The Last Hall of Fame Post (For A While)
Posted: January 18th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 81 Comments »
OK, so I was thinking that maybe we make this Hall of Fame stuff too complicated …
Look: According to the remarkable Baseball Reference Play Index, there are 158 players in baseball history who have had 8,500 or more plate appearances in their career. I realize that’s an arbitrary cutoff … but this is an arbitrary exercise. Anyway, that’s all — only 158 players since 1901 who have had as many as 8,500 plate appearances in their careers.
We can shave that number down a bit too. Seventeen of those players are active — or at least semi-active like Barry Bonds. So, for the point of this discussion, let’s discount those. We are now down to 141 players since 1901 who have 8,500 plate appearances or more.
OK, one more paring down. Sixteen more of those players retired in the last four years … which would not make them Hall of Fame eligible yet. So now, we are down to our list … 125 eligible Hall of Fame candidates who have had 8,500 plate appearances or more.
Do you know how many of the 125 at in the Hall of Fame now? Sixty-seven of them. That’s 54%.
So, basically, if you are good enough to to get 8,500 plate appearances in the Big Leagues, historically, you have a better than 50-50 shot of getting into the Hall of Fame.
Here’s a little chart to give you an idea how this works-
3,000-5,000 plate appearances: 622 players, 1 Hall of Famer. Hall of Fame chances: .16% (Roy Campanella is the only player with this few plate appearances in the Hall of Fame, not counting those who got into the Hall of Fame as managers or those who played before 1901. Several Negro Leaguers have gone into the Hall with fewer than 3,000 plate appearances including Monte Irvin and Willard Brown).
5,000 plate appearances: 653 players, 122 Hall of Famers. Hall of Fame chances: 18.6%
7,000 plate appearances: 284 players, 98 Hall of Famers. Hall of Fame chances: 35%.
7,500 plate appearances: 225 players, 87 Hall of Famers. Hall of Fame chances: 39%
8,000 plate appearances: 183 players, 83 Hall of Famers. Hall of Fame chances: 45%
8,500 plate appearances: 125 players, 67 Hall of Famers. Hall of Fame chances: 54%
9,000 plate appearances: 102 players, 64 Hall of Famers. Hall of Fame chances: 63%
9,500 plate appearances: 78 players, 55 Hall of Famers, Hall of Fame chances: 71%
10,000 plate appearances: 55 players, 43 Hall of Famers, Hall of Fame chances: 78%
10,500 plate appearances: 37 players, 31 Hall of Famers, Hall of Fame chances: 84%
11,000 plate appearances: 26 players, 23 Hall of Fames, Hall of Fame chances: 88%
The three eligible players who had 11,000 plate appearances but have not made the Hall are Pete Rose (of course), Harold Baines and Rusty Staub.
If you go back to 10,500 plate appearances, the six who are not in the Hall are Rose, Baines, Staub and then Andre Dawson (who will probably get in soon), Dewey Evans and Darrell Evans.
Now, this is not perfectly accurate … a handful of the Hall of Famers, on the low end of the plate-appearance scale, got in for something other than their play in the big leagues. Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby got in for being greats players AND for being pioneers. And obviously several of those Hall of Famers had some of their prime years taken way because of World War II. So the percentages of making the Hall of Fame if you get 4,000 plate appearances are really quite a bit less than 18.6% …
Still, this gives you a pretty decent idea about how the Hall of Fame works. The truth is, the more plate appearances you get, for all the obvious reasons, the more likely you will be inducted into the Hall of Fame. And the most obvious of those reasons is that, in the end, writers do not choose who goes into the Hall of Fame, not really.
Yes, the writers chose Kirby Puckett (7,831 plate appearances) based on various factors including the fact that his career was cut short and he may very well have reached 3,000 hits if it had not been for his eye problems.
They chose Joe DiMaggio(7,671 Pas) and Hank Greenberg (6,096 PAs) and Johnny Mize (7,371 PAs)* and numerous others who had their careers interrupted by World War II.
*Brilliant reader Andy points out that the writers did not actually vote in Mize … and he’s absolutely correct. He went in via veteran’s committee.
They chose Ralph Kiner (6,256 PAs) after much handwringing because he so dominated his short time.
But mostly, when it comes to who is going to the Hall of Fame, it is managers who choose. Opposing pitchers choose (and we could do the same thing here for pitchers). Time chooses. The GAME chooses. The players who can endure, who are good enough and respected enough to stay in the lineup, who punch up the numbers for 14, 15, 17, 20 full seasons, those players, more often than not, will go into the Hall of Fame.
* * *
What do you think of this list?
1. Babe Ruth*, .532
2. Ted Williams*, .538
3. Lou Gehrig*, .557
4. Rogers Hornsby*, .560
5. Eddie Collins*, .566
6. Ty Cobb*, .568
7. Tris Speaker*, .568
8. Barry Bonds*, .573
9. Jimmie Foxx*, .582
10. Mel Ott*, .588
11. Mickey Mantle*, .589
12. Frank Thomas*, .594
13. Honus Wagner*, .597
14. Paul Waner*, .598
15. Stan Musial*, .599
*Hall of Fame.
That list is simply: Players with the fewest number of outs divided by number of plate appearances. That’s it. By outs, we are including all outs — double plays count as two, sacrifice flies, sacrifice bunts, caught stealing, the whole works. According to the list, Babe Ruth made outs only 53.2% of his plate appearances. Now, it’s a flawed number because we don’t have caught stealing numbers for the Babe and hte other older guys, and we don’t have grounded-into-double plays either. So you can add a few outs to their totals. It’s telling that Barry Bonds is tops among modern players. I suspect if we had all the numbers, he would move up on the list. Still, that list includes the 15 players in baseball history who got 9,000 or more plate appearances and, best we can tell, recorded the fewest number of outs. All of them are in the Hall of Fame, of course.
Here, then, are the 15 players in baseball history (9,000 or more PAs) who recorded the HIGHEST percentage of outs:
1. Gary Gaetti, .710
2. Larry Bowa, .709
3. Joe Carter, .703
4. Dave Concepcion, .702
5. Luis Aparicio*, .701
6. Bert Campaneris, .700
7. Willie Davis, .700
8. Bill Buckner, .698
9. Andre Dawson, .694
10. Steve Garvey, .692
11. Brooks Robinson*, .690
12. Vada Pinson, .690
13. Pudge v.2.0, .689
14. Lou Brock*, .688
15. Ernie Banks*, .685
Only one of the bottom 10 is in the Hall of Fame, and Luis Aparicio has long been acknowledged to be one of the weakest hitters in the Hall of Fame. He’s there for defense and base stealing. Brock is in for his stolen bases and 3,000 hits. Banks is in for his 500 homers and being Mr. Cub. Will Dawson’s speed, outfield defense, power and general classiness make up for him making outs 69.4% of his plate appearances? That’s the question, isn’t it?
* * *
You know, I can fully understand the puzzlement of Dave Parker. I suppose this is what happens every time a borderline candidate goes into the Hall of Fame. But for a moment, put yourself in Dave Parker’s shoes:
Jim Rice won an MVP award. Dave Parker won an MVP award, same year in fact.
Jim Rice finished Top 5 in MVP voting six times. Dave Parker finished Top 5 in MVP voting five times.
Jim Rice started in four All-Star Games. Dave Parker started in four All-Star Games.
Jim Rice won zero Gold Gloves. Dave Parker won three Gold Gloves.
Jim Rice led the league in slugging twice. Dave Parker led the league in slugging twice.
Jim Rice led the league in hitting zero times. Dave Parker led the league in hitting twice.
Jim Rice led the league in RBIs twice and finished second twice. Dave Parker led the league in RBIs once and finished second twice.
Jim Rice drove in 1,451 runs. Dave Parker drove in 1,493 runs.
Jim Rice hit 382 home runs — 43 more than Parker. Dave Parker hit 573 doubles — 153 more than Rice.
If you want to go more advanced, Jim Rice had 282 Win Shares. Dave Parker had 327 Win Shares.
Jim Rice had one season with 30-plus Win Shares. Dave Parker had three seasons with 30-plus Win Shares.
Jim Rice had one of the great seasons in 1978. Dave Parker’s 1978 season was even better.
And Jim Rice is going to the Hall of Fame, while Dave Parker can’t even sniff 25% of the vote. Dave Parker finished his career with more hits, doubles, runs, RBIs and stolen bases than Jim Rice. He was, by pretty much all counts, the superior defensive outfielder, at least when they both were young. His highs were surely as high as Rice’s. He played longer. He did not have Fenway Park to boost his home numbers (and their road numbers are strikingly similar).
Now, there are compelling reasons to say that Rice was a better hitter than Parker over the length of their careers. Rice had a better batting average, got on base more, had a better slugging percentage, and so on. And Dave Parker only hurt himself in the middle of his career. But, I’m not saying that Dave Parker belongs in the Hall of Fame. I’m saying, I fully understand his confusion.
* * *
Is the player’s strike of 1981 keeping Dwight Evans out of the Hall of Fame? It’s not as crazy as you might think. Dewey was having his best season in ‘81 — he hit .296/.415/.522, he played every game, he led the league in homers, total bases, walks and OPS. He won a Gold Glove, of course.
If he had a full season, he might have won the MVP award. That would have boosted his case.
If he had hit 15 more home runs in the 54 games he missed — not an unlikely scenario — he would have finished his career with 400 homers, which might have caught the voter’s eyes.
He definitely would have gotten 16 more RBIs — which would have pushed him to 1,400 for his career. That’s not especially important come Hall of Fame time, but it would have looked just a little better.
If he had maintained his pace — again, pretty likely since he had a similar season in 1982 — Dewey would have had his masterpiece season. People will remember Rice in ‘78, Brett in ‘80, Rickey in ‘90, Yaz in ‘67, Gibby in ‘68. Dewey had his year shortened by labor disputes. Dewey in so many people’s minds was a good but not great player … but it isn’t true. He was great in ‘81 and ‘82, pretty great again in ‘84. And he was awfully good in several other years.
Evans dropped off the ballot after only three years, which is both odd and sad. He should have received a fairer hearing.
* * *
You could go crazy, of course, comparing Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven. For several reasons, Morris was pretty universally viewed as the better pitcher when they both pitched. Those reasons — Morris won 20 three times, Morris better fit the image many have in their mind about pitching aces, Morris threw the legendary Game 7 of the World Series. It created a powerful mental picture.
The trouble is Morris was not the better pitcher — was not, in retrospect, anywhere close to Bert Blyleven.
It’s funny:
– Blyleven gained the image as a guy who gave up a lot of home runs. Morris gave up more homers per inning.
– Morris gained the image as the true workhorse and bulldog. But Blyleven had 67 more complete games and threw 250 innings or more nine times in his career. Morris did it seven — counting the year he threw 249 2/3.
– Morris gained the image as the great battler. But Blyleven threw more than twice as many shutouts.
– Morris was known as the great postseason pitcher. But Blyleven’s postseason numbers are better, including their one postseason matchup in 1987. They both started Game 2, and Blyleven won head-to-head, not even close, 6-3. In Game 5, Blyleven came back on three day’s rest, battled, and won again while Morris watched from the dugout.
Still, these hardened images from 30 years ago are hard to overcome, and many people — even people who see Blyleven’s clearly superior statistics right in front of their eyes — still insist that Jack Morris was a better pitcher, and a more worthy Hall of Famer, than Bert Blyleven. The one crutch they use is wins … and by wins I don’t mean “most wins†because, of course, Blyleven has 33 more career victories than Morris. No, instead, these people, many who turn their noses up when it comes to advanced baseball statistics, will use some sort of complicated and convoluted “win formula†that would make VORP and ERA+ look like second-grade math. True, Morris may not have won as many actual games as Blyleven, but if you multiply that by his better winning percentage, add that he won 20 more often, put it to the power of most wins in the 1980s, and divide it by the square root of him pitching three teams to the World Series, you will clearly see …
And, yes, he was feared too. Never underestimate fear and intimidation. That’s your cosine.
It’s a shame, really, because Jack Morris was an excellent pitcher. Overrated, perhaps, but excellent just the same, and I have no interest in diminishing his career. Thing is: He just wasn’t nearly as good as Blyleven, and until people fully appreciate that I fear that Blyleven will not get the push he needs to go over 75% on the Hall of Fame Ballot. So, here’s one more way to look at this: Here is a breakdown of Morris and Blyleven’s wins, losses and no-decisions based on the number of earned runs they gave up. Look at these and tell me who was the better pitcher …
Wins
8 runs: Morris 1 win, Blyleven 0.
7 runs: Morris 1 win, Blyleven 1
6 runs: Morris 10 wins, Blyleven 0 (!!)
5 runs: Morris 15 wins, Blyleven 3
Total cheap wins: Morris 27, Blyleven 4
4 runs: Morris 21 wins, Blyleven 20
3 runs: Morris 38 wins, Blyleven 39
Solid wins: Morris 60, Blyleven 59
2 runs: Morris 50 wins, Blyleven 54
1 run: Morris 64 wins, Blyleven 89
0 runs: Morris 54 wins, Blyleven 81
Well-pitched wins: Morris 168, Blyleven 224
Losses.
9 runs: Morris 0 losses, Blyleven 2
8 runs: Morris 12 losses, Blyleven 3
7 runs: Morris 13 losses, Blyleven 14
6 runs: Morris 22 losses,Blyleven 21
5 runs: Morris 38 losses, Blyleven 52
Bad losses: Morris 85, Blyleven 92
4 runs: Morris 35 losses, Blyleven 48
3 runs: Morris 35 losses, Blyleven 61
Solid losses: Morris 70, Blyleven 109
2 runs: Morris 24 losses, Blyleven 31
1 run: Morris 6 losses, Blyleven 16
0 runs: Morris 1 loss, Blyleven 2
Hard luck losses: Morris 31, Blyleven 49.
No-decisions (min. 7 ip)
7 runs: Morris 1 ND, Blyleven 2 ND
6 runs: Morris 1 ND, Blyleven 7 ND
5 runs: Morris 5 ND, Blyleven 7 ND
Team let him off the hook: Morris 7, Blyleven 16
4 runs: Morris 9 ND, Blyleven 9
3 runs: Morris 9 ND, Blyleven 15
Solid No-Decisions: Morris 18, Blyleven 24
2 runs: Morris 14 ND, Blyleven 20
1 run: Morris 6 ND, Blyleven 14
0 runs: Morris 2 ND, Blyleven 8
Team couldn’t score enough runs: Morris 22, Blyleven 42.
* * *
Having an interesting discussion with a couple of baseball people about how much voters should consider award voting for the Hall of Fame. I don’t mean the actual awards themselves — it’s regrettable, but a fact that Tim Raines did not win an MVP award, Alan Trammell lost the MVP in ‘87, Dan Quisenberry never won a Cy Young and so on. I’m sure I will keep ranting and raving about it, but reality is reality, and they are just not going to get any credit for what SHOULD have happened. Titanic won an Oscar, Christopher Cross won a handful of Grammys, Roy Jones lost the ‘88 Olympic boxing gold, the 1972 U.S. Basketball team lost to the Soviets, and history isn’t changing.
But one thing that I believe is a fairly recent development — and maybe a very bad one — is players getting credit for ALMOST winning awards, or coming reasonably close to winning awards, or not even coming especially close but getting a few award votes.
Not to pick on Jack Morris again but … he never won a Cy Young Award. We can all agree on that, right? He never won a Cy Young Award. He never won, and he never finished second, and he never was the highest finishing starter either (Blyleven was in 1984 … finishing behind Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry).
So lately, I have seen several people talk about how often Morris finished in the TOP TEN in the Cy Young voting — hey, Jack Morris finished Top 10 in the Cy Young voting seven times while Blyleven only finished Top 10 four times. And so on.
Pointless. Beyond pointless. First off, there are math problems here — writers only vote Top 3 in the Cy Young Award. So finishing seventh in the poll means absolutely nothing. Morris finished seventh in the voting in 1984. Do you know what that means? He got one third place vote. That’s it. One guy, impressed with Morris’ grit, his fortitude, his toughness, his 3.60 ERA, his team’s great start, whatever, gave Morris a third place vote. Now that’s a Hall of Fame credential?
In 1992, Morris actually got a FIRST PLACE Cy Young vote, despite his 4.04 ERA (placing him a solid 27th in the American League) and 1.255 WHIP (17th in the American League). This wasn’t a major scandal in 1992 because, really, who cares about the guy who finishes fifth in the Cy Young voting? Dennis Eckersley won going away (Roger Clemens more or less got screwed, MIke Mussina too, but that’s another story) and that was it. Now, 16 years later, people want to give Morris extra credit for the bizarre voting pattern of an unknown baseball writer?
The MVP balloting has its own issues because voters have to go 10 deep … and there have been some bizarre picks down-ballot. Dick Schofield got an MVP vote. Corey Koskie got one. Steve Kline, Mariano Duncan, Rich Gedman, George Wright, Jody Davis, Enos Cabell, Floyd Robinson, Tony Gonzalez the baseball player and many others have received MVP votes. But that’s not the point, and it never was the point … the point is to get a consensus of voters to determine who is the MVP or Cy Young or rookie of the year. The writers have gotten it wrong pretty often, true, but that should be the focus. I think the rest of this is just scratch paper … or should be.
In other words: I REALLY wish people would look at how many times a player finished Top 10 in OPS+ or Win Shares or EQA or ERA+ or Runs Saved Against Average … I realize that many people do not like the advanced statistics. But even the most anti-stats person in the world should admit these sorts of stats make more sense than going back and looking to see how many Top 10 Cy Young Award finishes a player had.
Loading ...
first! or rather, circle me bert.
also, just to raise a question, do agents have any place in the HOF? we’ve got umpires, coaches, owners, the guy who invented the curve. what about Boras. forget if you like him, just think about his acheivements related to baseball. also, what if all the guys like rose, bonds, and clemens were allowed to be inducted after they died. this would “punish” them for screwing up, but would also let their great careers be remembered
You’re like Mr. Kotter. Except Mr. Kotter never made me think of Corey Koskie one last time.
I do agree with your stance on the MVP and Cy Young voting meaning little (except for the top 3) in determining a HOF player but…Given a full 10-15 year career with that player receiving MVP/Cy votes many of those years it does make a difference. I believe that a HOF players is someone that was a dominate player for a 10+ year period and was considered one of the best for his era. Blyleven was not that kind of pitcher nor was Morris. Dave Parker on the other hand is a mystery. This is where image, perceptions as well as other factors may have come in.
Great! Like the zeitgeist, this is forward-looking, not dwelling on past foolishness. And sensible, every word. (However, paragraph 4 wants to say “8,500″.)
One quibble: Johnny Mize was not elected by the writers. In general, the writers have done an OK job with their elections, but I’d say their biggest misses were letting Mize slip through (he was later elected by the VC) and the same for Arky Vaughan.
I voted for Rickey. But people who are all atwitter because Rickey didn’t get 100% don’t understand the limits of the voting process. According to today’s polls, 6-7% of American’s think the economy is in GOOD shape. Despite our each having five votes, we are electing only two men to Joe’s Presidential Hall of Fame (first induction year). In any voting situation, some of the voters are going to be confused, contrarian, or just plain dumb.
I like the outs/plate appearances thing. Excellent stat. And yeah, Blyleven got screwed again, I just don’t understand that one. On the bright side, the great Jeff Beck finally made the R&R Hall of Fame!
James-
You agree with Joe’s stance, and then you proceed to disagree completely? Did I read that correctly? Because that’s certainly what I took away from you first sentence.
And what constitutes having been “considered one of the best for his era”, exactly? I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that this criterion is based entirely on your memory of the player and how you remember others perceptions of him at the time. Seriously?!? It seems, Mr. Mangini, that you would fit in perfectly with the logically impaired group of whackjobs that currently comprise a majority of the BBWAA.*
*I say “majority” because nearly 80% failed to vote for Tim Raines. Well, that’s not the only reason. It’s just a quick and easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
On the road, Rice batted .277/.330/.459. Parker’s road line is .278/.329/.446. That is eerily similar. Add on the fact that Parker played almost 300 more games than Rice and was clearly the better fielder, and there’s not much of an argument for Rice over Parker…except Parker caused his own downfall with drugs, while Rice’s eyes went bad, something that was out of Rice’s control. Also, Parker is a jerk, and Rice seems to have mellowed over the years. I don’t think stuff like that should affect the balloting, but it does.
I would put Parker in over Rice, although he has no chance of getting elected.
I don’t know – didn’t Willie Wilson have, like 8500 PA in one season?
“also, what if all the guys like rose, bonds, and clemens were allowed to be inducted after they died. this would “punish†them for screwing up, but would also let their great careers be remembered”
I don’t really think there is any danger of their careers being forgotten. People are still arguing about Joe Jackson and he played his last game in the majors 89 years ago.
Also, I don’t think Bonds and Clemens deserve to be lumped in with Rose. Using PEDs is a completely different class of act from betting on baseball. Using PEDs may be against the rules, but it’s breaking the rules in an effort to do better. Betting on baseball raises the possibility of throwing games, of making the product on the field fake. That’s why PEDs get you suspended (and that only after grandstanding congressmen forced the issue) and betting on baseball gets you banned for life.
Just one quibble: just because writers vote for the top three CYA candidates does not mean, mathematically, that finishing seventh is meaningless (as opposed to finishing, say, sixth or eighth). But I agree with your main point, that “number of top-ten CYA finishes” is a silly HoF metric for pitchers.
Had to make a couple of comments to others comments:
James Mangini–Blyleven was exactly that kind of pitcher.
David in Toledo–I get your point, but comparing voters in the way you did just doesn’t work; the people who think the economy is in good shape don’t know anything about the economy and aren’t supposed to, the writers are supposed to be the authority on what they are voting for, the experts, the people who know the sport and players the best, this would be like an economist being polled and saying the economy is in good shape, you just can’t compare the two.
a couple other things; I’m a little dissappointed in us (us being Joe’s readers), his previous poll on the hall of fame, and we didn’t elect Tim Raines, which is really sad, the second greatest leadoff hitter of all time, a top 100 (50?) player of all time needs to be in the hall of fame.
to Jeremy–finishing 7th is completely meaningless when it only took one 3rd place vote to finish seventh,
Omar Vizquel: 11,000+ plate appearances
Put him in, Joe.
If I were charged with voting for the hall of fame, the very LAST thing I would look at is how other people voted for bygone MVP’s or Cy Young Awards, or anything ever. Those gentlemen are not casting my ballot.
Analyze the statistics–every statistic possible, both ancient and modern. Sabremetrics are your friend. Progress in the field of statistical evidence is not esoteric or overly complex. Most modern statistical measures are simplifying and, with a modicum of aptitude, immensely clarifying. Ask yourself, “How much weight do I assign to this player’s playoff performance? What about his arrest record? His hardo?” I would look at all these things before I even thought about poring over the MVP voting from 20 years ago, or 2 years ago, for that matter.
I will admit, my viewpoint has a tint of objectivism. Maybe I should dust off Atlas Shrugged after a decade. Back in those days, I preferred Camus.
They should both have 59 solid wins. You gave Morris an extra.
I think I recall a guy who was nominated to be President of this country saying that the economy was in good shape. Shouldn’t he have been expected to know? I hardly think sportwriters are in any position to be considered experts on baseball, either. Do you have to be an expert to spout off? I consider Don Zimmer to be the prototypical expert on baseball. Maybe he should decide on HOF candidates.
Forgive my exaggeration. Obviously MVP results from 2 years ago will never be available when a player reaches the ballot. Except maybe Clemente. I know the 5 year rule was waived for him.
Hmmm, I wonder if the 5 year rule would’ve been waived for Thurman Munson, had he had played 6 or 7 more years at a high level?
Not only was Morris not better than Blyleven he wasn’t better than David Cone either who falls off the ballot (3.9%). I think if Cone had won just 6 more games he might have stayed on the ballot a few more years. Meanwhile Morris continues to enjoy 40+%.
On the MLB channel they were comparing Morris to Gibson, lol.
I think you’re underselling the lack of data about double plays and caught stealing, Joe, when you say “so you can add a few outs to their totals”. If it was just a few outs, I sincerely doubt your list of the highest percentage outmakers would come entirely from the last 40-50 years, i.e. the guys for whom we have complete data.
Take someone like Al Simmons, who played primarily before GIDPs were counted. Without complete data, it looks at first glance that Simmons made an out percentage of .634. Then consider the missing data. Simmons was a slow (88 careers steals, just a 58% success rate) right-handed hitter who played on good teams, so there was an ample number of runners on in front him. He also put the ball in play a lot, just 615 career walks in over 9500 plate appearances. In other words, he has all the makings of a double play machine. This is born out by the partial data we have, which shows he hit into 23 double plays 638 plate appearances from 1939 to 1944. Extrapolate that rate over all 9515 plate appearances in his career and you get 343 double plays.
There are problems with that number, of course, because these were Simmons’ decline years when he was likely slower, but these were also years he was on bad clubs that likely didn’t place him in as many DP situations. Let’s call it a wash and say that we really are missing about 320 double plays from his career record. Add those outs to his record and he’s at an out percentage of .667, approaching the point where he makes your list of the highest out percentages ever.
Simmons may be an extreme case, I don’t know, but the effect on his career out rate and the makeup of your list tells me that this missing data is probably pretty important.
Dave Parker definitely has a gripe; he was better than Rice.
But what about Dale Murphy, who was even better than Parker?
The interesting thing about your outs/plate appearances list is who is not on the list of the best: neither Willie Mays nor Hank Aaron appear in the top 15. Interesting. What does that say about them as hitters?
One problem I have with the outs percentage stat … a player should not be punished for a sacrifice fly. Would a base hit be better than a sac fly? Sure, but a lot of time your only responsiblity is to drive in that run. A sac fly does that. A walk does not.
The walk may be the most overrated stat in baseball. For a leadoff man, great. For a No. 2 hitter great. For an 8 or 9 hitter, great. For a three, four or five hitter … that’s not your job. Your job is to drive in runners. Sorry if I’m being a hard-headed, old school, doesn’t want look at stats grumdegeon (I’m only 34, I get the whole stats deal), but that’s the truth.
I don’t care how many times Babe Ruth walked, I want to know how many times he came up with a runner on second or third and that runner scored.
I have no problem with a guy taking a walk with less than 2 outs and a runner on 3rd. More baserunners are a good thing.
You have to be kidding, the walk the most overrated stat? it’s the most underrated.
It’s not so much the walk itself, it’s that he didn’t make an out. I like to use the analogy of penalties in football and free throws in basketball when a team is down with limited time left, doing something productive to score or to get into position to score while not using your most precious commodity–time. In baseball time=outs and fouls/penalties=walks, doing something productive while not using up the only limiting factor in how much you can score.
The last Hall of Fame post? What will I do with all the freed-up time?
Great point about Dwight Evans and 1981. I remember Peter Gammons calling Dewey the “pre-strike MVP” that year. The reason I remember it is because Gammons wrote this before the strike actually happened, and it was a jarring concept to my innocent mind (“you mean there’s really going to be a strike?”).
Thanks for pointing out that Rusty Staub is one of the top PA guys of all time. Rusty’s never gotten any hall of fame love, never getting as much as 8% of the voters to pick him. But consider this: Rusty Staub is the player with the most games and plate appearances who is not in the hall of fame (excluding those not eligible): He also has the fifth most RBIs of anyone not in the hall and the fourth most doubles.
Staub had 17 seasons with an OPS+ of 110 or greater. He was a six time all star and an all around good guy.
And he did all this despite the fact that he must be one of the slowest guys ever to play professionally. He made Ed Kranepool look fast.
I think that Darrell and Dwight Evans haven’t gotten more HOF consideration because most HOF voters get confused between the two.
Walks are clearly not overrated dude! I agree with you that sac fly’s shoudlnt be punished, cause he did get a run in. But, walks are extremly important. Walks tells you many things, just like the other dude said, it tells you he didnt make an out (and you gotta admit, thats pretty darn important)!! It als tells you a guy is patient and looking for a good pitch to hit, so basicly this enhences his chance of getting a hit instead of going up hacking (like you suggest) and getting a pop-fly. Then all the old-school writers will go on critizing that player for not being patient.
Here’s another prespective –> Who would you rather have, jeff francouer (the hacker, the run producer) or chipper jones (a guy who post OBP near 400 every year because he walks so much). This is maybe a bit extreme, but most hitter that ppl say are exelent, all are patient hitters who walk a lot.
I’m having a hard time trying to replicate these out percentage numbers. Mine end up about .010 off every time.
Still, I wonder where Edgar Martinez places on there. He’s got basically the same numbers as Frank Thomas, as far as I can tell.
I never watched Dave Parker play, or Jim Rice for that matter but I’ve seen clips of Parker where he comes across as huge man who makes the bat look like a toothpick in his hands. I wouldn’t say he has legendary status but he does have post-retirement cache in that he’s used as a high-end projection of some very good prospects like Jason Heyward of the Braves for instance. So in total, I’ve figured he was a blessedly talented hitter who had a fine career and when I just now looked up his numbers, it turns out that that was true. But what surprised me is how underwhelming the numbers look on the page in terms of hall of fame credentials. There are some very fine seasons when he was in his mid-twenties but there are a bunch of nondescript, average ones littered throughout his career. There’s an absence of many stellar home run seasons, of seasons when he amassed eye-popping rbi totals, the on-base percentages are never high, the slugging percentages are often too mediocre. The impression I get is that he had several elite, hall of fame worthy seasons but he had too many un hall of fame worthy seasons to deserve entry.
I’m not saying Jim Rice belongs in the hall of fame but what he does have over Parker is that his great seasons are bundled together more. Parker was more erratic. Rice had a three year stretch where he drove in 114, 139 and 130 runs and a four year stretch where he drove in 126, 122, 103, 110 runs. He also had a 12 year stretch where he hit 20 or more homers in 11 of them and notched some pretty lofty totals going for 39, 46, 39 consecutively and hitting 39 another time. Of course there’s more to baseball than those two stats and defense and obp shouldn’t be overlooked but having big to fairly big numbers come one after another on the page makes his career look more impressive. It creates the impression that he consistently ranked as one of the better hitters in baseball for more than a decade which is a pretty long time in baseball. His career isn’t weighed down by as many lackluster seasons as Parkers’ is so in that sense, even though their career totals are very similar, I can see why Rice was selected over Parker.
Steven, I did watch them play. Parker was like Dave Winfield, a more complete player with speed and gap power and a great throwing arm. Rice, among Hall of Famers, was closer to Ralph Kiner or Willie Stargell in characteristics. Parker had the greater potential as a player. He wasted it by abusing drugs.
“His highs were surely as high as Rice’s.”
Heh. Higher, I’d say, unless you know something about Rice the rest of us don’t.
Pete Rose is getting screwed. He has applied for re-instatement, but rather than rule on his request, Bud just continues to ignore it. Ban him from working in MLB is you want, but get the guy in the HOF.
Wouldn’t it be great if Joe brought in ex-Reds to do book signings with him? (09-09-09)
I’d say taking a walk with Lou Gehrig batting behind you is a good thing, regardless of the runners and outs situation.
As for MVP Awards and such…
This is one of the things that bothers me about the Rice Hall-of-Fame induction:
(and this comes from a Yankees Fan… so I admit my bias up front)
In 1978, Jim Rice and Ron Guidry had their greatest seasons. Jim Rice won the MVP Award. A very strong case can be made that Guidry deserved it more, but I’ll concede the point. Rice was the every day player.
In 1986, Don Mattingly and Roger Clemenshad great seasons. In a “reverse” of the 1978 vote, Clemens got the MVP. Mattingly finished second.
This makes me wonder the following:
1) If Jim Rice did not win ANY MVP Awards, would he be in the Hall-of-Fame?
2) If Don Mattingly had two MVP Awards, would he be in the Hall-of-Fame?
3) If Ron Guidry had an MVP would his Hall-of-Fame chances have been improved?
But my argument is really Mattingly… He doesn’t belong, but, I believe, neither does Rice.
Without getting into the whole debate, which we’ve all read, Mattingly and Puckett have very similar career numbers. Both had their career’s cut short due to injury.
Puckett has always received extra-credit for the World Series, etc…
If that’s the criteria, playing on a World Series Champion, shouldn’t Parker get extra credit over Rice when their numbers are so similar?
If Puckett’s “extra-credit” is that he played CF, while Mattingly played 1b, shouldn’t Parker again get credit over Rice for being the more complete ball-player?
Mazerowski is in for his great fielding. Shouldn’t Mattingly get some consideration for that? He was among a handful of best defensive first baseman ever…
Again, based on his total career, I think Mattingly falls short… but when you see similar players get in, who you can argue that Mattingly was just as good as, it makes for some great debate.
The frustration over the Hall-of-Fame isn’t who isn’t in…. it’s really who is in when they are borderline candidates. It seems the writers make up reasons on a case by case basis but never use a consistent measure.
Joe another great read!!! This is becoming my first stop instead of the star’s website…
What I love is Joe takes a break from writing his book to write his blog!!!
The problem, Baseball Guy, is that you are comparing Mattingly with some of the weakest Hall of Famers. Inducting them was a mistake, but it won’t be rectified by compounding it.
“It seems the writers make up reasons on a case by case basis but never use a consistent measure.”
I agree. And there are two factors that help to exacerbate this: the game of baseball generates a lot of numbers that can be used to analyze performance, and statistical ratings fluctuate quite a bit depending on the era. While there has been a lot of work done to normalize performance numbers across different seasons– which helps immensely to judge players across time– many writers seem to prefer to simply pluck the numbers that are most convenient to their choice (for or against) and use those to make their case.
Frank Thomas (List- Players with the fewest number of outs divided by number of plate appearances) is noted (*) as a HOFer? Is this a different Thomas? Not that I don’t think he’s a 1st ballot HOFer…
As you know, Morris isn’t in the HOF (and may never be). So, when you compare the two, it doesn’t make Blyleven’s case that much stronger.
Neither Thomas nor Bonds are Hall of Famers (yet, at least). Both deserve it, but until they’re eligible, you can’t really give them the ol’ HoF asterisk there.
I doubt either will be voted in as overwhelmingly as they deserve. Bonds because of the PED use, which will turn a lot of voters off (and which others will use as a rationalization for not voting for him), and Thomas because his early peak seems all but forgotten. He’s put up some damn fine seasons since then, but it seems like a lot of people think that’s who Thomas has always been – an injury-prone, very good player, as opposed to the insanely great hitter he was during his first few seasons. I’ve read a couple of columns where people have all but implied that Thomas isn’t really a Hall of Famer, which is ludicrous.
Looking solely at OPS+ (which makes it an imperfect comparison, obviously), he never posted anything lower than a 174 during his first seven seasons. By contrast, in his first eight seasons, Pujols has only topped that number three times. Of course, Pujols has baserunning and defense in his game, but it seems like a lot of people have forgotten what a completely devastating force Thomas was when he first came into the league.
Put another way, Rice’s MVP season would have ranked as Thomas’ ninth best.
Please understand, I’m not saying Mattingly is a Hall-of-Famer. By most measures, he is not.
But, once a guy like Rice is in…
That’s my only argument – not that Mattingly deserves to be in, but that the writers pick and choose the reasons to let Player A in while not using that same standard for Player B.
I will be sad if this is the last HOF post. I never tire of them!
Another stupid thing about using MVP voting — the ongoing disagreement over the word “valuable.” My reading of the last 10 years at least suggests that a player is less likely to get an MVP vote if he plays on a very good team (“Ortiz wasn’t even the most valuable player on the Sox!”) or on a very bad team (“The Mariners would have finished last with or without Ichiro”). If the HOF is about individual achievement, then MVP voting is a bad proxy.
Baseball Guy:
One problem with your Mattingly argument is that you want to give him credit for an MVP he deserved but didn’t get in 1986 and yet continue to give him credit for an MVP he received but didn’t deserve in 1985 (which should have been given to George Brett or THE Rickey).
Somewhere above here someone hit upon something very astute. It is my belief that the players that “group” their best seasons do much better in HOF voting than those who don’t. Thus Catfish Hunter and Jim Rice make the HOF and Bert Blyleven and Dave Parker do not. The writers tend to remember that guy who was the best for 5 seasons in a row over the guy was the best for a season here and a season there. The first guy is “dominant” and the second guy a “compiler”. No matter that the first guys 5 seasons are no better than the 2nd guys, just that they are consecutive.
Joe, I am surprised you mentioned Dewey Evans getting shafted by the strike and failed to mention the NL player whose HOF bus was also shafted by the strike, Davey Concepcion. 1981 was his best year offensively (he was the 2nd best offensive player on the Reds that year and given the fact that he was a great defensive SS and George Foster was a poor defensive LF, he might have been the best overall player on the Reds). Also, few remember that the Reds had the BEST record in baseball that year, yet because of the screwy strike split season, they didn’t make the playoffs. Had the strike not happened and the Reds made the playoffs, could Concepcion have won the MVP? He finished 4th as it was (behind Schmidt, Dawson and Foster), but in a full season, I think the possibility was there for him to win an MVP. What if the Reds won the WS that year? (after all their division mates did win the WS) Then Concepcion goes from being a 5th wheel on the Big Red Machine to a vital cog on a WS winning team.
Jayson Stark has a fun column going about which HOFer played with the most other HOFers. Thought I would look up Mrs. Morris & Blyleven for fun:
Blyleven played with 7 HOFers: Carew, Killebrew, Gaylord Perry, Stargell, Puckett, Steve Carlton & Winfield (although Carlton shouldn’t count. That was his end of career turn with the Twins and he was awful by then.) He also played with 3 guys, by my count, that might have some sort of shot with the Veteran’s Committee: Oliva, Kaat & Dave Parker
Morris played with 5 HOFers: Puckett, Winfield, Molitor, Rickey, Eddie Murray. He also played with 6 mortal or near mortal locks (IMO) for the HOF when they’re eligible: Robbie Alomar, Jeff Kent (with Toronto), Delgado (also with Toronto), Thome, Vizquel, ManRam. Guys with some sort of shot in the Veteran’s Committee: Trammell, Whitaker, Darrell Evans, Dave Steib, David Cone, Kenny Lofton, Albert Belle
(Wasn’t going to include Delgado in the near lock category but he’s still chugging along at 36 and figures to end up with 550-600 HRs, 1800-2000 RBI & about a 135 OPS+. That should get it done, shouldn’t it? His top age 36 comps at b-ref are all HOFers, lock HOFers or borderline cases. Although to be fair, just like Carlton for Blyleven, Delgado shouldn’t count for Morris. He got a whole 2 PAs for the 93 Blue Jays so it’s not like Morris’ career benefited heavily from Delgado)
So if you total it up and give Blyleven 1 from the VC list (with Rice getting in, Parker HAS to get in, doesn’t he?) and give Morris 2 from his VC list (Trammell will get in and once he does, Whitaker gets pulled along on a sympathy vote) you come up with Blyleven playing with 8 HOFers and Morris 13.
FWIW
Rather than compare a non-HOFer (Jack Morris) to Bert Blyleven, let’s compare a HOFer from approximately the same era (at least at the beginning of their careers), Catfish Hunter.
Now Catfish started a little earlier, 1965 compared to 1970, and of course, his career was much shorter, he retired in 1979 at age 33, Blyleven retired in 1992 at age 42.
Anyway, Catfish is in the Hall, Blyleven is not. By my count Catfish made it in his 3rd year of eligibility with 76% of the vote. He went 224-166 in his career. His career ERA was 3.26, his career ERA+ was 104. His career WHIP was 1.134. He struck out 2012 batters while walking 954. His postseason stats are good, he went 9-6 lifetime with a 3.26 ERA in 22 postseason games.
Blyleven was 287-250 in his career. His career ERA was 3.31, his career ERA+ was 118. His career WHIP was 1.198. He struck out 3701 batters while walking 1322. His postseason stats are also good, he went 5-1 lifetime with a 2.47 ERA in 8 postseason games.
But Catfish clearly wins out because his best 5 seasons are all in a row. Starting in 1971 and going through 1975, he posted seasons of 21-11, 21-7, 21-5, 25-12, and 23-14. His ERA+ those years was 114, 140, 107, 134 and 144. He only had ERAs better than the league in 3 other seasons other than those years (1967, 1969 and 1978). He only won more than 15 games in two other seasons (1970 (18) and 1976 (17)).
So Catfish grouped his best seasons well. And since those teams, the 1971-1974 A’s, and the 1975 Yankees were successful teams (4 first place finishes and a 3rd), even more light was shone on that stretch of dominance. But before and after that period, not so great.
Now Blyleven. Here are his records for his 5 best seasons: 20-17 (1973), 17-17 (1974), 14-12 (1977), 19-7 (1984), 17-5 (1989). His ERA+ in those five seasons was 158, 142, 151, 144, and 140. Unlike Catfish, he also posted ERAs better than the league average (in some cases much better) in every year of his career except 1980, 1988, 1990 and 1992. (I didn’t count 1982 because he only had 4 starts) In his 4 best seasons, his teams weren’t nearly as dominant, finishing 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 6th and 3rd.
So more spread out for worse teams, but less dominant? Hardly. That is an illusion.
Heck – if you want Boras in the HOF, let’s put the guy who invented steroids in, too. And greenies. And long-legged blondes, while we’re at it.
Just curious…if the writers only vote for 3 guys for Cy Young, and a single third place vote gets you 7th, what did the 8th, 9th and 10th place guys get? Half a vote? I’m guessing 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th got the same. So he TIED for 7th…..whoop-de-doo!
Joe–I’m convinced. Bert for the Hall! Ernie soon to follow!
Figuring out why the HOF is the way it is can be compared to figuring out why Company A is valued more on the stock market than Company B. There is no ‘objective’ criteria when people are allowed to vote. The MVP ballot proves this when we’ll hear one person say “Well, I think the definition of the award is … so I vote for Player A” and another says “I think the award definition is … so I vote for Player B”. They’re both right in their own minds, because their criteria is just as ‘objective’ as anyone else’s.
I agree with other posts that consecutive great seasons help. I also think team location and being on national TV a lot are other strong indicators. Being on a big market team didn’t hurt Jim Rice, especially when there weren’t the specialty sports channels there are now. I certainly saw Rice play on TV more than Parker or Blyleven. All other things being equal, I believe an East Coast player would win out over a player from somewhere else, just because more people saw him play. Just my one cent (I have to keep the other because of the economy).
“Hmmm, I wonder if the 5 year rule would’ve been waived for Thurman Munson, had he had played 6 or 7 more years at a high level?”
The five-year rule was waived for Munson — he appeared on the ballot for the first time in 1981.
“One problem with your Mattingly argument is that you want to give him credit for an MVP he deserved but didn’t get in 1986 and yet continue to give him credit for an MVP he received but didn’t deserve in 1985 (which should have been given to George Brett or THE Rickey).”
“Deserve” is, obviously, in the eye of the beholder (see Mo Vaughn vs. Albert Belle, 1995). It doesn’t appear to me to be a slam dunk that Brett “deserved” the MVP over Donnie Baseball in 1985 — he led Mattingly that year in OPS (1.021 to .938), average (.335 to .324) and walks (103 to 56) (runs — 108 to 107 — and triples — 5 to 3 — were essentially even), but Mattingly led Brett in HR (35 to 30), RBI (145 to 112), hits (211 to 184), doubles (48 to 38) and total bases (370 to 322).
Also, not to give him “credit” for an award he didn’t win, but I do think his second-place finish behind Clemens in 1986 is significant in that he received the most points among non-pitchers, and should not be discounted in the context of evaluating Mattingly’s MVP voting performance.
In any case, I’m not sure how much sense it makes, in terms of trying to purify a player’s historical record for HOF consideration, to discount things like MVP awards/votes due to their subjectivity and then take that purified record and submit it to the subjective HOF vote of the BBWAA.
“It is my belief that the players that “group†their best seasons do much better in HOF voting than those who don’t.”
As a general rule, you’re right (Bill James cites Don Drysdale vs. Milt Pappas), but, staying with the example of Don Mattingly, it’s not always the case. Setting aside for the moment opinions about Puckett’s HOF-worthiness,
1. his (often compared) career totals are virtually indistinguishable from Mattingly’s; and
2. Mattingly had a handful of monster years and then tailed off considerably after he hurt his back, while Puckett put up much more consistent numbers spread over the length of his career.
Mattingly’s six-consecutive-year run from 1984 (when he won the batting title) through 1989 (when he finished second in RBI) (and during which, in addition to the 1985 MVP, he was the Sporting News AL Player of the Year in 1984, 1985 and 1986) stacks up against the best six (not necessarily consecutive) years of ANY first baseman of the post-WWII era, and outshine Puckett’s best six (not consecutive) years. Puckett ended up with the same career totals by taking more of the “compiler” approach (I don’t mean this as a knock against Puckett at all). When they both appeared on the HOF ballot for the first time in 1991, Puckett got a plaque and Mattingly got 28.2 percent.
The most common summary of Mattingly’s HOF-worthiness is that “the career totals just aren’t there.†I’ve often wondered how Mattingly’s HOF votes would have gone if he had announced his retirement due to his back injury early in 1991 (thus appearing in the requisite minimum ten seasons) instead of trying to make a go of it with his bad back for a few more years — the BBWAA seems to prefer an abrupt injury-related truncation of a career (Puckett, Sandy Koufax), though there are exceptions to that rule as well (Dizzy Dean).
Puckett and Mattingly first appeared on the HOf ballot in 2001, not 1991
11. Mickey Mantle*, .589
12. Frank Thomas*, .594
13. Honus Wagner*, .597
Unless I’ve been asleep for two years, or there is a Frank Thomas that even baseball reference doesn’t know about, I don’t think Frank Thomas is in the Hall of Fame (yet)…
If Jack Morris had pitched for the Red Sox, he’d be in the Hall of Fame.
Sort of similarly, if Catfish Hunter’s name had been Pete Hunter, he would not be in the Hall of Fame.
Same with Luis Tiant. If he’d pitched for the Red Sox, he’d also be in right now.
I’ve always thought that Dave Parker would never be seriously considered as HOF material because of the “drug” reputation and how he would occasionally smoke cigarettes just down the steps from the dugout. (Will this keep Jim Leyland out of HOF?) Maybe very unfair but that’s how the voters vote. The same may be said for drug usage and Timmie Raines (Did he not admit that he would slide a certain way so the coke vial in his pants would not be dislodged?!)- I hope not but if that’s how voters vote then we are beginning to understand that criteria, at least for that era in MLB. Dave Parker was not a BAD GUY, but not at all as well-liked as Stargell. Willie was a dream teammate and the press loved him and his quotes. Parker was in some ways a big, scary black dude that displayed attitude. (Maybe similar to Jim Rice?) Many members of the press shied away from “Big Dave.” An aquaintance of mine who played with Parker in the minors in ‘71 said he was a great teammate, perhaps because he scared the bleep out of the opposing team!!
Mark W., it seems to me that drug use and steroid use and gambling require of us the willingness to look at the evidence of particular cases, distinguish if possible, and not simply generalize.
Was Raines a user only in 1982, 22 years old and from rural Florida? Was Parker a user for 3-4 years in the early 80’s, aged 29-32, graduate of a Cincinnati high school, and therefore more responsible for longer bad behavior, IF these facts are correct? (In any case, Raines was able to compile 390 win shares, Parker 327, Jim Rice 282.)
Did one player use steroids only a few times, with minimal effect? Did another use them for many years and raise his performance from “very good” to “Hall of Fame” only with their benefit? (Of course, if we have no good evidence, judgment gets cloudy.)
Did Pete Rose never bet on baseball while he was playing, but only as a manager? If so, would it be appropriate to keep him from any further involvement with the game but to allow him to be recognized at Cooperstown for what he did as a player?
It’s funny Joe didn’t run a similar longevity analysis for pitchers because it makes a very compelling case for Blyleven:
There are 39 pitchers who pitched 4,000 innings. Blyleven is 14th with 4,970 innings. The only pitchers with 4,000 post-19th innings who aren’t in the hall: Blyleven, Clemens, Randy Johnson, Glavine, Maddux, and Frank Tanana(!).
There are 27 pitchers who’ve thrown 4,500 innings. The only pitcher with 4,500 post-19th century innings not in the hall: Maddux and Blyleven.
Jack Morris pitched 3,824 innings. Impressive, but he’s 1,146 innings shy of Bert. Consider:
Pitcher A: 4970 IP, 3701 K, 1.198 WHIP, 3.31 ERA, 118 ERA+
Pitcher B: 5012 IP, 3609 K, 1.278 WHIP, 3.87 ERA, 108 ERA+
Pitcher C: 4847 IP, 3412 K, 1.238 WHIP, 3.56 ERA, 124 ERA+
Pretty similar, but I think you could make a pretty good argument that Pitcher A is the most valuable. Well, Pitcher A is Blyleven. Pitcher B is Morris and Josh Beckett COMBINED. Pitcher C is Morris and Mariano Rivera COMBINED.
“One problem with your Mattingly argument is that you want to give him credit for an MVP he deserved but didn’t get in 1986 and yet continue to give him credit for an MVP he received but didn’t deserve in 1985″
I believe that Baseball Guy’s point was that, with the arbitrary manner of MVP voting, should it ever be used as a factor when considering a player for the Hall of Fame? As he points out, Mattingly could have won two MVP awards, or none, had circumstances been slightly different, but his career totals would otherwise be the same. Should the number of MVP awards be a factor in his candidacy, under the circumstances?
Wow, Tyler…thanks for the Circle Me Bert!! I finally feel as if I’ve accomplished something with my life. I will no longer hang my head in shame at the Thanksgiving table.
Joe, I noticed that when lising those with the least percentage of outs, you included Barry and Big Hurt with asterisks, though they are not in the HOF (though their #’s make them locks), but in your next list with the MOST percentage of outs, you didn’t asterisk Pudge v. 2.0, though the consensus is that he is a mortal lock.
Also, Gary Gaetti deserves an asterisk if only for his Hall Of Fame schnoz.
Ted C,
“stacks up against the best six (not necessarily consecutive) years of ANY first baseman of the post-WWII era”
Frank Thomas from 1991-1997 (seven consecutive years) had his worst OPS+ of 174. (211, 181, 180, 179, 178, 177, 174) Mattingly’s best in his six years was 161.
Jason Giambi’s six best years of OPS+ are 198, 187, 172, 161, 153, 148.
By comparison Mattingly, 161, 156, 156, 146, 133, 128
Pujols as a first baseman (2004+) OPS+ 190, 178, 172, 168, 157.
I doubt Todd Helton will get much HOF support, but here are his six best seasons by OPS+ 165, 165, 163, 160, 147, 144. Other than 161:165, it is a noticeable difference.
Delgado 181, 161, 161, 150, 147, 146.
Thome is a little more complication because he was a 3B for a couple of years. 197, 170, 167, 157, 156, 154 (and 153, 144 two years as a DH with 155, 150)
Bagwell 213!, 178, 168, 162, 158, 152
McGwire 216!, 200, 196, 177, 176, 170 and a 164 (seven seasons better than any of Mattingly and three of them not even close) I am not counting partial season of 202.
Mattingly is Mo Vaughn good 153, 152, 150, 146, 144, 139 (six years consecutive). Is Vaughn a HOF in your opinion?
Olerud 186, 163, 140, 136, 135, 128
Mattingly looks like Palmeiro 159, 155, 150, 146, 145, 144, without the 141, 137, 136, 132, 131 seasons, 500+ HR, 3000+ hits
I disagree with your premise completely. Mattingly’s six best years are not close to McGwire, Thomas, Bagwell, Thome, Giambi six best years. Helton’s are arguably better, Pujols will be with one more good season. So that is several recent players with 6 better years than Mattingly. As for older players McCovey: 209, 181, 174, 164, 164, 161 (and 161 as an OF, plus 159, 153, etc); I am sure there are others.
I even think your argument of “first basemen” is ludicrous. There is no positional adjustment for 1B. It is the defensive position of last resort for many older players (Jack Clark, Ernie Banks, etc.) Mattingly’s best season should be compared to all hitters, not just those confined to the “easy” corner. Compared to Schmidt, Brett, Rodriguez, etc Mattingly looks weak.
Let’s compare six seasons of a no doubt hall of famer:
168, 160, 156, 155, 148, 126. Very close, of course those are discounting the other thirteen years…
268, 259, 253, 231, 205, 204, 188, 188, 183, 178, 170, 170, 170.
I’ve always felt that Don Mattingly was a natural infielder who had to play first base since he was left-handed. He did play some outfield early in his career, presumably without a lot of range, but I always pictured him at third if he had been right-handed, and in fact he did play 18 innings at third over the course of his career. He also played 1/3 of an inning at second base, when Billy Martin chose play to play him there to finish out the pine tar game. I’m sure his credentials for the Hall would look much better at third (but still probably end up short).
Rice is a borderline HOFer. He sits on the very edge of the HOF. Just about everywhere you look, you can put Rice right on the edge of Cooperstown induction. For example, Taking Posnanski’s plate appearance logic, all players with 9058 plate appearances or more (Rice had 9058) with an OPS+ of 128 or higher (Rice had a 128 OPS+) that are eligible for the HOF are in the HOF. All of them. Some HOFers, of course, had a lower OPS+.
If you go below 9058 PAs, then you start to see players who were not elected but had similar or higher OPS+ numbers. The first guy is Joe Torre, who also had a 128 career OPS+, same as Rice, but had 257 fewer PAs than Rice (he’s 154th on the all-time PA leaderboard, while Rice was 133rd). The next eligible player is Ken Singleton, who had a higher OPS+ than Rice (132), but 500 fewer PAs. After him is Keith Hernandez, with a 128 OPS+ and 8553 PAs. There is a slew of other guys after him with between 7500 and 8500 PAs and OPS+ of 128 or higher.
So it seems that Joe is onto something with the plate appearances, and it’s instructive as to just how many PAs you need to get serious, and I mean serious, consideration for the HOF. That number seems to be 9000 PAs if you are a borderline case.
There is 0 chance…ZERO…that Springsteen will play Born in the USA.
Just wanted to point that out.
@Gate (#56) – I’m not sure if you’re kidding or not… but Tiant DID pitch for the Red Sox. Eight years, in fact.
Interesting Puckett/Mattingly stuff. I wrote a post on my blog about that almost three years ago, in fact. I also included Eric Davis and the pre-1999 Barry Bonds for kicks and giggles.
If either Blyleven or Morris had played in New York or Boston they would be in the hall by now.
The fact that Jack won so many World Series with different teams shows that teams that were contnders thought he was a winner. How many losing teams did Bert pitch for.
This brings the question: Is he a better pitcher because he won for losing teams, or did he not have to pitch with as much pressure a those on winning teams?
I was, in fact, kidding. My point was that the idea that marginal candidates get in or don’t get in based on what city they played in is largely crap – as Don Mattingly and Luis Tiant can attest.
[...] And Jim Rice is going to the Hall of Fame, while Dave Parker can’t even sniff 25% of the vote. Dave Parker finished his career with more hits, doubles, runs, RBIs and stolen bases than Jim Rice . He was, by pretty much all counts, …[Continue Reading] [...]
Obviously, Mattingly’s power numbers don’t match up against the power numbers of steroids-era sluggers (which covers all of your examples except McCovey, who I’ll get to below) — the same can be said for the power numbers of most of the guys in Cooperstown, I’d bet. Sosa reached 60+ HRs three times — is he three times better than Ruth? (By the way, I’m not saying Pujols’ success is due to PEDs — I do think he’s the real deal.)
Also, OPS+ is hardly the magic number that says whether a guy is HOF-worthy. Is Dick Allen (career OPS+ of 156) the 19th most HOF-worthy guy in history? He’s tied with Mays and just ahead of Aaron (155) and DiMaggio (155) — is he really on a par with those guys in terms of HOF-worthiness? Edgar Martinez is at 147, tied with Schmidt and ahead of Killebrew (143) and Reggie (139). Pedro Guerrero (137) and Gene Tenace (136) are both ahead of George Brett (135). Boog Powell (134) and John Kruk (133) are both ahead of Jim Rice (128). Etc.
Also obviously, using any single stat as a HOF barometer can give strange results — is Blyleven the fifth-most HOF-worthy pitcher in history (strikeouts)? Is he the ninth-most HOF-worthy (shutouts)?
My point was that, for six straight years before he got hurt, Mattingly put up HOF-caliber seasons, measured against the six best years of solid (not borderline) Hall-of-Famers. Let’s take your example of McCovey (first-ballot HOF) — his six best offensive years were 1963-65-66-68-69-70. You’re correct that McCovey’s average OPS+ for those years (174) is much better than Mattingly’s six-year average (148). McCovey’s average HR (40) and walks (91) were also much better (27 and 49 for Mattingly). But Mattingly was better than McCovey in RBI (114 to 108), batting average (.327 to .291), total bases (330 to 302), hits (203 to 151), doubles (43 to 24) and runs (97 to 94).
Eddie Murray (first ballot HOF) was a contemporary of Mattingly’s. His six best offensive years were 1979-80-82-83-84-85, and here’s the comparison: Murray was better in OPS+ (149 to 148), HR (30 to 27), walks (79 to 49) and runs (100 to 97). Mattingly was better than Murray in RBI (114 to 112), batting average (.327 to .303), total bases (330 to 304), hits (203 to 178) and doubles (43 to 32).
I’m not trying to make the case that Mattingly was definitely a Hall-of-Famer (note that I haven’t mentioned the nine gold gloves). What I am suggesting is that those who say he isn’t HOF-worthy because “the career numbers just aren’t there” are missing the point.
Don’t dis Rich Gedman. The year he got MVP consideration he caught 139 games (a high total), had an OPS+ of 126 (superb for a catcher) which was second on the Red Sox to Wade Boggs, and IIRC led the league in percentage of runners caught stealing (over 43%). He also had extraordinary range factors and could easily have won the Gold Glove (Parrish threw out 38% of opposing base runners, caught 19 fewer games). Oh, yeah, he also played in a major east coast media market. Still Gedman’s 1985 was a great year for a catcher. Roy Campanella twice had higher MVP finishes with worse OPS+, and Yogi Berra eight times had higher MVP finishes with a worse OPS+, including one season where Berra actually won the MVP with an OPS+ of 120. So there is *nothing* historically aberrant about a great fielding catcher getting some MVP love after catching a lot of games with an OPS+ of 126.
The next year Gedman was even better behind the plate, going one steal short of throwing out 50% of opposing base runners. And then he lost it, probably following a leg injury, both offensively and defensively. By 1989 Gedman was a mediocrity. But in 1984-1985 (arguably 1986) I think Gedman was the best catcher in the American League. I mean, Parrish won the Silver Slugger in 1986 playing in less than 100 games.
Ted C, comparing counting stats between the best time ever for pitchers, when McCovey was playing, and a much better time for hitters, when Mattingly was playing, is ludicrous. The only way to effectively compare across eras (mound and strike zone changes) is to use OPS+. Mattingly just doesn’t compare to McCovey.
It’s not that Mattingly was jobbed of one MVP he deserved, or that he won one he didn’t deserve. It’s that if he played in any other city, he’d have dropped off the HOF ballot long ago. Put him in Pittsburgh, say, or KC, and he’s not even being discussed.
I don’t get all choked up about the marginal Dodger candidates. I mean, in the 1980s the Dodgers won two World Series, in the 1970s they had eight plus seasons with the same infield, and I can’t say that any Dodger from either of those decades deserves enshrinement in the HOF. And there *were* candidates just as worthy as Mattingly. But they didn’t play in New York.
Joe, I hate to say this, but in the gaming industry, we have a term: numbers guy. And in your setting up the presidential poll, it’s clear you are not a numbers guy.
There were 23 names on this year’s baseball HOF ballot. There have been 43 presidents. So the pool of presidents is a lot larger. HOF voters got to pick up to ten names. Presidential HOF voters got to pick only five names. With 10 votes from 23 candidates, the BBWAA only managed to pick two guys on 75% of the ballots. It is no surprise that with half as many votes and more candidates to choose from (certainly more viable candidates) that we only chose two presidents. It would be surprising if we chose more than two. Increase the number of votes to match those the BBWAA got and I bet we’d have at least give presidents in our first ballot HOF.
Re: new format. Thank you for figuring out and fixing that the overlap of polls over text was caused by text size. I’ve been traveling and didn’t get to mention that. Also, it would be nice if there were a link to prior polls.
I understand the attractive elegance of OPS+ and what it is supposed to do, but when it tells you things like Kevin Mitchell (142 – only sixty guys better ever) and Norm Cash (139) were comparable to but better than Griffey Jr. (138), or that Danny Tartabull (133) and Rico Carty (132) were comparable to but better than Winfield (130), Murray (129) and Yaz (129), you see that it’s not the statistical panacea people want it to be (unless I’m wrong and Gene Tenace really was slightly better than George Brett). It’s not useless, but at the same time, Gene Tenace was not, in fact, better than Brett, Winfield, Murray, Yaz, Kaline, Bench, Clemente, Cepeda, Banks, etc.
Ted C, you’re correct to note the limitations of OPS+. No single statistic should be used by itself to rank players. However, note that longevity, defense, and baserunning help to correct the examples you use. Mitchell, Cash, Tartabull, Carty, and Tenace all played less than the HofF players with lower OPS+. It’s easier to have a high OPS+ if you play less (in Cash’s case, sitting out against tough left-handers) with a brief decline phase. I don’t think any of the non-HofF guys were good defenders, whereas Griffey Jr., Winfield, Yaz, etc. were. Nor does a one-point difference mean much. I do believe, however, that in the batter’s box, in an average at-bat over his entire (shorter) career, Rico Carty was as dangerous as Dave Winfield.
I repeat a challenge I have issued in other threads on this blog:
I keep hearing how “Joe Schmeaux would have been a Hal of Famer YEARS ago if he played in New York.” Oh yeah? If that’s true, the Hall of Fame should be CRAWLING with unworthy Yankees that the sportswriters voted in. So, name 5 underserving Yankees who were elected to the Hall of Fame by the sportswriters.
Mind you, I am NOT counting the Veterans’ Committee, which has inducted a host of undeserving players from a wide range of teams.
Let’s go- where are all these players who’ve been elected to the Hall of Fame solely because they played in New York?
I mean, NOBODY from the New York Mets has EVER won an MVP award. Since 1971, the Oakland A’s have received more MVP awards than the Yankees. Heck, the Texas Rangers have received more MVP awards than the Yankees!
So, where have people gotten the idiotic idea that alleged New York media bias has given New York players have any kind of unfair edge when it comes to winning awards?
Lest we forget, Don Mattingly is NOT in the Hall of Fame and never will be.
For that matter, New York’s most pre-eminent sportswriter, Dick Young, crusaded for decades to get Gil Hodges into the Hall of Fame. it never happened. Get the idea that the New York media don’t really have all that much power?
The Mattingly 1985 MVP vote had nothing to do with him being from NY and George Brett being from KC and everything to do with the RBI differential. Of course, that reasoning by the MVP voters is almost as ludicrous as having an East Coast bias, because the RBI differential was based solely on Mattingly having the best leadoff hitter ever in the midst of his best year hitting in front of him and Brett having an aging, ineffective Willie Wilson hitting in front of him.
As for HOF Yankees voted in by the writers were are undeserving, I doubt I can find 5, but I will try. 1) Herb Pennock is not a particularly strong choice (240 wins, 3.60 ERA, 106 ERA+) 2) Catfish Hunter is possibly the worst choice ever made by the writers. (yes, I know he is also an A) That’s it. If I included NY Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Mets, maybe I could come up with a couple others. I would agree that the idea that the HOF is filled with undeserving Yankees that the writers voted in is not correct. Of course, the Veteran’s Committee has made up for that and given us Earle Combs, Tony Lazzeri, Phil Rizzuto, Jack Chesbro, Lefty Gomez, Waite Hoyt, Red Ruffing. I would venture any pitcher not named Whitey Ford that went in as a Yankee is pretty questionable.
As you pointed out, other teams have a lot of undeseving Veteran’s committe picks too. (I would guess at least the NY Giants rival the Yankees)
How about putting players in the Hall of Fame who are simply, you know, famous? I know there are written standards and all, but there’s not one person in a hundred who knows what they are (leaving aside SABR geeks and the posters on this blog). But we all know the Reggies and the Mickeys and the Willies. Would Reggie have been a less compelling case for the HoF if (a) he didn’t have the 3HR WS game or (b) he hit 100 fewer regular season HRs? I’d say (a). They named a candy bar after him. He was probably the most famous ballplayer in America from 74 or so to 1980. That’s the kind of player who should be in the HoF, not a guy who was very good, but requires a detailed statistical argument to justify his selection, especially when that argument is along the lines of, he’s less borderline than this OTHER guy who’s not in the HoF, either.
By that measure, Jack Morris gets in for that Game 7 on top of a pretty good career marked by multiple appearances on WS champion rosters and Burt Blyleven doesn’t.
I’m old enough to remember Burt Blyleven as a player (I remember Hoyt Wilhelm as a player, for God’s sake). I don’t remember him being one of the greats of the game, even in his era. He was a pretty good pitcher. He did not have Jack Morris’ rep. Jack Morris was _famous_ (there’s that word again) for his rep. It’s entirely possible, even probable, that I underrated Blyleven and overrated Morris. But it is indisputable that one guy was famous and one guy wasn’t, and it IS called the Hall of Fame.
RML, I see a problem with this argument about “famous.”
If we look carefully at a SIMPLE — it doesn’t have to be “detailed” — argument about Morris and Blyleven, Blyleven wins, hands down. Blyleven’s ERA was 18% better than that of his peers. Morris’s was 5% better. Check out this link: http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/5672. To put Jack Morris into this list, the list has to be expanded to include 36 pitchers, not just 8 immortals. Among the 36 are Charlie Hough, Dennis Martinez, Frank Tanana, and Jerry Koosman, all good but not great, and all higher on the list than Jack Morris.
Put another way, the problem is the Morris is famous to you and he wasn’t famous to me (and I saw Hoyt play, too, for pity’s sake). Blyleven WAS famous to me when I was in my 30’s and 40’s, for reasons Rich Lederer reminds us: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2004/12/bert_blyleven_u_1.php.
What’s famous or feared to you may not be famous or feared to me. Was Billy Martin famous? Jose Canseco? Mark Fydrich? Dave Kingman? Eddie Gaedel? The simple statistical argument provides the exact same numbers for everyone, however.
Of the people you name, Willie Mays is credited with with 642 win shares. Mickey Mantle with 565. Reggie Jackson, 444. Bert Blyleven, 339. Hoyt Wilhelm, 256. Jack Morris, 225. (Koosman, 240. Tanana, 241. Hough and Martinez, each 233.) No matter what metric you use, if you look at objective data, you get the same result. If you look in the mirror, you get “famous.”
[...] great Joe Posnanski has a blog entry here where he takes apart Morris’ candidacy in relation to Bert Blyleven. I happen to agree: [...]