stands as the best two way catcher in baseball history. He’s a two-time MVP, he won 10 straight Gold Gloves, he still holds the record for more RBIs in a single season by a catcher (148 in 1972) and he hosted the Baseball Bunch. Also: 09/09/09. There was never a doubt that he would get in, a slam dunk, I cannot understand how anyone voted against him. BUT … if he put up the same numbers as a left fielder (.267/.342/.476 with 389 homers and 1,376 RBIs), his Hall of Fame case would have been VERY different. And he might not have won either MVP. That’s right, of course — a catcher is significantly more important defensively and a significantly more difficult position to play. I’m just trying to explain what I mean by “positional greatness.”

– Yogi Berra
Comment: Three-time MVP, very good defensive catcher, leader, iconic figure, played for 10 World Series champs. And it STILL took him two years to get in.

– Carlton Fisk
Comment: Similar career numbers to Johnny Bench, though he stretched it out over more games. And he wasn’t the defensive force than Bench was — of course, I think Bench was the greatest ever, so being just slightly less than Bench is a slam dunk Hall of Fame case to me. And of course Fisk hit one of the most famous home runs in baseball history. It still took Fisk two years to get in.

– Gary Carter
Comment: Won three Gold Gloves, hit with power, many people thought he compared favorable to Bench as well. His numbers absolutely would not have gotten him in as an outfielder or a corner infielder. It took him six years to get into the Hall.

– Roy Campanella
Comment: Three-time MVP, he didn’t make it to the big leagues until he was 26 because of the color line, and he of course had his career cut short because of an automobile accident that left him paralyzed.

Shortstops (3)

– Luis Aparicio
Comment: Nine time Gold Glove winner who led the league in stolen bases every year from 1956-1964. But his .262/.311/.343 line would not get him voted into the Hall of Fame anywhere else, even as a brilliant defensive second baseman. He got in on the sixth ballot.

– Lou Boudreau
Comment: He was MVP in ‘48, led the league in hitting in ‘44 and was viewed as one of the smartest and most competitive players in baseball history. It is, after all, called the “Boudreau Shift,” even though it was designed for Ted Williams. It took Boudreau nine years to get into the Hall.

– Ozzie Smith
Comment: Perhaps the greatest defensive player in the history of baseball. He was occasionally a useful offensive player because of his speed, though he hit with no power and was only sporadically effective at getting on base (he has a lifetime .337 on-base percentage, but he had a .392 on-base percentage in ‘87 when he probably should have won the National League MVP award). Ozzie was elected first ballot.

Second base (2)

– Joe Morgan
Comment: It isn’t like Morgan was underappreciated. He won two MVP awards. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame first ballot. He also won five Gold Gloves after being somewhat maligned for his defense as a younger player. Yet, I still get the impression that Morgan was even BETTER than all that. For instance, he lost the Rookie of the Year to fellow second baseman Jim Lefebvre in ‘65 for reasons that still stagger the mind (and the voting wasn’t even close — Lefebvre got 14 first place votes, Morgan got 4):

Lefebvre in ‘65: .250/.337/.369, 21 2B, 4 3B, 12 homers, 57 runs scored, 69 RBIs, 3 SBs, 106 OPS+.
Morgan in ‘65: .271/.373/.418, 22 3B, 12 3B, 14 homers, 100 runs scored, 40 RBIs, 20 SBs, 131 OPS+.

I realize that people weren’t looking at OPS+ in 1965, but since Morgan had the better average, more doubles, more triples, more home runs, almost double the runs scored, 17 more stolen bases … I dunno.

Then, Morgan was a very good player in Houston though few seemed to know it because (A) Houston was such a dreadful hitting ballpark; (B) A lot of what Morgan did was subtle; few fully respected what it meant to walk 100 times per year; (C) He missed all but 10 games in ‘68 with an injury; (D) His manager, Harry Walker, spread rumors that Morgan was a troublemaker, even though in retrospect the problem was almost certainly Harry Walker.

He went to Cincinnati and everyone credited the Reds for turning him around (09/09/09) and Morgan himself says that it is true, though I suspect getting out of Houston into a good lineup and a good hitting ballpark was a big part of the story. He won the MVP in ‘75 and ‘76, but he was probably also the best player in the National League in ‘72 and ‘73 and right there wth Mike Schmidt in ‘74. I agree with Bill James — he’s the best second baseman ever. But would .271/.392/.427 with 2,517 hits and 268 homers and 689 stolen bases get him into the Hall of Fame if he was an outfielder or first baseman?

– Ryne Sandberg
Comment: Nnine-time Gold Glove winner, won an MVP one year, led the league in home runs another year, stole 30 or more bases five times. Sandberg is very much a player who got into the Hall because of positional excellence. His numbers would not get him close to the Hall of Fame if he was an outfielder, even an excellent fielding outfielder.*

*In fact, I don’t believe Sandberg would have been voted if he had played third base … and you know he was a third baseman his first year in Chicago. I actually have proof. Here are two rows of statistics.

Player A: .285/.344/.452, 282 homers, 1,061 RBIs, 1,318 runs, 2,386 hits, 114 OPS+.
Player B: .287/.349/.462, 282 homers, 1,141 RBIs, 1,104 runs, 2,143 hits, 116 OPS+.

Pretty similar, eh? Player A, of course, is Sandberg. Player B, meanwhile got 1,000 fewer at-bats in his career than Player A, but put up more or less the same numbers — better numbers in some ways.

So, you will say: Yeah, but Sandberg was so slick with the glove. Well, Player B won five Gold Gloves and may have deserved more — he’s one of the better fielding third baseman in baseball history.

So you will say: Yeah, but Sandberg won an MVP award. Well, Player B won an MVP too.

So you will say: Yeah, but Sandberg was one of the class players who was a credit to the game and a fan favorite. Player B was all of those things too.

You are way ahead of me, I’m sure. Player A is Sandberg. Player B is Ken Boyer. If they had swapped positions, it’s possible that Boyer would be the Hall of Famer, Sandberg the close-but-not-quite candidate.

Third baseman (1)

– Brooks Robinson
Comments: Third base, as Bill James has written numerous times, is a troubling position for Hall of Fame voters. It clearly takes great defensive skill to play a good third base — you need quick reflexes, a strong arm and an ability to charge bunts. On the other hand, third basemen have been expected to hit more than middle infielders and with power. Off the top of my head, I would say there are more excellent third basemen who are not in the Hall of Fame than any other position — you start with Ron Santo, perhaps the most obvious Hall of Fame snub among everyday players, then you throw in Ken Boyer, Darrell Evans, Graig Nettles, even Dick Allen (who played 652 games over at third) and Joe Torre (515 games at third).

Robinson was not an especially good offensive player over the length of his career (.322 lifetime OBP, .401 lifetime slugging), but he played in a low-run scoring era and he did have some good years (particularly his MVP year in ‘64). He was a defensive wizard of course, the consensus best ever, the Human Vacuum Cleaner, winner of 16 Gold Gloves. He was also one of the most beloved players of his time — he’s my Dad’s favorite player. And he did get 2,848 hits — every eligible player with that many hits is in the Hall of Fame — the exceptions being Pete Rose (for obvious reasons) and Harold Baines (who got 58 percent of his at-bats at DH).

* * *

So that leaves only the six players who did not get 3,000/500 and did not play a premium position.

– Willie Stargell.
Comment: Pops is the one guy who does not fit in this group — he was a slam dunk choice. His 475 homers put him 16th on the all-time list at the time of his induction, tied with Stan Musial and just behind Lou Gehrig. I’m sure in the voter’s minds, the difference between 500 homers and 475 homers was negligible. Anyway, Pops had intangibles galore. He won the MVP in ‘79 as the soul of the We Are Family Pirates. That was a pretty shaky pick, but Stargell could have won MVPs in ‘71, 73 or ‘74 — he led the league in homers two of those years, in OPS+ two of those years. He was almost certainly the best hitter in baseball for that five year stretch from 1971-75 (170 OPS+, far and away the best in baseball).

2. Ralph Kiner
Comment: His career was just so short that he did not come close to putting up the benchmark numbers. This baffled the voters for a long time. It took him 13 years to get into the Hall of Fame — finally the fact that he was so dominant, the fact that he led the league in homers every year from 1946-52 and in that same stretch led the league in on-base percentage (once), slugging (three times), RBIs (once), walks (three times), and hit .309 or better three times led the voters to put him in despite the shortage in career numbers. But it was a controversial pick.

3. Kirby Puckett
Comment: This was not an especially controversial pick at the time — but it is now. Kirby was the rare emotional choice for the Baseball Writers — he had his case, of course. Puckett hit .318 for his career, and he won six Gold Gloves in center field, and he was a likeable player, and he had his career cut short because of glaucoma, which for some reason struck everyone as somewhat sadder than if he had suffered a career ending shoulder injury or something. Then, a few rather unfortunate things leaked out about Puckett’s private life, and his weight ballooned, and he died just before his 46th birthday — his story became very different and very sad.

In retrospect, Puckett will probably be viewed as one of the poorer choices by the BBWAA — but Yankees fans should be happy he is in there for two reasons:

A. Puckett is the best argument for those “Don Mattingly for the Hal of Fame l“ people. Their careers are almost exactly the same length (Puckett played 1,783 games, Mattingly played 1,785) and their numbers are very similar, and they were both beloved figures in the game.

B. Even more, though, Puckett will be Exhibit A when Bernie Williams comes up for Hall of Fame consideration. Look:

Puckett: .318/.360/.477, 2,304 hits, 414 2B, 57 3B, 207 homers, 1071 runs, 1085 RBIs, 134 SBs, 6 Gold Gloves, 124 OPS+.
Bernie: .297/.381/.477, 2,336 hits, 449 2B, 55 3B, 287 homers, 1,366 runs, 1,257 RBIs, 147 SBs, 4 Gold Gloves, 125 OPS+.

That’s almost eerie.

4. Duke Snider
Comment: I’m not sure how many people remember this, but it took Duke Snider 11 tries to get into the Hall of Fame. That seems strange since he had the name,* the romance of Brooklyn, the mention in Phillip Roth books, the Boys of Summer romance, and it still took him a long time. Then, maybe it isn’t so strange — Snider did not come especially closer to 3,000 hits (2,116) or 500 homers (407), and he did not play a Hall of Fame premium position (center fielders, best I can tell, do not get a break from the Hall voters), and he was overshadowed by Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle.

*I mean, he’s in the title of the song ”Willie, Mickey and the Duke.“

5. Billy Williams
Comment: Another terrific player who got stuck in no-man’s land because he didn’t get to 3,000 (2,711) or 500 (426). Williams was on the ballot six times before getting in.

6. Tony Perez
Comment: It took Doggie nine attempts to get into the Hall of Fame, even though prominent teammates like Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench were actively campaigning for him. Doggie’s numbers are pretty clearly the least compelling of the six, and he essentially got in because of his personality — he was the quiet leader of the Big Red Machine — and because of his ability to drive in runs — he’s 25th all time in RBIs and all of the Top 25 except perhaps Palmeiro will end up in Cooperstown.

As we all know, I do not think much of RBIs as a statistic, but it is worth pointing out that there is probably some real truth to Perez’s reputation as the guy you would want at the plate with the game on the line.

Perez’s career line: .279/.341/.463
Perez’s line in Late & Close situations:. 300/.371/.489.

I’m not saying this is enough to put Perez in the Hall of Fame, but it’s nice to see numbers that back up the reputation.

So that’s it … and I think this clarifies the whole Hall of Fame voting thing for me. Take this year’s ballot — Rickey Henderson is obviously going in. He has 3,000 hits. Mark McGwire, I think, will take a big step forward in the voting as the steroid scandal moves more and more into memory and voters yet again appreciate what 583 home runs really means.

The best positional candidate on the ballot, by far, is Alan Trammell. He was a good fielding shortstop who hit. I’m not entirely sure why Trammell has not received more support (or why Lou Whitaker received even less). It could be that the explosion of great hitting shortstops that emerged after Trammell’s career started to wind down — A-Rod, Garciaparra, Jeter, Tejada, Larkin — has diminished the memory of how good Trammell really was.

And then there are a whole lot of candidates on the ballot who are trying to get in through the intangible door — Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Tim Raines and Jim Rice being the most prominent.

Rice will end up being the winner of this group — I feel pretty certain he will get elected this year — in large part because people would like to remember him a certain way. I will not vote for Rice, but I will be happy when he gets in, if that makes sense. I will not vote for him for many reasons which I have repeated countless times on this blog, but as a fan I too like to romanticize my baseball childhood, and being in an American League fan in the 1970s, Rice was a prominent player in that childhood.*

*I will say that one argument I don’t like is the cherry-picked argument that Rice led the American League in 10 different categories from 1975-86. I respect that, it’s nice, but that only covers Rice’s good years and there simply weren’t very many good players in the league that played all 12 of those years (Rice got 400 more plate appearances than any other American Leaguer over those 12 years, and only six American Leaguers were even within 1,000 plate appearances of Rice).

Let’s expand the thing just slightly — look at how he ranked in baseball from 1970-1990:

Homers: Rice is fifth behind non-Hall of Famers Dave Kingman and Dwight Evans.
RBIs: Rice is fourth, 17 RBIs ahead of Dave Parker.
Runs: Rice is 11th, again behind Darrell Evans and also Dwight Evans.
Doubles: Rice is 28th.
Triples: Rice is 14th, which is quite impressive if you think about it.
Extra base hits: Rice is 8th.
Batting average: Rice is 12th behind Al Oliver, Bill Madlock, Pedro Guerrero and Ralph Garr.
Slugging: Rice is 5th, behind Reggie Smith, and just ahead of Guerrero.
On-base percentage: Rice is 60th.
OPS: Rice is 10th, behind Kent Hrbek, Jack Clark, Guerrero and Reggie Smith.
OPS+: Rice is 24th, tied with Oscar Gamble, Johnny Bench and Keith Hernandez.

This shows a picture of Rice that I think is pretty accurate — he was a very good player with a well-rounded offensive career who played in a good hitting park. But in my view he was not the dominant force in the game that I think so many want to make him out to be.

My personal choice for the player on the ballot with the best intangibles argument is clearly Tim Raines. He has by far the best on-base percentage of anyone in that group (his .385 dwarfs Don Mattingly’s .358), and on-base percentage is probably the most important single offensive statistic. Plus he’s probably the best pure base stealer in baseball history — he stole 808 bases and was caught only 146 times, a ridiculous 84.5% success rate.

100 Comments on “Kids in the Hall, Part I”

  1. 1: noname said at 10:54 am on December 17th, 2008:

    Who’s Ryan Sandberg? :)

  2. 2: Chris said at 11:00 am on December 17th, 2008:

    Perez’s career line: .279/.341/.463
    Perez’s line in Late & Close situations:. 300/.371/.489.

    I just want to point out: that difference comes out to ~40 additional hits over 1800 plate appearances.

  3. 3: RYAN said at 11:02 am on December 17th, 2008:

    Slight Correction: Roy Campanella won 3 MVP’S instead of 2.

  4. 4: Ryne said at 11:02 am on December 17th, 2008:

    I’m Hall of Famed out!! I can’t even make it through ANY article I try to read about it anymore… no matter who wrote it. For some reason I no longer care about it.

  5. 5: Ron said at 11:05 am on December 17th, 2008:

    Joe, this points out exactly why players need to be looked at based on the position they played, and not just thier offensive numbers.

    Hank Aaron would have been the greatest second basemen of all-time, based on his offensive numbers. But he couldn’t handle it defensively, while many others did. Same with Mantle and SS, and no telling how many others.

    Shortstops need to be compared to shortstops, not right fielders. And catchers need to be compared to catchers, and not first basemen. Anyone who looks at Trammell and thinks he wasn’t better than Rice becasue of the numbers each put up doesn’t really understand the game. There is a lot more to it than just hitting.

    It’s throw the ball, hit the ball, catch the ball. All equally important.

  6. 6: Paul White said at 11:07 am on December 17th, 2008:

    This is a very accurate picture of how the BBWAA votes, at least in the last 40 years. But since the Hall of Fame itself continues to indict the BBWAA’s voting practices by perpetuating the existence of the Veterans Committee, I’m wondering if the broader question should be “Why does the BBWAA continue to vote this way?”

  7. 7: Grant said at 11:10 am on December 17th, 2008:

    I’d say Tim Raines has a bad intangible case and a good tangible case. He’s one of the greatest leadoff hitters of all time (Rickey obviously smokes him, but he smokes everybody). Great OBP, Great basestealer. Great player.

    But all that cocaine stuff is going to dog him because sanctimonious old white guys are the gatekeepers.

  8. 8: ceolaf said at 11:14 am on December 17th, 2008:

    Joe, you should add 300 wins to #1.

  9. 9: ceolaf said at 11:15 am on December 17th, 2008:

    Oops. That was stupid. You said “everyday players.”

    I take it back. I take it all back.

  10. 10: Jim C said at 11:39 am on December 17th, 2008:

    And even more intangibles.

    Statistics play a big part of this, because we like things we can measure, and try to measure things we like, e.g. RBIs. But the idea bout baseball is winning, and guys like Mark Belanger and Maury Wills, who played the premium defensive position for a long time on very successful teams, are fascinating to me. Would the O’s pitchers have been so dominant without Belanger? Or Koufax and Drysdale iwth no Wills? Well, sure, all these guys were great pitchers, but I’ve always wondered if it was the super-duper pitching coach so much as the better fielders, especially the SS, that made championship teams.

    Smart managers (Alston, Weaver, Anderson) had everyday shortstops for may years who would have never have escaped the minors if they were at another position. So yes, only compare guys who played the same position–and trust what very successful baseball managers thought about them!

  11. 11: ezineaerticles » Blog Archive » Kids in the Hall, Part I said at 11:53 am on December 17th, 2008:

    [...] Original unknown [...]

  12. 12: Twayn said at 11:53 am on December 17th, 2008:

    I was expecting a nostalgia piece about a zany Canadian comedy troupe. But I have a cabbage for a head, and 30 Helens agree that’s a pretty good excuse.

  13. 13: Jeremy said at 12:11 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Man, if Mattingly does end up getting in, you’ll hear from a lot of frustrated Giants fans. In every category Will Clark was a superior player, and he was one-and-done on the ballot. I wouldn’t put Clark in the Hall either, but Mattingly has to be in line behind him.

    I’d vote for Bernie Williams.

  14. 14: Joe said at 12:21 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    If they use Puckett to increase Mattingly’s candidacy, then I will have to use that same positional adjustment that you are referring to I guess.

    http://statisticianmagician.mlblogs.com/

  15. 15: Josh in DC said at 12:51 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    I figure Joe Morgan lost those Rookie of the Year votes because the writers who voted for the other guy were racists. It usually explains the apparently inexplicable.

  16. 16: Dan said at 1:05 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Is it any more fair to compare Rice’s counting stats two years past the end of his career, four years past the end of his useful career, and five years before his career started? That’s having no stats for seven out of 20 years in your exercise. And furthermore, since I was the one who asked the question last year – I believe the guy who has been carrying the torch for Rice’s qualifications found the answer: No player who led his league in those stats over 12 years isn’t in the Hall.

    3000 hits/500 home runs – for a long time, the demarcation was 400 home runs. I hadn’t realized Rice was supposed to make 500, I cursed his failure to last long enough to reach 400 and maintain his .300 average. But the magic number was in fact 400 home runs through Rice’s era. If I’m not mistaken, only when Kingman reached 400 home runs but couldn’t sniff the Hall did that number lose its validity.

    And obviously it lost more validity after that.

  17. 17: Dan T said at 1:38 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    I love the book release plug has been whittled down to “09/09/09″. “9/9″ can’t be that far off!? Can’t wait Joe. Great stuff.

  18. 18: John R said at 1:42 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    I also like how the constant 09/09/09 references seemed to subconsciously trick a commenter the other day into saying that the book would be about the 1991 Reds.

  19. 19: Marco said at 1:49 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    I’m looking fordward to the debates about Omar Vizquel’s HOF candidacy.

  20. 20: Bill said at 1:53 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    You don’t think centerfielders get some of that extra positional credit? Kirby was perceived (incorrectly, the numbers say, but I have to admit that as a Twins fan who watched him every day this is one case where I just can’t make myself believe in the numbers) as an elite defensive center fielder. I realize that no others happened to get voted in by the writersfor that reason during your 40-year sample, but you can say the same thing about Brooks and 3Bs,

    On a related note, if I’m a Yankees fan and I see that my BEST comparative argument for getting Mattingly into the Hall:

    (a) was a good (at least) CF, while my guy was a 1B; and
    (b) was the heart and soul of two World Series winners; and
    (c) was forced to quit for reasons entirely unrelated to his physical ability to play baseball (rightly or wrongly, glaucoma is perceived as quite different from a bad back as far as excuses from athletes go); and
    (d) was still probably one of the writers’ weakest choices;

    I’m feeling worse, not better.

    It’s more interesting with Bernie (probably a better player than Kirby, all things considered), but the two big things in the minds of the voters were the batting average and being perceived as the unquestioned team leader, and Bernie obviously doesn’t have those.

    Kirby’s still a better choice, on straight-up statistical value alone, than Jim Rice…

  21. 21: Kc1fan8569 said at 2:05 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    If Tim Raines is mentioned along with Jim Rice then I believe the writers got it wrong with Frank White. Frank was the best 2nd basemen in the American League and measures up well to Bill Mazeroski.

    He would qualifiy in Joe’s arguement as Positional Greatness!!!

  22. 22: Mark W. said at 2:22 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    I’m with Ryne, an earlier poster… I am just so tired of all of this HOF comparing of stats, reps, etc.

    Thank God the rest of you remain interested – otherwise no one else might ever be inducted if I Ryne and I were somehow the gatekeepers.

  23. 23: Johnny said at 2:39 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    >>”I figure Joe Morgan lost those Rookie of the Year votes because the writers who voted for the other guy were racists. It usually explains the apparently inexplicable.”<<

    The same writers voted Jackie Robinson ROY in ‘47, Campy MVP in ‘51. It’s not like they were klansmen. I’d say it had more to do with the Dodgers winning the pennant, and Houston finishing 32 games out. Not that it makes it right, but…

  24. 24: paul penny said at 3:33 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    I remember a kids in the hall scetch where the camera is on a guy who is painting a room. From outside of the camera shot you hear a guy say, “Whatcha doing there, painting?”
    Then the guy on camera says with a sarcastic groan:
    “What does it look like I’m doing. Of course I’m painting, Einstein.”
    Then the camera moves to the voice and it actually is Albert Einstein. Good stuff.
    So, Joe are you going to give us some stories about Las Vegas cocktail watiresses and how to play Red King?

  25. 25: Concerned Citizen said at 3:37 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    I’m a guy with a good attitude towards HOF articles! Now is that anything to be shameful of or disgusted by?

    (Hey… don’t I know you? Didn’t you take me to a Leafs game?)

  26. 26: Sean said at 3:44 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Puckett was the heart of TWO world series champion teams and probably would have gotten to 3,000 hits if his career were not cut short.

  27. 27: Tim said at 3:56 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Frank White was the best second baseman in the American League? After Willie Randolph and Bobby Grich, you mean, right? Surely after those two…oh, wait, and Lou Whitaker.

  28. 28: Tampa Mike said at 4:08 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    There is no hall of fame without Pete Rose (09/09/09).

  29. 29: David in NYC said at 4:30 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Twayn —

    Thanks much for the KITH reference. I promise that from now on I will not be crushing your head.

  30. 30: Andy R. said at 4:51 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Keep the HOF articles coming Joe. I could read them all day long. It would be great if you added a link at the top of the page linking to all of your archived HOF articles like you have for Baseball, Bruce, Essays, etc.

  31. 31: MSS said at 5:53 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    How can Tony Perez be in the Hall of Fame already?

    As far as I can tell from the commentary, he’s on the field every week for Sunday Night Baseball.

    He and that Davey Concepcion are tearing it up.

  32. 32: Joe M. said at 5:57 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    And he did get 2,848 hits — every eligible player with that many hits is in the Hall of Fame — the exceptions being Pete Rose (for obvious reasons) and Harold Baines (who got 58 percent of his at-bats at DH).

    Actually, Rose isn’t an exception.

  33. 33: Perry said at 6:15 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    I don’t know if racism explains the Lefebvre vote — 7 of the 10 NL MVPs in the 60s were Black or Latino (although only 2 of the 10 ROYs). More likely it was a combination of statistical illiteracy and the fact that Lefebvre played for a pennant-winning team in glamorous big-market LA, while Morgan played for a 9th-place team in Houston.

  34. 34: Glenn said at 6:18 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    This confirms what I’ve known for a long time. Ken Boyer should be in.

  35. 35: Aaron M. said at 6:25 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    That’s it. Burn the HOF down. It’s over. If former players need a magical club to be a part of because of numbers they don’t need a building to get voted into. Just make the HOF an attainable goal by stat accumulation. No voting necessary.

    Based on those 3 characteristics you mention above Joe, how can you justify voting for Blyleven? The only thing he has going for him is *almost* 300 wins (287), and 3700 Ks. But you’ll probably get pretty close to those numbers by pitching almost 5000 innings in your career and starting 685 games. His career WHIP was 1.198. ERA+ of 118. That’s just not good enough. Do I think he should be in. Sure. But according to the data, he’s just a stat accumulator that was above average for a very long time. I’m guessing part II is about pitching. So wiggle your way out of this.

    Oh and no way Bernie Williams gets in the HOF.

    And to make a point about Mattingly’s OBP and Raines OBP. You say Raines “dwarfs” Mattingly 385 to .358. That’s .027 points, or 2.7% That means on average Raines walked 2.7 more times per 100 ABs. Or, over the course of 25 games, or about a month, @ 4 PAs per game, Raines got 2.7 more walks. Or every 9.3 games, Raines got 1 more walk. So, every week and a half, Raines got 1 more walk. It’s not very much. For Mattingly to get to .385 he needed about 98 more walks. He played 14 seasons at an average of 127.5 games a year. That means he needed 7 more walks per season, or an extra walk every 18 games he played. That kind of difference could have been due to quality of pitching.

  36. 36: Sven said at 6:33 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Ok – I give up. You’re right Dewey belongs in the HOF too.

  37. 37: John R said at 7:21 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Aaron M, I don’t think Joe meant that it was right that the BBWAA vote based on these 3 considerations, nor do I think he intends to.

  38. 38: Mark said at 8:20 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    I’m not sure how Aaron M is doing his math. Mattingly had a .358 OBP: 2,762 (hits/walks/hbp) / 7,700 (AB/walks/hbp/sh/sf).

    He would need about 210 more walks or hits (a whole season’s worth) over the same at bats to raise his OBP to .385. Of course, you can break that down to 15 a season (over 14 seasons) to make it seem insignificant but that’s the difference between good and great in baseball.

  39. 39: Joe said at 8:46 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Don’t forget that second basemen typically have far shorter careers than players at other positions due to whatever…injury, general wear and tear?

    I think it’s safe to say that 2B is a more dangerous position to play than OF or even 3B.

    I like the comparison of Sandberg’s and Boyer’s stats, but if Sandberg had played 3B, he might have played longer, been healthier and put up even better numbers than he did at 2B.

    And this is coming from a Cardinals fan who still hates Sandberg for that one game in ‘84…

  40. 40: Bill said at 9:49 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Good call on Aaron M’s math, Mark. You can make it sound just as silly the other way — to match Raines’ OBP, Mattingly would’ve had to have played about another half season — 325 PA or so — and gotten a hit or walk in every single one of them.

  41. 41: Devon Young said at 9:50 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    I love how you point blank showed Rice’s ranking against his contemporaries that (mostly) aren’t Hall of Famers. I look at that kind of thing for a lot of guys when they’re close. I hope the right people read that bit you wrote.

    I never thought Puckett was a HOFer, and still don’t. Even though I spent most of the late 90’s in NY State, I couldn’t ever envision Bernie in Cooperstown when many would say he will be there someday.

  42. 42: Jon Morse said at 11:12 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Aaron M:

    I’d say 3701 career strikeouts is a pretty relevant statistic.

  43. 43: DJ said at 11:35 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Puckett’s a HOFer and it should be no argument.
    Career sadly cut short, would’ve clearly got to 3000 hits.

    The guy averaged 209 hits/99 RBI per 162. 2 WS rings, was in the top 10 in MVP voting 7 times. Ten time all-star.

    Oh and .309 .361 .536 is his line in 24 postseason games. The Twins never lost a postseason series with him.

    You guys need to think again on Puckett. Good grief.

    Great Kids in the Hall song that will not leave my thoughts: These are the Daves I Know. Thank God for Youtube.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b-N28eG2go

  44. 44: Nick Whitman said at 11:58 pm on December 17th, 2008:

    Whoa, wait a second… You think Joe Morgan is the greatest second baseman ever? And Bill James agrees?

    That amazes me. What about Rogers Hornsby?

    Morgan: .271/.392/.427, 2517 H, 268 HR, 689 SB
    Hornsby: .358/.434/.577, 2930 H, 301 HR, 135 SB

    And he did it in 1104 less AB. With a good chunk of those ABs in the dead ball era.

    All due respect to Joe Morgan, he was an amazing player and a hell of a base-stealer, when Hornsby clearly wasn’t, but Hornsby dwarfs him as a hitter. It’s not even remotely close.

  45. 45: naitrey said at 12:03 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Can anyone tell me why no one seems to consider Jack Clark as the someone who “should have won” the ‘87 NL MVP? Smith, who got more votes, had a great year, but nothing like what Clark was doing before he got injured:

    (in only 131 gms) 35 HR, 106 RBIs, 136 BBs, .286/.459/.597, 176+

  46. 46: JeffSol said at 12:51 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Naitrey, 2 reasons:
    1) Clark WAS injured, and only played 131 games, thus having less value than someone who played 150 or so.
    2) There is a VAST difference in defensive value between Ozzie, the greatest defensive SS ever, having a great season where the teams pitching was a big surprise, and Clark, a butcher at 1B.

  47. 47: 3rd period points said at 6:51 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Like nearly every other commenter, I will proceed to lay out my argument in an utterly biased manner. I’ll develop a rationale (composed mostly of rhetoric, the selective use of stats, and cherry picked comparisons) in support of my long-held belief. Hang on tight.

    Frank White should not be dismissed from the HOF discussion so easily. Many of his contemporaries, as well as scores of wise old baseball men, consider him among the top 5 defenders ever to play 2B–in the “players I’ve actually watched in person” category. Many would say top 3. A contingent would say he’s the best they ever saw, or perhaps the best in the last 35 years. His positional greatness is undisputed.*

    *Undisputed by me, not you. The underlying premises for my argument are purely subjective and wholly unverifiable.

    On top of that, I’m shamelessly biased. More than most fans I’ve come across, I consider defensive prowess grossly underrated and unforgivably minimized as a defining characteristic of a player’s greatness. I’m also a Royals fan.

    The largely unquantifiable nature of defense is a poor excuse for failing to recognize defensive skill as a key component of athletic superiority in baseball, particularly at the middle diamond positions.

    So the question is, if a cogent argument can be made that any player is among the top 5 (or 4, 3…) second basemen in the liveball era, how poor of a hitter do you have to be not to be seriously considered by the BBWAA or the veteran’s committee when you become eligible for the HOF?

    My contention is that the greatest defensive 2B ever, whoever you believe that to be, need only be above average offensively as compared to his contemporaries at 2B, in order to warrant consideration for the HOF. If he was an average hitter, he might still deserve consideration.

    Frank White had 8 Gold Gloves in an 11 year span while playing on carpet and concrete not unlike those found in church gymnasiums. As we know, Gold Gloves are far from proof that a player was the best defender at his position, in his league, for that season. Those 8 Gold Gloves don’t tell the story of the quality of Frank White’s defense.

    He was the ALCS MVP in 1980 and he won the Silver Slugger in 1986. He collected 2006 hits. Baseball Reference’s HOF Monitor rates his batting at 81 (217th all time). Likely HOFers rate > 100 in batting. His #1 offensive comp on B-Ref. is Bill Mazeroski while Davey Concepcion is #5. (Who did he play for?) Bill Mazeroski may not have deserved enshrinement in the HOF, but he certainly deserved serious consideration. Many codgers consider him the best defensive 2B they ever saw. I can’t speak to that; I wasn’t there.

    Frank White is the best defensive second baseman I ever saw. This opinion is echoed by others across baseball, not just Royals fans. At the very least, many knowledgeable fans that watched Frank White play believe that he belongs in the conversation.

    To those that believe he is, or could be the greatest of all time, Frank’s pedestrian offensive production doesn’t preclude him from HOF consideration. It’s (very) roughly akin to the often horrendous defense of Manny Ramirez. Manny’s defensive deficiencies are minimized by his position. Frank White’s defensive skillset was maximized by the increased impact of his position. Obviously, their respective shortcomings do not cancel each other out. I’m not purporting that Frank White and Manny Ramirez’s HOF credentials are remotely comparable. Manny is a no doubt, first ballot lock. But, if you’re what Joe calls a “big Hall” person, then the inclusion of a player with a heavily defensive platform becomes more acceptable.

    @ Tim:
    I am willing to admit that my entire argument improves in the eyes of many intelligent fans when you substitute Bobby Grich for Frank White. I would simply be happy if the defensive greatness of a player was given more weight when considering their HOF resume.

  48. 48: Brent said at 7:25 am on December 18th, 2008:

    “Do you mind if I swoop?”

    BTW

    Brucio is the best KITH

  49. 49: Bellweather Johnson said at 8:15 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Thirty Helens Agree:

    Joe Poznanski Rocks

  50. 50: Mike Ryan said at 8:16 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Love the HOF articles. I agree with everything you say and would like to state the the HOF needs to be more ‘inclusive’ rather than a club trying to keep guys out. I think some of the subjectivity needs to be removed. In these days of high-priced talent, Owners, General Managers, and Managers vote every year on the guys that are ‘worth’ paying. If you assume that everyone who gets to the bigs is already a pretty fabulous baseball player, then those guys who have staying power and contribute year after year become worthy due to their body of work. Not every way that a player can contribute to a team is measured by a stat. If a player at any position can last 12+ years and meet some minimum playing standards then that says quite a bit about their ‘worth’. Maybe it should reduce the 75% figure for election to 50-60% and then keep dropping as the player extends his career.

    Who is hurt by adding more players?

  51. 51: Josh in DC said at 8:31 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Re: racism in the 1986 Rookie of the Year vote.

    I’m not saying all the 1965 writers are racist. I’m saying that enough of the 14 men who voted Lefebrvre screwed up for unknown reasons.

    I’m going to guess two of the 14 were voting for the hometown guy, which is a fairly common bias. (“You have to see this guy play every day!”)

    A couple more probably voted for the guy on the pennant winner — by hitting 12 homers, he tied for the team lead. (There’s few other scraps of achievement to give him credit for. He also grounded into the most double plays.) And there was probably a benefit to playing on the Mighty Dodgers — a really famous team that was on ESPN* all the time — WEST COAST BIAS!!!

    * I hate to have to note that I’m joking. ESPN was only available in zero percent of homes in 1965.

    Oh, of course it was racism.

  52. 52: Rob said at 8:34 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Thanks for including Trammell. As a child of the 1980’s, I looked forward to every Saturday afternoon when the Tigers would play. He was my favorite player and was always overshadowed by the “Iron Man.” In fact, many people forget that there was a year, he was voted to start the all star over Ripken, but was injured so Cal’s All star streak continued. Let’s hope Alan gets in one of these years!

  53. 53: Josh in DC said at 8:38 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Haven’t done the math, but it looks like Lefebrve had a real good September, and the Dodgers only won the league by 2 games. He probably got some momentum out of that.

  54. 54: Don said at 8:39 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Willie R. is better than Frank White? Are you CRAZY?

  55. 55: map said at 8:49 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Trammell, unfortunately, lived in Ripken’s shadow in the American League and Smith’s in the NL. He was steady, but never spectacular and didn’t have the star power of those other two. He also had to compete early in his career with Robin Yount and later in his career with Tony Fernandez. There was only one year when you could argue that he was the best shortstop in baseball, 1987, and Ripken started the All-Star Game for the AL. I watched Trammell his entire career, but I think it is going to be next to impossible for him to be elected to the HOF by the writers.

  56. 56: Bill said at 9:23 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Jack Clark’s contribution wasn’t close to Ozzie Smith’s, between the games played and the difference between a subpar 1B and the all-time greatest SS.

    Maz and Frank White are awfully close. White was just a slightly better hitter, Maz (by most measures) a better defender. The thing is that that little edge in defense over White also makes Maz the best fielding 2B who ever played, which IMO deserves some extra credit. Randolph, Grich and Whitaker were all quite a bit better as overall players than either.

    White is, however, a better Hall candidate than Jim Rice.

  57. 57: Mike Bagnall said at 9:49 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Chadwick was right. The most important offensive statistic is Runs Scored. There was a time when it was the ONLY recorded statistic. I would argue that it correlates better with ultimate offensive ability than any other statistic or combination thereof.

    Any statistic that has a plus sign after it means that statistic is imaginary. It never actually happened. It MIGHT have happened had things been different than they really were. Sure Joe Dimaggio MIGHT have been a better hitter than Ted Williams if he had hit lefthanded or if he had played in Fenway, but he didn’t, so Williams was better. OPS+ is two other stats added together and adjusted so the list will be in the same order as the adjuster wanted.

  58. 58: Bill said at 10:15 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Mike Bagnall – will you try to argue that, please? I’d like to see it. Seems to me that Pedroia, great though he was, was the 20th or 30th most offensively able player in the AL last year, and yet led the league in runs…ditto with Beltran, who was 2nd in the NL.

    Your thing against plus signs (a) is completely wrongheaded (it did happen, and can’t be adjusted at anybody’s whim), and (b) applies to exactly two of the very many metrics that are more meaningful, w/r/t an individual player, than runs scored.

  59. 59: Ian said at 10:27 am on December 18th, 2008:

    I don’t have a problem with Puck. James has him as the 7th best CF alltime. (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/rating-the-bbwaa-part-2/). His and Mattingly (and Williams) numbers are close but Puck got his in 12 years, Mattingly took 14 and Williams 16.

    Puck got in not by compiling numbers but by what he did in his 12 seasons. He was a top 7 MVP guy 7times (and was robbed in 92), so writers constantly thought he was among the best in the AL. Fans voted him in to the All star game 10x, so fans thought he was among the best. When he retired, he was tied with the most gold gloves/silver slugger awards, so managers thought he was among the best in the AL. He retired with the highest RH batting avg since Dimaggio and he reached 2000 hits faster then anyone in a century, so he met historical milestones. He also had some pretty big post season games, too. So he had historical achievements, team achievements, universal praise from writers, fans and opposition managers and from the dean of statheads. He’s a worthy HOFer.

  60. 60: Pete said at 10:27 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Mike Bagnall

    Wow. You are telling me the only stat that matters is one that depends on factors completely outside of a player’s control? I mean, unless you can steal your way home, someone else has to get a hit for a person to score a run.

    RE your argument against adjusted stats…Let’s imagine that one player finishes the season with a line of .300/.380/.495 and hits 33 home runs. Pretty good season. Player B hits .503/.660/1.500 with 94 home runs. Well, clearly B was better, right? I mean, what he did actually happened, so he must be better, right?

    Well, see here’s the thing…Player B plays for the Fra Maura Highlands MoonBuggies of the Orbital Moon League, and was actually the worst player on his own team. Player A plays for the Padres, and therefore plays in a stadium with dimensions similar to the Grand Canyon. In order to compare the two from an OBJECTIVE point of view, don’t you HAVE to adjust their stats in some way? Or would you rather just guess how good they are and totally eschew statistical analysis all together?

  61. 61: Justyo said at 10:33 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Dewey!!

    Hey Joe–

    Why don’t you post a poll with this years ballot and see how us brilliant readers would vote?

  62. 62: Justin said at 10:55 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Runs are valuable only when looking at a particular game, in retrospect. Obviously, the point is to score more than the other team.

    Predictively, though, there are too many other factors that go into runs. Lineup and lineup position play a role. When it comes to evaluating players, you have to look at the rate stats.

    If you’re looking to see how good a player is, there are so many things that need to be taken into account. If a GM just looked at runs, it would be kind of like having a chemist look at a bunch of pills and say “we need something small, round and white” instead of actually figuring out what goes into making aspirin work.

  63. 63: Grrbear said at 10:56 am on December 18th, 2008:

    Re: Hornsby vs. Morgan
    Hornsby was certainly the better hitter, and probably one of the best hitters of all time, but he was also an epic douche. Morgan was a better fielder, a better baserunner, and a better teammate. He was also more patient at the plate and might have been one of the smartest ballplayers ever to take the field.

    As a second baseman, Hornsby would have made a great left fielder. He was such a good teammate that the Giants and Braves could only get along with him for a single season each. In those two seasons, he posted an OPS+ of 175 and 200, leading the league both times. Imagine that – the best hitter in the NL, and two teams in consecutive seasons decide that they’re better off without him. Then he joins the Cubs, wins the MVP award, and was basically done as a hitter at age 34.

    There’s no denying that Hornsby was an outstanding hitter, but he was miscast as a second baseman and had the people skills of Dick Cheney at a DailyKos convention. Joe Posnanski and Bill James and a whole bunch of other people would rather have the more complete package of Joe Morgan.

  64. 64: Brent said at 11:18 am on December 18th, 2008:

    When it comes to catcher, shortstop, second base and possibly third base, I think 2 factors have been (or should be considered) when evaluating a HOF candidate.

    First is defensive excellence. Certainly at catcher and shortstop and probably at second base and possibly at third base, defensive excellence should be considered. I think that the Hall has recognized this and I would posit that a number of HOFers are there for defensive excellence alone: Smith, Aparicio, Maranville at Shortstop; Schalk and Ferrell at catcher; Maz and probably Nellie Fox at 2nd base. Brooks also might be considered a candidate under this category too. (as an aside, second and third base have kind of changed as far as where they are on the defensive spectrum over the years, thus it would make more sense for a defensive third baseman from the Dead Ball Era to make it and a defensive second baseman from the Modern Era. Two reasons for this: third base is a much more difficult position if people are bunting 10-15 times a game; second base is a much more difficult position as the ability to turn DPs goes up.)

    The second factor is mostly for catchers and to a lesser degree, 2nd basemen, as those are the two most physically taxing positions in baseball. Therefore, from injury and wear and tear, players who play those positions primarily have shorter careers and are not going to reach counting milestones as easy. The HOF has clearly taken this into account with catchers (no catcher has ever reached the automatic plateaus of 3000/500) and Bench’s and even Fisk’s numbers quanitatively are not that impressive. I believe the Hall should consider this for 2nd basemen as well (although admittedly not to the degree they do for catchers). If the Hall did this, the arguments for Whitaker, Grich, Alomar (who I think should get in anyway), White and Randolph become a lot better.

    I am not suggesting all those 2nd basemen should get in, but the Hall should recognize that two of the last three second basemen to get in reached counting milestones because they were good enough hitters to move to a less taxing corner infield position (Carew and Molitor). Had they stayed at 2B, their careers never would have been long enough to reach the milestones they did.

  65. 65: David in NYC said at 12:07 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    GRRBEAR –

    Hornsby has a well-deserved reputation for being a complete jerk. (You think he was a problem teammate, and he was; he was even worse as a manager.) If the conversation is about who you would rather have a beer with, then obviously the answer is Joe Morgan.

    However, the conversation is about who was the better ballplayer. Even if Hornsby was the worst-fielding 2B of all-time, and Morgan was the best, that is not by any stretch going to make up for the difference in their offensive abilities:

    For their careers, Hornsby averaged over 3 RC/G higher than Morgan (9.9 vs. 6.8); his OWP is more than 100 points higher (.815 vs. .702). If we pick their best 6 consecutive seasons (which I did, because they both had 6 consecutive seasons of 100+ RC), the differences are similar: 3.6 RC/G (12.7 vs. 9.1) and 68 points in OWP (.860 vs. .792).

    There is NO WAY any player is so much better defensively than another player that it makes up for over 3R/G difference in offensive ability. Sure, Morgan was a more well-rounded player; obviously, both a better fielder and a better baserunner. However, saying that makes up for their offensive differences is roughly like saying you’d rather have Juan Pierre on your team than Babe Ruth.

    Look, I like Joe Morgan (the player) a lot. He was good (if not great) at all phases of the game, he was an extremely “baseball-smart” player, he could do all the “little things” (no, I am not going to call him “scrappy”). But there is no way any of that makes up for the enormous difference in their offense.

    They are at least two of the best three 2B of all-time (Nap Lajoie is in there somewhere). I would just rank Hornsby slighter higher than Morgan.

  66. 66: Brent said at 12:20 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    On Hornsby and Morgan:

    I think we must also take into account the fact that defense at 2B was less important in 1920 as it was in 1975. I don’t know which way that argument cuts, however.

    On the one hand, since it was less important in 1920, Hornsby backers could argue that the fact that Rajah was a crap defensive player didn’t matter as much.

    On the other hand, Little Joe’s backers could point out that since it was more important to be a great defensive player in 1975 at 2b, the fact that he was a great defensive player and Rogers was a horrible one only widens the actual gap between them.

    I have no doubt that if Hornsby played in the 1970s, he would have been a 1Bman or left fielder, not a 2Bman.

  67. 67: Bill said at 12:38 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    Funny thing is, BP has Morgan’s fielding as even worse than Hornsby (both slightly below average for their careers), and still ranks them about even (Morgan slightly ahead) in WARP3. You have to factor in a few things:

    (1) baserunning–Morgan was probably one of the four or five best ever, and Hornsby was…not.

    (2) career length; Morgan had about 2000 more plate appearances, or about 3 1/3 seasons of good-but-not-great ball dragging down his career numbers.

    (3) I don’t want to deprive the pre-war guys of their due, but it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t easier to dominate in the ’20s than in the ’70s. The gap between the best and worst has been steadily narrowing since the turn of the last century, for a lot of reasons, with a big jump in the late 40’s and early 50’s, for the obvious reason.

    It’s close, but I’d take Morgan.

  68. 68: Mike S said at 12:50 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    I missed most of the prime of Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, but have become big fans of both despite not living anywhere near Michigan. I think that both Joe and several readers have noted why Trammell gets little respect from the HOF – perception. Trammell’s top years were truly outstanding, but only once did he finish in the Top 6 in the MVP voting. The BBRAA ignored Trammell in those votings, giving them “reason” to ignore Trammell now despite the fact that their “evidence” was self-created and subjective. As a previous reader noted, Trammell also lived in the shadow of both Cal Ripken, Jr. and Robin Yount, two HOF shoo-ins. This seems to have led to a reputation that he was only the 2nd/3rd best SS in his own league (which apparently = not good enough for the HOF, no matter who the other players are) despite the fact that for most of the 80’s being top 2/3 at SS in AL was = to being top 2/3 in all of MLB. That was the case in the late 90’s/early 00’s, too, but you won’t see anyone hold it against Derek Jeter despite the fact that he consistently ran behind both A-Rod and Nomar as well as the stray great years from Larkin/Tejada/Aurilia over that span. Obviously Jeter has a much stronger case, but the same argument against Trammell can be used against him. Finally, Trammell’s scattershot career doesn’t look as pretty as some others. Between 1978 and 1991, Trammell had six seasons with an OPS+ of 120 or better and one at 113. He also had seven seasons under 100, including four under 90 mainly due to a lack of power in his early seasons.

    As for Frank White and Omar Vizquel, no, just no. White’s case can’t be made without invoking Bill Mazeroski, one of the Veteran’s Committee’s (not even the BBRAA’s) worst choices.

  69. 69: chuck said at 1:47 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    no to jim rice ….not now …not ever ….and an emphatic yes to tim raines …..inarguably the second best leadoff man in modern baseball history…..plus he was one of the best “clubhouse” guys ever after overcoming his personal demon early in his career…..which should be a plus …not a minus

  70. 70: chuck said at 1:53 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    @Mike

    If you say no to Maz then i can only assume that you disapprove of Ozzies election to the hall….yes? You should also disapprove of B Robby at 3rd as well ……all three are mediocre bats and are regarded as the quintessential defenders at their respective positions………I personally think they all belong ……but I am trying to understand your criteria!!!

  71. 71: Grrbear said at 1:58 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    “However, saying that makes up for their offensive differences is roughly like saying you’d rather have Juan Pierre on your team than Babe Ruth.”

    That’s a bit harsh. As others have pointed out, it was probably easier to dominate in Hornsby’s time, and while it is very likely that he would dominate now or in the seventies, I would think the gap would be narrower. I just think it’s telling that the Cardinals, Giants, and Braves all decided that it wasn’t worth having the league’s best hitter on their team. One team, maybe that’s a mistake. Two teams, a fluke. Three teams, yeah, I’m thinking that’s a trend. You have to be a stunning d!ck to alienate that many people so quickly.

    I’d rather have Morgan or Collins or Lajoie. Nobody knows what chemistry is worth, and while I’m sure Hornsby’s offensive value outweighs his negative chemistry, I’d take my chances with the other guys.

  72. 72: Owen said at 2:29 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    My mental picture of the Hall of Fame has become more like a line than a place or an institution.

  73. 73: Pat said at 2:36 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    Lest we forget how much Fenway helped Rice, his career road slash line: .277/.330/.459. Yuck

    Incidentally, Ron Santo road line is .257/.342/.406. I respect a lot of his supporters, but it’s hard to argue that Wrigley inflated his stats.

  74. 74: Justin said at 3:12 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    I think Trammell was hurt almost as much by A-Rod/Nomar/Jeter as by Ripken/Yount. By the time he was eligible for the Hall, the SS position had changed. While some of the voters obviously remembered his greatness in the era in which he played, others probably looked at his numbers at least somewhat through the lens of the bumper crop of shortstops at the time.

    When Trammell first appeared on the ballot (in 2002), Nomah had won two batting titles, Jeter had won a RoY and amassed piles of hits (and was credited with single-handedly winning four rings) and A-Rod had put up some absolute monster seasons. In that light, all of a sudden, a guy who could routinely put up a .300 average with 15 HR and 65 RBI (and let’s be honest, in those days it was rare to find BBWAA voters who looked far beyond those stats) didn’t appear to have as much of a sheen on him.

  75. 75: Creston said at 3:21 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    And, looking back, it just seems a whole lot simpler than that

    It IS a whole lot simpler than that.

    - Do you “strike a Hall of Fame” pose in your first five or six seasons to a BBWAA writer? You’re in.

    - When a BBWAA writer “looks you in the eye”, does he see the soul of a Hall of Famer? You’re in.

    - Have many, many BBWAA writers waxed poetically about just how gritty and hard nosed you played baseball? You’re in. (Unless you bet on baseball.)

    That’s it. So make sure to hustle, look mean and strike a pose during your pre-arbitration years. Anything else is redundant.

    Oh, and make sure to have lots and lots and lots of people argue endlessly about how you were “feared” and nobody “played the game harder” and how all your many weaknesses were just “products of the age” so that when you don’t go in on the first fourteen ballots, you somehow become a Hall of Famer by the 15th.

    The BBWAA : Proudly continuing stupidity.

  76. 76: Justin said at 3:24 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    To Brent,

    I agree that catcher defense is important, but how do you define it? More than anything else, it seems as though that’s something requiring some subjectivity. Catcher ERA and, to a certain degree, caught stealing percentage rely on the pitchers. That’s particularly true about the former now that managers/bench coaches tend to call the pitch sequences. Things like range are less important than virtually anywhere else on the diamond. Maybe this is just a blind spot in my own knowledge (and there are plenty), but what metrics are out there to measure catcher D?

    I’d be interested in seeing something about the relatively short careers of second basemen. Is playing short really THAT much more demanding than some other positions? Apart from a bit more danger on the DP pivot (your back’s to the runner, after all), I can’t see where the position would be more demanding than shortstop which is, after all, generally considered the position where the better defensive player should play.

    An alternate theory: shortstops tend to have a bit more athleticism than their keystone counterparts and are more likely to be able to shift to second (or third, or elsewhere) as they age and lose some of their natural skill. Second basemen, meanwhile, don’t often have the range or the arm to shift to short (there’s a reason they play where they do), and rarely have the bat to move to a less-demanding position such as first. Just a thought…

    As for Rice’s away splits, where I’m from we have a name for guys who hit like that. We call them Greg Vaughn.

  77. 77: Mark W. said at 3:29 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    @ Brent: Help me with one of your statements/thoughts because I am not at all certain that I agree…You say that defense at 2nd base was less important in 1920s vs. 1975. How is that so? They must have been pretty good defensively 80-85 years ago if they played mostly low scoring games and had only those tiny, pillowlike gloves to catch with…

  78. 78: Brent said at 3:57 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    @Mark W.

    Double plays have gone up a lot since 1920. A second basemen is involved in most Double plays (other than 3-6-3 or 1-6-3, which are rarer than 5-4-3, 6-4-3 or 4-6-3), thus defense at 2B has become more important as the amount of DPs has gone up. Further, I think there is some evidence that 2Bmen at one time had played much closer to the bag than they do now, which would cut down considerably on the number of balls they got to, as opposed to now. I realize this practice probably petered out for the most part by 1920 (as I recall, the reason this has been researched is the inordinate number of put outs Nap Lajoie had as compared to later 2Bmen, and it seems likley that he was taking all the optional put outs at 2nd, maybe to the extent that he got all the throws from all the other infielders at 2nd, even the 1Bman)

    @Justin:

    Well taking the hit at 2B on the pivot is pretty wearing. A 2bman (at least before the Hal McRae rule) has more body to body contact than any player on the field. That has to wear you down (not as much as crouching for 2 hours, or in the case of Carlton Fisk, 3+ hours :) )

    I agree that the inability to shift positions also plays into the shortness of their careers, Carew and Molitor being cases where the players hit enough to move to a less demanding position before they got worn down.

  79. 79: Former Army Person said at 4:06 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    A digression on Brooks Robinson from an Orioles homer.

    Has any HoF player ever had 7 offensive seasons as bad as Brooks’ 1st 4 and last 3? OK in 5 of those years he only played 165 games total, but in ‘58 and ‘75 he was pretty bad offensively and still got 463 and 482 AB while posting OBS+ of 69 and 58. I think it’s pretty telling about his defensive ability that he got so many AB while being so bad offensively.

  80. 80: paul said at 5:54 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    why do you not mention rizzuto, pee wee reese, mazeroski?

    they got in on defense, leadership, etc.

    if they played today, they would compare to david eckstein. is that HOF worthy?

  81. 81: Bill said at 6:27 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    Paul – because none of those guys were voted in by the writers. All VetCom, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

    It’s not fair to compare any of them to Eckstein, either. Except maybe Scooter.

  82. 82: PSU02 said at 7:17 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    It’s crazy to me that Morgan put up those OBP and walk numbers and is such a sacrifice bunt/grit guy as an analyst.

  83. 83: Matt said at 8:05 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    @Don

    Re Randolph vs. White: Randolph’s better. His career OBP was 80 (!) points better than White. Another way to look at it: White’s OPS+ was over 100 (i.e. league average) only two seasons in his entire career, and was 85 for his career. Randolph’s was over 100 thirteen times, and was 104 for his career. That’s a huge difference. Randolph made six all-star games, White five.

    On the defensive side, White was definitely an A, but Randolph was a B-plus or better. Their range factors and DP totals are very comparable. When it comes to White’s Gold Gloves, we all know that once a player breaks through and wins it once he keeps winning it automatically as long as he keeps playing the position and doesn’t obviously drop off (look at the multiple winners on baseballreference.com).

    I don’t see how White’s defense makes up for the very large offensive gap.

  84. 84: David Wintheiser said at 10:01 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    I’m also a Twins fan, and I have to say I’m impressed that Joe is putting on virtual paper an opinion that seems unpopular — that some day, probably some day soon, Kirby Puckett will be considered one of the BBWAA’s worst selections to the Hall.

    At least two commenters in the thread have already posited the popular opinion among Twins fans that Puckett would have easily reached 3000 hits had he not been forced into retirement. I think that’s actually dubious, and can back up my argument by looking at Puckett’s best of-age comps as defined by baseballreference.com:

    1. Al Oliver

    Oliver’s age-35 season was in 1982; he hit .331 that year. He had just 381 hits in the remainder of his career.

    2. Dave Parker

    Parker’s age-35 season was in 1986; he hit .273, but had hit over .300 the year before. He had 688 hits the rest of his career, less than what Puckett needed to get to 3000 (though arguably, being just 8 hits shy probably would not have cost him enshrinement).

    3. Garret Anderson

    Still active; his age-35 season was 2007. Had 163 hits last year, but it’s hard to argue that he’ll stay in the Angel lineup long enough to get the other 533 that Puckett would have needed to reach 3000. If Anderson does reach 3000, it strengthens the argument that Puckett would have, too.

    4. Bernie Williams

    His age-35 season was in 2004; he was retired after two more seasons and 239 hits.

    5. Steve Garvey

    His age-35 season was in 1984, when he hit .284; he hadn’t hit less than .282 since he was 23, and hit .281 in his age-36 season. He was out of baseball after the ‘87 season in which he had just 16 hits (and a total of 342 after age 35).

    6. Cesar Cedeno

    His age-35 season was in 1986, his last in baseball. Zero hits after age 35.

    7. Cecil Cooper

    His age-35 season was in 1985, when he hit .293. He played just two more years, amassing only 202 additional hits.

    8. Jim Bottomley

    The first Hall-of-Famer on this list, Bottomley’s age-35 season was in 1935, when he had an off-season hitting just .258. He rebounded to hit .298 the next season, but was still out of baseball after the 1937 season, collecting only 188 hits after the age of 35.

    9. Joe Medwick

    Another Hall-of-Famer, Medwick’s age-35 season was in 1947 when he hit .307 for the St. Louis Browns. He was out of baseball after the ‘48 season, collecting just 4 more hits in his career.

    10. Roberto Clemente

    Clemente’s age-35 season was in 1970, when he hit .352 while battling injuries. Clemente died after two more seasons, where he collected an additional 296 hits to finish at exactly 3000 for his career — the difference is that Clemente was a full-time player from his age-20 rookie season, while Puckett’s rookie year was during his age-24 season. Clemente would clearly have gotten more hits had he lived to play in 1973 and beyond, but an additional 400 after that, which is what Puckett would have needed to reach 3000, would probably have been a stretch.

    Granted, this comp list doesn’t ‘prove’ that Puckett wouldn’t have reached 3000 hits, but it does point out how ballplayers can age extremely quickly, and in many cases a lot faster than their fans like to imagine. You could argue that Puckett could have played into his 40s like Pete Rose, but that misses the point that Puckett in many ways wasn’t really like Pete Rose, and thus isn’t really comparable to him. He might have hung on as Parker did (and Parker is a much better comp to Puckett than Rose is), but many other players of reasonable pedigree — including some Hall of Famers — didn’t.

    Arguing that Puckett is a Hall of Famer so obviously he would have made the 3000 hit benchmark is simply begging the question.

    For the record, entering Puckett’s numbers into ESPN’s online version of Bill James’s Favorite Toy (again not conclusive, but a useful data point) estimates Puckett’s career hits at approximately 2869 (actually 2868.3, but I’ll round up), with a less than one in three chance of reaching 3000. So, no, not obvious at all. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/assessments?age=35&careerTotal=2304&position=other&y3=169&y2=139&y1=184&goalTotal=3000)

  85. 85: gogiggs said at 10:29 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    I feel a need to mention the most important point of all regarding Puckett and 3,000 hits: it didn’t happen!

    We can speculate all day about how likely he was to have gotten 3,000 hits in some alternate reality where he kept playing, but we don’t live in that reality. We live here, where Puckett didn’t get 3,000 hits, Albert Belle didn’t stay healthy enough to get to 500 HRs, Bert Blyleven didn’t play on enough good teams to win 300, Eric Davis and Pete Reiser didn’t slow down just enough not to destroy their bodies with their headlong styles of play, Herb Score didn’t turn out to be the greatest left-hander ever and so on and on.

  86. 86: Matt said at 10:56 pm on December 18th, 2008:

    re: David Wintheiser

    David, good post. But there’s one problem with your Favorite Toy calculation for Puckett: the 1994 strike artificially reduces his projected hit level. Puckett was averaging 1.23 hits / game (139 hits /113 team games) when the strike hit; project that out to 162 games, that gives him 199 hits for the 1994 season rather than 139. The whole point of the favorite toy formula is to estimate established ability level to project the future; Puckett losing hits to the strike has no bearing on that.

    If you plug those numbers into Favorite Toy, that gives him projected 2939 hits, and a 41 percent chance for 3000.

    Actually, you should even reasonably give him some hits for the 18 games lost in 1995 to the strike. Using the same formula based on his 1995 numbers (169/144 * 18) adds 21 hits. Putting that into the Favorite Toy formula leads to: 2951 hits and 43 percent.

    Beyond that, what strikes me about Puckett compared to his comps is just how close he was to his peak ability at age 35 when he was hit with glaucoma. Except for Al Oliver, who no one would consider athletic, most of those comps were already markedly in decline at 35. Puckett, by contrast, had numbers in 1994 and 1995 actually a little bit better than his career numbers. I think it’s more likely he would have continued to age very well.

    Yes, it’s worth repeating that you can’t assume a player’s performance. To me the clinching point of his HOF argument was that he was a top 10 MVP guy in 7 different seasons, and I do think there’s a legitimate difference in consideration between disease and injury.

  87. 87: Link Love: Corruption, Ponzi Schemes, Holiday Shoppers (…we’re still talking about baseball, right?) | umpbump.com said at 3:09 am on December 19th, 2008:

    [...] Joe Posnanski takes a look at the Hall of Fame ballot and handicaps who’ll get in — and thinks Jim Rice will make it this time (even though Posnanski himself won’t be voting for him). [...]

  88. 88: Mike S said at 12:10 pm on December 19th, 2008:

    Ozzie Smith and Brooks Robinson are definitely questionable, and I can see the argument for keeping them in or leaving them out. However, I think that it’s a little too easy to merely throw them together with the likes of Frank White and Bill Mazeroski.

    For the sake of a quick comparison, let’s take the four guys in question and Omar Vizquel:

    Seasons with OPS+ over 100

    Brooks Robinson 10, Ozzie Smith 4, Frank White 3, Omar Vizquel 2, Bill Mazeroski 0

    Career OPS+

    B.Robinson 104, O.Smith 87, F.White 85, Mazeroski 84, Vizquel 83

    Career OBP

    Vizquel .338, O.Smith .337, B.Robinson .322, Mazeroski .299, F.White .293

    Neutralized OBP

    O.Smith .361, Vizquel .338, B.Robinson .333, Mazeroski .303, F.White .296

    When it comes to not making outs, Maz and White are beyond abysmal even when you take into account era and ballpark. Vizquel, well, he’s just not a good hitter and if his counting stats weren’t inflated from playing Cleveland, I don’t think that he’d even be in the discussion for the Hall. Ozzie’s OBP in relation to the 1980’s and Brooks’ power, to me, help make them viable when you factor in the defense. I can’t say that about the other three.

  89. 89: ESS said at 4:22 pm on December 19th, 2008:

    “Frank White was the best second baseman in the American League? After Willie Randolph and Bobby Grich, you mean, right? Surely after those two…oh, wait, and Lou Whitaker.”

    I might give you Whitaker. But Randolph and Grich? Grich was an extremely solid consistent player. Randolph was good, but he benefited greatly from the players around them. If he wasn’t a Yankee he’s not even in the discussion.

    I think Frank White gets discredited most because of his superior athletic ability. I still have yet to see a second baseman with anything close to his range and quickness. And because of that he was able to get to a lot of balls without having to make an acrobatic play, ala Ozzie Smith. Much like Amos Otis he was overlooked because he made the game look to easy.

  90. 90: SoCalTwinsfan said at 10:27 pm on December 19th, 2008:

    Likeable? Really?

    Calling Kirby Puckett likeable is like calling Albert Belle cranky (unlikeable?). Kirby was as beloved by fans throughout baseball, not just Twins fans, as Belle was reviled. This was his biggest intangible. That gets lost somewhat with the passage of time and the revealing of his private life in later years, but there certainly is little reason to keep Kirby out of the Hall.

    Kirby was even beloved by fellow players. He routinely held court at All-Star Game throughout his career and did the same with Hall of Fame players each year after his election.

    The only real argument against Kirby’s induction is that his career counting stats weren’t good enough. But during his shortened career, he was a great offensive and defensive player, a great leader on and off the field, and was great in big games and was the unquestioned star everyday player for two World Series champions (for a team with only two WS champions in its history) and had one of the most famous games in World Series history.

    Personally, I would rather let in great players with short careers in the Hall than just good players with long careers in the Hall.

  91. 91: Michael Blaine said at 10:53 am on December 20th, 2008:

    Joe:

    I need to take severe exception to your calling into question Kirby Puckett’s HoF credentials over at cnnsi.com!

    Kirby reached 2,000 hits at the second fastest pace in history; he hit for power, average, and stole bases; his 1988 season was one of the best of all time; his lifetime BA – .318 – was extraordinarily high; he won six Gold Gloves in centerfield; AND, he led his (small-market) team to two highly improbable World Series victories in five years

    On top of all that, he was so charismatic and lovable that he was the de facto King of Minnesota.

    Kirby Puckett absolutely deserves to be in the HoF.

    How dare you impugn him! Trust me, Bernie Williams was a very good player — but he was no Kirby, not by a long shot.

    –A Minnesota Native

  92. 92: Michael Blaine said at 11:07 am on December 20th, 2008:

    I’d like to add that I did meet Kirby in person, once, after his career had ended.

    He was coming up the sidewalk, while my son and I were walking down it.

    As we approached, my nine-year-old son said, “Hi.” Kirby responded by saying, “How ya doin’, man?” and gave an almost imperceptible smile.

    The vast quantity of grace, charm and humility that Kirby exuded in that briefest of exchanges was unforgettable.

  93. 93: Frank Ponzi, Jr said at 7:01 pm on December 20th, 2008:

    >>>The vast quantity of grace, charm and humility that Kirby exuded in that briefest of exchanges was unforgettable.

    Nor was his grabbing a woman and dragging her into a restroom to feel her up. or threatening to kill his wife.

    Not that I would consider any of it in a HOF vote.

  94. 94: Aaron B-2 said at 10:16 pm on December 20th, 2008:

    Joe, I didn’t grow up in Boston, I’ve never been a member of Red Sox Nation, I was a National Leaguer all the way growing up … and yet there is something that rings false about your decision not to vote for Jim Rice.

    If you will feel happy on the day he is elected to the HOF, then you will feel kind of like a dope on the day AFTER he is elected to the HOF.

    I’m just sayin’.

  95. 95: Michael Blaine said at 11:34 am on December 21st, 2008:

    “Nor was his grabbing a woman and dragging her into a restroom to feel her up. or threatening to kill his wife.”

    I think Kirby cracked under the stress of losing his vision and his baseball career early; he had grown up in the public housing projects of Chicago and had spent his entire adult life playing baseball; I think he imploded psychologically; I think he deserves sympathy.

  96. 96: Bill said at 9:47 am on December 22nd, 2008:

    Frank White gets “discredited” because he couldn’t hit at all. He’s not in the same league as Whitaker, Randolph or Grich, who were a notch below (but still very good) defensively but weren’t hopeless out machines.

  97. 97: MikeD said at 10:57 pm on December 22nd, 2008:

    The Puckett/Mattingly comparison has always been an interesting one, but to me it’s less about why Mattingly should be in the Hall as why Puckett probably shouldn’t be in the Hall. Puckett was admitted because voters “projected” what they thought he might have done if not for his injury (and while it was an odd injury, it was an injury). People believed he would have achieved 3,000 hits. Yet why don’t they use that same projection for Mattingly? If Mattingly hadn’t injured his back, he also would have achieved 3,000 hits. That’s why projecting is not something a HOF voter should ever use.

  98. 98: Richard Aronson said at 6:08 pm on December 26th, 2008:

    Typo time (and only because in an earlier post you suggested you appreciated clear cut clean ups as opposed to half assed opinions without backup). In Joe Morgan, balot needs another l.

    As for the rest of the post, of the batters not in the HOF who have had their chance to get elected (i.e. not Rickey) I’d go with Tim Raines as being most deserving.

    As for Jim Lefebvre and his ROY, remember, the Dodgers won 97 games (and eventually the World Series) and he played 157 of them at an important defensive position. He led the team in home runs. Nobody on the team slugged .400 (okay, Drysdale did, but none of the hitters did), and nobody got on base at .375, and yet they won it all. So I imagine Lefebvre got some ROY votes based on arguably being the most valuable hitter on the pennant winner, jobbing Joe Morgan. It’s worth noting that Lefebvre’s sophomore season was far better for another pennant winner: 24 homers, .460 slugging, OPS+ of 126, and even some MVP votes. And that was effectively it for him; four average years, two mediocre years, and gone. One of the wonders of baseball is how somebody peaks at age 24.

  99. 99: Richard Aronson said at 6:30 pm on December 26th, 2008:

    And since it came up in the HOF discussion, how’s this for career splits:
    Home, .294/.364/.515/.880, 195 HR, 132 Doubles.
    Away: .320/.388/.572/.960, 232 HR, 212 Doubles.

    And, just for fun, in Colorado: .374/.421/.695/1.115, 1 HR every 3 games. Take that, Larry Walker!
    The player will be voted on for HOF soon: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=piazzmi01 and I’ve long held that the worst decision made by a free agent ever was Piazza’s signing the long term contract with the Mets. At the time, his batting average in Colorado was over .400. I contend he should have gone to the Rockies on a two year contract for less than going rate, earned his two MVPs, and squashed forever the arguments about whether or not he is a HOF caliber catcher and the best hitting catcher of all time.
    And that’s why Jim Rice does not deserve consideration for the HOF. Piazza has better road splits than Rice’s home splits, better home splits than Rice’s road splits, played half his games in ball parks that cost him 80 points off his OPS instead of playing half his games in a ballpark that earned him 131 points of OPS, and played catcher instead of left field. And some folks have said publicly that Piazza won’t get their HOF votes. Well, if Piazza’s not a complete and total lock, Rice doesn’t deserve to get in.

    And since I’m ranting, there *is* a good way to use Catcher’s ERA independently of the pitchers throwing the ball. Simply compare CERA to team ERA. Parrish, for example, had a great rep with the Detroit teams, but IIRC he consistently had a CERA worse than the team ERA. Piazza’s CERA was consistently better than his team’s ERA, even with his weak arm. Calling a great game does not get adequate credit because it’s so hard to find, but Piazza has that going for him as well.

  100. 100: AaronB said at 11:28 am on December 29th, 2008:

    On Hornsby Vs Morgan…

    Hornsby, remember, he did play 10 + years for the Cardinals, and actually came back to the Cards at the end of his career for a cup of coffee, leaving them ultimately for a managers spot with the Browns.

    Early in his career he played several positions before ending up at 2cd. There’s no doubting his reputation, but if it was as bad as we’re making it out to be, I think Branch Rickey would have dealt him much earlier, and he had chances to do that.

    He got traded in part because in 1926, while he guided the Cards to their 1st WS title, he had a down year at the plate. That, coupled with Rickey’s notorious dumping of players while their value was high, and the fact that he wasn’t the easiest player to get along with all contributed to the trade.

    It did not go over well, but the Cards did turn it into Frankie Frisch, who also should be in this discussion as one of the best 2B ever to play the game.

Leave a Reply