One and Done (with updates)
Posted: November 29th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 60 Comments »
In 2004, Dennis Martinez got 16 votes for the Hall of Fame. I’m fascinated by the players who get between 15 and 20 votes their first year — because that indicates that:
1. They were good enough that a handful of baseball writers believe they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.
2. They did not inspire enough votes to remain on the ballot for a second year.
It’s a small group, those between 15 and 20 votes who got one shot on the ballot. Here they are:
– Lou Whitaker: 15 votes.
Quick thoughts: Whitaker’s number one comp is Hall of Famer Ryne Sandberg. He played in more games than Sandberg, and he had a better OPS+, scored and drove in more runs. This is not to say Whitaker was as good a player as Sandberg … I’m not making a detailed comparison here except to say that Sandberg is in the Hall of Fame. And Whitaker never even got out of the starting gates.
– Dan Quisenberry: 18 votes
Quick thoughts: In this case, I HAVE done intensive study comparing Quisenberry and a Hall of Famer, Bruce Sutter. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Quiz was as good a pitcher as Sutter. Absolutely no question. They pitched almost exactly the same number of innings over more or less the same era, and while Sutter had more saves (the difference being when Sutter was an overpaid and mediocre closer in Atlanta), Quiz finished more games, gave up fewer runs (both earned and unearned) and, like Sutter, led the league in saves five times. Quiz finished second in the Cy Young voting twice and third twice more. I do wonder how many votes he would have received with even one Cy Young Award. Maybe he would have received exactly 18 — I don’t know.
– Albert Belle: 19**
Quick thoughts: He only played in 1,539 games. He brought little value with the glove, and zero value as a good-will ambassador. Still, in only 12 seasons he mashed one fewer home run than Jim Rice, and he was certainly every bit as feared, and while he played in a much better offensive era he did not play in the late 1970s Fenway Park, one of the great hitters parks. My question with Belle is simply this: If he had been viewed as a good guy, Kirby Puckett style, would he have received serious Hall of Fame consideration? I don’t know the answer to that … I’m just asking.
– Dwight Gooden: 17
Quick thoughts: My original thought was that these voters were just wishful thinkers — those romantics who voted for Gooden based on his brilliant first two seasons (41-13, 2.00 ERA, 176 ERA+, 11 shutouts). But there’s a little bit more here: Gooden did win 194 games and he had a 111 ERA+. He won a Cy Young and Rookie of the Year. His comps include Hall of Famer Dazzy Vance, who sort of had Gooden’s career in reverse.
– Joe Carter: 19
Quick thoughts: I think Joe Carter might be a good example of the so-overrated-he’s-underrated theory. True, he did not get on base much, which is the most important offensive skill (.306 lifetime on-base percentage). And this has made him the target of many people trying to make the point that RBIs don’t paint a true picture of a player’s talents. That’s fine. He was probably overrated in many ways. But Carter was remarkably durable — he played 155 or more games nine times. He did drive in 100-plus runs 10 times. And he hit one of the greatest home runs in World Series history.
– Fernando Valenzuela: 19
Quick thoughts: This, I think, really WAS a case of romantics who remembered Fernandomania in 1981. He was remarkable that year — or, anyway, he was his first 10 starts of that year. He was just OK the rest of the year. And he was just OK for the rest of his career. Here’s one for you: After that first year, Valenzuela had a couple more good seasons but overall he was 158-146 with a 101 ERA+.
– Dwight Evans: 18**
Quick thoughts: The lack of interest in Evans’ Hall of Fame candidacy will never cease to amaze me. He hit 100 more doubles and three more home runs than his teammate Jim Rice. He scored 200 more runs, walked twice as much, won eight Gold Gloves, made one of the great catches in World Series history. And he played in Boston, where people will fight to the death for their Hall of Fame favorites. And: nothing happened. His Hall of Fame push was a wet match. Just … weird.
– Rusty Staub: 18
Quick thoughts: He had more than 2,700 hits and a 124 career OPS+. Not bad. He was basically Harold Baines before Harold Baines. But unlike Baines, he played in a lousy hitting era and played in crummy hitting ballparks most of his career. That really hurt him. In 1967, playing in the Astrodome, he hit .350/.421/.502 on the road. In 1969, playing for an expansion Expos team in Jarry Park, he hit .306/.423/.572 on the road. Neutralize his numbers, and he has almost 3,000 hits.
– Frank White: 18
Quick thoughts: Frank is a friend of mine, so it’s hard for me to be neutral about him. Plainly, his career mirrors Hall of Famer Bill Mazeroski’s. They were both brilliant defensive second basemen — eight Gold Gloves each — and neither one could get on base. Maz turned the double play better and did get on base a touch more. Frank had great range and hit with more power and stole more bases. Maz hit the big home run in the World Series. Frank, though, hit cleanup in the World Series and was the first ALCS MVP. Maz’s induction was quite controversial. Frank never got a second ballot.
– Ted Simmons: 17
Quick thoughts: Bill James in the New Historical Abstract ranked Simmons the 10th best catcher of all time. He had the reputation as a lousy defensive catcher, which probably is not fair. Either way he was a very good hitter, posting a .300 batting average, a .369 on-base percentage and a 132 OPS+ from 1972-1980. Over a long career (he caught more games than Johnny Bench), he hit as well as Carlton Fisk and better than Gary Carter. But his Hall of Fame case never never took off.
– Bill Madlock: 19
Quick thoughts: The original Mad Dog — and the nickname always fit him better than Greg Maddux anyway — Madlock is unique, I think. Eleven players have won four or more batting titles. Ten are in the Hall of Fame — Cobb, Gwynn, Wagner, Carew, Hornsby, Musial, Williams, Boggs, Clemente, Heilmann. One is not: Madlock. He had a career .305 batting average. Madlock was a good base runner, really wasn’t too bad defensively and he hit .375 in his one World Series appearance. But he only twice played 150 or more games in a season and he was traded four times, and he was widely viewed as a pain in the neck, and he was done at 36. Bill James wrote that he could think of no player who wanted to win batting titles as much as Madlock, and he did win batting titles, and I think that pretty much sums up a distinct career.
— Al Oliver: 19
Quick thoughts: He hit .303 for his career, cracked more than 2,700 hits, won a batting title, and hit between 11 and 20 home runs every year from 1969-1980. Oliver hit the ball hard almost every time up, but he didn’t walk and he couldn’t run and he didn’t offer much defensive value and he did not hit for quite enough power to make up the difference. Oliver used to say that he was every bit as good a hitter as George Brett and I suppose in the purest sense of hitting — speaking only of his ability to hit a baseball squarely — he was probably right. But there’s more to it.*
*Oliver is one of five players in the exclusive non-Hall of Fame club of player with between 2700-2900 hits and an OPS+ around 120. Call it the Harold Baines club.
1. Harold Baines, 2,866 hits, 120 OPS+
2. Rusty Staub, 2,716 hits, 124 OPS+
3. Al Oliver, 2743 hits, 121 OPS+
4. Dave Parker, 2,712 hits, 121 OPS+
5. Andre Dawson, 2,774 hits, 119 OPS+.
Of this group, Dawson is considered the best defender and he stole the most bases, and I suspect he will get elected into the Hall. Of the group, Parker was probably the best player in his prime though Dawson was close. Of the group, Parker is the one who got the least out of his talents. Parker should be a Hall of Famer.
– Mark Belanger: 16
Quick thoughts: There is an argument to be made — and there was probably an even better argument to be made in 1988 — that Belanger was the best fielding shortstop in baseball history. There is also an argument to be made — one I doubt many people would dispute — that Belanger was the worst hitter to play 2,000 games in the big leagues. I suppose in many ways, they are the same argument. Only a brilliant fielding shortstop could play 2,000 games with a career 68 OPS+.
– Manny Mota: 18
Quick thoughts: Of the 25 retired players since 1959 who played 1,000 games and had a better than .300 career batting average, Manny Mota is one of the more stunning names on the list. He hit .304 for his career. Others you might not expect who hit better than .300 include Mike Greenwell (.303), Rusty Greer (.305) and Hal Morris (.304). Mota played 20 seasons and never once got enough plate appearances to qualify for a batting title. That’s too bad because he hit well enough: In 1966 to finish second; in 1967 to finish seventh; in 1969 to finish fifth; in 1972 to finish third. From 1977-1980, he got 141 plate appearances as a pinch-hitter and hit .358. Lovable player. Still — 18 Hall of Fame votes. That seems like a lot.
– Tim McCarver: 16
Quick thoughts: A perfectly fine player who made a couple of All-Star teams and he is the only catcher since 1901 to lead a league in triples.* Still, it seems that 16 votes is an awful lot. Writers in those days, I think, were more likely to vote for a likable player. Jim Sundberg was not quite as good a hitter as McCarver, but he had a much better defensive reputation and he got exactly one Hall of Fame vote.
*I misread this bit of trivia — McCarver is the only catcher to lead the league OUTRIGHT in triples. Carlton Fisk tied for the league lead with Joe Rudi in 1972.
And finally: Back to Dennis Martinez. He is an interesting case to me because he is the first big league player from Nicaragua, he spread out his success over a very long career and, yes, when you add it all up he has a very similar case to Jack Morris, who is gaining Hall of Fame momentum.
Morris: 254-186, 3.90 ERA, 2,478 Ks, 1,390 walks, 1.296 WHIP, 28 shutouts, 105 ERA+.
Martinez: 245-193, 3.70 ERA, 2,149 Ks, 1,165 walks, 1.266 WHIP, 30 shutouts, 106 ERA+.
Morris pitched one of the great World Series games ever.
Martinez is one of 16 players since 1900 to have thrown a perfect game.
Morris led the league in wins twice, complete games once.
Martinez led the league in wins once, complete games twice, innings pitched once, shutouts once and ERA once.
Morris won 20 games three times and was selected to five All-Star Games.
Martinez never won 20, but he had three good years shortened by strikes and he was selected to four All-Star Games. And from age 32-40, he had a 129 ERA+ — Morris only once in his career managed a single season with an ERA of 129 or better.
Morris — like Jim Rice — is a Hall of Fame lightning rod. There are people who are ABSOLUTELY SURE he’s a Hall of Famer, and there are people who are ABSOLUTELY SURE he is not. The truth is that as much as we like to compare this player to that player, that’s not really how Hall of Fame voting works. People use such wildly different standards when choosing their Hall of Fame candidates, and each player triggers his own emotions. It often feels like “I like this color blue better than that color blue.” One of my absolute favorite Baseball Think Factory comments of the year came from Pyrite, who was trying to decipher Keith Olbermann’s Hall of Fame ballot.
Keith — who is a smart baseball guy — had some rather odd thoughts in his ballot. For instance, he has decided that Morris should be in the Hall of Fame, which is fine. Morris has a fine case. But Keith’s reasoning confused me.
Jack Morris: Another beneficiary of a little perspective. I used to flinch at that 3.90 ERA. There seems very little doubt that Tom Glavine will go in on the first ballot at 3.54. I’m looking more at the 254 wins and the clutch performances. Aye.
Huh? I really don’t understand this. Best I can tell:
1. Glavine’s 3.54 ERA on its own is significantly better than Morris’ 3.90 ERA. I mean, isn’t this like saying: I used to flinch at Joe Carter’s .259 batting average, but Cal Ripken went first ballot when he hit .276?
2. Glavine pitched in a much higher scoring environment — which is why his ERA+ is 118 to Morris’ 105.
3. Glavine won 50 more games than Morris — I mean if you’re quoting wins, then this isn’t a small difference.
But my point is not to rip Keith’s ballot — quite the opposite in fact. When it comes to Hall of Fame voting, smart people and passionate baseball fans have wildly different views about what defines greatness in baseball. The commenter Pyrite went to Sean Smith’s page to find the Top 500 players in WAR — Wins Above Average. And then he compared those numbers to Keith’s ballot.
Rank 58: Barry Larkin, 68.8 WAR. Keith’s vote: No.
Rank 65: Edgar Martinez, 67.2 WAR. Keith’s vote: No.
Rank 67: Alan Trammell, 66.8 WAR. Keith’s vote: No.
Rank 79: Tim Raines, 64.9 WAR. Keith’s vote: No.
Rank 84: Roberto Alomar, 63.6 WAR. Keith’s vote: No.
Rank 87: Mark McGwire, 63.2 WAR. Keith’s vote: No.
Rank 128: Andre Dawson, 56.8 WAR. Keith’s vote: Yes.
Rank 163: Fred McGriff, 50.5 WAR. Keith’s vote: Yes.
Rank 225: Dale Murphy, 44.4 WAR. Keith’s vote: Yes.
Rank 278: Don Mattingly, 39.8 WAR. Keith’s vote: No.
Rank 308: Dave Parker, 37.9 WAR. Keith’s vote: No.
Rank 324: Harold Baines, 36.9 WAR. Keith’s vote, impossibly: Yes.
Rank 375: Dave Concepcion, 33.8 WAR. Keith’s vote: Yes.
As you can see, Keith Olbermann’s ballot is almost in direct opposition to what WAR would tell you makes a great player. That doesn’t mean WAR is right and Keith’s wrong or vice versa. I obviously have my own opinion, but the point is that Hall of Fame voting sparks remarkably different points of view.
Morris sparks emotions in many different kinds of voters, while Dennis Martinez does not. Over a career, I would say that Martinez was about as good as Jack Morris. But that’s not really what the Hall of Fame is about. Or, anyway, it’s not what Hall of Fame VOTING is about.
**Quick update: I was trying to come up with the players between 15 and 19 votes who were only on the ballot once. Apparently as I raced through, I missed that Albert Belle actually made it on two ballots and Dwight Evans made it on three. Why they lost support in their second and third time around is baffling — and a whole other mystery.
Loading ...
Belle got two.
The HOF is about memories. My memories
tell me that Gil Hodges and Tony Olivo were
HOF’ers. Your memories surely must include players like that.
Baseball is a game of nostalgia. Too many of the baseball media are too young to have sufficient memories of the game prior to the last 25-30 years. Thus, they resort to WHIP, WAR, ERA+ and the like.
The rule of thumb should be that if
you have to use a computer to decide on a
player’s entrance into the HOF he shouldn’t
be there.
“That doesn’t mean WAR is right and Keith’s wrong or vice versa. ”
The WAR-ballot might not be “right” but there is zero doubt that Olbermann’s ballot is wrong. It’s hard to imagine someone getting it more wrong – or having stupider reasons for the choices.
Carlton Fisk led the AL in triples in 1972, with nine.
[...] Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » One and Done [...]
@2- “The rule of thumb should be that if
you have to use a computer to decide on a
player’s entrance into the HOF he shouldn’t
be there.”
This is absolutely true if you have the memory and perspective of a computer. Statistics tell us much more about the bigger picture than you can with your memory.
I think there should be an element where you just KNOW that someone belongs in the HOF. They awe you with their greatness. But, unfortunately, we get awed too easily and don’t realize how a moment can overwhelm the facts of someone’s entire career in our memories. And sometimes we fail to notice quiet consistency, constant brilliance. The memory of the moment doesn’t register for someone, so we relegate them to “decent” because we rely on our memories.
Stats don’t let us do that. I remember some players doing some incredible things and having some incredible stretches. But then I examine ALL of what they did in light of what EVERYONE did in their time… and sometimes I realize my memory tricked me.
Don’t think yours can’t, too.
I agree with #2 Norm as far as memory and the HOF goes (not necessarily the shot at advanced thinking). I still find it hard to believe that Steve Garvey has never been close to the Hall. In 1985, I would have laughed if someone said Steve Garvey would never come close to the Hall. I guess if you’re the old-school version of Shawn Kemp and Travis Henry (along with Calvin Murphy) and the press hated you, you get what you deserve.
“Twenties” in Strat-O-Matic came from picking from a deck of cards numbered one through twenty, not from rolling dice.
This is my Morris/Martinez/Quiz article:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/jack-morris-babblefest-2009/
I figure Poz will like it, seeing how it echoes some of what he’s saying here.
Dwight Evans is the one that really baffles me. All the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over Jim Rice’s candidacy, and then over here is poor Dwight Evans, who was a better player in just about every way, and no one seemed to notice or care. In fact, when Jim Rice was inducted into the HoF, NESN had Evans on to comment, and all he talked about was how privileged he was to play with someone as great as Rice. Now of course, he’s going to say nice things, but it sounded like he even believed it himself. It was all very odd to me, and a little bit sad.
Keith Olbermann’s Wikipedia page implies that he thinks that Fred Merkle merits Hall of Fame election. So I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about his Hall of Fame picks.
Albert Belle was on two HoF ballots, not one.
Bob: back in the day, that was true. But Strat-o-Matic is still around, and they’ve been using 20-sided dice for at least 17 years now.
Norm: the problem with that is that no one alive has a cogent memory of Ty Cobb or Christy Mathewson, and the few that remember Ted Williams really have no way of comparing him in any meaningful way to Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols. Since the Hall of Fame is reserved for the greatest ballplayers throughout history, and nobody has a memory of all the ballplayers throughout history, we need some way other than memory to figure it out. If you need a computer to decide on a player’s entrance into the Hall, you’re doing it the only way it can sensibly be done.
And if your memory can’t even tell you that it’s “Oliva” and not “Olivo,” do you really want to trust it with decisions like this?
In my memory (formed mostly in Minnesota in the 1990s), Chuck Knoblauch is a Hall of Famer. Good thing I have my computer. (Interestingly, WAR: Hodges 44.4; Oliva 42.4; Knoblauch 41.1. None of them is anywhere close.)
“Pinch-hitting for Pedro Borbon: Manny Mota.”
I am against guys dropping off of the ballot because there are too many really good players who drop off too quickly. I don’t know if Ted Simmons or Dwight Evans deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but I do know that they were good enough that they should stay on the ballot longer since opinions and the voting pool change over time.
I’m pretty sure Keith Olbermann is wrong. You can play nice Joe, but that post was beyond idiotic.
For Bill (#13) and Anthony(#6)
I’m not knocking computers, but don’t you think that the measurements we get from
them can be influenced by the subjective
input?
For instance, a knowledgeable baseball fan will tell you that Texiera is an outstanding fielder, even though the computer ratings do not always agree.
If a player played for a manager such as Earl
Weaver his stats might be very different than if he played for Tony LaRussa.
I’m not saying that computers can’t tell us
things we might not know, but are they
giving us a true picture of a ballplayers ability?
Bill, You’re correct, my error, it’s Oliva,
not Olivo. My computer didn’t
catch my mistake.
Evans was not one and done. He was on three ballots, getting 28 and 49 votes before getting only 18.
“Pinch-hitting for Pedro Borbon: Manny Mota.”
Nice one, Jeff, but where’s the echo, echo, echo.
If there is a Hall of Fame for baseball players who are best human beings, Quisenberry would be one of the first selections. I’ve read his book of poetry and it is amazingly good. His biography AFTER his career was over is mensch worthy.
Joe5348
You know, Morris did have more than one good WS game. In his first five he was something like 4-0 w/1.60 era. His postseason numbers got spiked up b/c of his last season in Toronto.
Olberman’s ballot was a joke. There is simply no explanation that a “smart baseball guy” can dismiss the obvious cases of both Larkin and Alomar, yet support Concepcion and Baines for induction. Sorry if he is a mate of yours Joe, but his ballot is ludicrous and displays a total lack of knowledge about who is actually productive on a baseball diamond.
The only sane thing on Olberman’s ballot is his support of Blyleven.
Joe,
Nice analysis. I’m sure like any blog post there are nits to be picked, but overall the post was thought provoking which I believe was the goal. I’ve long believed the 75% and in method has serious flaws. In recent years I used Sean Casey and Barry Bonds as great examples of the problem. Casey is universally loved (okay, admired) while Bonds is . . . well not exactly loved by all. Casey has no HoF case while Bonds is a top tier all time player. The HoF voting process explodes when Casey is elected by an avalanche of what the heck votes while Bonds drops off the ballot by a “I’ll be damned if he’ll go in on the first ballot” mentality. Maybe a two or three step process may work better. I wouldn’t want to exactly copy the NFL method, but I do like how the selection committee actually meets and discusses the merits of players. Obviously, this is much more important in football where stats can not tell the full story. Sometimes reputations don’t match numbers for a reason. A cornerback that is so good he isn’t challenged will have less interceptions. Offensive linemen are not easily rated by numbers.
Bill
“Dwight Evans is the one that really baffles me.”
There’s an easy answer here: Evans had 1000 MLB games played before his first breakout season. Are there any players who have been enshrined after such a start?
“You know, Morris did have more than one good WS game…”
And other than Game 7 in ‘91, which of them falls into the “great WS games ever” category that Joe was talking about? Precisely zero.
my memory of El Presidente is that he was the last pitcher Kirby Puckett faced. Plunked him in the head
VoiceOfUnreason,
You have a point that could make an interesting study. How much affect does the initial impression have on future HoF voting. Do players that get off to great starts get significantly more HoF support than generally similar players who take a while to establish themselves in the majors? I’m sure some exceptions to that notion can be found going both directions. Jose Canseco seemed on the fast track early then . . . . well . . . . Jose became more punchline than superstar. From the other direction, Paul Molitor seemed destined to be remembered as just wasted potential and then in his 30’s he developed a HoF resume. Just the same, I’m sure there are more Rice/Evans comparisons where early career reputations impacted HoF chances. Not, starting an Evans should be in the Hall fight, just asserting that he and Rice are close enough that one should not be casually dismissed while the other is enshrined.
Keith Olbermann’s ballot is a joke. Paul White, have some sort of vendetta against Jack Morris?
Hey I’m not saying that WAR is the be all and end all, but following the link in your article, I discovered that the highest WAR for a player eligible who had fallen off was Lou Whitaker.
This did not surprise me in the least, nor do I think it would surprise any knowledgeable fan of that time period.
I find it interesting the changes that have happened in the game with regard to respect for great fielding. There are some early players who were mainly put in for their fielding prowess, but there was controversy in the Mazeroski selection, and Frank White is pretty much his twin-20 years later.The only recent player I can think of elected mainly for fielding was Ozzie Smith.
One of the problems with advanced offensive statistics is that they served to de-emphasize fielding and the value of a great fielder who is a below average hitter. With some advanced defensive metrics now, we can see that players can be as valuable fielding as some players are hitting, and that many valuable hitters give back much of their value by being butchers in the field. There should be a little more consideration for guys that are considered among the best at fielding their position in history. (Or definitely the best in their era)
On a more personal note, Quisenberry was the best reliever of his era, and deserved better.
Hey, since the HOF voting guys like counting stats better than rate stats, maybe Bert Blyleven can get in by counting up all the HOF votes he’s ever gotten in his 16+ year career of being on the ballot. He might have more votes than anybody ever!!
The Mangino/Mangini story combined with the reference to Joe Carter reminds me of my wife’s confusing Joe and Gary Carter. She thought Gary was cute. We were talking one time about Joe Carter. She asked, “Is he the one with curly hair?” I replied, “They both have curly hair.”
I agree that Ted Simmons deserves more of a look for the Hall of Fame.
Link- http://morehardball.blogspot.com/2009/09/hardball-heroes-ted-simmons.html
Jacob,
I don’t believe Paul has a vendetta against Morris. Paul has weighed in on a few threads to dispute various weak arguments on Morris’ behalf. Those arguments were usually centered on cherry picked data. What drives some of us nuts is seeing goofs who actually are entrusted with a HoF ballot try to justify listing Morris and not Blyleven on their ballot. There is no quantifiable way to end up with that conclusion. I don’t hate Morris (much). I just think that if he is a Hall of Famer then a bunch of other guys are ahead of him in line and suddenly have a better case.
This is a nice list of why the baseball HOF should be blown up and re-done. Belle and Puckett (I’m an Indians fan) is the silliest one to me. They both played 12 seasons, they were both enormous jerks. Puckett was a better fielder, Belle was *clearly* a better hitter:
KP: .318/.360/.477, OPS+ 124
AB: .295/.369/.564, OPS+ 143
The difference? Puckett “seemed” like a nice guy (but wasn’t) and Belle seemed like a jerk (and was).
This is why computers picking HOFers wouldn’t be any worse than the current system — both would make mistakes, but we could fix the computer.
@Jacob, #28 –
Largebill already responded to this, but I’ll expand on his comments. No, I don’t have a particular vendetta against Jack Morris. He was a fine pitcher and had a very good career. He also admittedly had that certain aura or buzz about him during his career, something Dennis Martinez lacked, so I understand why he gets support. That said, any objective look at his actual production leaves him short of a lot of other pitchers who were passed over.
Just one example to illustrate, and no, it’s not Bert Blyleven. Which pitcher was better?
Morris – 254 wins, .577 winning pct., 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+, 2478 K, 1.30 WHIP, 1.78 K/BB, 5.8 K/9IP, 28 SHO
Pitcher X – 229 wins, .571 winning pct, 3.30 ERA, 114 ERA+, 2416 K, 1.20 WHIP, 2.19 K.BB, 6.2 K/9IP, 49 SHO
Pitcher X won 20 games 4 times, led the league in ERA twice, ERA+ twice, shutouts three times, WHIP once, and K/9IP once. He finished in the top-10 in MVP voting twice, was MVP of the World Series and had a career post-season record of 3-0 with a 2.85 ERA. He is also widely recognized as one of the most charismatic players of his time, and had easily as much of that aura or buzz that Morris enjoyed.
Pitcher X is Luis Tiant, and he was probably a better overall pitcher than Jack Morris. Tiant never came particularly close to being elected to the Hall. Now, if you think keeping Luis out of the Hall was a mistake, then I suppose it could be fair game to argue on Morris’s behalf if you think their respective accomplishments are close enough. But if you think Luis wasn’t a Hall of Famer, then it’s really hard to make the case that Morris should be.
Norm: “I’m not saying that computers can’t tell us things we might not know, but are they giving us a true picture of a ballplayers ability?”
There are more things wrong with that question than there are words in that sentence. First of all, if you admit the first part, you can stop there. Very few people are actually arguing that we should plug numbers into a computer and let what comes out dictate who the Hall of Famers are. The numbers are there to be considered, not to dictate results. So if you admit they can tell us things we don’t know, there’s really no argument.
But. (a) The numbers are *definitely* better off without memory and subjective opinion than memory and subjective opinion are without the numbers. If your memory tells you that Gil Hodges is a Hall of Famer but, say, Edgar Martinez isn’t, your memory has failed completely. (b) If a guy played for Earl Weaver for his whole career, do we really care what might have happened had he played for Tony LaRussa? At some point it just has to be about what actually did happen, right? (c) Similarly, why do we care what the player’s “true…ability” was, as opposed to what he actually did while on the field? I’m quite certain that Dick Allen, Albert Belle, Doc Gooden, Eric Davis and Darryl Strawberry are among the most able players who have ever played the game, but those crazy computer numbers tell me their accomplishments probably don’t measure up.
Regarding Puckett and Belle, there are three factors that favor Puckett. 1) He batted .318 for his career, Belle batted .295. 2) Puckett had 2300 hits, Belle had 1726. And 3) Puckett had at least one legendary postseason moment (game 6 of the 1991 WS), as well as great postseason performances in general (.357 BA in the 1987 WS and 1991 ALCS MVP). Belle’s postseason performances were nondescript at best.
Belle was a great hitter, but if you’re only going to play 12 seasons, you better hit better than .300, you better get more than 2000 hits, and you better insert yourself into baseball lore. Puckett did all three. Belle did none of them.
I don’t doubt that perceptions of character did have a lot to do with the Belle/Puckett thing, but they stumbled into the right answer. Belle’s defense was awful, he played a less important position, and they may have both played “12 seasons,” but the fact is that Kirby had two full seasons’ worth more plate appearances. Add it all up, and I think (and WAR agrees, though it’s not terribly kind to either of them) that Puck comes out as pretty easily the better player.
Couldn’t agree more about Al Belle…even blogged as much years ago:
http://battingcagehero.blogspot.com/2009/04/deeper-look-at-career-of-albert-belle.html
[...] [...]
“My question with Belle is simply this: If he had been viewed as a good guy, Kirby Puckett style, would he have received serious Hall of Fame consideration?”
I think it’s very likely. Most of the attention that Belle received was for his outbursts and strange behavior, and not for his hitting. Even when his hitting was recognized, any attention he got would include a mention of his problems.
The vast majority of the players named in Joe’s post do not belong in the HoF imo, with 1 or 2 exceptions.
Quizenberry deserves to be in over Sutter, but neither belong there.
Evans is one of the exceptions that probably should be in the Hall but only if Rice is removed first. Then once rice is out, maybe it would also be OK to not include evans
Morris absolutely does not belong there and I scratch my head more at his supporters than Rice’s supporters frankly.
Olbermann’s ballot is simply laughter inducing. The guy seems to be intelligent and yet comes up with things like his view on Morris? If that were the only such view, then you could forgive him for his misplaced passion for a very, very good player. But alas, it is not alone as he picked concepcion, dawson, mcgriff, murphy and baines over larkin, raines and alomar. He really didnt get much right at all.
Computers don’t actually tell us anything but there are a very handy way to keep statistics and other facts and use various methods (mostly mathematical) to measure those facts. They do allow us to check our fannish instincts before we publicly vote for Duane Kuiper for the HoF so we can be more likely to get it right.
Ignoring the facts is all too easy to do for your favorite player(s). In my case there is Lou Brock, a big fave of mine who probably shouldn’t be in the HoF – except that 3000 hits probably assured him entry – on the basis of the numbers he put up. He definitely deserved his number retired as a Card, but HoF?
Mark @37 and Bill @38–
The point isn’t really that Belle was a tiny bit better than Puckett (or, as you argue, that Puckett was a tiny bit better than Belle). The point is that both players were of roughly similar value, and yet both wound up on the far extremes in terms of Hall of Fame balloting.
I mean, it isn’t like Belle just fell short and Puckett made it in on his tenth try; if that were the case, there’d be no argument.
No: Belle was a two-and-done, and Puckett waltzed in on the very first ballot. Belle was “no way” and Puckett was “no doubt about it.” I think even Puckett’s defenders would have to concede that makes no sense.
Put another way: the HoF voters thought Kirby Puckett was Babe Ruth AND at the same time, the same voters thought Albert Belle was Paul O’Neill. I defy anyone to come up with a good reason for that.
It’s an interesting list, but the Hall of Fame electorate has been getting so big that there there are players with more than 20 votes who were one and done with less than 5%. You get a fairly interesting cast of characters as well.
Will Clark (23 votes)
David Cone (21 votes)
Ken Griffey (22 votes)
Mark Grace (22 votes)
Jeff Reardon (24 votes)
Now, if Griffey was allowed to run more often in 1975, things may be a bit different…
I have in my head a Peter Gammons blurb about Evans’ low HoF vote — not sure if it was the year Evans fell off or one of the previous two, but I do roughly remember the sentence: “Damn it, defense wins, and there are days I wake up wondering why Dwight Evans isn’t on 60 percent of the Hall of Fame ballots.” And there is merit in that — superior RF defense + high OPS should at least have kept him around for 15 years, Dave Parker-like.
David Cone is an interesting case, I was pretty surprised that he didn’t get 5% of the vote in the first year of eligibility. He’s got all the career highlights: Cy Young, perfect game, 20-game winner for both NY franchises, 5x All-Star, fistful of championship rings, and strong rate stats across the board (W%, K/9, ERA+). Cone probably would have been able to get a little more support if he’d just been able to scratch out 200 wins and 3000 innings, as opposed to 194 W and 2898.67 IP. Orel Hershiser, with numbers just over 200 wins and 3000 IP and less impressive ERA+ and K/9 at least made it to the second year.
Can we please have a moratorium on the Jim Rice bashing until the new year? Go kick around Lloyd Waner and Highpockets Kelly, why don’t you?
As for Dwight Evans, having watched him throughout his career (until he went briefly to Baltimore) I think he’s a Hall of Famer, but the emphasis in Boston has always been to get our left fielders enshrined. Right now, I’m compiling stats to show that Troy O’Leary should be on next year’s ballot after his shameful exclusion in 2009….
Keith Olberman has made a career out of worrying more about being funny than being right, so his crappy HOF ballot doesn’t surprise me too much.
Love this HOF talk. It is frustrating that some of these guys never got a shot – Whitaker is a clear Hall of Famer, in my eyes, as is Trammell, but at least Trammell got to stay on the ballot.
Albert Belle is Jim Rice. Should’ve at least been able to debate it. Ditto Quiz and Sutter.
Dwight Evans is an interesting case, because for the first quarter of his career he wasn’t much of a hitter and then he really came on for the last 3/4. What always shocked me was that his defense dis not carry more weight.
Then recently, I was flipping through Rob Neyer’s All Time Lineups Book – the one where he goes through every team and ranks their all-time team, all-rookie team, all glove team, etc.
When ranking the Red Sox, he ranked Trot Nixon above Dwight Evans in RF on their all-glove team. WHAT?! How could that possibly ever be printed by anyone, let alone a so-called baseball expert? That statement is so preposterous and is being perpetrated on generations of fans who never saw Dwight Evans play.
I am a lifelong Sox fan, and I can tell you that Trot Nixon was a good solid player (when healthy) who gave 125% every game, was a solid gamer and a good, not great RF with a good, not great arm.
Evans was an elite fielder with a cannon for an arm. He won 8 gold gloves and, despite the relative worthlessness of that award, he earned them.
Maybe this is a small window on why some of these guys drop off, but there is no way guys like Whitaker, Simmons, Quiz and Belle didn’t have arguments to make for the Hall.
Belle’s career was ended due to the type of joint injury that steriod users are more prone to, which dampens my enthusiasm for his HoF candidacy. His career numbers compare very favorably to Ralph Kiner, and I clearly remember him consistantly being one of the top hitters in the game, even if he did play in a very live ball era.
For me, subjective the hall of fame acid test is this: Was the player in question one of the top 2 or 3 players in the league at his position for a decent stretch of time (lets say 5+ years if combined with 8-10 solid seasons, 7+ years if combined with a mediocre rest of their career).
I’m a sabermetric/stat guy through and through, but I sympathize w/Norm’s “memories not computers” view of the HOF. I’ve been a HOF hardass for years, with the philosophy being: If you have to make an argument for a guy, he shouldn’t be enshrined. The HOF should have only instant, clear-cut, no-brainer types. Otherwise, you begin splitting hairs and lowering the bar — “Well, if Rice is in, then you should induct Player B, who had only 20 fewer HRs and 100 fewer RBIs than Rice.” And then, “Well, now that Player B is in, we should induct Player C — he had only 15 fewer HRs than Player B.” And so on.
Eventually, Yuniesky Betancourt will be in because morons like Dayton Moore kept him employed for enough years.
I recognize that this is controversial. Like I said, I’m a hardass on it. That’s just me.
As for Dwight Evans, I must say that even as a Royals fan, I LOVED watching Evans play. I don’t think he’s a HOF (I’m a hardass, remember) but he was so fun to watch. But then, I have something of a man-crush on cannon-armed RFs. Al Cowens FTW! And Sixto Lezcano, anyone?
sw @ 46: Cone was hurt badly by the strikes of 1994 and early 1995. In 1994, he won the Cy Young Award, but only made 23 starts (going 16-5, 2.94). Had the season been played in full, he could have won 22 or 23 games. The following year, Cone was 18-8 in 30 starts, missing about four starts due to the late start of the season. It’s certainly possible that he would’ve won two of them.
So had Cone won 22 games in 1994 and 20 in 1995, he would’ve had an even 200 for his career, plus four 20-win seasons, which is a lot for his era. He also would likely have gone above 3000 innings, for whatever that’s worth, with around 2750 strikeouts, not to mention the five World Series rings and the perfect game.
I’m not saying this would’ve gotten Cone in, or that wins should necessarily be held in such high esteem, but his case would certainly be better with two more 20-win seasons and the minor milestone of 200 for his career.
Now, had there not been a strike *and* Cone not had that aneurysm in 1996, he’d be a much stronger candidate, but unfortunately that’s the way it goes for many of the members of the “Hall of Very Good.”
Let’s remember that every very, very good player doesn’t have to be in the hall of fame. Part of the fun of HOF is the vagueness, and how much is left to the individual voter to weight any factor. It’s like voting for anything else, the answer to a question applied at a different times can turn out differently maybe just by weighting one factor a little more or less – and you’re not WRONG either way, it’s an opinion.
I think character, personality, and proximity count in voting more than writers are willing to admit, since they always fall back on some kind of statistics (of course, arbitrarily, none of the ones they don’t use are to be trusted in this player’s case) to back up their gut feeling. They’d have to sometimes work to see past the first impression, and the initial assumptions seem to need to be overwhelmed by a new argument if the first thought is that the guy isn’t a hall of famer. It’s easier to find reasons to vote for someone you already want in there. You can use the stats to tell you who’s best in whatever category in their era with conditional adjustments, but there ARE other considerations besides these that a voter is allowed to use, and really, even if those leadership, character, etc things weren’t part of it, you can bet people would still consider them as part of someone’s worthiness anyway. I could easily see Belle getting the Dick Allen treatment even if he played three more solid years for the Orioles before going down. There doesn’t have to be consistency so there isn’t. It turns out that Rice’s big fat aura and power was more important in the end than Evans’ glove, temperment, patience, and longevity to voters. Doesn’t mean he was BETTER.
Andrew @43. You make a good point. But certain things essentially disqualified Belle from HoF consideration, namely the fact that he didn’t get 2000 hits and he didn’t make up for this with great postseason performances, MVPs, or anything else. If you look at current HoFers, the only ones with less than 2000 hits are catchers and infielders, as well as a handful of other guys, who statistically seem less deserving than Belle, but who got in on via the Veteran’s committee. Otherwise, it was Hank Greenberg and Ralph Kiner who were enshrined despite being sluggers with less than 2000 hits. Greenberg had 2 MVPs, a .313 career BA and missed 3 and a half years of his prime due to WWII. Kiner led the league in HRs for seven straight seasons and finished with a career .398 OBP. I don’t think it’s about Puckett being a far superior player than Belle, because he wasn’t. I think Belle didn’t reach the minimum threshold for entry into the HoF, regardless of how good a player he was. Puckett did.
Hall of Fame induction should be like “popping the question.”
I think this nonsense would end if guys were on the ballot for one year, and one year only.
Should it really take 15 years to get a guy in? Will there be discoveries about a career, like “Jim Rice played his whole career on two prosthetic limbs?” Wow! That DOES make me really appreciate his career 21 years after he retired!
Think anyone would leave THE GREATS off the ballot if they were only there for one year?
Dave Parker was on a Hall of Fame path, then signed a big contract, gained fifty pounds, and did a lot of cocaine. Came back with Cincinnati and was Dave Parker again, but I’m a fan and I want those four years back. What he did with his talent was much more egregious than what the steroid guys did. From 1980 through 1984, ages 29 through 33, he played in 116 games per year, averaging 12 HRs, 64 RBI, and hitting .281/.319/.431. If I remember correctly, he had signed a contract in 1979 that made him the highest paid player in baseball.
Not a Hall of Famer, he
Rusty Staub, Al Oliver, Andre Dawson… Dennis Martinez…
It’s an obvious Expos snub. Not only does the team move to D.C. and proceed to totally suck. Not only did a strike eradicate their world series hopes and lead to that inevitable move out of town. Their players can’t even get into Cooperstown.
“Rusty Staub, Al Oliver, Andre Dawson… Dennis Martinez…
It’s an obvious Expos snub…”
And you just snubbed the best of the lot, Tim Raines. For shame.
I have a hard time seeing any Expo except Raines in the Hall.
There are a few things I wanted to comment on:
1) The Baseball HOF has had wildly varying standards for admittance throughout its history, either through the BBWAA voting or the Veteran’s Committee. At times, they have allowed in merely good players, especially those that played on “championship teams” or were fellow teammates of current HOFers, while at other times, they have held players to impossible standards (“Well, he’s not Willie Mays, so he’s not a HOFer.”). This vacillation has established precedent for current voters to apply either set of guidelines (or anything in between) to their own personal ballots. This can also be more pronounced when voters overvalue (positively or negatively) a player’s “ability” or their raw career counting stats.
2) Joe’s point in the article isn’t that “such-and-such player compares favorably to an actual or near HOFer, so he should be in, too”, but instead that two players by who are clearly comparable, by virtually any measure, are instead being viewed practically on opposite ends of the spectrum through the prism of the HOF vote, and that is at least peculiar, if not blatantly unfair.
3) I appreciate the strength of conviction many people have regarding their personal perceptions of players, when used to determine the greatness of their year-to-year and career performances. I just don’t think that virtually any person, operating entirely off of their personal opinions (professional or amateur) and the opinions of those they hold in regard, can accurately assess the relative merits of such a large number of players, both those currently on the ballot and all those who have been on the ballot before, whether inducted or not. Statistics are incredibly helpful to that understanding, but the raw numbers themselves are useless without understanding the context under which they were produced and collected. This is why mathematical computations, carried out primarily on computers, are essential to the level of analysis necessary to make the best informed decisions as to a given player’s candidacy worth. This is not to say that the perception-based opinion has no place in voting methodology, or that only the most computer-intensive statistical analyses are worthwhile for this purpose. But robust methods exist to distill the accomplishments of the player into mathematical forms that provide very effective means of putting them in proper historical perspective, and helping truly understand their Hall of Fame worth.
4) The Pro Footbal HOF does some things very well in their voting process, namely in assembling their voting members and reaching a consensus as to those players who should receive HOF induction. However, their HOF voting has some serious flaws, often not unlike Baseball’s: set number of player inductees, utter discounting (or over-valuing) of the value of certain positions or skill-sets, poor contextual understanding of performance statistics. I’d like to see more consensus building to determine HOF worthiness as soon as players are eligible, rather than waiting 15 years to finally figure it out; this might also make it easier for worthy players to have their cases be championed in front of the assembled body, and gain the proper shot at enshrinement that so many have been denied.