Hall of Fame Thoughts
Posted: November 8th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 138 Comments »
Hall of Fame time already? Well, no. But to beat the rush, here are a few thoughts about four interesting new candidates …
Question: Who is the best eligible hitter who is not in the Hall of Fame?
I think this is an interesting question. It’s interesting because the way it is framed we don’t have to drudge up all the talk about Joe Jackson and Pete Rose — neither one of them is eligible. Neither is Barry Bonds, yet.
One answer to the question is Mark McGwire. A lot of people would say Mark McGwire was not a great hitter — as they define “hitter” — but I would disagree. He had a .394 on-base percentage because of his incredible ability to work the strike zone (and McGwire had a HUGE strike zone). And in his prime he hit a home run every eight at-bats, which is simply unmatched in baseball history. But, well, we all know why McGwire is not in the Hall of Fame, and anyway he did hit .263 for his career which probably eliminates him from the discussion. My hero Duane Kuiper hit for a better average than Mark McGwire, though he was only good for a home run every, oh, 3,379 at-bats or so.
Dick Allen is a pretty decent choice as the best eligible not in — his 156 OPS+ is better than all but 12 Hall of Famers (it ties him with Willie Mays for 12th). He played in a terrible hitting era, but from age 22 (when he put up one of the great rookie seasons ever) to age 32 (when he led the league homers despite playing in only 128 games) he was an awesome hitter.
Don Mattingly, I suppose, has his case — he hit .307 for his career, won a batting title, an MVP, twice led the league in OPS+, twice in hits, three times in doubles. Over a career, though, Will Clark was probably even better because he drew more walks and slugged better. So Will Clark deserves consideration too.
Minnie Minoso, for regrettable reasons, did not make it to the big leagues as a full-timer until 1951, and from ‘51 to ‘61 he hit .305/.395/.471 for an OPS+ of 134. Indian Bob Johnson — who never played for the Indians — was 27 when he made it to the big leagues, and he punched up an OPS+ of 138 while hitting .324 and leading the league in on-base percentage and OPS+ when he was 38.
Babe Herman hit .324 for a career, though it was a relatively short one. Tony Oliva won three batting titles and led the league in hits five times — Bill James has often said that he never saw anyone hit more savage foul balls than Tony Oliva. People often poked fun at Bill Madlock for caring so much about his stats, but he won four batting titles between 1975-83. One of my favorites was Pedro Guerrero — from 1980-89 he hit .308/.383/.586 and through the eyes of a teenager he often seemed to be pretty much an impossible out.
But I tell you what*, I think there’s actually a better answer than any of those for the greatest eligible hitter who is not in the Hall of Fame. I’m cheating a little bit because this player is not quite eligible … he will be on the ballot this year for the very first time. But he will not get voted in, and I suspect he will not come close to getting voted in. And I think he might be the best hitter (non-steroid/gambling division) to not make the Hall of Fame.
*That was for brilliant reader Todd who watched the Arizona Fall League All-Star Game on MLB.TV and said that announcer Tony Clark started pretty much every sentence with “I tell you what.”
That hitter, of course, is Edgar Martinez.
Look:
– Edgar Martinez’s career average is .312 — since the end of World War II (not including active players) only seven men with 7,500 or-more at bats have a better batting average (Gwynn, Boggs, Carew, Musial, Puckett, Clemente, Larry Walker).
– Edgar Martinez’s career on-base percentage is .418 — FOUR ONE EIGHT. Only Bonds, Mantle and Frank Thomas have a better on-base percentage using the same criteria (since 1945, 7,500 at-bats, non-active).
– Edgar Martinez slugged .515 — the same as Willie McCovey. Admittedly, it was a different era (and Edgar only once hit more than 30 home runs), but the point here is that Martinez was not a slappy hitter.
– Edgar led the league in hitting twice, in on-base percentage three times, in runs once, in RBIs once and in doubles twice. I’ve often said that one of the great MVP rip-offs in baseball history was when Mo Vaughn won in 1995 over Albert Belle — who hit 50 homers and 50 doubles in a strike-shortened season, one of the great hitting years in baseball history. Edgar, you could argue, had an even BETTER YEAR than Belle (.356/.479/.628 with 121 runs, 116 walks, 113 RBIs, a 185 OPS+).
Best I can guess, Martinez will not get a lot of Hall of Fame support despite being one of the greatest hitters in baseball history, and there are at least three reasons. One, he was viewed as a DH — well, he was mostly a DH. In his career, he played 1,412 games as DH and only 563 as a third baseman. There’s a sense among many voters that a player who was not good enough to play the field on a regular basis — no matter how good a hitter he may have been — lacks that completeness necessary to be a Hall of Famer.
Of course, Paul Molitor was predominantly a DH too and he breezed right into the Hall of Fame.
Molitor, though, reached the hallmark number — he got to 3,000 hits. And that’s reason No. 2. Martinez, who did not get a chance to be a full-time player until he was 27, only managed 2,247 hits. He only managed 309 home runs. Molitor got about 3,500 more plate appearances than Martinez, and as such his numbers simply look better. But there is no doubt in my mind that Martinez was a better hitter than Molitor — he just had a significantly shorter career.
And I mean that as no knock on Molitor. Jim Rice was just inducted … and he didn’t put up any Hallmark numbers. Martinez was a much better hitter than Jim Rice too.
And I mean that as no knock on Rice either. The Hall of Fame is loaded, absolutely loaded with players who were not nearly as good at hitting a baseball as Edgar Martinez. Compare him as a hitter with almost anyone you think in recent years — George Brett, Wade Boggs, Rod Carew, Billy Williams, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline or Yaz. You’ll be surprised.
And that’s reason No. 3 — many people never realized or appreciated just how good a hitter Edgar Martinez was. He was out there on the West Coast, in Seattle, playing after people around the country went to sleep, after those East Coast newspaper deadlines. He never played in a World Series, and he was always overshadowed — by Griffey, by A-Rod, by Unit, by somebody.
He was a truly great hitter — world class. I’ll be interested to see how the vote goes for him this year. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. But I expect a lack of support. And I expect that Edgar Martinez will hold the “Best Hitter Not In the Hall” title — maybe he can have a championship belt made of it.
* * *
The other day, at the World Series, a woman handed out a very nice full-color booklet to promote the Hall of Fame case of Roberto Alomar. I say it was nice because it looked nice … but it had nothing much inside. A few numbers. A few bland comparisons to Hall of Fame second basemen. To me, it seemed oddly beneath Roberto Alomar’s standing — sort of like handing out a Hank Aaron booklet that makes his Hall of Fame case by pointing out that he hit more home runs than Goose Goslin.
Alomar, to me, has a case as the greatest second baseman since Hornsby. I am not the best person to make that case — I, of course, happen to think Joe Morgan is the greatest second baseman since Hornsby. But I could give it a try: Alomar won 10 Gold Gloves — more than any second baseman — and I think he was probably slightly better defensively than Morgan. He hit .300 for his career, walked just about as often as he struck out, hit double digit home runs nine times, stole 30 or more bases eight times and was a terrific postseason player (.313 postseason average, .347 in his two World Series victories). He had his best year at age 33 in Cleveland — he could have won the MVP that year. He did get traded to the Mets, where he finished off with three uninspiring years, and he retired at 36. So he did not get the number bump that so many players get in their later years.
Still, it’s hard to imagine a much better Hall of Fame case — a great fielding, great hitting, great running second baseman.
But … I sense no buzz about his candidacy. I guess there are a couple of reasons for this. There was the spitting incident back in 1996 … he spit in the face of umpire John Hirschbeck. And then, post-career, an ex-girlfriend filed a civil suit alleging that Alomar had unprotected sex with her despite having AIDS. Alomar denied that he has AIDS. This, of course, should have nothing at all to do with his Hall of Fame candidacy, but when a player has some sort of controversy swirling around, it probably does affect the way people think about him.
And then … Alomar seems to be another player who was probably better than many people seemed to think when he was a player. Well, no, that’s not exactly right — he made 12 All-Star Games (10 as a starter) and won all those Gold Gloves and was Top 6 MVP five times. So people did know of his brilliance while he was playing. It just seems like he was someone who did not stick in people’s minds.
To sum up: Alomar won more Gold Gloves than Sandberg, Mazeroski, White or any other second baseman. He also cracked 2,724 hits — more than any second baseman since World War II (Craig Biggio got more hits, but he spent quite a bit of time at other positions). He hit more than 500 doubles. He’s one of only two players in baseball history to hit .300 with 200 homers and 400 stolen bases — the other is first ballot Hall of Famer Paul Molitor who, as mentioned, spent most of his career as a DH.
If you want your baseball player who hits, hits with power, gets on base, runs well, plays great defense … well, hard to imagine how someone could have a much better Hall of Fame case than Roberto Alomar. I think that, unlike Martinez, he will get voted into the Hall … but I do wonder how long it will take.
* * *
I remember a few years ago, the Cincinnati Enquirer did a baseball special cover that featured a Hall of Fame plaque for Barry Larkin. This had to be 1996 or so, he was only 32 at the time, and it seemed a bit early to call Larkin a future Hall of Famer. Yes, he won the MVP in 1995, and he’d had a better year in 1996, but it just seemed too soon. I remember telling people then: Let’s see how the rest of his career turns out.
As it turned out, he was injured in 1997, he had very good 1998 and 1999 seasons, more injuries in 2000 … and that really was it for his career. He played four more injury-riddled years when he mostly bickered with the Cincinnati Reds about money and being treated with respect.
And now I look back at Larkin’s career — well, it’s interesting. I spent a lot of time around him in the mid-90s when I wrote columns in Cincinnati, and I always found him to be a series of contradictions. He grew up in CIncinnati and he played his whole career in Cincinnati, but I never got the sense that he particularly liked Cincinnati. He was obviously charismatic and lucid and interesting when he wanted to be — there seemed little doubt even that that he had a TV career ahead if he wanted one. But he rarely seemed all that interested in talking. He was the team leader that did not seem to enjoy being the team leader — and other players did not seem to enjoy it either. It was weird.
As a player … well, Larkin was an amazing player to watch every day. Yes, I cringe too when I hear that “you have to see him every day to appreciate him” cliche … but it really was amazing how many times we would be watching from the box and Barry Larkin made a play that left you shaking your head in admiration. I suppose it felt that way because he was such a well-rounded player — Bill James in the New Historical Abstract called Larkin one of the ten most complete players in baseball history (italics his). He could do so many different things that could impress you.
– Larkin stole 379 bases — and at remarkable 83% success rate.
– Larkin never struck out 70 times in a season, and walked 112 more times in his career than he struck out.
– Larkin hit double digit home runs nine times, and as many as 33 in a season.
– Larkin finished Top 10 in batting average four times, runs scored five times, walks three times, stolen bases five times, on-base percentage three times, slugging twice. He won three Gold Gloves. He won the MVP, the Lou Gehrig and the Roberto Clemente Awards. He made 12 All-Star Teams. He hit .353 in his one World Series appearance. And he played with a certain style — he was just a graceful player. He made great defensive plays without diving, and stole bases with a seeming effortlessness.
I remember in 1995 — his MVP year — he seemed to always come through in the big moments. The numbers show that my memory isn’t completely faulty. Larkin hit .345/.453/.591 with runners in scoring position that year. He hit .347 and slugged .653 with runners in scoring position and two outs. He hit .397 in Late & Close situations. It was just one year, of course, but I remember manager Davey Johnson saying with wonder that he could never remember a player who was so guaranteed to give you a good at-bat in those pivotal situations as Barry Larkin. And it sure seemed that way.
So that seems like a slam-dunk Hall of Famer, right? Sure. The knock is … injuries. Only four times in Larkin’s career did he play 150 games or more.
When he played, he was outstanding. And over the course of his career, he played almost 2,200 games. But he had SO MANY partial seasons — 97 games in ‘89, 123 games in ‘91, 100 games in ‘93, the two strike years took away games, 73 games in ‘97, 102 games in 2000, 45 games in 2001 and so on.
This, I suppose, can make Larkin look like a borderline Hall of Fame choice. He only once finished in the Top 10 in MVP voting other than the year he won it. He never led the league in a single counting statistic. We all know how I feel about runs and RBIs — they are context stats — but that doesn’t change the fact that Larkin only twice scored 100 runs* in a season and only once drove in more than 75 RBIs — and never 90. People look at those counting stats.
*I wondered how many fast, good-hitting Hall of Famers scored 100 runs fewer than two times in a career … and I was stunned to find out that Rod Carew — ROD CAREW! — only scored 100 runs once in his career. Those were low scoring days and Carew did score 98 and 97 in seasons. Still, that’s shocking to me.
When you add it all up, I feel strongly that Larkin is a Hall of Famer. I’ll vote for him. He did so many things well over a long career. But, the more people I talk with about him, the more I sense that he has a long uphill Hall of Fame climb.
* * *
If you do not include active players, there are exactly 21 hitters in baseball history with 2,000 hits, 450 home runs and an OPS+ of 130 or better.
These include the obvious: Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Musial, Bonds, Foxx, Ott, Frank Robinson, Schmidt, Stargell, McCovey, Reggie, Killebrew, Winfield.
The list also includes Frank Thomas, who should be considered obvious but people keep failing to appreciate just how good he was. It includes Eddie Mathews, who should be considered obvious but I always keep forgetting just how good he was. It includes Rafael Palmeiro, who will be on a lot of all-time great lists but, well, you know.
OK, so there’s one more. And you probably would never think of him — except he’s the fourth player on our Hall of Fame first-timer list. Fred McGriff.
Whenever I think of McGriff, I think of Eddie Murray. They were not identical players, of course. Murray was a switch hitter who won Gold Gloves at first base. McGriff swung left-handed and had had that wild flourish at the end of his swing, and he was generally viewed as a mediocre first baseman. Murray was called Steady Eddie for his remarkable consistency; McGriff (for his name) became known as the Crime Dog. Murray was seen by media types as moody, though teammates seemed to love him. McGriff was liked by pretty much everyone, though he was mostly known outside of baseball for his outstanding work on the Tom Emanski baseball video commercials.
Still, a quick and limited view of McGriff’s numbers vs. Murray’s numbers tells us a little something:
Murray: .287/.359/.476 with 504 homers and 129 OPS+ in 3,026 games.
McGriff: .284/.377/.509 with 493 homers and 134 OPS+ in 2,460 games.
Murray had 5 seasons with 30+ homers.
McGriff had 10 seasons with 30+ homers.
Murray had 6 seasons with 100+ RBIs.
McGriff had 8 seasons with 100+ RBIs.
Murray led the league in homers once, RBIs once, walks once and on-base percentage once.
McGriff led the league in homers twice, OPS once, OPS+ once.
Murray hit .258 in the postseason, and .169 in three World Series.
McGriff hit .303 in the postseason, and .279 in two World Series.
Now, we all know that context plays a big role in all this. Murray played most of his career in a low run-scoring environment while McGriff played most of his career in the high-scoring 1990s and early 2000s. Still, McGriff’s career as a hitter looks awfully good compared to Murray, who waltzed into the Hall of Fame first ballot. McGriff, like the others in this blog post, will probably not get much Hall of Fame support at all.
So what’s the difference? Well, for one, Murray hit the hallmark numbers. He played long enough to get 3,000 hits and 500 home runs. McGriff, played almost 600 fewer games and as such did not reach either of those milestones.
And perhaps more: The numbers have come to mean less to us. The offensive explosion — and everything you would like to blame for that offensive explosion — changed the meaning of 493 homers. Yes, McGriff hit as many home runs as Lou Gehrig and more than Musial, Stargell, Yaz, Billy Williams, Duke Snider, Al Kaline and so many of the other all-time greats. But who cares now? Gary Sheffield has 500 home runs. Sammy Sosa has 600. Barry Bonds has 762. Perspective is lost.
Baseball, more than any other American sports I think, leans on nostalgia. It is the sport that helps us cling to our childhood and feeds that human daydream that things used to be better. As baseball fans many of us want to believe — we like believing — that the game is fundamentally the same, and that great players from the distant past could be just as great (or greater) in today’s game. We cannot believe that about runners or swimmers whose times are so much slower than today’s players. We cannot believe that about football players who were so much smaller and slower or basketball players who rarely dribbled with their left hand.
But in baseball we can believe it, we do believe it. There is little doubt, I think, that Edgar Martinez was a better than the vast majority of hitters in in the Hall of Fame, that Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin were much better than most of the middle infielders in the Hall and that Fred McGriff, certainly as a hitter, probably belongs among the Top 5 or 6 first basemen in there.
But I would say there’s a pretty good chance none of the four will be elected to the Hall this year. We do not even want to compare them with players already in the Hall of Fame. Nostalgia rules. The standard of greatness rises with the times. It’s a funny thing: There are still groups fighting to get Shoeless Joe Jackson in the Hall because he hit .356 when the ball was dead, and white fielders wore leather pillows on their hands, and every game was in the daytime. I wonder if there will be as many groups fighting for Edgar Martinez, who hit .312 in modern days and also didn’t take money from gamblers.
Loading ...
I love your HOF posts.
I’m not sure how much Robbie Alomar’s controversy will affect his candidacy. Kirby Puckett had a few rather nasty allegations leveled at him in his post-career years and it came up very little, if at all, during his wait for the hall.
That said, he was a lock to make it, a luxury Alomar doesn’t seem to have.
I second electric’s sentiments on your HOF posts. To my mind, Martinez, Larkin, and Alomar are HOFers–but first-ballot ones? I’m not so sure. Yeah, I know, it always depends who’s up for the vote in any given year; but “first-ballot Hall of Famer” conjures up a player of a certain level that I’m not persuaded these three reached. Make me pick one, and it’d be Martinez–I totally agree that he was a truly great hitter penalized mostly for playing in Seattle–but I’d definitely vote for Alomar and Larkin next year.
Also, am about halfway through _The Machine_, and I love it! I was 14 in ‘75, born and raised in Dayton, and I thought that ALL baseball was supposed to be like that. Then the 80s came. . . .
I’m all for Mattingly. I grew up watching him play (and steal popcorn) and he was one of the top players of his generation.
Edgar, yes. A resounding yes. Though he went positionless for most of his career, he was always the bat you were scared of in that Seattle lineup. You knew the explosiveness of Griffey, but Edgar always seemed to get the big hit when they needed it.
I’m not sure McGriff deserves to get in, Larkin, probably, but not first ballot. Alomar, yes, people need to understand that the Hall of Fame is NOT just based on your batting statistics (which seems to be the barometer) it should also be based on your character, defensive prowess, and what you meant to your team and baseball during the time in-which you played.
I’ve changed my mind on McGriff, I honestly just got those baseball instructional school commercials in my head.
I’ve been waiting all this time for the day Edgar Martinez gets on the ballot for the first time. I’d be surprised if he doesn’t get in 1st ballot. Really. Although, you might be right. After all, 5 years ago I didn’t realize the voters weren’t smart enough to get the Blyleven thing right…maybe they’re not smart enough for Edgar either.
But I remember that whenever Edgar came to the plate… you shook in fear unless you were a Mariner’s fan.
As for Alomar…hmmm. Like you say, the spitting & stuff. Isn’t “good moral character” or something like that, part of the HOF qualifications? Sure it’s subject to personal definitions… but, I kinda wonder too if that will keep him held back.
People underestimate Frank Thomas II and Fred McGriff? Really? Like, who? The 14 year old’s who didn’t get to see them dominate pre-’98?
I used to think Edgar fell short of being Hall-worthy, based largely on career length – as you mentioned, he didn’t get a regular gig until he was at an age when most players are on the verge of their decline phase.
I’ve since been swayed, based on the overwhelming numbers he did put up – that OBP was amazing, and his slugging was impressive for a guy who wasn’t exactly a home run hitter.
Having said that, why hasn’t there been more speculation about Edgar and PEDs? He was a good hitter who became a MONSTER at age 32, exhibiting far more power than he had before. I’ve heard some suggest he became a better hitter once he stopped having to worry about fielding, but when a player’s prime occurs from age 32 through 40, usually some people will whisper.
Alomar’s another slam dunk for me. He’s got a legit claim as the best Blue Jay ever (it’s between him and Delgado) and he was really the best player on their World Series teams. He was basically their Chase Utley while Carter got the love for his HR and RBI a la Ryan Howard.
I’d never seen a player who could do more things well – hitting, fielding, baserunning. In ‘92, it seemed like every time the Jays were down by a run or two late, he’d be at the plate and would spark a rally (and a quick look at the numbers shows he went .430/.526/.557 in close and late situations that year.)
I didn’t see much of him once he went to the NL, but caught a spring training game when he tried catching on with the Rays in ‘05 and it was sad. The guy was completely overmatched at the plate and in the field. What a precipitous decline.
And, of course, there’s also the rumour that his name was on the 2003 steroid list (as far as I know, the list has not been confirmed.)
Larkin was another favourite of mine. A perennially underrated guy who did everything well (and many things exceptionally well.) The injuries are the only strike against him. Apart from that, he was the NL’s answer to the so-called Holy Trinity of shortstops in the AL at that time.
His peak years were better than Jeter’s, though he often checked in at 140 or fewer games played, so his counting stats don’t look as impressive as they might have. Given decent health, he could easily have managed 500 more games (and maybe made a run at 3,000 hits, which would have made him a slam dunk.)
McGriff was actually my favourite player at one point, so I’m a little biased when it comes to his candidacy. One thing to consider – he was never suspected of any steroid use, and the only people ahead of him on the career home run list are 15 no-doubt Hall of Famers, plus Griffey, Thome, Thomas and seven juicers.
I’m not one of those moralistic “steroid users have no place in the hall” types, but a lot of the voters obviously are. I wonder if he’ll get a boost as a sort of “screw you” to McGwire and the other steroid users.
So yeah, I’d vote “yes” on Edgar, Alomar and Larkin, and lean toward “yes” on McGriff.
And I’d add Raines, Blyleven, McGwire and Trammell to my ballot.
The ridiculous thing about the steroids issue is that while people are eager to tar players with the “cheater” brush for *possibly* taking things that weren’t actually against the rules of the game, they don’t even have the consistency to turn around and give extra credit to those who clearly didn’t.
I hated Fred McGriff as a Phillies fan in the early 90s, but Joe’s right, he was amazing. And seriously, just do a google image search for “Fred McGriff.” I know it’s a mug’s game to decide who did and didn’t take what, but just *look*.
Edgar was not a DH because he was a terrible fielder, he actually was “good enough to play the field on a regular basis”. The reason he didn’t was because of a gnarly hamstring injury. It was then in the best interest of the team to get a 3B and move his incredible bat to DH.
Perfect world, we’re just counting the days until Edgar gets in. But until then, some will just have to be reminded that butcher with the glove he was not.
On behalf of my father and my grandfather (God rest his soul) I have to stick up for Minnie Minoso. The best eligible PLAYER not in the Hall of Fame.
As an addendum, I don’t buy into the “this guy’s a Hall of Famer, but not a first-ballot guy” argument. In my mind, someone’s a Hall of Famer or they’re not.
I could see a voter changing his mind about a guy – some voters have been slow to embrace more advanced (and accurate) player evaluation methods – but I don’t understand trying to figure out whether someone deserves to go in on the first or second or 12th ballot once you’ve already decided they’re Hall-worthy.
And Devon, some people sadly think of Thomas as the gimpy-kneed DH who hit in the .270s for the latter half of his career and forget the guy whose first seven full seasons were better than those of Albert Pujols.
As for McGriff, I recall that he was often overshadowed by others on his own teams (in the public eye, at least,) and was rarely thought of as a dominant force. The fact that he only had one top-five MVP finish in his career will attest to that.
I remember when Alomar got traded to the Mets, a big deal was made about how we were gonna get to watch him close in on 3,000 hits and how the Mets had two first-ballot Hall of Famers in the lineup for the first time in their history (I guess they weren’t counting days when Seaver pitched and Mays was in the outfield. I don’t blame them.) His rather underwhelming (to put it mildly) two years in Flushing Meadows hurt his candidacy more than I realized. He’s on the short list for my all time least favorite Mets, but I still think he’s a first-ballot HOFer.
Also, an interesting Eddie Murray stat: from 1981-1984, he had an OPS+ of exactly 156 every season. Murray always struck me as one of the more consistent players, that seems to hammer it home. I wonder if anyone else has ever put up the same OPS+ in 4 straight years – to me that’s even flukier than Adam Dunn hitting exactly 40 homers in 4 straight years, b/c OPS+ varies based on the rest of the league. Think about it, every year Murray was 56% better than the average hitter.
The one thing about Edgar is that his counting stars are down not only because of his late start but because he was injured a lot, especially early in his career. That MVP years was the first year he was really 100%. But being healthy is part of being in the HOF.
And his late start wasn’t really a big nefarious scheme by the Mariners. Edgar was a late bloomer. He didn’t start hitting the ball with any kind of authority until he was 24. And even when he started in the majors, didn’t have a *great* season until he was 29. Even in a perfect world, I doubt he would have reached the milestones that are automatic inductions.
I don’t think Edgar or McGriff are going to get in. If they had ten years to have their names considered and arguments, then maybe.
But they have HUGE problem. The classes of 2013 and 2014. In those years, Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Schilling, Sosa, Piazza, Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Mussina, Edmonds and Kent all arrive on the ballot. That’s, modulo steroid judgements, seven first ballot guys and arguably 11 HOFers in just two years.
Anyone who isn’t in by 2013 isn’t going to get in. In fact, I wonder if we’ll end up with a run-of like we did in the early days of the HOF when there were too many worthy names out there.
[...] from: Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Hall of Fame Thoughts Click Here For Cheap Reds Tickets! Save Money On Reds Tickets! Tagged: cheap reds tickets, cheap [...]
Plus Fred McGriff’s son is a Freshman at KU, so that has to count for something.
“I’m not sure how much Robbie Alomar’s controversy will affect his candidacy. Kirby Puckett had a few rather nasty allegations leveled at him in his post-career years and it came up very little, if at all, during his wait for the hall.”
None of those things came out, conveniently, until after Kirby was voted in.
I think Alomar was actually a bit OVERrated while he was playing — he had the reputation as being this once-in-a-lifetime defensive talent, like Vizquel, when really he was merely pretty good, like Vizquel — but his sudden and horrible collapse at like age 33 clouded the picture for a lot of people. Nevermind that a LOT of second basemen are no good once they hit their mid 30’s (almost all of them, really) — Alomar’s crash was just so sudden, I think it shocked all the memories of him as a great player out of people’s minds.
I’d vote for Alomar, Larkin and Edgar without a moment’s hesitation. More on the fence about McGriff. I think Robbie goes in on the first or second ballot, Larkin on the fourth or fifth, and Edgar battles with Santo, Blyleven and a whole bunch of suspected PED users for the “most infuriatingly ridiculous omission” title.
Post 2 Dan Wade — Do you think the Puckett “forgiveness” or “acceptance” has to do with his deteriorating health situation similar to Joe’s recent post about the boss and his health. I don’t really feel like doing the research of how sick Puckett was during his HOF candidacy, but it could be a viable guess. I don’t see that happening for Alomar even if the AIDS allegations are true considering AIDS still has a negative stigma to it when it comes to morality. By the way Joe great post.
As someone who watched Alomar for all of his Cleveland years, I’d strongly support him for the HOF. Watching him and Omar Vizquel turn double plays was a treat. He was also the #3 hitter in the best 1-6 lineup I ever saw (Lofton-Vizquel-Alomar-Ramirez-Thome-Fryman). what a fun team, even if they never won anything.
This is not to say that Martinez doesn’t have a legitimate case for the HOF, but I don’t really think that he and Molitor are equivalent when it comes to not playing in the field.
While Molitor did play DH more than he played any other position, he played started about 300 more games in the field than he did at DH (1480 to 1170). Edgar Martinez started 850 more games at DH than he did in the field.
To put it another way, for every plate appearance Edgar Martinez played about .56 innings in the field. For each of Paul Molitor’s plate appearances, he played 1.07 innings in the field.
Certainly, both are best known as DHs, but I don’t think Molitor’s case really provides a good precedent for Martinez. Though I agree that Martinez was a better hitter.
Longevity matters Joe, and Edgar doesn’t have it.
Bill James has a theory that players who bounce around from team-to-team during their career are undervalued in comparison to guys who spend all (or the vast majority) of their careers with one club. Somehow it’s easier for us to get a visual in our heads of that player if he’s only worn one uniform.
Perhaps this is part of why people fail to appreciate Alomar. He bounced around a lot, and therefore he also doesn’t have a fervent fan base anywhere who will pound the drum for him. Same with McGriff.
That doesn’t explain Larkin or Martinez, of course.
Alomar reminds me of Marshall Faulk for some reason – both guys had definitive periods in their careers where you could point to them and say, “That guy is the best all around player in the game.” Yet for whatever reason, nobody seems to remember either guy that clearly. They both put the fear of God in me, that’s for sure.
I remember when i was a teenager and still collecting baseball cards (this was like mid-90s I’d guess), and in one pack I got a super special edition Barry Larkin card and the same super special edition Roberto Alomar card. I think at the time they were each worth at least 20 dollars and the Alomar one was like 40. By the late 90s they were each worth 5 dollars at most. My point is these cards made me start following their careers, and i think alomar is a no doubt hall-of-famer. Larkin i was a little on the fence about, but i don’t think i ever realized how good a bat he was, I always thought of him growing up as an excellent defensive player who wasnt great with the bat, which is just plain wrong.
Anyway without any obvious holdovers, I think these guys get a lot of support. I think Alomar gets in, and the other three finish around 33-40 percent which should be enough of a baseline for them to get in eventually.
I suspect Alomar and Martinez will both eventually get in, but I think McGriff’s chances are pretty poor, and Larkin’s chances are probably exactly the same as Alan Trammell’s. They were very similar players – solid defensive shortstops with some pop, walked a fair amount, could steal you a base, World Series heroes who played their entire careers with one team and were injury-plagued in their latter years. I think both of them belong in the Hall, but Trammell has yet to crack 20% of the votes in 8 previous appearances on the ballot, so it’s highly unlikely he’s going to be elected by the writers. I see no reason why Larkin will fare better. That MVP might help him, but I doubt it, since even the writers know they screwed up when Trammell lost the ‘87 award to George Bell.
I think the “First Ballot” distinction is important. I didn’t used to. I thought it was asinine–either a guy is a hall of famer or he isn’t. What does it matter how long you make him wait?
But then I learned a little bit more about the HOF–who’s in it, how low down the “legends” chart the roster of Cooperstown goes, and it’s nice to see there are some legitimate lines of demarcation. Generally speaking if a guy is a “Veteran’s Committee” HOFer everyone knows he’s a little bit “less” than a BBWAA HOFer. And all it takes is to look at the list of first ballot HOFer’s to see that THAT’s what idiot sportswriters are always talking about when they harp on about how “It’s not the Hall of Very Good.”
Have you ever heard some guy go “The Hall Of Fame isn’t Bert Blyleven! It’s Bob Gibson and Walter Johnson?” Well that dude is clueless, but not completely. What he’s talking about is not the Hall of Fame, but about first ballot hall of famers.
Why does Mattingly get press, and not Hrbek? Look at OBP, look at SLG. If Hrbek plays in MN, and Mattingly here, Hrbek has gold glove after gold glove. Look at who actually helped his team, you know, win WS titles.
NO ONE mentions Hrbek, and yet people think Mattingly should get consideration….if that doesn’t show NYY bias, I have no idea what does. Frankly, I don’t think either deserves it, but would anyone say Hrbek does? Look at their numbers, look at their team’s wins, look at whatever you want, and they are close to the same player.
That should read, “If Hrbek plays in NY, and Mattingly here….”.
I hope that if either/both of Alomar and McGriff get into the Hall – and I think Alomar has a better case / is more likely to get the votes – that they are given a Blue Jays’ cap on the plaque. Both guys bounced around a bit, and I think McGriff might be remembered more clearly as a Brave, but it’s about time there was a Toronto representative in Cooperstown.
Also, how about the fact that Alomar was traded for McGriff? I find it incredible that all four players from that trade – McGriff and Tony Fernandez for Alomar and Carter – had long, solid-to-awesome careers, and three of them have their numbers “honoured” by the Jays. What a blockbuster (1990’s style).
Jim @20, good point on Alomar.
Unfortunately, I think the answer to your speculation on Edgar and Larkin is that playing a long time in one city is better when that one city is on the East Coast. In other words, had the front of Larkin’s jersey read “Red Sox” rather than “Reds” and the front of Edgar’s read “Mets” rather than “Mariners”, I don’t think we would be having this debate about whether they belonged in the HOF or not.
Larkin is also hurt by the fact that he didn’t start as many All Star games, nor win as many Gold Gloves as he should have, because the Wizard of Oz’s popularity won him a couple of AS and GG elections that he probably didn’t deserve in the early 90s.
Sabby,
I think Alomar would go in as a Jay – his best seasons were elsewhere, but he really made a name for himself in Toronto, was on two World Series winners here and he spent longer here than anywhere else (even though it was only five years.)
McGriff would almost certainly go in with an Atlanta cap – he had his longest tenure there (only 4 1/2 years!) and a World Series title. Though I watched him more as a Jay, I think the enduring image of him (if there is one) would be as a Brave.
Agree with you on the trade, though. I miss deals like that.
Joe,
I keep reading these “they are probably HOFers but are they first ballot HOFers” type of posts. I gotta say I can’t understand how you would vote for someone 7 or 8 years after retirement but not 5?
The only reasonable standards for me on HOF ballots…. are as follows:
1) Is he the best player not in the HOF who is eligible? Under this standard the first guy I vote in is probably Ron Santo.
2) Is he the best player at his position who is not the HOF who is eligible? Aside from Ron Santo that brings up several candidates – and on this standard Alomar certainly arrives. Larkin probably does not go on this standard. McGriff probably not. Frank Thomas is maybe in here. (I think Thomas was a better player than McGriff).
Edgar is interesting here – does he belong? I think so, but I’d have to vote for Santo, Thomas, Alomar first.
Finally, these HOF discussions are problematic because there is no standard for induction. We got Rice last year, which is just NUTS. We have no Dwight Evans (wasn’t he the best OF on that team?) We have no Fred Lynn (who was the 2nd best OF on that team at its peak). So, we have a guy who was the third best outfielder on his own team in. We have no Ron Santo (is he even eligible?). We have no Darrell Evans.
There is just no repair to this… and yet I still care.
I’d vote for the Crime Dog, and Martinez… as a suffering Mets fan, I’m ambivalent about Alomar, but I do recognize how wonderful he was in his prime, and am inclined to think he belongs as well.
Larkin, I’m on the fence. One thing that will probably help him is that he spent his whole career in Cincy. Sounds dumb, but it’s true – the flip side of the observation that Alomar and McGriff bounced around a bit. A guy who is considered a team’s best option for a long period of time – who is rarely challenged from within the organization, who is not asked to move to a less-demanding position, who is always re-signed and never traded… that will stick out in the typical old-school writer’s mind. As perennial as Opening Day in Cincy was “Larkin, ss” in their lineup.
I read a little of “Long Ball,” the book about the 1975 season… I haven’t yet picked up “The Machine” (hopefully a Christmas present – hint hint, family). I was wondering if you’d read it, Pos, and what you (and the Brilliant Readers) thought of it.
Jesus @ 32
Al Oliver? Really? Darrell Evans was a 3B and a pretty darn good one. Al Oliver was an average defensive outfielder. Darrell Evans had more power and better strike zone judgement. Darrell Evans played in the worst hitters environments imaginable and still posted very good OBP’s.
I’m not saying that Evans necessarily should be in.. but he’s WAY ahead of Rice.
Dick Allen? Ahead of Santo? Really? The guy couldn’t play any defense. He had virtually no post-peak value. Great hitter (maybe the best hitter not in the HOF, but…)
Tiant? I wasn’t really arguing pitchers… Maybe he should be in before Santo (I don’t really know the specifics of his case, but I doubt it).
I guess the Rice selection really still has me baffled. It was a terrible decision and can’t ever be undone… So, we wind up with 25-30 corner outfielders from that era, great.
When I said above that he was the third best outfielder on his own team I meant it… and that team in his peak years (1976-1980 or so) never even won their own division.
The thing about the first ballot is, if everyone believes Alomar, for example, is a Hall of Famer, but not a “first ballot hall” of famer, what if everyone withheld their vote and he fell off the ballot?
That’s why I never understood the argument. Do the writers get together and make sure he gets at least 30%?
“Plus Fred McGriff’s son is a Freshman at KU, so that has to count for something.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I would hope the voters wouldn’t hold something like that against him.
I never saw most of these guys play but my father and grandfather watched Dick Allen. Both of them have watched baseball all their lives, and both swear he was one of the best they had ever seen.
For me, looking at the stats and situation, the guy is definitely a HOFer.
To address Allen’s defense: according to B-ref, over his career he was slightly above average in fielding %–though I must concede that that was colored by large amount of time at first, and otherwise he was a mediocre fielder.
Interestingly enough, also according to B-ref, Allen was above league average in range factor for his career. Was it his arm that was bad? Anybody who was really paying attention want to tell me?
Even more ridiculous than the voters who want to make sure only the greatest players get in on the first ballot, and therefore, won’t vote for some second tier stars on the first ballot (and remember, these 2nd tier stars include Tris Speaker, Cy Young, Rogers Hornsby, and Yogi Berra), are the handful of voters who won’t vote for ANYONE on the first ballot, apparently on the assumption that if Babe Ruth, Willie Mays and Mike Schmidt weren’t unanimous, no one should be.
I always imagine this conversation between such a voter and his grandson:
GS: Grandpa, Mom just told me that you are a voter for the HOF, that is so cool.
Doting GP: Well, I do enjoy it quite a bit.
GS: It must have been great to vote for Mike Schmidt for the HOF.
GP: Well, actually, I didn’t vote for him.
GS (slightly flustered): Well, then Nolan Ryan.
GP: Yeah, well I didn’t for him either.
GS (now really confused): Oh, well then I am sure you voted for George Brett, Cal Ripken and Steve Carlton.
GP: No, no and no.
Gs: I don’t understand.
GP: You see sonnie, I had this policy that I wouldn’t vote for anyone on the first ballot, and since most of the other voters didn’t have that policy, all of those guys got voted in without my vote in the first year of eligibility, so I never had an opportunity to vote for them.
GS: Oh, so who did you vote in?
GP: Oh, an exciting list of ball players. Phil Niekro, Tony Perez, Don Sutton, Gary Carter, Jim Rice. Those are my guys.
[...] Posnanski does his usual thing on four newly eligible candidates for the Baseball Hall of [...]
Mattingly? Please. Mattingly wasn’t even the best 1B in New York during the ’80s. If he hadn’t played his whole career for the Yankees, nobody would even be talking about him.
Larkin has to go in, in my mind. I think we lose sight of how good he was – in particular, of how he was, head and shoulders, better than other shortstops from 1988-1998 or so, because of the big offensive numbers put up by the AL Big Three (A-Rod, Jeter, Nomar) from 1996-2003, and subsequently by the NL Big Three (Hanley, Reyes, Rollins) from 2005 to now. Larkin was OPS+ing 120 as a shortstop when almost no shortstops were any good at all with the bat. Best player at his position in his era. Hall of Famer.
I think Alomar is a lock. Edgar is borderline but should get a lot of consideration.
I remember in the mid 90’s he was the one guy you didn’t want to see at the plate. Managers were afraid of the guy.
McGriff has no chance. And unlike a lot of people in this thread I don’t see Larkin as a Hall of Famer. And the comment that his prime seasons are similar to Jeter don’t hold up. He was hurt way too much and that has to count for something.
I never quite entirely understand why the debate for the Hall seems to center around what players didn’t do, as opposed to did do.
My thoughts (which don’t resolve to anything) go to Sandy Koufax. Let’s just say that for some reason he was able to continue pitching for ten more years, but had to become a junkballer who went 10-10 every year with league average numbers. How would the HOF then look at him? Better, as he may have won 300 games, worse, as his career line in rate stats would look worse?
Similarly, Frank Thomas – what if he had retired in year X, and the prevailing image (for me, anyway, and I have a feeling for HOF voters) wasn’t of a guy who hung on forever as a shadow of his former self?
I know that “what-ifs” don’t count, but yet, they seem to definitely count when it comes to Edgar Martinez. What-if you make him the league-worst 1B for his entire career? Does that make him legit in people’s eyes, or is it a foolish exercise because it’s changing history?
Things that didn’t happen really obscure the issue.
I think Robbie Alomar will get in in one of his first couple years on the ballot, because he was OVERappreciated during his playing days. He definitely is a HOF worthy 2B, but your very argument, Joe, is why he was overappreciated: gold gloves. He was a good perhaps great-at-times defensive player, but let’s not make him into the Smith or Vizquel of the secondbasemen, which I think he was considered to be at points during his career.
marc, good point. It’s like the people that didn’t like green day’s last CD because it had 5 bad songs. It had 9 more songs than a normal CD! So, if you loved 9 songs, plus four more, but didn’t like the “bonus” songs, the CD wasn’t as good? Huh? You got 14 songs you like!
Same with some players. 10 great, great years, followed by 4 mediocre years, followed by 2 bad years – is that worse than 10 great year?
Once upon a time, “first-ballot hall of famer” was a relevant distinction for one to make. The thing is, that “once upon a time” was back when writers actually had more than 10 viable hall candidates to choose from in a given year.
In other words… back in the 40s. Now? No, not so much.
Regarding Santo and Dick Allen, old people like me will recall that they played together on the 1974 White Sox, a disastrous turn of events that led both of them to retire, perhaps prematurely. (allen later came back briefly with the A’s and Phillies, but had lost all his mojo.)
Because the Sox had Bill Melton at 3B, Santo was forced to play much of the time at 2B, and his raging ego and general unpleasantness poisoned the clubhouse. Allen quit a few weeks before the season ended, but still won the AL HR title. Somewhere out there in second-hand bookstores is Allen’s memoir/biography that spells out what a jerk Santo was for that year. After years of being a cartoonishly bad broadcaster for the cubbies and his diabetes-related health problems, he has become beloved among many, but oldtimers remember how obnoxious he was on both sides of town, and that is why many writers wouldn’t vote to put him in the HOF.
It has never even occurred to me that Edgar is not a hall of famer. There are only 3 people with a higher career OPS+ than Edgar with at least 1000 runs created, whose career ended before 2004 who are not in. Joe Jackson, who is ineligible, Mcgwire, (steroid issues) and Dick Allen- who should be. The other 23 (yes Edgar is 27th all time) are in. Edgar is 4th in OPS+ in the 1990’s. (Bonds, Thomas, Bagwell.) If I had to make a bet that a player in the last 35 years would hit a line drive in an at bat, Edgar would be my guy. DH or not, he should be in.
I had overlooked Mcgriff, and I think that the voters will also, but there is not any doubt after taking a second look that he is worthy. I took the top 100 all time in OPS+, and the top 100 all time in runs created, (career ending in 2004 or earlier) and then cross referenced them to find out who was on both lists. (To find guys that were great for a good period of time.) 49 players appeared on both lists. 2 of those were Martinez and Mcgriff. 44 of the other 47 are in the hall. Mcgwire (already mentioned) Bob Johnson (A fine player from the 40’s) and Will Clark are the only exceptions.
With Alomar, I also assumed he would be in. Perhaps I am wrong. He is only the 6th second baseman to have more than 1500 runs created (the other 5 are in) He was a better hitter, for a longer time than Sandberg, who is already in, and a MUCH better fielder, despite Ryne’s gold gloves. Roberto was the 2nd best fielder at 2nd base I have ever seen. (After Frank White) Sandberg is not in the top ten.
Larkin is the one I am the least high on, but is probably the one who will get the most votes. I suppose my feelings come from the MVP year (when he was 11th in NL OPS+) and the feeling that he was overrated rather than under. However, he is at least a borderline player who deserves some support because of his position. He has the most runs created of any SS not in the hall, and the 2nd highest ops+ (Vern Stephens) It will not hurt my feelings either way.
Of course, if I only had one vote, it would still be for Blyleven.
I’m happy with Edgar Martinez not getting in. If you couldn’t wear a glove, you shouldn’t be in the HoF. Edgar Martinez was a pinch-hitter.
McGriff, though–one thing to consider is that McGriff would have made that 500 HR threshold if not for the strike.
Loved the post, but I do think the comparison of Murray/McGriff is a bit unfair. Murray had worse numbers than McGriff, true, but he was also a switch-hitter. Often, switch hitters are compared against one another (see: Jones, Chipper), and with good reason – it’s more difficult to put up good numbers while hitting from both sides. If anything, the fact that they were so close speaks more to Murray’s ability than McGriff’s. Which, again, is not intended to disparage the Crime Dog – I just think it’d be more fair to use the hitters on his Comps list to make his case for the HOF.
@29 – For what its worth (and I’m hardly the end-all be-all on such things), I completely agree with you. When I think of Fred McGriff I think of Braves. When I think of Alomar, I think of Blue Jays. In fact, I forgot entirely that he ever played for Cleveland or the Mets. I remember him primarily as a Blue Jay first and an Oriole second.
I hope McGriff gets in just so that he is wearing his Emanski hat on his plaque.
Didn’t Bud name the DH award after Edgar? What, the guy has an award named after him but he can’t get in the HOF????
I think you have to look at Jim Rice as the borderline HoF slugger to see if a batter deserves enshrinement. Rice had the perfect (or not so perfect) mix of longevity, power, batting average and cumulative numbers to get into the Hall. I think his HoF case was built on leading the league in big ticket offensive categories, being a good hitter in general, and accumulating counting stats that don’t drop far below normal HoF standards. Thus, as a cutoff you can use Rice’s 128 career OPS+, his 2452 or so hits, and his black ink score (a measure of leading the league) of 33 (avg HoFer = 27). If you can find a player whose predominant contribution was offense who equals these numbers, he belongs in the hall. If not, he’s out. It works for every unenshrined slugger you can imagine. Take Dick Allen, he’s got the OPS+ (156) and a reasonable black ink score (27, less than Rice’s), but he only had 1848 hits. Albert Belle suffers the same fate as Dick Allen, except even fewer hits. Mark McGwire had a great OPS+ also, 162, and he beat Rice in black ink score with 36. But he only reached 1626 hits, far below Rice. Edgar Martinez had a 147 OPS+ which is phenomenal, but his black ink score was only 20 and he only reached 2247 hits. Fred McGriff is almost there with a 134 OPS+ and 2490 hits, but only a 9 Black Ink score. Dwight Evans is also close, with a 127 OPS+ and 2446 hits. Alas, his Black Ink score was only 15. Pick any player who is primarily an offensive player, and you’ll see they all fall short of Rice when these three criteria are compared. I’m not saying it’s right, we all know walks are ignored mostly, but it defines the baseline for HoF enshrinement as of now. For those “offense only” players who don’t reach 3000 hits or 500 HRs, you still need to get a lot of hits, you need to lead the league in offensive categories a bunch of times and you need to have a very good OPS+ (not great, just very good).
Going to reprint my take on Barry Larkin from July of 2008 here:
Not a big Larkin fan here, I’ll admit it up front. His percentages are all very good, no problem with them. Has a very similar career to Alan Trammel who was an excellent player when he actually made it into the lineup.
There’s no question he was the best offensive shortstop in the NL over the span of his career but realistically if he had played in the AL for his last 9 seasons he would have just been the 5th best offensive shortstop in the league.
I think my biggest problem with him is that in his 19 year career he played 150 or more games just 4 times and only managed to average 493 plate appearances a season discounting his rookie year. Because of it, his counting stats aren’t terribly impressive.
Don’t believe me? Jeter just finished his 15th season and has 407 more hits and is within 3 doubles, 18 triples, already has 26 more homers, 108 more RBI and has 68 more walks.
Don’t like that comparison? How about Miguel Tejada.. not by any stretch a Hall of Famer but they are within 4 points of each other in OPS+:(Tejada 112, Larkin 116) after 13 seasons – within 20 doubles, already has 87 more homers, 225 more RBI. Won’t catch Larkin in triples or walks or steals of course and there’s the steroid stigma.
For comparison purposes, let’s look at some other notoriously fragile players who’s careers overlapped Larkin’s so you can get an idea of just how little he really played:
Paul Molitor – 4 times he played 150+ games before he became primarily a DH. He then played in 150+ games 4 more times. Averaged 572 plate appearances per season, rookie season was a full season so counted it.
George Brett – played in 150+ games 6 times in 21 year career. Averaged 579 plate appearances discounting rookie season.
Tony Gwynn – played in 150+ games 5 times. Averaged 527 plate appearances discounting rookie season..
Alan Trammel – played in 150+ games 3 times. Averaged 490 plate appearances discounting his rookie season.
If only Larkin and Trammel could have stayed healthy, I would absolutely have supported them, but they couldn’t and because of it, I question if they helped their teams enough over their career to be Hall of Famers.
One of the ways to determine HOF worthiness is by asking whether the player was the best at his position during his era. And one of the ways to determine that (semi-objectively) is to look to see how many All Star appearnces they have.
For Alomar, that is 12, for Larkin it is also 12. Here is the list of middle infielders who have more than those two: Ripken, Carew (but some of his are at 1B/DH), Rose (but some at OF/3B/1B), Ozzie. That is it. The only non-HOFers with more appearances than those two in the AS Game are Rose, Bonds, IRod, and Junior, all of whom would be in the HOF some day based on their playing records (though, I suspect Rose never will be and Bonds may not either).
The first clear non-HOFer (for playing reasons) on the list is Bill Freehan at 11 appearences. The first middle infielder who (most likely) won’t be a HOFer is Davey Concepcion at 9.
On that basis, I think Larkin and Alomar are both very worthy. Clearly they were the best at their positions (at least in their respective leagues) for a fairly long period of time.
Big Edgar Martinez fan. He should have gotten his break a lot sooner. The guy raked in AAA (.318 in partial seasons of 1985-1989) but Jim Presley was hitting 20+ homers during 1985-1987 and Edgar didn’t have much power. So he spent 3-4 extra seasons in the minors.
Would he have gotten to 3,000 hits if he had broken for good at age 23 instead of age 27? It would have been pretty darn close.
Was his game as complete as Molitor’s? No, probably not. Molitor was defensively versatile enough to log 44 games in center field, 57 at shortstop, 400 at 2B, and 791 at 3B. Molitor also stole 504 bases.
Roberto Alomar – Another tarnished player. At his peak, looked like a sure fire hall of famer, perhaps the best 2B in history.
His numbers even after the precipitous collapse look pretty good when compared to Joe Morgan.
But oh, that spitting incident, I could never look at Alomar the same way after that.
@brent:
Your argument doesn’t make much sense when you look at the rest of the shortstops in the league.
Let’s use 1997 for example. Go through every National League roster and find me a good shortstop. (Jeff Blouser?) You can’t. National League Short-stops were horrendous around this time.
Now go to the American League. Arod, Nomar, Jeter, hell, throw in Jay Bell and Vizquel if you’d like.
Walt Weiss, Kevin Stocker and Rey Ordonez weren’t tough competition.
To me, it’s highly impractical to penalize Edgar Martinez for being a DH. Designated hitters have become a part of the game in the past 35 years. When the Mariners penciled Edgar into the lineup at DH, what was he supposed to say? “Sorry, can’t do it, it’ll hurt my Hall of Fame chances! I don’t want to be some glorified pinch hitter.” If you’re going to keep DHs out of the Hall of Fame because they’re not part of Baseball As It Was Meant to Be Played, then I guess we’d better go take down Bruce Sutter’s plaque.
It amazes me when people say McGwire was a great slugger but not a great hitter, and you hear this one a lot. McGwire was a phenomenal hitter – or perhaps we need to make the distinction between “hitter” and “batter.” Maybe as a “hitter” he was purely a slugger, as I suppose his middling batting average will corroborate. But to call anyone with a .394 career OBP – the man was on base 4 times out of 10 – and a .588 SLG “not a great batter” is just insane. He is a prime example of why certain traditional stats just don’t cut it. I mean, even in his infamous 1991 season when he hit .201 – he STILL managed an OPS+ over 100. This is one of the beauties of having such an amazingly selective player at the plate: even during a slump, even a season-long slump, they still get on base, because even slumping sluggers walk.
Maybe that should be the title of someone’s autobiography.
And kudos to you Joe for pointing out that disctinction.
I’m hoping one or two of these first-timers get in this year, because next year is going to be Bert’s 15th year on the ballot, and we don’t need any hold-overs sapping votes from him. He needs all of the support he can get.
As a Yankee fan, I shoudl say I don’t think there are any Yankees fans who don’t think Edgar Martinez should be in the Hall of Fame. I believe his career batting average against the Yankees was 1.000. I honestly have trouble remembering the Yankees ever getting him out. He drove me crazy.
I vote for Alomar, but from age 33 to age 34 his stats just drop off a cliff. Why?
I vote for Larkin, and did the injuries that held down his counting stats come in part from playing on Cincinnati concrete?
Tim Raines, Ron Santo, Bert Blyleven.
I actually wrote a study comparing McGriff to McGwire. It’s a natural. They were born the same month, their careers run tandem, they played the same position. McGwire was always a fine player, and McGriff was always a little better- except for that bizarre five year run from ages 31-35, when McGwire suddenly turned into the greatest RH hitter since Jimmie Foxx.
One other thing – McGriff’s best years (1988-1994) actually came in a period when offense was somewhat depressed. He led each league in home runs without even hitting 40 of them.
I really don’t think Ron Santo is even clearly best 3rd baseman not in the Hall.
Player A – 5 gold gloves, 9 all-star games, 1.23 career MVP shares (best finish – 5th)
Player B – 5 gold gloves, 9 all-star games (in 7 different seasons), 1.6 career MVP shares (won one)
Away batting stats:
Player A – .257/.342/.406
Player B – .277/.340/.443
OK, Player A is Santo and I took the road batting stats to take Wrigley out of the stats. If you compare his night game stats to Player B, B looks even better but he got to play night games at home.
Player B is the #2 career similarity score for Player A.
Player B is Ken Boyer. I personally don’t think either player should be in the Hall, but if one is they both should be.
JN @60
Are you referring to the Jay Bell, who in 1993 (a year I believe Mr. Larkin was the starting SS in the AS Game for the NL), had an OPS+ of 124 for the Pittsburgh Pirates (which, I note, is 9 points better his impressive 115 with the Royals in 1997)?
When Larkin, broke in in the late 1980s, yes most of the Shortstops weren’t much at hitting, of course, the perennial AS Starter at SS in the NL at that time IS IN the HOF and is considered the greatest defensive SS of all time (and Shawon Dunston was a good SS at that time too).
But 1993 isn’t the only year Larkin was considered the best SS in the NL and the competition was pretty stiff. I note you picked 1997 out, well Blauser did happen to put up a 130 OPS+ that year, which, last time I checked, is very good for a SS. The world champions that year had a kid named Edgar Renteria, who turned out to be OK over the next several years.
David in toledo:
For unknown (or maybe better, undiscovered as of now) reason, 2Bmen really fall off a cliff as a whole right around that age. Check out this one:
Player A (@age 33), .380/.459/.679, OPS+ 178
Afterwards, total of 274 games played in 8 seasons.
Player B (@ age 32), .304/.371/.510 OPS+ 146.
In remaining 4 years, OPS+ was 108, 83, 96 and 83.
Player A is Rogers Hornsby. Player B is Ryne Sandberg.
Why it happens, however, is a mystery.
If Edgar had played in the National League, been a below-average defensive first baseman for a number of years, and put up the exact same offensive statistics, would he have been a better player? I think not. Ted Williams was also a designated hitter. Defensively, the only difference between him and Edgar is that between between plate appearances, Edgar would hang out in the dugout while Williams would go stand in left field. If anything, Edgar was helping his team win by being a designated hitter than being a statue that just takes up space in the field.
Would agree Larkin and Martinez should get in. Sense Alomar, Mattingly and McGriff will fall short. And all because the ends of their careers were pretty awful. Kind of bizarrre that the Yanks traded McGriff away so Mattinlgy could be their 1st baseman. Having watched Mattingly(who’s regular season career compares very much to Puckett) think he falls short after his back gave out.
McGwire was never was suspended for breaking any rules. He similar numbers to Harmon Killibrew. The HoF voters are going to have to come to some convention about whether steroids matter, or they don’t. Doesn’t seem our host has a hard and fast rule. Not really a knock, just pointing ot there’s going to have to be some kind of reckoning.
Re: Frank Thomas
His line from 1998-2007 goes like this: 278/391/524 (136 OPS+), comparing with Jim Rice’s ‘decline phase’ from 1981-1988 (I know, I know, Frank Thomas is one of the best hitters ever and Jim Rice is just some random decent player who played in Fenway): 293/352/473 (122 OPS+). If Frank had played his entire career in “decline” he’d still be a good hall of fame choice. With the absolutely ridiculous peak: 330/452/604 he’s a first ballot hall of famer assuming the voters aren’t completely stupid, which is quite an audacious assumption. 452 OBP, 7 years.
mrh @68. The MVP argument against Ron Santo and for Ken Boyer is questionable. For one, in 1964 two third basemen took the MVP awards. Boyer in the NL (.295/.365/.489, 24 HR) and Brooks Robinson in the AL (.317/.368/.521, 28 HR). But Ron Santo had a better year than both of them (.313/.398/.564, 30HR). Also, he won the NL gold glove. Home/Road splits weren’t out of whack either; he was .307/.392/.531, 14 HR on the road that year. His road numbers were still better than Boyer’s line. It was just that in 1964, guys from losing clubs didn’t win the MVP.
i wonder if, rather than using paul moliter as a precendent for edgar martinez, we should use, e.g., dennis eckersley (or another player who was elected “primarily” on the strength of being “merely” a relief pitcher). after all, if martinez should be discounted for not being “good enough” to play defense, shouldn’t eckersley be discounted for being neither “good enough” to play offense, nor “good enough” to play defense for more than three innings per appearance (in fact, if he went 3 IP, it was usually the lead in the game recap).
despite the discount, eckersley was considered valuable enough to gain election. comparing the two careers perhaps gives the voters cover on martinez?
I have the HOF arguement with a buddy of mine about Edgar a lot. I admit (don’t tell my buddy), he’s got an argument about his greatness of his bat.
However, one line that his proponents use about “He was good enough to play defense, he just got hurt” or other variants is just faulty. It just isn’t a reasonable arguement. He either could play defense or not. Fact is, he wasn’t good enough to pencil in the lineup at a defensive position. Whether it was because he was hurt or whether he lacked defensive ability, if he was half decent, he’d have found a spot on the field. Manny is a butcher in the field, and he still plays LF. Edgar rested on the bench.
Edgar is a *wonderful* hitter. Possibly HOF-great, but stop it with the fallacious arguements about his defense.
Full disclosure: I abhor the DH rule and I think any player who primarily DH’s should need to be Ruthian (or Bondsian) with the bat to merit serious HOF consideration.
Kyle –
Yeah, I agree with that. One of the arguments that bothers me is the argument that says this guy could have done X.
Well, we just don’t know do we? We only know what he did. An HOF case must rest on what a guy DID.
So, a DH must have really awesome hitting stats to get in. Edgar’s are amazing… but remember we are now setting the standard for DH’s (his is the first case, but likely won’t be the last). I will say that if Edgar’s case is considered to be the standard for DH entry into the Hall, then that probably won’t be a bad standard….. but if you think it should have to be higher – that argument might have merit.
McGwire was a great (though not a HOFer) hitter. He was a slugger. Ichiro is a great hitter who is a slapper.
Slugger – low avg/high power
Slapper – high avg/low power
Spread these around! Yes, I know slugger is well known already, but used in just this way, they will have greater meaning – and the Reggie Jackson/Adam Dunn types can be seen for what they really were. Tony Gwynn was a hell of a slapper. Rod Carew was a great slapper. Dwight Evans was quite a slugger, etc.
So what do we call high avg/high power guys?
Some very worthy HoF candidates discussed by Joe. I would definitely cast votes for Alomar, Martinez, and Larkin.
But ahead of those three is Tim Raines. If he never gets elected, it might well be the biggest gaffe the electorate has ever committed.
McGriff belongs. No. 67 pointed out that McGriff hit a ton of homers in a depressed scoring environment before the 1994 power surge.
In 1992, he hit 38 homers. I believe the Dodgers hit only 73 homers or so as a team that season. I remember a while back comparing McGriff’s homers as a percentage to the rest of the league. Basically his 38 homers in 1992, based on the homer enviroment, was like hitting 60 or 70 in the late 90s. I know it was a rough measure, but it really brings out just how impressive those 38 homers were.
As a Reds fan, I’m torn on Larkin. His injuries really hurt his case, and the Reds really suffered when he got his last fat contract for the last 3-4 years of mediocrity at the plate, and he would NOT move off SS to help the defense.
Can we stop with the “First Ballot” nonsense? Please? For the love of God?
Ryne Sandberg should not have to wait because so many think he’s not “First Ballot”. It’s a juvenile, sandbox way of looking at these magnificent careers.
Anyone else think that Edgar had one of the prettiest right handed swings of the last 25 years or so? I can’t think of any other righties having a swing as aesthetically pleasing as his.
@80
High AVG/High Power = Ruthian, Williamsian, Gehrigian, Thomasian, Bondsian, or Pujolsian. Steroidsian accepted in some cases.
Great to see some HoF love for McGriff. I remember the early ’90s when my Giants were kind of good, and McGriff (then a Brave) seemed to hit a HR every time he was up. I know it’s anecdotal, but I always thought the guy was great.
Mike S #12: Always nice to see someone other than myself using the word “modulo”.
You cannot make a reasonable argument against Edgar based on the fact that he didn’t have longevity, since he played until he was 41 and was an above average hitter every year until his last. He just got a late shot at the big leagues.
To reiterate something I posted earlier, more succinctly, what’s so “juvenile” about the concept of first-ballot Hall of Famers?
We all agree that there are plenty of people in the HOF who don’t belong there. We all agree that an idealized concept of a HOF that only has “the best of the best” is a worthy, if impossible one. We all agree that Jim Rice standing beside Babe Ruth and Jimmie Foxx is pretty ridiculous, right?
So look at the first ballot HOF list:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer
That’s a pretty good “who’s who” of who are the absolute best to ever play the game, isn’t it? Isn’t that a distinction worth preserving? Yeah Ryno and DiMaggio (of all people) are on the outside, but they’re still in the HOF. I don’t see what’s so outrageous about the concept of first ballots being the highest HOFers, BBWAA inductee’s being next, and Veteran’s being, more or less, the dregs of the list.
I like where Jim @77 is going. While I think the DH:Relief Pitcher analogy fits, I also think he overstates things with a comparison to Eckersly. To me, it’s a question of whether Martinez is closer to Goose Gossage (in) or Lee Smith (hovering around 30-40% but thus far out).
“I’m happy with Edgar Martinez not getting in. If you couldn’t wear a glove, you shouldn’t be in the HoF”
This is why I find much of those who argue that Edgar doesn’t deserve to be in the hall of fame because he didn’t have any defensive value to be mind numbingly stupid.
Why is it that people always argue that DH’s shouldn’t be allowed into the hall of fame because they have no defensive value, yet not one person ever makes the argument that position players shouldn’t be allowed in the hall of fame if they played terrible defense. Seriously. When was the last time you heard someone say that a great hitter didn’t deserve to be in the hall because he was a bad defender?
It seems that the only requirement for making a great hitter worthy of the hall of fame is that they simply PLAY defense. Whether they are any good at it doesn’t seem to matter.
“Edgar Martinez was a pinch-hitter.”
Sigh…. Really?
One reason, I believe, that Edgar Martinez did not hit more home runs was because he hit so many balls right on the button. One of the best line-drive hitters I’ve ever seen. An Edgar line-drive was a thing of beauty: smoke on a rope.
Sorry, I didn’t realize there was another Jeremy on here. I’ll use “Jeremy27″ for my screen name from now on. My apologies.
Somewhere above somebody asked about Dick Allen’s fielding. I’ll try to condense a complicated career into a paragraph. Allen began in the minors as a shortstop but was rather quickly shifted to secondbase and then to the outfield. In 1964 Gene Mauch decided to convert Allen into a thirdbaseman. Allen, having never played the position before, was very error prone initially but reportedly worked hard and made steady progress. Less than a month into the 1966 season Allen suffered a dislocated shoulder which kept him out of the lineup for 3 weeks. When he returned the Phillies put him in left field and he did not return to thirdbase until July 8. His play at third remained solid. Then came the 1967 season, which was a disaster. Allen was being booed relentlessly in Philadelphia and wanted out. He demanded a trade. Allen still hit a ton but his fielding deteriorated. To cap it off his season ended early after he severely cut his throwing hand while pushing an automobile. The injury required surgery to repair a sliced tendon but there was nerve damage that could not be fixed. For the rest of his career numbness in his fingers would cause inaccurate throwing. The Phillies moved him to leftfield in 1968. Later the Cardinals and Dodgers would continue to try Allen at thirdbase and in leftfield, but he would primarily be a firstbaseman after the injury.
Yes, its anecdotal, not stat driven, but in the 1995 division series Edgar was Reggie Jackson, Barry Bonds, & Babe Ruth rolled into one. Heck, I bet he could have come in relief of Randy Johnson had it been necessary. I don’t like people getting into the Hall because of their post season performance, but if anyone should be, its Edgar.
here is a paragraph from his wikipedia page: “He is perhaps best remembered for his performance in the 1995 American League Division Series against the New York Yankees in which he hit .571 and was on base 18 times in 5 games. In game 4 of that series, he hit a three run homer, then a grand slam home run that gave the Mariners a 10-6 lead en route to an 11-8 victory. His RBI total in that game set a single-game postseason record. The win knotted the best-of-five series at two games apiece and forced game 5. Down 5-4 in the 11th inning of that decisive game, Martínez hit a two-run double, called “The Double” by Mariners fans, off Jack McDowell, winning the game for the Mariners, 6-5.
“ A lot of people remember that double when they talk about my career, I’d say, yeah, that would define my career. ”
—Edgar Martínez, espn.com: September 25, 2004.[4]
Baseball lore says that Edgar Martínez saved Seattle baseball with that double. While his series-winning hit did help build the groundswell that the Washington State Legislature eventually had to respond to, by enacting legislation to fund Safeco Field, it was one of many moments in a “miracle run” by the Mariners in September and October 1995 that changed public sentiment towards the team and towards public financing of a baseball-only stadium as a partial replacement for the Kingdome.”
His game winning double in game five has its own wikipedia page for goodness sake. its simply called “The Double” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_(Seattle_Mariners)
Second anecdote, in 1993 Fred McGriff *single-handedly turned the Braves season around and took them to a 104 win season, beating the Giants (who failed to make the playoffs despite winning 103 games) By far the best pennant race ever. BTW, why were the Braves in the West division? Something about the old days in Milwaukee. That was messed up. see an awesome article here http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=93pennant
*By single-handed I mean with the help of Glavine, Maddox and Smoltz.
All four of these guys belong, but Crime Dog and Edgar were personal heroes of mine
Seriously, I can’t even think about Edgar’s 1995 division series without losing it. That wikipedia article I posted above is downright hilarious. He was on base 18 times in 5 games. How is that even possible? I’m giggling like a school girl right now.
Alright, the DH “purists” who lament Edgar touching the field are starting to get on my nerves.
There are scads of Hall of famers (and potential ones) who are a minus in the field. Ostensibly, Edgar is better overall without that minus. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand fielding. There isn’t a wing in the hall for great fielding below average hitters either, otherwise Frank White would be in. (or at least have gotten votes and discussion)
For those who talk about his late start, it is actually a selling point. Edgar is 40th all time in runs created (for careers finished by 2004) despite this. None of the 39 did it in less plate appearances. 36 of the 39 are in the hall. Pete Rose (ineligible), Mcgriff, (also in this post) and Tim Raines. (One of the biggest injustices)
Sorry that should be NOT touching the field.
P.S. Barack- I giggled when I watched it. A superhuman performance.
Alright, alright…here’s my take on Edgar.
http://www.hallofverygood.com/2009/02/kid-is-back-in-seattlecolor-me.html
Sorry for the linkage…but it is better than just doing the old copy and paste. That way, if you don’t want to read…you don’t have to.
It should be Raines, Alomar, Larkin, in that order this year.
Loved the Pedro Guerrero reference. Though not a Hall of Famer, he was my favorite player growing up, and he put up great numbers for a while.
From 1990 to 2004 Edgar had only two seasons where he had an an OPS+ BELOW 132 (‘93 due to injury I think and strike shortened ‘94). Sure he didn’t reach all the counting numbers, but I don’t think an argument on the basis of longevity is reasonable, since he played until he was 41 and was an above average hitter every year until his last. He just got a late shot at the big leagues.
When you look at the non-counting stats, he holds up great. Career AVG. over .300, OBP over .400, SLG over .500.
Finally, if you’re going to let relief pitchers in, there should be NO issue with a DH.
I think if you accept that the best relievers of the time (Goose Gossage, Mariano Rivera in the future) are acceptable members of the Hall of Fame, you can’t reject DHs out of hand. The best relievers will pitch to 3-5 batters for 60-80 innings in a seaons, while the best DHs will play in around 130+ games for 4-6 at bats. From a Wins Above Replacement perspective the best DHs provide much more value than the best relievers.
But then again I’m a biased Mariners fan and am excited for the possible first player inducted as a Mariner.
Dear Mike in MN:
Please try to grasp this:
DON MATTINGLY IS NOT IN THE HALL OF FAME!
He has never come close to being elected.
He never WILL come close to getting elected. If either Mattingly OR Kent Hrbek wants to get into Hall, he’ll have to buy a ticket.
Hence, there is absolutely NO cause for griping about New York media bias. You just look silly.
It’s about as silly as Joe’s constant efforts to prove that Bert Blyleven is more Hall of Fame-worthy than Jack Morris. JACK MORRIS IS NOT IN THE HGALL OF FAME! So, even if Blyleven is worthier than Jack, that proves… what, exactly???? Wouldn’t it amke more sense to compare Blyleven to pitchers who are actually IN the Hall of Fame? Proving that Blyleven was better than Catfish Hunter or Don Drysdale might actually accomplish something!
It’s hardly necessary to prove that Blyleven was better than Catfish or Drysdale. Everybody knows that already. It’s pretty obvious.
Edgar Martinez, ‘non-steroid.’ I don’t think so.
Daniel- seeing as how Catfish and Drysdale ARE in the Hall of Fame, while Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris are NOT, it CAN’T be obvious to most sportswriters that Blyleven was better than they were.
In any event, if your object is to persuade voters that Blyleven belongs, why would you waste time arguing that he’s better than Jack Morris, who’s never gotten many votes and whose chances of ever making the Hall are far, far slimmer than Blyleven’s? Wouldn’t it make more sense to demonstrate that Blyleven’s numbers are better than those of numerous pitchers already enshrined?
From age 35 to 41 Edgar Martinez hit .305/.412/.518 over 964 games (~138 games a season).
According to some people he does not possess the quality of “longevity”.
In 2001, at the age of 38, Edgar Martinez was one of the 5 best hitters in the American League by OPS+.
According to some people he does not possess the quality of “longevity”.
Listen, if you don’t want to have a DH in the Hall of Fame just say it. But don’t go around saying things that are blatantly untrue. At least I can disagree with someone who’s honest.
About Edgar in ‘95: I run a site about that year’s team, and I think he deserves some extra HOF credit for being his team’s best hitter at a crucial time for the future of the Mariners franchise. He wasn’t just a guy who had five really good games: he hit “The Double” that many credit with keeping the team in Seattle.
I’m not real big on the whole “does this guy belong in the HOF” debate, but there’s a reason beyond the stats for the street along Safeco Field to be named after him.
To those who insinuate/accuse Edgar Martinez of steroid use based on his improvement in 1995:
Beginning in 1993 scoring increased in both leagues. Since 1993 batters have enjoyed the best hitting conditions since the 1930s. Martinez tore his hamstring and spent large portions of 1993 and 1994 on the DL. That is why he became a fulltime DH, and why he didn’t hit well in ‘93-94. When he finally was healthy in 1995 he picked up where he left off in 1992, but in a game where run scoring was up by about 20% and HRs up by around 40%.
And that is part of the problem with evaluating his career. So many hitters were posting unreal numbers (by pre-1993 standards) that Edgar’s raw numbers are not spectacular in his era. Worse yet, because several of the top hitters used PEDs and a self-serving tell-all book came out this has been labeled the “steroid era”. Some people actually believe Canseco’s claims that the vast majority of ballplayers are using steroids, never mind that this was a classic “everybody else was using them too” excuse to downplay his own guilt. Well if everybody is on steroids how come only a small percentage of players have ever been caught? Even when players were not being penalized for using steroids the percentage as determined by testing was nowhere near Canseco’s estimate. Yes steroids are a huge issue, but a bigger issue was the sudden increase in scoring between 1992 and 1994 which set the stage for multiple attacks on the HR record. The tendency has been to blame steroids for everything and to assume that even if a player never tested positive he “must have been doing something”. But you cannot just look at a player’s stats and know if or when he began using PEDs.
Don Sutton is for these purposes the Anit-Christ. Concede that Sutton even if he hung around forever and won 300 was not as a good a pitcher as Blyleven. But would say neither belongs anyway. ANd Morris had postseason cache that neither of those guys does(And someday substitute Andy Pettitte for Jack Morris).Sutton is a perfect example of the problem the HoF has with letting in a very good but not great players; by relative comparison you start consdering players who (despite very good careers) are not HoFers. Sutton means Jim Kaat and Tommy John (very good players and by all accounts good guys, and in Kaat’s case a great broadcaster)have a claim at HoF candidacy. They’re very good, but…
This may be subjective, but while people bought tickets to see Gibson or Seaver pitch, none of the above fall into that category and their numbers don’t compare with Seaver nor Gibson. I’m going to put on some body armor now and await the Blyleven fusilade. Sorry-saw the guy pitch, he was very much like Sutton-good,but not great.
Raines deserves to get in. Was at the game he played after he came back after collusion and was forced to sign back with the Expos after missing all of April. Pretty much beat the Mets all by himself.Injuries, illness,”issues” and wackiness like that April cost him no doubt numbers, but his numbers still hold up.
astorian @106. “…In any event, if your object is to persuade voters that Blyleven belongs, why would you waste time arguing that he’s better than Jack Morris…?”
Because, ridiculous as it seems, there are a fair number of voters who cast their vote for Jack Morris but not Bert Blyleven every year. (See Ringolsby, Tracy, among others.) So if they already think Morris is a Hall of Famer but it can be demonstrated that Blyleven was better, maybe those voters will start to vote for Blyleven, too. This isn’t that complicated.
Bugg @110 “…And Morris had postseason cache that neither of those guys does…”
Morris in the postseason: 7-4, 3.80, 2.0 K/BB, 1.245 WHIP
Blyleven in the postseason: 5-1, 2.47, 4.5 K/BB, 1.077 WHIP
I had the pleasure of watching Alomar day-in-day-out and wow, what a talent he was. I would be hard pressed to come up with an argument to keep him out of the Hall of Fame. With McGriff I am somewhat borderline. In both cases I think their chances will be hurt because they played their best years in Toronto. I like playing in Toronto (especially back in the 80s and 90s to be playing on the West Coast). They didn’t suffer from the different time zone but they seemed to be overlooked by the mainstream baseball media.
Astorian, I see Mattingly’s name mentioned all the time as someone that should be considered for the Hall. I know that he isn’t in. But, why is he even discussed? He’s just not that great. The fact he’s even discussed shows some bias, imo. YMMV on that opinion, of course.
Personally, I could care less about the HoF. I’d rather there was a baseball museum, where the history of the game was “recorded and stored” for all to see. If they want a special wing for great players, that’s ok I guess. But I’ve never understood why anyone cares who is in the Hall or not. We all have our favorite players, and I don’t really care if others share my opinion about them in perpetuity at some museum or not. Indeed, a museum opens up all kinds of “space” for interesting topics and subjects, while a HoF restricts what you hold there.
Bugg
interesting you bring tim (cocaine) ROCK raines… to the table…
AND you dare mention collusion in the mix…
the year Raines was “colluded against”… the M’s offered him 3M/yr to play LF… then little timmy whines that “nobody offered me what I was worth”
to quote raines “I wouldnt play in seattle if it was the last city on earth”… guess he couldnt get enough rock there….
and the SAD part on that is, 5 years later, the M’s paid that 3M anyway in a collusion settlement that they clearly were not part of…
Suspect pitching 10 innings and winning game 7 has some caches beyond numbers.
And I suspect that one game is masking the fact that Morris was no better in the postseason than he was in the regular season. He had one great postseason game, otherwise he was the same old Jack Morris, a good, durable pitcher who surrendered a lot of hits and posted a league-average ERA. If we’re going to put weight on just one game, why not mention that Blyleven beat Morris soundly the only time they faced each other head-to-head in the playoffs? Or does that just not fit the Morris cachet?
Though I have always appreciated the accumulation of stats, most notably 3000 hits, I have come to understand just how flawed that concept is. Sadly it was steroids that made it so obvious but it was always a fact of the game and there are so many:
Blacks were not allowed to play.
Mounds were much higher in older eras.
Pitchers were allowed to scuff and spit on and grease up the ball – even after it became “illegal.”
Ballparks have gone through phases that affected the game. The old busch was once called an unfair park by at least one announcer because of it’s size and favoring of pitchers (while he of course had no problems with the offense generated in fenway or yankees RF or wrigley field with the wind) – it IS all perspective.
Pitchers were allowed to pitch inside without the threat of being tossed. Heck that fact is instrumental in the creation of the unwritten rules about what to do when a batter gets hit. Today the situation is totally different yet the same unwritten rules continue in existence. Bizarre.
Fielders played with ridiculously tiny gloves.
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera
Perhaps it is time to put away the auto inclusion rules for number of hits and HRS (especially HRs imo) and simply put the greatest in the Hall from each era.
Maybe in that way we’d stop the inclusion of any more sutters and rices and mazeroskis.
Maybe we should have one Hall with X number of the greatest players but with offensive, pitching, and defensive sub-halls as it were, where the rices and sutters and mazeroskis can be enshrined for all to see. They all deserve to have their feats remembered but none of them were the best of their time.
Just like none of those you mentioned (except Thomas) were the best of their time. There may well be a place for them at cooperstown but not in the main Hall – the “Hero of Heroes” hall that I envision.
Larkin not getting in would be a borderline joke. He’s a top 10 (if not 5 or 6) player at his position and actually probably is the best SS not in the HOF.
But then I remember: Raines isn’t in; Trammell’s never been close; Whitaker lasted one year on the ballot! Grich isn’t in. The voters have really bungled the players from that era.
Hi Joe!
Just heard that Jeter won another Gold Glove. Thoughts?
Take out Jack M’s last postseason (1992) & you get a different look.
M: 9G,5CG,7W-1L,2.60ERA,1SHO,69.1IP
B: 8G,1CG,5W-1L,2.47ERA,0SHO,47.1IP
Yes, by all means, arbitrarily remove Morris’ worst postseason performances to make his numbers look more like Blyleven’s career postseason marks. Seems reasonable.
And if I did the same with Blyleven…… Oh, you mean Bert never had a bad postseason? My bad.
It appears that some comments have been deleted…
It doesn’t have to be either or when it come to a discussion of whether to recognize longevity/stat accumulation and/or high peak/greatness. The HoF can have room for both. If a player has a short career but was great (Koufax) then his level of greatness needs to be of such a degree that the career totals are irrelevant. However, if a player is good to very good for a long time then he needs to accumulate certain totals. The further from truly great the player was then his case is more dependent on raw totals (Sutton, Neikro). Where the voters seem to get hung up (at least in the last decade or so) is in considering the case of a player who wasn’t quite an all time great like Koufax but had a much longer career and was better than Sutton without reaching the milestone of 300 wins. I’m thinking Bert with this example, but Kaat and Johns are in the same limbo. Fred McGriff would seem to fit the profile of the in the middle guy for a batter.
For those knocking Larking for a lack of durability, and those saying Edgar had longevity because he hit well at age 40:
Career PA
Larkin: 9057
Martinez: 8672
Larkin might be in the top five for SS, ever. He’s an easy choice. He may not have had a huge number of seasons with a lot of games played, but remember that in ‘94 he played 110 of 114 team games, and in ‘95 131 of 144 team games. Those are full seasons.
I’m torn on Edgar, because of the lack of career heft (yes, he got a late start, but its not like he was Ted Williams in the minors at age 20) and the DH thing. I don’t have anything against DH’s in general, but they have to have something extra to make up for their lack of fielding. Edgar was a great hitter, but maybe not enough bulk. I don’t know.
Alomar, well, I think he was overrated on defense, and his career took a nosedive pretty early for an elite player, but he’s in. Not nearly as good as Larkin, but in.
Raines has to go in. Please.
I remember asking my dad years ago if McGriff should be a hall of famer, surprised that someone who made it that close to 500 HRs wouldn’t be considered. Nice to see his numbers broken down, even though I became aware of him when he was playing for the hated Braves.
Your use of Molitor and Murray as HOF benchmarks emphasizes the devaluation of the Hall. Both were good players who reached “hallmark” numbers because they played for a long time. Neither was a dominant player at any point in his career.
That Molitor was a first ballot HOF inductee suggests that the waiting period should be extended, maybe ten years after retirement. That Murray, and now Rice, are in the Hall at all simply lowers the bar and fuels the argument that someone like Mattingly or, inevitably, Bernie Williams should be in.
Re: Edgar….
If one wants to get even weirder, one can use the example that BP used with (I think) Steve Slugger and Joe Average. It’s legitimate to replace the non-defense of a DH with replacement value, isn’t it? Seems like the same concept to me.
And someone above made a point that I, for one, sure missed – the DH has been around for 35 years. It’s a real thing that half the teams in baseball use. You can’t just flat say “they don’t count” – because there they are.
By the way, I hate the DH, and much much prefer the NL type of game. For me, it creates boredom, not alleviates it (which is the alleged rationale). But, seriously – 35 years, it’s in the rules, if you don’t consider the DH as a real thing, which sport’s HOF are we talking about?
” I took the top 100 all time in OPS+, and the top 100 all time in runs created, (career ending in 2004 or earlier) and then cross referenced them to find out who was on both lists. (To find guys that were great for a good period of time.) 49 players appeared on both lists. 2 of those were Martinez and Mcgriff. 44 of the other 47 are in the hall. Mcgwire (already mentioned) Bob Johnson (A fine player from the 40’s) and Will Clark are the only exceptions.”
The Thrill got screwed. One of the best players ever and only got ONE ballot. HOF process is flawed.
It’s not called the “Edgar Martinez Designated Hitter Award” for nothing. First ballot.
I have always assumed that
Oops… I have always assumed that both Edgar and Alomar were going to be first ballot entries, despite Edgar being a DH… And, I’m glad Dick Allen was mentioned because as a life long Phillies fan, I have been raised to believe that he was one of the most fearsome hitters of his time, and the stats back him up… His off the field demeanor is probably why he will never sniff Cooperstown
Had Ozzie not won 13 straight Gold Gloves that defense would have gotten a little more credibility for Larkin. He’s lucky to have gotten 3
Mattingly? Seriously? With no mention of Dwight Evans at all? Ridiculous. Mattingly is incredibly overrated by people’s warm memories of him. If we’re judging HOF players on how happy they make us feel as well as how good they were, I want Fred Lynn in as soon as possible.
Two things.
First, when Edgar Martinez doesn’t make the HOF I will be done with the institution. It will no longer be relevant.
Second, it is a complete falsehood to say Fred McGriff played in the high scoring 90’s.
Before the post-strike explosion, Fred McGriff was making history as only the 9th player to hit 30 or more HRs in seven consecutive seasons. That streak ended in 1994, prior to the offensive explosion of the 90’s.
Fred McGriff was a power hitter before the 90’s explosion, not during. It is a complete myth that his numbers are tarnished by that era, and it is unfortunate that his candidacy is going to be viewed through a faulty lens.
Edgar Martinez has a tough battle to get into the HoF. He was primarily a DH and he never got 3000 hits or 500 HR. I think HoF voters look for several things for these “borderline” candidates:
1. Longevity
2. MVP/Cy Young & All star appearances
3. Leading the league
4. Good batting average
The perfect borderline candidate who got into the HoF is Jim Rice. He got in on his 15th try, and by a handful of votes. If that’s not borderline, I don’t know what is.
Jim Rice had decent longevity, as evidenced by 2452 hits. He won an MVP and made 8 all-star appearances. He led the league in HR 3 times, RBI twice, hits once, triples once, SLG 3 times and total bases 4 times. And his lifetime BA was .298. Consider that a guide on minimum qualifications for entrance into the HoF.
Edgar Martinez had decent longevity (2247 hits), he has no MVP but he was a 7-time all-star, he has a .312 career BA, and he led the league in BA twice, RBI once, runs once, doubles twice and OBP three times. I can’t see why anyone would not vote Edgar in. He’s got everything voters want out of borderline candidates, and on top of that his career OPS+ of 147 is stellar.
Note: I’m not saying the voters are correct in assessing players this way, they just appear to assess players this way.
“But oh, that spitting incident, I could never look at Alomar the same way after that.”
Quite frankly, I never blamed him one bit. John Hirshbeck called him a “Spic mother****er.” He deserved to be spat upon.
And then the very next season, he called Hideki Irabu a “slant-eyed mother****er” in a regular season game. And while Alomar’s reputation was forever tarnished, Hirschbeck received not one single iota of punishment for either offense.
Must be nice to be completely untouchable at your job. I would hope most of us would put it to better use than to regularly throw racial slurs at our co-workers, though.
“John Hirshbeck called [Alomar] a ‘Spic mother****’”
Is this true? If so, it certainly puts the spitting incident in a different light, at least for me…
Re # 65:
Using away stats in this manner is unfair, unless you are willing to do so across the board. Here are three recent BBWAA inductees. Three are outfielders and one is an infielder. Anyone want to guess who they are?
Player A: .264/.357/.422
Player B: .302/.387/.395
Player C: .291/.331/.430
Player D: .277 /.330/.459
These are all road lines.
Mel Ott had over 500 career home rums, but only 188 on the road. Hank Greenberg hit 79 more homers at home than on the road.
Player A is Yastrrzemski, Player B is Boggs, Player C is Puckett and Player D is Jim Rice.
The point is, hardly anyone goes back and seeks to do this type of normalization for these players. Ott was a hell of a hitter, and was good enough to get in anyway, but a lot of players would not get in if you only looked at their road statistics.
In Santo’s case, it is interesting that he was a contemporary of two HOF members, Williams and Banks, one of whom batted left and the other right. All three had a home advantage in their stats, but Santo had a more significant difference than the other two. It is also interesting that Santo’s road performance got relatively worse as he aged, becoming much worse from 1968 onward.
Banks:
H: .290 .349 .538 289 HR
A: .258/.311/.461 221 HR
Williams:
H:
Continuing the above (#134)
Williams:
H:302 /.374/ .525 245 HR
A:. 278/ .349/ .459 181 HR
Santo:
H: .296/.383/.522 216 HR
A: .257/.342/.406 126 HR
I have wondered whether there is a reason why Santo did worse than his Hall of Fame teammates on the road. If there is a “Wrigley advantage” one might expect it to be relatively constant among players playing at the same time. It was not in this instance.
[...] Posnanski has a great (and self-admittedly long) post about some of the best eligible hitters not yet in the Hall of Fame. Joe has a Hall of Fame vote, so I think it gives a little perspective into his next [...]
Hall Of Fame “voting” is about as accurate a measurement tool, in terms of a player’s/pitcher’s candidacy, as batting average is for judging a hitter’s value.
As a point of reference…
PLAYER X – 10 season span
.325/.435/.558
910 RBI
865 RS
231 HR
367 2B
1.17 BB:K ratio
159 OPS+
Pretty impressive, yes?
PLAYER X (the same guy) – 7 season span
.329/.446/.574
773 RBI
698 RS
196 HR
291 2B
1.18 BB:K ratio
163 OPS+
This guy is one of just five – FIVE – batters in MLB history with 2,000 hits, a .300/.400/.500 career line, 1,000 RBI, 1,000 runs scored, 1,000 walks, 300 HR, and 500 2B.
He was a seven-time All-Star, a two time batting champion, a four-time Sliver Slugger, and the league re-named the DH award after him.
His name is Edgar Martinez, and he is arguably the best RH hitter of his generation.
Punishing him because he wasn’t a crappy first baseman for a dozen seasons is lunacy. Additionally, Frank Thomas is a HOF ballplayer. Those two hitters revolutionized how we all viewed the designated hitter rule, whether we agree wih it or not. They were, without question, the two best RH batters of the 1990’s.
Isn’t the Hall Of Fame pretty much designed to showcase the best of the best? If so, then Papi (the real Papi, not the one in Bah-stun) and Big Hurt are undoubtedly deserving. Anyone who suggests otherwise simply never got to see them at the plate, and that’s all there really is to say about that.
[...] Yes click the video below and you will be able … http://www.deuceofdavenport.com/ Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Hall of Fame Thoughts Nov 8, 2009 Edgar Martinez's career average is .312 — since the end of World War II (not [...]