Rank 20 active players on potential HOF induction

as long as character is a quality for induction, mr. "i slide head first so i don't break the coke vial in my sock" raines shouldn't hold his breath. fair or not those are the rules and until they're changed... well, then he'll be overlooked for his on-field accomplishments.

How can one "not imagine" Bagwell as a HOFer, when he and Big Hurt not only have nearly identical offensive stats, but Bags doesn't disgrace himself with the glove?

i don't think jeter needs a renaissance, especially since he hasn't even started declining offensively yet. he's been the undisputed leader of the latest yankees dynasty, and has put up fantastic offensive numbers. people really need to stop comparing him to his peak/fluke '99 season. he's been compltely consistent aside from that. i think the one thing he needs to do to cement his induction is move, preferably to centerfield, and soon.

and though again i warn i'm shit at HoF evals, moose seems more like a "really really good pitcher not quite good enough for the hall" then a lock to me. definitely a few ballots down the road, anyway. i'd say he's a notch above david cone, whatever that means.

i don't, i really really don't. give me a guy who likes to imbibe a little too much or likes a smoke now and then over a bible thumping religious freak anyday. put them in the hall based on what went on between the lines, leave the judgment of character to the civic organizations.

Mussina: 15 starts (5-5)
Pettite: 30 starts (13-8)

Tim Raines at his peak was as good as Henderson as a lead off hitter, except he had a better arm and a bit more power. The guy played the game at full speed, but maybe the problems off the field also is why he was injury prone as he got older.

i wouldn't mind going back some time, i'm sure there's a ton of stuff that i missed when i was 15. and i'd bring golf clubs this time, there seemed to be nothing but golf courses around there from what i remember.

Here is a link to his stats:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/raineti01.shtml

As for his character, Rock was very highly regarded by Torre and was kept around for another year by the Marlins as a mentor player. As with many players in the 80s, he probably liked to party, but I definitely wouldn't put him in the same boat with Steve Howe or Strawberry.

*sigh* OK, once more on Moose, via yesterday's BP:

http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2766

"Objectively speaking, Mussina is among the most consistently great and durable pitchers of his generation. Mussina has posted above-average park-adjusted ERAs in every season of his career, save 1993, and has been 25% better than average in 10 different seasons. In terms of career value, Mussina has been worth in the neighborhood of 100 more wins than a replacement level pitcher--more than Pedro Martinez (who's been in the league one fewer season than Mussina), and just nine fewer than to Tom Glavine, both of whom are contemporary shoe-ins for enshrinement.

The problem with Mussina's case is two-fold: 1) he lacks the peak value of someone like Pedro or Randy Johnson, and 2) he's yet to go through his decline phase, which will topple his career rate stats just a bit. Aside from that, the man has done about as much as anyone could do to build a HOF case for himself at the age of 35. He even has a postseason ERA of 3.05 in exactly 100 innings of work; not too bad for a pitcher some people still refer to as a 'choker.'

"From a traditional perspective, Mussina's case is equally strong. With 200 wins and a career winning percentage of .644, Moose is comparable (if on the low end) to fellow-Yankee Whitey Ford, Jim Bunning, and Catfish Hunter. All three of these pitchers are currently in the Hall of Fame, though if statheads ran the world, there's a pretty decent chance that two of them would have their membership revoked."

Bunning like fellow Phillie HOF'er Robin Roberts was a good pitcher on a terrible team, so I think he is held at a different angle. Bunning got in through the vets committee and didn't get into the hall until the mid 90s.

It all comes down to how Mussina performs in the next couple of years. If he remains consistent and wins a ring in NY, I don't doubt that he will be up for HOF membership. He has a cool nickname, so that counts for something.

Catfish Hunter
Vida Blue
Blue Moon Odom
Rollie Fingers

There is no wonder why they were great.

Not to be confused with Garfield Fizzlerump or Calico Quince.

>Playoff records-

Mussina: 15 starts (5-5)
Pettite: 30 starts (13-8)<

OK, I'll only say this once and without the usual tutorial ... W-L records in so few games tells you almost nothing about how they pitched.

If it should just come down to statistics, then forget the voting process and simply establish numerical standards for people to gain entry.

(insert essay on the importance of mythology to baseball, etc. etc. etc.)

Re "he won a Cy Young," so what? We judge a HOF candidate based on whether he has a misjudged award from the same group? Bob Welch has a Cy Young too; in 1990 he was about the 4th-to-6th-best pitcher in the league but in which he "won" 27 cuz the A's scored a shitload for him.

As for Catfish, he had 3 really splendid years: '72, 74, 75, and was a pretty damn average pitcher the rest of the time. Check the ERA+ columns (Dahlem Person's head explodes):

http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hunteca01.shtml

Of course, Hunter also tended to throw 260-320 innings a year -- the way butch old-timers just LOVE -- which forced him to retire at 33.

The right stats, INTERPRETED CORRECTLY (objectively), are the main means to measuring careers. But stick with "I saw him play one year, on TV, a few times" if it makes ya happy.

Morbs' stance is fairly common in modern baseball thought: Evaluating a pitching career solely or largely on Wins is a judgement on the whole team's performance... the caveat is that it can mask a player's true worth.

Who would you rather have on your team: Russ Ortiz or Brandon Webb?

Great, I will. Thanks for permission, dude!

What are the "right stats," what does it mean for them to be "INTERPRETED CORRECTLY"? How is any of it "objective"? What are the exact cut-offs? A lifetime ERA that's 1 ER under the league average is "hall of fame" but only .5ER would just be "OK"? Why? Who decides?

The entire argument, really, is bullshit. There are no 'right' and 'wrong' stats, there's no possible way to "objectively" measure them or decide what amounts to a "hall of fame" career vs. "pretty-good" career.

And on top of that, how you reach those statistics (you know, 'playing') is the least objective thing in the world. Bad call by the umpire, a slow infield that costs a guy a hit, winds that blow in and out and all over the place, parks of all different sizes and shapes, etc. etc. etc.. Pure fucking luck in many cases

Should we kick guys out of the hall of fame, since we know they wouldn't be as good today? How many of the old-timers would even be able to get on the field, much less hit .400 or .420?

If numbers are all that matter, fuck baseball - go simulate some stats.

"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."

milo is right, numbers are not all that matter. sabermetrics are incredibly useful for evaluating talent, but they should NOT be the SOLE factor in deciding who gets MVP or who gets in to the hall. here's an extreme example to make my point clear: a hypothetical jackie robinson. if he was a career .250 hitter, i'd still want him in the HoF. would you disagree with that?

no probably not, but I think that's overrated. One could argue and one would probably be right that in the late '90s the best third baseman in the league was Vinny Castilla (I know, Coors factor, but still).

Speaking of Coors, anyone think Helton's gonna make the HOF? I don't think he was mentioned in this thread, but to date his career BA is over .330 and career slugging is over .600...

back to Raffy! I'd say he's a lock, he passed "close" about two seasons ago. His cumulative stats at this point are astonishing. Even stathead Rob Neyer, who a year ago was iffy on Raffy, admitted after last season that he deserves to go in. My prediction: 590 HR, 1870 RBI, 3064 hits, .289 BA, and a very consistent mustache will be more than enough.

helton is a splendind hitter and a good glove. his 3 year road splits are .297/.401/.535, if anyone's interested. i'll let others deal with the HoF arguments, but my feeling on palmeiro is that if he gets in it shouldn't be for many years down the line, cepeda style.

this is as good a time as any to bring this up - has anyone else heard of the supposed "coors effect" (no not the obvious one)? i saw this being argued quite tenaciously (by a rockies fan) on a message boards awhile back. basically the poster suggested that taking batting practice every other week at coors impairs the rockies players ability to hit on the road, so the coors boost is all but cancelled out in the end. i thought of three players off the top of my head to test this with - neifi perez, preston wilson, and jeff cirillo - and it came up negative each time, unless the effects are chronic and preston wilson happened to have a talent boost coincide with his arrival in denver, which really doesn't seem likely. it might seem strange that i'm bringing this up or even considering it seriously, but the guy who brought it _seemed_ intelligent, to have researched the topic, and had some people buying it, as i recall - and it does make some sense, although he might've been taking it too far. so if anyone wants to give their thoughts or think of any other players who've logged signficant time w/ colorado and elsewhere, i'd appreciate it. (obviously castilla is another one, and we should get a pretty good idea of the coors effect by tracking him this year, as he's back with colorado)

I'd never argue that ONE stat could be the Holy Grail to defining a player. Nobody's been that smart yet. But consider :

> There are no 'right' and 'wrong' stats, there's no possible way to "objectively" measure them or decide what amounts to a "hall of fame" career vs. "pretty-good" career.<

There are better and worse stats. It's just real "Flat Earth" to maintain otherwise, and you contradict it when you cite traditional stats on behalf of a player.

I hears Dan O'Dowd, the Rockies GM, wearily discuss that "other" Coors Effect at the Denver SABR convention last summer. The guy is plain out of ideas.

Castilla was never the best offensive 3B once the home field was factored out. Trust me.

>Catfish Hunter might not have the stats, but he is 'storied' - and that's the key. It's the Hall of Fame.<

Jeez Milo, that silly and desperate argument? Let's induct Bo Jackson and Eddie Gaedel.

And Blue Moon freakin' ODOM, "great"? He was no Jon Matlack...

Jeez Milo, that silly and desperate argument? Let's induct Bo Jackson and Eddie Gaedel.
Excellent argument, Doc. "Well, haha, I'll show you by naming two players who aren't considered 'great' by anyone!"

But sure, if enough people remembered Bo Jackson as a great player of his generation, why not?

You seem to think that anyone has ruled out statistics from consideration. No one has, certainly not me. But statistics aren't the entire story. Never have been, never will be. Your argument fails completely when you start banging on about "right and wrong" and "objectivity" that simply don't exist, outside of what you desperately want to believe.

Your trust in certain statistics is no more a legitimate measure of whether a player deserves "hall of fame" than anything else.

Right now, I'm killing time while waiting for the lunch rush to die down, so re: the Coors effect - the only things I've heard or read re: the Rockies' asstastic home / road splits have to do with the way offspeed pitches (don't) break in Colorado versus how they (most definitely) break in lower altitudes. Not that there's any conclusive evidence - a Baseball Prospectus writer wrote an essay a while back, trying to gague the effect that long home stands had on Rockies hitters. There might've been some correlation, but I can't recall. But free-swinging guys that are baffled by offspeed stuff away from Coors Field (hello, Preston) (and I think Vinny, too) are undoubtedly going to kick ass when changeups and curveballs don't do what they usually do. Plus, I imagine pitchers wary of the thin air effect will rely more on their fastball, which allows fearsome hitters like Neifi Perez a chance to do some damage.

If there's anyone that's going to survive Rockiedom and see the HOF (and I'm saying this w/out actually checking numbers), Todd Helton is it. Other than him & Larry Walker (and his injuries have undoubtedly put the kibbosh on him getting the opportunities to put up the numbers he could easily do if blessed with a stronger body and blessed with not having to deal with Olympic Stadium as an up-and-comer), the Rockies franchise is bereft of anyone that could possibly qualify as a HOF-caliber hitter.

As far as Jeff Cirillo goes, I think it's a matter of his Colorado farewell coinciding with natural physical decline that made him such a joy to pitch to as a Mariner.

i think simmons is the guy that writes for jimmy kimmel, so that's all i'd need against the man. but was that supposed to be a knock on caddyshack??

david, from what i can tell i'd say milo and i are in that sexalicious middle ground. we're just saying that statistics are not the whole story *when one is not playing armchair gm [and even when one is, of course, but to a much lesser extent]*. that's where i draw the line and statheads don't. they take their tools beyond what they were originally designed for. i'm not saying they don't have a place in HoF or MVP arguments - they have a HUGE place - it's just that they can't always see what we as fans, as PEOPLE, see.

i think the HoF is clearly meant to honor great contributions to the game. i think the MVP award is meant to measure value, and i think it's perfectly acceptable to include factors outside a player's control in ones evaluation when they have an effect on his value (of course it's all subjective, but this also makes logical sense). i don't think either of those beliefs are especially radical.

milo, some stats ARE better than others. this can be proven pretty easily by taking an offensive metric and checking how it correlates to actual team runs scored. actually i just checked bp.com and they recently wrote an article about this here: http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2596.

by the way doctor, you didn't answer my question.

But it still comes down to the set of questions you're asking and your attitude toward those questions.

And there is a middle-ground between statgeeks and fictionistas, and that's the one that's pretty much always existed. Personal opinions of a player, their cultural standing, and some of their stats.

>a hypothetical jackie robinson. if he was a career .250 hitter, i'd still want him in the HoF. would you disagree with that? <

What's his on-base percentage? :)

A tough one, which the BBWAA was spared cuz Robinson was a great player as well as a pioneer... I suspect that if the "first"* black player didn't perform, either the team would shuttle in a new one.. or The Great Experiment might've been postponed a few years.

But on a similar pioneer level, why isn't Curt Flood -- a Gold Glover who took the reserve clause to the Supreme Court -- in the HOF? (I'll set Marvin Miller aside, for now.)

*Jackie R was possibly NOT even the first 20TH-CENTURY black player (there'd been a number in the 19th)... A number of Cuban players of African descent in the '20s and '30s made the majors because they "passed." Bobby Estalella's grandpa was one. Doesn't lessen Robinson's achievement of course.

Re "subjectivity": It's subjective to say Bob Welch pitched better than Clemens (robbed of the Cy) in 1990... it's also wrong. One had a better W-L record, the other performed better in all measurable categories.

Regardless of the reasons (physics, eeek), the Rockies hitters take days to readjust after beginning a road trip; the team has studied it.

Milo (you a Catch-22 fan?):

>But statistics aren't the entire story. ..."objectivity" ... simply do(es)n't exist, outside of what you desperately want to believe<

I never said they were the ENTIRE story... but almost everything else you want to consider is anecdotal. Like Yogi Berra on Joe DiMaggio: "He never made a mistake." Oh, bullshit, Yogi. (And I like Yogi, I went to the Penn Station KMart and got his autograph.)

>What are the "right stats," what does it mean for them to be "INTERPRETED CORRECTLY"? ... Who decides?<

Researchers do, and then the readers they're trying to convince. Take a look at the Baseball Prospectus book or their site. There's 25 years of literature that's evolved on this stuff I'm (inadequately) advocating, read a little... like the Bill James Historical Abstract and Moneyball.

As for my jape at your it's the Hall of FAME comment, you clearly implied that it should be filled solely by who's most "storied." I'm sure El Duque is more famous than Stan Musial in these ahistorical times, let's throw that old Cardinal geezer out in favor of the Cuban underachiever...

Yes, certain researchers decide what they value. And they try to convince readers to accept their values. There is nothing objective about this, there is no 'right and wrong.'

Your last paragraph - well, I 'clearly implied' nothing of the sort. It's a Hall of Fame. Not a "Hall of Really Low ERAs!" - Catfish Hunter has strong career accomplishments, and he's storied.

As I said, if you want a Hall of Fame that's derived almost purely from pseudo-objective statistical analysis, then write the rules, set the standards and don't allow any sort of personal conjecture to enter into it. How far are you going to go in that analysis? Should we penalize great players for playing in certain eras and certain ballparks in certain climates? What about career-length, how will that factor in? If you were 'great' for 11 years, sorry, but if you were great for 16, you're in?

Statistical analysis has its place. But it is not, it has never been, and it never will be, the end all and be all of baseball. You cannot claim that sabremetrics/the cult of James is the only proper/objective/right/etc. way to look at baseball history.

Yes, except I favor the verb "adjust" over "penalize." And not just great players, but Larry Walker and Catfish Hunter too!

>What about career-length, how will that factor in? If you were 'great' for 11 years, sorry, but if you were great for 16, you're in?<

A balance of "peak" versus "career" value... Koufax is Mr Peak, Spahn is Mr Career, both great.

I'd like to rebut further, but I really can't make head nor tails of what you're advocating; maybe picking HOFers out of a hat. That's the best Stiff Little Fingers song though!

Wouldn't you say winning 27 games is an unusually high amount for any year?

Hunter pitched in the playoffs every year from 1971 to 1978, so the guy was playing in primetime unlike few starting pitchers did in the days before the expanded playoffs. He won five rings, a Cy Young and the guy's nickname is Catfish; that is all he needed.

As for Musina, Dr. you pretty much said the same thing that I said. If he flames out 12-12 this year and then spirals downward, I doubt that he will get to the hall, but if he wins 50 games in the next three years and/or wins a world series his ticket is assured.

If he hadn't have gotten in that year, he would have had to wait for a while like Drysdale, who didn't get in until 1984 or Blyleven who is still waiting.

I'm not advocating anything, I'm perfectly happy with the Hall induction being solely a product of a vote which allows the voters to establish their own, individual criteria for admission.

I'm responding to statements like "The right stats, INTERPRETED CORRECTLY (objectively), are the main means to measuring careers." This is simply obnoxious, pseudo-authoritative, pseudo-scientific bullshit. "Right stats," correct interpretations and objectivity don't exist in baseball. There's no way to decide what the proper "means" are by which to measure careers.

It all comes down to what questions you ask and your attitude toward them, nothing more.

The same statement, minus the "zis is zee only vay!" stuff, doesn't bother me at all. Interpret the game however you want, but don't try to claim that yours is the one true path.

Sorry I meant that's pretty much the caveat regarding all pitchers.

Position players can fall apart fast too though, but it's usually once they get to their mid-30s for obvious aging reasons.

Yeah--I can think of a slew of mid-30s positional guys breaking down: Murphy, Alomar, Rice, Mo Vaughn, Mattingly, etc. (Ignoring anybody PED-related...or maybe they're the guys who don't break down.)

McGwire def. fell apart.

30 position players, kinda chosen based on at the bare minimum having maybe accomplished enough that even if they dropped off the cliff this upcoming season they would merit strong consideration in some quarters.

Bobby Abreu
Carlos Beltran
Adrian Beltre
Lance Berkman
Miguel Cabrera
Johnny Damon
Carlos Delgado
Adam Dunn
Jim Edmonds
Vladimir Guerrero
Todd Helton
Ryan Howard
Derek Jeter
Andruw Jones
Chipper Jones
Paul Konerko
Joe Mauer*
Magglio Ordonez
David Ortiz*
Jorge Posada
Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
Scott Rolen
Ichiro Suzuki
Mark Teixeira
Miguel Tejada
Jim Thome
Chase Utley
Omar Vizquel
Mike Young

― omar little, Thursday, February 3, 2011 3:57 PM (3 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well some of these dudes are going nowhere near the HOF, for sure. some of them should but won't.

*depends on the rest of their career, i think.

are you talking about EVER? What if they actually do fix the Veterans Committee someday? I can particularly see Utley, Rolen and maybe Andruw getting in.

i'm being pessimistic on that point. i agree utley and rolen should get in though.