Comments on: The Hall of Fame Roundup http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/ Curiously Long Posts Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:46:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Quick shots on the HOF | It's About The Money http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-96810 Quick shots on the HOF | It's About The Money Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:52:53 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-96810 [...] A couple of things from Joe Posnanski: Greg Maddux. That’s my next choice for unanimous. I simply cannot imagine how ANYONE will be able to vote against Greg Maddux. He has the core accomplishments – 355 wins, four Cy Young awards, 3,371 strikeouts, a terrific (for his time) 3.16 ERA. He has the intangibles – everyone loves what Maddux represented on the mound, and he seems utterly unblemished by scandal (with Maddux there never even seemed a motive for him to use steroids). His Hall of Fame call is five years away, but I’m already making the prediction: Greg Maddux will finish with the highest percentage in baseball history. And he has a shot at unanimous – I say he gets within five votes of unanimous.[...][Robbie] Alomar is a 10-time Gold Glove second baseman with a .300 lifetime batting average – he scored a monstrous 193.5 on the Hall of Fame Monitor (100 is a likely Hall of Famer). I’m not saying these are the numbers that make him Hall of Fame worthy – you know how about I feel about Gold Gloves and batting average. Alomar has all sorts of great statistics. No, what I’m saying is, there’s no way a 10-time Gold Glove second baseman who hit .300 for his career is not a slam-dunk Hall of Famer.[...]So, let me kickoff the new “Project Shutout” by putting it this way: [...] [...] A couple of things from Joe Posnanski: Greg Maddux. That’s my next choice for unanimous. I simply cannot imagine how ANYONE will be able to vote against Greg Maddux. He has the core accomplishments – 355 wins, four Cy Young awards, 3,371 strikeouts, a terrific (for his time) 3.16 ERA. He has the intangibles – everyone loves what Maddux represented on the mound, and he seems utterly unblemished by scandal (with Maddux there never even seemed a motive for him to use steroids). His Hall of Fame call is five years away, but I’m already making the prediction: Greg Maddux will finish with the highest percentage in baseball history. And he has a shot at unanimous – I say he gets within five votes of unanimous.[...][Robbie] Alomar is a 10-time Gold Glove second baseman with a .300 lifetime batting average – he scored a monstrous 193.5 on the Hall of Fame Monitor (100 is a likely Hall of Famer). I’m not saying these are the numbers that make him Hall of Fame worthy – you know how about I feel about Gold Gloves and batting average. Alomar has all sorts of great statistics. No, what I’m saying is, there’s no way a 10-time Gold Glove second baseman who hit .300 for his career is not a slam-dunk Hall of Famer.[...]So, let me kickoff the new “Project Shutout” by putting it this way: [...]

]]> By: chuck http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-49186 chuck Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:50:03 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-49186 Norman Shatkin (#155) You make a compelling argument for Jackson's expulsion from baseball as well his exclusion from the HOF.....if your presentation of facts is accurate. I do not share your views of the facts. It is also worthy of note that you predicate all your conclusions on "baseball law" at that time. I have spent a couple of hours searching for any citation of baseball laws as of 1919 without success ....advise if you are so inclined 1) Fact: Jackson spent the last 26 years of his life in absolute denial of the following: any participation in any manner of "the fix", any certain knowledge of "the fix" prior to or during the series, ever accepting any money for participation in "the fix". Not one of the others involved, in any way, ever indicated otherwise after 1924. 2) In support of Jackson's character and propensity for truthfulness see legendary sportswriter Furman Bisher's interview originally published in "Sport" magazine in 1949:http://www.blackbetsy.com/jjtruth.htm It is worth noting that he, unlike Rose, though clearly lied to by Landis, never whined nor solicited baseball for reinstatement. He moved on with his life and lived it as the man of character that I believe he was. Regarding the HOF and steroid era considerations. Your presentation is very reasoned and logical. The GIANT FLAW is that as reasoned and logical as it is it allows for presumptions, conjecture and arbitrary conclusions about who did what when. That flaw is what will haunt the sportwriting community for decades, and I believe, mandates the culpable trio of management, labor, and the writers to come together and iron out an "agreement for consideration" for future HOF eligibility. Such an agreement would alleviate all the "I think he did XX" from the writers slate. Clearly, allowing the fox (canseco) to guard the henhouse is an embarrassment to the game. The alterative is to suspect all....As a comparison....While football players were notable abusers of PED's, uppers, and all kinds of pain killers (as far back as the 60's with absolute certainty) they never ran afoul in HOF issues because they reached a common ground of agreement which all could embrace. Baseball needs to follow that model Norman Shatkin (#155)

You make a compelling argument for Jackson’s expulsion from baseball as well his exclusion from the HOF…..if your presentation of facts is accurate. I do not share your views of the facts. It is also worthy of note that you predicate all your conclusions on “baseball law” at that time. I have spent a couple of hours searching for any citation of baseball laws as of 1919 without success ….advise if you are so inclined

1) Fact: Jackson spent the last 26 years of his life in absolute denial of the following: any participation in any manner of “the fix”, any certain knowledge of “the fix” prior to or during the series, ever accepting any money for participation in “the fix”. Not one of the others involved, in any way, ever indicated otherwise after 1924.

2) In support of Jackson’s character and propensity for truthfulness see legendary sportswriter Furman Bisher’s interview originally published in “Sport” magazine in 1949:http://www.blackbetsy.com/jjtruth.htm It is worth noting that he, unlike Rose, though clearly lied to by Landis, never whined nor solicited baseball for reinstatement. He moved on with his life and lived it as the man of character that I believe he was.

Regarding the HOF and steroid era considerations. Your presentation is very reasoned and logical. The GIANT FLAW is that as reasoned and logical as it is it allows for presumptions, conjecture and arbitrary conclusions about who did what when. That flaw is what will haunt the sportwriting community for decades, and I believe, mandates the culpable trio of management, labor, and the writers to come together and iron out an “agreement for consideration” for future HOF eligibility. Such an agreement would alleviate all the “I think he did XX” from the writers slate. Clearly, allowing the fox (canseco) to guard the henhouse is an embarrassment to the game.

The alterative is to suspect all….As a comparison….While football players were notable abusers of PED’s, uppers, and all kinds of pain killers (as far back as the 60’s with absolute certainty) they never ran afoul in HOF issues because they reached a common ground of agreement which all could embrace. Baseball needs to follow that model

]]> By: mike http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48894 mike Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:26:55 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48894 Comparing pre and post 1993 numbers is a joke and this is where sabremetrics have completely failed. It was a completely different game before questec, PED's, lively balls, expansion diluted pitching, smaller parks, battle armour that hitters are allowed to wear now, new rules about beanballs, improvements in technology (maple bats), improvements in medicine (Lasic surgery, contacts, tommy John surgery) and increased emphasis on OBP (just look at the top 25% of OBP seasons for each year from 1965-2008 and it's quite striking). Here's Goose Gossage on the point: "I was so happy [Jim Rice was elected to the Hall of Fame]," said Gossage. "We were rivals. I wasn't scared of anyone, but he came the closest of any hitter I ever faced. I respected him so much as a player. I know we had looked forward to going in together last year, but he's one of us now. The game was different when we played because pitchers owned the inside part of the plate. If Jim played in this era, he'd be Manny Ramírez." Here's hoping that Blyleven, the Hawk and Raines get in. Love Tommy John but he needs to go commiserate with Jim Kaat. Concepcion was a fine player, but take him off the turf and his defense suffers. He'd water down the HOF far more than Tony Perez ever did. Trammell belongs in the Hall of Very Good alongside Dwight Evans. Both very good all around consistent players who had fleeting periods of greatness (how many 30+ HR seasons did Dewey have)? In Dewey's case he had a 7-10 year period of offensive mediocrity to start his career. Think Dick Allen deserves in. Tired of the Bobby Bonds argument - his average numbers are good, but the guy was not the best of teammates and he struck out at rates equal to or worse than Adam Dunn. Jack Morris was a good pitcher, a consumate warrior whose numbers are watered down by the amount of pitches and innings he threw. But enough drooling over his postseason numbers - they're not overwhelming and there are plenty of guys who missed the HOF who had better postseason numbers (Luis Tiant anyone?). Comparing pre and post 1993 numbers is a joke and this is where sabremetrics have completely failed. It was a completely different game before questec, PED’s, lively balls, expansion diluted pitching, smaller parks, battle armour that hitters are allowed to wear now, new rules about beanballs, improvements in technology (maple bats), improvements in medicine (Lasic surgery, contacts, tommy John surgery) and increased emphasis on OBP (just look at the top 25% of OBP seasons for each year from 1965-2008 and it’s quite striking).

Here’s Goose Gossage on the point:

“I was so happy [Jim Rice was elected to the Hall of Fame],” said Gossage. “We were rivals. I wasn’t scared of anyone, but he came the closest of any hitter I ever faced. I respected him so much as a player. I know we had looked forward to going in together last year, but he’s one of us now. The game was different when we played because pitchers owned the inside part of the plate. If Jim played in this era, he’d be Manny Ramírez.”

Here’s hoping that Blyleven, the Hawk and Raines get in. Love Tommy John but he needs to go commiserate with Jim Kaat. Concepcion was a fine player, but take him off the turf and his defense suffers. He’d water down the HOF far more than Tony Perez ever did. Trammell belongs in the Hall of Very Good alongside Dwight Evans. Both very good all around consistent players who had fleeting periods of greatness (how many 30+ HR seasons did Dewey have)? In Dewey’s case he had a 7-10 year period of offensive mediocrity to start his career. Think Dick Allen deserves in. Tired of the Bobby Bonds argument – his average numbers are good, but the guy was not the best of teammates and he struck out at rates equal to or worse than Adam Dunn.

Jack Morris was a good pitcher, a consumate warrior whose numbers are watered down by the amount of pitches and innings he threw. But enough drooling over his postseason numbers – they’re not overwhelming and there are plenty of guys who missed the HOF who had better postseason numbers (Luis Tiant anyone?).

]]> By: David in Toledo http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48819 David in Toledo Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:51:22 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48819 Tom and Wally, further in Larkin's favor (re Sandberg, whom I think deserving) is that shortstop is tougher to play than 2nd. And the stupid artificial turf in Cincinnati had to have taken a toll on Larkin, just as the argument is always made about Andre Dawson and his concrete-field knees. And plate appearances are a better metric than at-bats. Tom and Wally, further in Larkin’s favor (re Sandberg, whom I think deserving) is that shortstop is tougher to play than 2nd. And the stupid artificial turf in Cincinnati had to have taken a toll on Larkin, just as the argument is always made about Andre Dawson and his concrete-field knees. And plate appearances are a better metric than at-bats.

]]> By: Wally http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48794 Wally Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:25:34 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48794 Tom, that 150 game cut off really misrepressents your point, particularly sense 2 of Larken's prime years were cut short by the strike. In 1994 Larkin played 110 games, 4 less than the maximum. In 1995 Larkin played 131 games (and had 496 ABs, 4 less than your AB cut off), 13 games less than the maximum, which is still just over 90% of the baseball games. Larken also had 2 more seasons with 145 games, and one season with 140 games. That's 9 seasons where he plays at least 85% of the games. And injuries really only seriously effected his playing time in 3 of his prime years. Late in his career he couldn't stay on the field that well. I'll give you that. But we really should consider what he did while he was on the field and weigh that considering his playing time. For example, Larkin played nearly exactly the same amount of games as Sandberg, it just took him an extra couple seasons to get there. Mean while, Larkin's rate stats are better, though only slightly. Tom, that 150 game cut off really misrepressents your point, particularly sense 2 of Larken’s prime years were cut short by the strike. In 1994 Larkin played 110 games, 4 less than the maximum. In 1995 Larkin played 131 games (and had 496 ABs, 4 less than your AB cut off), 13 games less than the maximum, which is still just over 90% of the baseball games. Larken also had 2 more seasons with 145 games, and one season with 140 games. That’s 9 seasons where he plays at least 85% of the games. And injuries really only seriously effected his playing time in 3 of his prime years. Late in his career he couldn’t stay on the field that well. I’ll give you that. But we really should consider what he did while he was on the field and weigh that considering his playing time. For example, Larkin played nearly exactly the same amount of games as Sandberg, it just took him an extra couple seasons to get there. Mean while, Larkin’s rate stats are better, though only slightly.

]]> By: Tom http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48778 Tom Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:53:02 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48778 The idea of Barry Larkin being a complete player baffles me, since he lacked the single most important ability of all for an athlete: durability. He played 150 games in a season just four times in his career, got 500 AB in a season just seven times. Not so good for a Hall-of-Famer. Larkin was great when he played. But Cincinnati always needed a Plan B at shortstop. The idea of Barry Larkin being a complete player baffles me, since he lacked the single most important ability of all for an athlete: durability. He played 150 games in a season just four times in his career, got 500 AB in a season just seven times. Not so good for a Hall-of-Famer.

Larkin was great when he played. But Cincinnati always needed a Plan B at shortstop.

]]> By: Wally http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48765 Wally Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:28:35 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48765 Wow, ok, insert "think" as the second word in my pervious post....sometimes.... Wow, ok, insert “think” as the second word in my pervious post….sometimes….

]]> By: Wally http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48763 Wally Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:27:28 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48763 I the writer's bias is more towards good teams. Great players on bad or average teams get ignored. For example, how often do we see the line of "how many HOFers can there be from a team that never won anything?" You here that from a lot of people when discussing Santo, for example. Then of course, certain types of players just end up ignored. If you can't accumulate wins as a pitcher (often because of bad teams, but also because of bad luck with RS or the bullpen, look at the 2002 and 2003 AL Cy Young voting for example), you get ignored. Apparently if you are an infielder that does everything very good, but are not particularly GREAT at one thing, you get ignored (ie. Trammell, Santo again, Whitaker, Keith Hernandez). Writers need something to latch on to. Something catchy. Like most feared, or best leadoff hitter ever, lead the league in A, B and C for X years, 3000 hits, 300 wins. Or Rollins with being the second guy sense Mays to get 20-20-20-20. Its all combinations of this kind of thing. So, if you are someone like Santo who didn't win MVPs, never reached 3000 hits, but played great D, had a very good bat, and weren't on many good teams, you get ignored. Blyleven is just the latest perfect storm of these factors. He largely played for poor teams (people forget about those two WS teams for some reason), never reached 300 wins, didn't win Cy Young or ever come close, 3000Ks for reason doesn't matter, and he doesn't have this "lead the league in A, B, and C for X years" thing building. So yes, in short, writers are stupid. They are like moths that fly to the flame of these catchy, but extremely simplistic arguments. I the writer’s bias is more towards good teams. Great players on bad or average teams get ignored. For example, how often do we see the line of “how many HOFers can there be from a team that never won anything?” You here that from a lot of people when discussing Santo, for example. Then of course, certain types of players just end up ignored. If you can’t accumulate wins as a pitcher (often because of bad teams, but also because of bad luck with RS or the bullpen, look at the 2002 and 2003 AL Cy Young voting for example), you get ignored. Apparently if you are an infielder that does everything very good, but are not particularly GREAT at one thing, you get ignored (ie. Trammell, Santo again, Whitaker, Keith Hernandez). Writers need something to latch on to. Something catchy. Like most feared, or best leadoff hitter ever, lead the league in A, B and C for X years, 3000 hits, 300 wins. Or Rollins with being the second guy sense Mays to get 20-20-20-20. Its all combinations of this kind of thing. So, if you are someone like Santo who didn’t win MVPs, never reached 3000 hits, but played great D, had a very good bat, and weren’t on many good teams, you get ignored. Blyleven is just the latest perfect storm of these factors. He largely played for poor teams (people forget about those two WS teams for some reason), never reached 300 wins, didn’t win Cy Young or ever come close, 3000Ks for reason doesn’t matter, and he doesn’t have this “lead the league in A, B, and C for X years” thing building.

So yes, in short, writers are stupid. They are like moths that fly to the flame of these catchy, but extremely simplistic arguments.

]]> By: astorian http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48748 astorian Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:37:48 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48748 Look, I AGREE that Bert Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame. But the idea that he's beiung kept out because he played for "small market" teams is absurd. The New York Mets are a "big market" team, right? Since the Mets played their first game, in 1962, they've amassed four Cy Young awards. EXACTLY the same number won by the "small market" Minnesota Twins. Heck, the oronto Blue Jays have reaped as many Cy Young awards as the Mets- why doesn't anybody accuse the writers of a bias in favor of Canadians teams? How many Cy Young Awards have gone to "big market" New York Yankees pitchers? Five. EXACTLY the same number the "small market" Oakland Athletics have collected. There is absolutely NO "big market" bias in baseball's major awards, and there's no "big market" bias in the Hall of Fame voting. Oh, there's plenty of dumb, misguided voting, but that's a completely different issue. Look, I AGREE that Bert Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Fame. But the idea that he’s beiung kept out because he played for “small market” teams is absurd.

The New York Mets are a “big market” team, right? Since the Mets played their first game, in 1962, they’ve amassed four Cy Young awards. EXACTLY the same number won by the “small market” Minnesota Twins. Heck, the oronto Blue Jays have reaped as many Cy Young awards as the Mets- why doesn’t anybody accuse the writers of a bias in favor of Canadians teams?

How many Cy Young Awards have gone to “big market” New York Yankees pitchers? Five. EXACTLY the same number the “small market” Oakland Athletics have collected.

There is absolutely NO “big market” bias in baseball’s major awards, and there’s no “big market” bias in the Hall of Fame voting.

Oh, there’s plenty of dumb, misguided voting, but that’s a completely different issue.

]]> By: YankeesVine » Blog Archive » Dave Parker (81 votes, 15%) Don Mattingly (64 votes, 11.9%) Dale Murphy (62 votes, 11.5%) Jim… http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48683 YankeesVine » Blog Archive » Dave Parker (81 votes, 15%) Don Mattingly (64 votes, 11.9%) Dale Murphy (62 votes, 11.5%) Jim… Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:37:01 +0000 http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/01/13/the-hall-of-fame-roundup/#comment-48683 [...] Joe Poz [...] [...] Joe Poz [...]

]]>