currently active players with a shot at the hall of fame

That was such a joke

I have been into baseball for 2 years. Still lots of awful and great things to discover.

Oh god that was over 10 years ago. D:

The second best peak of the steroid era was Randy Johnson from '99-02--really, he's almost even with Pedro. (Smoltz also overlooked Johnson yesterday, saying that Maddux's four year run of Cy Youngs was only equaled by Koufax; Johnson's right in there with them and Martinez.)

I like checking these things, so I tried to identify the best post-war peak for starters.

Depends what you mean by peak, obviously. I'd have to go back to James's HOF book to find out how he defined it--I think he was the first to write about peak value vs. career value, or at least the first to name it as such. For me, peak means a solid block of four or five seasons. For someone else, it might be three or seven seasons, or it might not require that the seasons be consecutive. Not everyone will agree on that.

Anyway, here are all the four-season blocks of 30+ WAR. I don't think I missed anybody, but I don't know.

1. Johnson – 38.2
2. Pedro – 37.6
3. Koufax – 36.5
4. Wilbur Wood – 35.5
5. Robin Roberts – 35.1
6. Gibson – 35.4
7. Marichal – 33.5
8. Maddux – 33.1
9. Niekro – 33.1
10. Clemens – 33.0
11. Seaver – 31.7
12. Schilling – 31.4
13. Jenkins – 30.7
14. Halladay – 30.3
15. Bunning – 30.2

I should have jotted down the years...Wilbur Wood sticks out on that list so much--everyone else is either in the HOF, or is or should be on his way. (Unless you want to create a separate category for Clemens.) Kevin Brown and Dave Stieb just missed; Carlton's best seasons were spread out (ditto Seaver, whose '69 season falls outside his best four-year block, even though he made the list anyway).

I still think that Gagne's Cy Young was defensible. It looks less special now because strikeouts have gone way up relievers who throw 95 and strikes out 12/9IP aren't rare anymore, but at the time he was doing what no other reliever had done before.

On the premise that there's someone out there who never gets talked about as a candidate right now but will emerge as one in his 30s--and that it's more likely to be a pitcher who turns out to be surprisingly durable (non-pitcher possibilities are usually easy to identify by 30, no?)--I wonder if either Cole Hamels or Jered Weaver might qualify. They're pretty close right now:

Hamels (30) -- 105-79, 124 ERA+, 1.140 WHIP, 3.79 K/BB, 37.7 WAR, 3 Cy Young top-10s
Weaver (31) -- 124-66, 125 ERA+, 1.145 WHIP, 3.13 K/BB, 35.3 WAR, 3 Cy Young top-10s

Close enough that I couldn't say which one's better positioned. I think Weaver's been a little more fragile thus far. They've both had two or three mediocre years, but neither has ever had a flat-out bad season. Long way to go, but I could see one of them ending up with 250 wins and 70 WAR. Which maybe wouldn't be enough even if it happened--don't know where the bar will be for pitcher 15 years from now.

JAWs does not like either of those dudes. I'd think that they'd have to pull a Cliff Lee type switch (turn suddenly into a 7-8 win pitcher) to really get much consideration.

i'm not sure they're much more impressive than a guy like buehrle tbqf

you know what i hate more than the HOF? using awards standings -- esp for nonwinners -- as a factor in their standing for the HOF.

Someone on ESPN, not sure who it was, just proposed that the HOF should waive the 5 years rule for Jeter. It was during the Red Sox Yankees game, of course.

xpost

Awards standings do matter somewhat, but especially for nonwinners. Anyone can have a fluky great year and win, but e.g. six top five finishes in the Cy Young voting recognizes consistent excellence (i.e. high peak value)

It's not automatic (Juan Gonzalez had five top 10 MVP finishes and two ugh wins) but I think you can generally identify the best players of the era this way. Of course there will always be the Chase Utley and Scott Rolen types who get overlooked no matter what.

Utley seems like someone who illustrates your exact point: never won, but five years placing and three Top-10s. Too low, but still, some recognition.

I understand Morbius's point--you're giving weight to something that may have been wrong in the first place--but, as always, I was acknowledging (with Hamels and Weaver) that award voting does matter, whether it should or not. James gave a little weight to award voting in the first Historical Abstract, the idea being that he was ranking many players he never actually saw play, and that the opinions of those who did ought to be worth something. When dealing with players like Hamels and Weaver, I'll grant that that becomes a less compelling argument. (I also realize I'm grasping at straws a bit with those two guys. But there's gotta be someone out there right now mid-career who's flying under the radar.)

"But there's gotta be someone out there right now mid-career who's flying under the radar."

Really? Why? Looking at most recent HOFers I'd say that most of them were pretty clearly 6-8 win players by their late 20s or at least very clearly guys who would be at that level barring injuries or control issues. Guys who get there just on accumulation alone are pretty rare.

the only guy i see as possibly under the radar might be someone like zack greinke, who seems like the kind of pitcher who could put up some huge seasons in L.A. over the next few years and he's already got a WAR around 40. of course he is pitching in the shadow of clayton kershaw and i think is regarded as a bit of a disappointment in some ways and looks just like michael shannon, which isn't a strike against him necessarily but you never know with these HOF voters.

veterans committee eventually voted michael shannon in iirc

Alex is probably right, but I'd want to look at it over the years before saying.

Comment From zurzles
any under-the-radar players who might end up with hall of fame careers?
12:47
Dan Szymborski: Does Buehrle count, assuming he keeps putting off his threat to retire?
12:47
Dan Szymborski: Last I checked, ZiPS actually has Buehrle nearing top 50 of all pitchers in career bWAR bys eason’s end.
12:48
Dan Szymborski: He’s likely to get win 200 before the end of the year at 35.
12:49
Dan Szymborski: Every modern pitcher with 200 wins through age 35 is either a Hall of Fame or got significant support
12:50
Dan Szymborski: The worst pitchers in that category were Lolich (who got a little support and Hunter (who got in) and Buehrle’s actually better than both
12:51
Dan Szymborski: (and he has a better ERA+ than all the 190s through age 135 excepct Perry who did get in)

I informally looked at all the post-war starters chosen by the writers, and no, no one really emerged after 30. About the closest analogy is Sutton, who was comparable to both Hamels and Weaver at the same age in some ways, but he'd already accumulated 176 wins when that was still the #1 factor. Sutton through age 31:

176-136, 110 ERA+, 1.115 WHIP, 2.82 K/BB, 36.6 WAR, 5 Cy Young top-10s

And you could find a number of guys who were better than Sutton in rate stats and WAR at that point--but his win total, in the context of when he pitched, negates all that in terms of the HOF.

Buehrle had such a great start this year (albeit precarious when you looked beyond his ERA), but he's been very shaky the last month-and-a-half. I don't know if it's a blip or more ominous.

i guess randy johnson will be the next guy to be elected who really emerged after his age-30 season.

through age 30:

1245.1 IP/81-62/3.70 ERA/113 ERA+/1330 K/5.0 BB per 9 IP

31+

2890 IP/220-104/3.12 ERA/147 ERA+/3545 K/2.5 BB per 9 IP

Johnson's fascinating because he's actually a pretty awful pitcher or at very best league average until he's 29 and then suddenly he's amazing (bar one injured season and one mediocrity) for the next 11 years (followed by some padding).

I thought of Johnson--he definitely acquires his HOF credentials after 30--but didn't bring him up only because he's not very useful as an analogy for Weaver or Hamels or really anybody. He's about as sui generis as it gets. I do remember James making an early call on him, probably after that age-29 season--something like, pay attention, you'll never see anything like him again.

He is, but Schilling's another dude who was kinda okay trying to get healthy, get it together an then he's 30 and suddenly he's one of the best pitchers in the game. Sorta of arguing against myself here. I mean there's nothing that actually says that Hamels or Weavers can't pull a Schilling or a Johnson it's just more that they kinda need to. Their current performance even extended another ten years feels too slight to merit much consideration.

Here's the James quote on Randy Johnson (1995 Player Ratings Book): "You need to appreciate this man, if you're a baseball fan, because you're never going to see another one like him, no matter how long you live." Even James couldn't have guessed what was on the way, though--"I expect him to be an effective pitcher for another 10 years." Effective he was.

Tim Hudson peaked before age-30 and was more consistent (and more durable), but nobody thought of him as a potential HOFer until the last couple of years. Even with all the injuries, he still has more career IP than Halladay or Sabathia.

Hudson (and Pettite) basically had the careers that clemenza is suggesting that Hamels/Weaver might have, but if Mussina is scraping 20% of the vote I doubt any of them is going to get even that.

who knows... i'm wondering how much voting behaviour is going to change with the new rules.

Schilling had a weirder career than randy imo, bc randy once he hit 30 was unstoppable until he went to the Yankees. Schilling had half a dozen great HOF-caliber seasons and never more than two in a row between 1992-2004, mixed in with injury-plagued or merely good years and a couple of outstanding postseason performances.

this is just me - but i would have Schilling in the HOF before Galvine.

If Schilling does go on to the HOF, as he should, he would be the best example, I think, of a guy coming out of nowhere after he turns 30. So much so that he doesn't work as an analogy for Hamels and Weaver, who have had a number of good seasons at this point. Schilling's two best seasons before he turned 30 were mismatched: he was great in '92, but presumably didn't get any run support, and then the '93 Phillies scored a ton of runs for him, but he didn't pitch particularly well himself. By the time he's 29 he's 52-52, has an ERA+ of 113, and is 17.0 WAR. He's not even flying under the radar--he's nowhere near the radar. (Everyone knew he was talented, he just couldn't seem to stay healthy.)

schilling is an obvious pick to me but i'm warmer on glavine than i used to be. i occasionally need to be reminded to not put too much stock in fWAR.

Schilling vs. Glavine would seem to be about as stark an example you could find of peak value vs. career value. You'd obviously rather have Schilling's peak--not too many pitchers since the war can match his 2001-2004 peak, even with an injury in there. But Glavine's career, even though he comes up 6.0 games short of Schilling in career WAR, is so much more equitably distributed--from '90 to '07 even his very worst years contribute value, and he's over 4.0 nine times.

So it just depends which you prefer, or which gives your team a better chance to win. I've seen the second question argued both ways.

lol i wasn't thinking about this before but glavine offensive WAR actually makes up the difference in both fWAR and bWAR

yeah jeez BBR has him at 7.5 WAR

I'd forgotten about that (even though there was a long discussion about it on another HOF thread) but somehow the whole subject of Glavine's hitting got left out of the HOF voting and induction this year. I can't remember seeing a single article where somebody justified their vote in part due to his hitting.

to be fair the national league is such an abomination most people might not realize a .454 OPS is supposed to be good

Jimmy Rollins is an interesting case, if he compiles the next few seasons, he has a decent chance. Per WAR, he is already the 20th best SS of all time, 16th if I ignore the 19th century. Surely he will end up in top 10 for the National League all time, he is already 8th if I ignore the 19th century. He is already ahead of a few Hall of Famer (Aparico), but also behind a few non-inductees (Trammel). He has a few traditional things to get him in: all time leader in hits for the Phillies, an MVP, World Series, gold gloves and whatnot. I don't know, he'll be a lock for me only he gets to 60 WAR, if only for the durability and him being a franchise icon, and since he got 3.1 WAR this year thanks to his great defense, it's entirely possible he passes up Ernie Banks and Pee Wee Reese. Not working in his favor is the probability that he'll being compared to Chase Utley, and being sandwiched between Jeter and Hanley/Tulo.

For me Rollins and Trammell have almost the same HOF case. They have good offensive numbers for a shortstop, but with a lot of subpar seasons (OPS+ < 100) that I have trouble ignoring. There were hardly any decent hitting shortstops during their primes, which perhaps makes them look better than they really were. They each had one outlier, MVP-level season (Rollins won the award, Trammell should have won). Defense counts for a not insignificant portion of their HOF-level value, but is the most difficult part of their record to evaluate.

I'm iffy on Trammell, and so I'm iffy on Rollins too.

I think Rollins will get some support--maybe 25% to start?--but I count Trammell as the stronger candidate. By WAR, he's much stronger--70 to 45 (Rollins should break 50, though it's not certain)--but I'll try to expand.

Rollins played half his career in the offensive boom years, Trammell most of his in an offensive downtime. Trammell outhit him by 20 points, got on base more often (.350-.325), and almost matched him in SLF (Rollins by 10 points); his OPS+ is 13 points higher. Trammell's career defensive WAR is better, 22-14, but I agree with NoTime that that's the most difficult thing to weigh. (Lorenzo Cain is helping me to trust defensive WAR more: the eye test matches what his numbers say.) I think Trammell's non-MVP '87 was a better year than Rollins' MVP season. Trammell had a very good case in '84, too, the year Willie Hernandez won.

Unless he has a late-career surge, I'd be very surprised if Rollins got close.

SLF = some forgotten '70s terrorist organization. Should be SLG.

I with clemenza Alan Trammel so much better than Rollins. Even if you call the defense a wash by oWAR he has 20 wins+.

"Schilling vs. Glavine would seem to be about as stark an example you could find of peak value vs. career value. You'd obviously rather have Schilling's peak--not too many pitchers since the war can match his 2001-2004 peak, even with an injury in there. But Glavine's career, even though he comes up 6.0 games short of Schilling in career WAR, is so much more equitably distributed--from '90 to '07 even his very worst years contribute value, and he's over 4.0 nine times."

I think Schilling vs. Glavine is also a pretty stark example of difference of pitching styles and their effectiveness. How do strikeout numbers fit into overall pitching WAR?

I agree with most of that, but Rollins is only 35 and a model of consistency. His skills (speed, defense) tend to age well, so he may have 3-4 productive years left. He'll pile up counting stats that will really help his case (250 HR, 500 SB, 1500 R, an outside shot at 3K hits).

Rollins played half his career in the offensive boom years, Trammell most of his in an offensive downtime.

WAR already accounts for this. But I'm skeptical of how Trammell's oWAR is calculated in his down years (and he had a lot of down years, which people always seem to ignore) because AL shortstops were so SO bad at that time except for Ripken. In '89 he hit .243/.314/.334, "good" for 2.3 oWAR. His '81 was similar. These were bad seasons, but the replacement level happened to be so horrendous that I think his production via oWAR appears misleading.

For their careers, Trammell had more v. good bordering on great offensive seasons, but Rollins was more consistent. If Rollins plays another 3-4 years and puts up 12 WAR I'd probably call it a wash.

how often to shortstops have late-career surges?

he belongs in the phillies hall of fame, sure

His skills (speed, defense) tend to age well,

o_0 this is 100% untrue

speed and defense begin to decline the moment players (assuming they aren't literally teenagers) enter the majors, with some exceptions if old dogs can learn new tricks to make up for their declining legs, but that isn't common

not that i think rollins is a candidate to drop off completely, i guess. apparently his career defensive value mostly has to do with his fielding percentage rather than range (negative UZR since 02) or DP ability (negative UZR since 02). but his offense is going to fall off enough that that won't really matter when he's trying to pad his resume.

His defense and base-running have been pretty decent this year, his BB% numbers are up.

i'm not 100% sure whether rollins would deserve much more than hanging around the ballot for a few years before dropping off, but i suspect that if he falls shy of 3k hits he won't last long.

xp it's still totally overzealous to not predict decline for a 36 year old shortstop. and his mediocre range can still decline to just plain terrible.

xxxxxxp strikeouts matter more to fWAR than bWAR, and indeed glavine's fWAR is much lower. i'd put more weight in his bWAR, unless his braves/mets defenses were really so good to justify that big a discrepancy in his FIP and ERA.

I can't remember the exact reasoning, but I thought that outfield defense declines sharply with age (e.g. guys become too slow to play CF and have to switch positions or become an embarrassment like Bernie Williams was). Even so, weren't players like Rickey and Kenny Lofton the prototypes for staying productive at OF into their forties thanks to hitting and speed?

OTOH, slow power hitters can become liabilities overnight because they aren't athletic enough to compensate for a decline in speed and mobility in the field, and a wrist injury or slight slowing of bat speed can completely sap their power.

It's a moot point anyway with Rollins, he's still stealing bases at age 35 so he's still fast. BBRef rates him 1.0 dWAR for '14 (although he's not the defender he was in his 20's). His power has declined, but otherwise his consistency during his 30's suggests he can hang on for a few more years and be productive.

he's kind of entering his old man biggio years imo