Baseball Hall of Fame discussion

[JasonEvans]

If so, then the question becomes: is there ANYTHING a great player could do, on or off the field, that would or should cause us to say "yes, he was undeniably a great player. But the fact that he did X means that he shouldn't be in the Hall anyway?"

I don't want to hear "well, Ty Cobb was a racist and he's in" or other similar points. Guys like that are in, and they're not going to be tossed out. All we can do is move forward and determine what the appropriate standards are now. So if a guy with undeniable HOF credentials on the field in terms of stats, impact on the game, etc., turned out to be a child molester, a monstrous thief or fraud perpetrator of some sort, or an ax murderer, does he still get in anyway? I'm not saying Rose is an ax murderer, but my question is 'what does it take to disqualify and otherwise deserving player?'

This is a good question and I hope it inspires some debate from folks like Oly Fan, who seem pensive on the subject.

I mostly think the question has to do with whether the player's misdeeds impacted the game. So, for me, a great player who fell on hard times after baseball and became a thief would still get in the HOF. The truly horrible stuff -- like child molestation, murder, and angry racism/homophobia -- are tough for me but I think I would fall on the side of including a great player in the Hall despite despicable deeds done outside the game.

Now, I am very much in favor of including everything about a player in their HOF display, and that would include prominent "bad acts" they might commit outside the game. For example, I think OJ Simpson's plaque at the football HOF should include mention of his criminal and civil trials.

Pete Rose is somewhat different from the above paragraphs though, as his "crime" of betting on baseball did relate to the game in a tangential sort of fashion. Still, I do not think his crimes merit exclusion from the Hall. I might feel differently if it was shown that he threw games, but there has been no evidence or accusation of that.

Of course, this brings us to the steroid abusers. Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens... these guys have the kind of stats that would seem to make them HOF locks. I am still unsure of how I feel about them. Their "crimes" clearly impacted the game in a major, major way. I know there are some folks who feel Bonds and Clemens get in because they were clearly HOF worthy before they apparently started "juicing." On the opposite side would be McGwire and Sosa, who many folks feel were largely products of steroids and might not have been very significant players without "the juice."

I need to think more on this, that's for sure. I am not sure where I stand right now.

--Jason "Clemens and Bonds had such a huge impact on the game-- can you really leave them out of the Hall?" Evans

[Matches]

Pete Rose is somewhat different from the above paragraphs though, as his "crime" of betting on baseball did relate to the game in a tangential sort of fashion. Still, I do not think his crimes merit exclusion from the Hall. I might feel differently if it was shown that he threw games, but there has been no evidence or accusation of that.

Rose bet heavily on Reds games, when he was a manager, but he only bet on them when certain pitchers were starting. IOW he had money on some of the games he managed but not others. It's not hard to believe he may have managed games differently depending on whether he had a financial stake. Do you bring in your best reliever tonight even though he pitched in the last two games? Do you put that ailing position player back in the lineup tonight or give him one more day off to heal? The answers to those questions may depend in part on whether Pete had bet on the team that night. I'm not sure how anyone would ever prove his decisions were actually influenced, but stuff like that is why there's a prohibition against betting on baseball - potentially it impacts the integrity of the game. To me that's a VERY big deal.

No question Rose belongs in the HoF, of course, but remember - he willingly accepted the lifetime ban as a compromise, and with the possibility of much worse things looming for him.

The steroid stuff bothers me a ton, but IMO it seems to invalidate statistics and individual accomplishments rather than games. Giambi's MVP award, for example, looks really cheesy in light of what we now know, but I don't look back on the 2001 A's and think they shouldn't have made the playoffs. Though I think the steroid culture is baseball was disgusting and there should have been testing earlier, it's also significant to me that the Giambis, the McGwires et al weren't breaking the rules of their sport. Rose was. Heck, you can make an argument that spitballers were even cheating in a way that the dopers weren't.

[Olympic Fan]

My take is very similar to Jason's -- I think the only behavior that should count against a player's induction is something that impacts the game itself. I agree that a great player who falls on hard times then commits vile crimes after his career should not be denied admission. He's not quite a Hall of Famer, but Denny McClain is a great example of a significant player who became a criminal later in life.

When I look over the Hall of Fame exclusion list, I see two major issues -- gambling and performance enhancing drugs.

Baseball is very sensative to gambling because it nearly destroyed the game in the days after WWI. Joe Jackson -- a much greater player than Pete Rose -- is not in the HOF because he took money to throw games in the World Series (whether he did anything to actually throw the games is debatable, but he unquestionably agreed to the deal and took the money).

In the wake of the Black Sox scandal (which was just the tip of the iceberg in that era ... there was a LOT of fixing going on, although most of it was in meaningless late-season games), Landis and the baseball establishment drew a very clear line in the sand and every baseball player since has had it drummed into him -- bet on baseball and you're gone. Should they relax that line and say, 'Well, if you bet on your own team, it'd not so bad ... only a 2-year suspension'? I don't think you can do that without erasing the line and allowing gambling interests to creep back into the game.

What Pete Rose did isn't nearly as bad as what Joe Jackson did, but both have got to remain permanently beyond the pale. IMHO, Jackson and Rose are both out forever.

I feel just as strongly about PEDs -- whether steroids, growth hormones or something else. The problem is that such drugs are dangerous and even life-threatening (as Ken Caminitti found out). Now, you might argue that a player has the right to risk his own life, but when a handful of players do take that risk, they gain a competitive advantage and that pressures others to take the same risk -- just imagine two slugging outfielders at Triple A, both vying for a spot in the Majors. One takes steroids and boosts his power production 5 percent. What's the other guy going to do?

Let me say, that I don't buy the BS argument that "everybody" was juicing in that era. The 2003 test found 106 positives -- out of over 900 players tested. It's a large minority, but it's not "everybody" ... it's not even close to a majority. ALL minor leaguers have been tested for more than six years (the players union doesn't cover them) and only a handful have been caught.

Should we penalize McGuire and Sosa and Palmero, who probably wouldn't be Hall of Fame caliber without the 'roids? Absolutely.

What about Bonds and Clemens and Manny and A-Rod, who would have likely been HOF caliber without PEDs? Well, in my mind, they are in the same category as Rose and Jackson -- who are clearly HOF caliber players who aren't in because they broke the rules.

It's just my opinion, but if I was a voter, I would never vote for a gambler (on the game) or a juicer. And I don't care how good he was -- he was a cheater.

[rasputin]

This is a good question and I hope it inspires some debate from folks like Oly Fan, who seem pensive on the subject.

I mostly think the question has to do with whether the player's misdeeds impacted the game. So, for me, a great player who fell on hard times after baseball and became a thief would still get in the HOF. The truly horrible stuff -- like child molestation, murder, and angry racism/homophobia -- are tough for me but I think I would fall on the side of including a great player in the Hall despite despicable deeds done outside the game.

Now, I am very much in favor of including everything about a player in their HOF display, and that would include prominent "bad acts" they might commit outside the game. For example, I think OJ Simpson's plaque at the football HOF should include mention of his criminal and civil trials.

Pete Rose is somewhat different from the above paragraphs though, as his "crime" of betting on baseball did relate to the game in a tangential sort of fashion. Still, I do not think his crimes merit exclusion from the Hall. I might feel differently if it was shown that he threw games, but there has been no evidence or accusation of that.

Of course, this brings us to the steroid abusers. Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens... these guys have the kind of stats that would seem to make them HOF locks. I am still unsure of how I feel about them. Their "crimes" clearly impacted the game in a major, major way. I know there are some folks who feel Bonds and Clemens get in because they were clearly HOF worthy before they apparently started "juicing." On the opposite side would be McGwire and Sosa, who many folks feel were largely products of steroids and might not have been very significant players without "the juice."

I need to think more on this, that's for sure. I am not sure where I stand right now.

--Jason "Clemens and Bonds had such a huge impact on the game-- can you really leave them out of the Hall?" Evans

I disagree with Jason on this re: Rose, for the reasons set forth below by Matches. I also agree in general with the comments below by Olympic Fan, except that I might be convinced to make an exception for players who clearly would have been HOF'ers even if they hadn't cheated (Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod).

I think it should be kept in mind that there has been a general increase in HR's over the last couple of decades, for which PED's is only a partial explanation. We have ballparks now where home runs are much easier to hit. It makes me admire all the more the great power hitters of my early years, guys like Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Killebrew, and the vastly underappreciated Frank Robinson.

Someone mentioned spitballers, and I agree that they are tainted. I assume that the poster who took that position was limiting it to the era after the spitball was banned.

I agree in general that those despicable characters already in the HOF (think Cobb) will and should stay there. But I mention for this discussion Cap Anson, who was as big a racist as Cobb, and who was largely responsible for the so-called "gentlemen's agreement" that no non-white players would be allowed in Organized Baseball. Anson was a huge star pre-1900, and is in the Hall. His character was probably as rotten as Cobb's, and his racist views directly impacted the game for decades.

Finally, my definition of a HOF'er comes down to this: "Let's go to the ballpark tonight. X is in town (or is pitching)." By this definition, Blyleven is in, at least for me. And a guy like Palmeiro, in spite of the numbers, is not. It will be interesting to see what happens 10 years from now after the retirement of guys like Thome (who I don't believe has been linked to PED's).

[The Gordog]

My take is very similar to Jason's -- I think the only behavior that should count against a player's induction is something that impacts the game itself. I agree that a great player who falls on hard times then commits vile crimes after his career should not be denied admission. He's not quite a Hall of Famer, but Denny McClain is a great example of a significant player who became a criminal later in life.

When I look over the Hall of Fame exclusion list, I see two major issues -- gambling and performance enhancing drugs.

Baseball is very sensative to gambling because it nearly destroyed the game in the days after WWI. Joe Jackson -- a much greater player than Pete Rose -- is not in the HOF because he took money to throw games in the World Series (whether he did anything to actually throw the games is debatable, but he unquestionably agreed to the deal and took the money).

In the wake of the Black Sox scandal (which was just the tip of the iceberg in that era ... there was a LOT of fixing going on, although most of it was in meaningless late-season games), Landis and the baseball establishment drew a very clear line in the sand and every baseball player since has had it drummed into him -- bet on baseball and you're gone. Should they relax that line and say, 'Well, if you bet on your own team, it'd not so bad ... only a 2-year suspension'? I don't think you can do that without erasing the line and allowing gambling interests to creep back into the game.

What Pete Rose did isn't nearly as bad as what Joe Jackson did, but both have got to remain permanently beyond the pale. IMHO, Jackson and Rose are both out forever.

I feel just as strongly about PEDs -- whether steroids, growth hormones or something else. The problem is that such drugs are dangerous and even life-threatening (as Ken Caminitti found out). Now, you might argue that a player has the right to risk his own life, but when a handful of players do take that risk, they gain a competitive advantage and that pressures others to take the same risk -- just imagine two slugging outfielders at Triple A, both vying for a spot in the Majors. One takes steroids and boosts his power production 5 percent. What's the other guy going to do?

Let me say, that I don't buy the BS argument that "everybody" was juicing in that era. The 2003 test found 106 positives -- out of over 900 players tested. It's a large minority, but it's not "everybody" ... it's not even close to a majority. ALL minor leaguers have been tested for more than six years (the players union doesn't cover them) and only a handful have been caught.

Should we penalize McGuire and Sosa and Palmero, who probably wouldn't be Hall of Fame caliber without the 'roids? Absolutely.

What about Bonds and Clemens and Manny and A-Rod, who would have likely been HOF caliber without PEDs? Well, in my mind, they are in the same category as Rose and Jackson -- who are clearly HOF caliber players who aren't in because they broke the rules.

It's just my opinion, but if I was a voter, I would never vote for a gambler (on the game) or a juicer. And I don't care how good he was -- he was a cheater.

I have to say I agree with this perspective 100%. I will always be opposed to to Rose, and all of the Juicers getting into the HOF.

Can I use your text (with attribution) and send it to my hometown newspaper's sportswriters before the voting every year?

[JasonEvans]

Many of you may find this article on Bronson Arroyo interesting. In it, he admits to putting all kinds of stuff in his body to make him a better ballplayer, though he says he never knowingly took steroids. He pops vitamins and supplements like tic-tacks.

He says he is pretty confident his name is on "the list" because he took Andro pretty regularly until baseball banned it in 2004 and Andro was often spiked with steroids back then. He also took amphetamines for 9 years, until 2006.

The article is long and includes a number of fabulous quotes from Arroyo. Among them--

"If Mark McGwire is hitting 60 homers, the only thing that matters is his performance," Arroyo says. "People don't own teams to lose money. If you ask any owner whether they would rather make $20 million and come in last place or lose $20 million and win a World Series, there's only one guy who honestly would take that championship: George Steinbrenner (of the Yankees). Nobody else."

and

He says fans and the news media are more concerned with cherished records falling than they are with whether steroids or supplements will have an adverse effect on a player's health.

"I can see where guys like Hank Aaron and some of the old-timers have a beef with it," Arroyo says. "But as far as looking at Manny Ramirez like he's (serial killer) Ted Bundy, you're out of your mind. At the end of the day, you think anybody really (cares) whether Manny Ramirez's kidneys fail and he dies at 50?

"You were happy if the Red Sox won 95 games. You'd go home, have a cookout with your family. No big deal."

I could probably quote 2/3rds of the rest of the article... but just go read it for yourself.

--Jason "he seems to think that Manny takes PEDs but says it is 'a coin flip' as to whether Pappi took them too" Evans

[Tommac]

I think Pete Rose should be in the HOF for what he accomplished as a player. It probably won't happen until he's dead.

[Matches]

Arroyo was articulating a valid point although IMO he didn't do it all that well. Suggesting that "we all" drink and drive is not going to win him any sympathy points, for example.

He's pretty upfront about things. He believes that he is playing by the rules of baseball - if it turns out that he's not (i.e. he fails a drug test), then he will pay the penalty. To our knowledge, Mark McGwire never broke any of baseball's rules. It's fair to discount his numbers because they were obtained, in part, using means we as a society do not like - and maybe that impacts whether he is really a HOF-caliber player - personally I don't think he is - but that's not the same thing as being a cheater. A cheater is someone who cheats, i.e. breaks the rules, and McGwire didn't do that (that we know of).

[Olympic Fan]

I have to say I agree with this perspective 100%. I will always be opposed to to Rose, and all of the Juicers getting into the HOF.

Can I use your text (with attribution) and send it to my hometown newspaper's sportswriters before the voting every year?

Feel free to pass it on -- even without attribution. Glad to see that somebody shares my view.

Can I make one more point (I may have posted this a long time ago). But the baseball establishment's slow response to the gambling problem in the days before and after WWI is remarkably similar to its sluggish response to the PED issue.

For years, the baseball brass knew that games were being fixed and that players were routinely taking money from gamblers to influence games. Hal Chase was the Barry Bonds of his era -- a known fixer who moved from team to team with remarkable ease. He was popular and (statistically) a fine player -- and the owners wanted to make money and draw fans. So what if every team he played on underachieved? When Christy Mathewson, the most popular figure in the game, was managing the Cincinnati Reds, he presented the President of the National League with hard evidence that Chase was throwing games ... the evidence was buried and Chase merely moved on to the Giants.

Baseball didn't want to hear about gambling. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were almost certainly involved in throwing a game late in the (1918, I think) season. But it was a game that meant nothing in the standings and when the story broke in the '20s, after the Black Sox, Judge Landis buried the evidence and cleared both players. Then there's Carl Mays -- a HOF worthy righthander for the Red Sox and Yankees ... supposedly he's not in the HOF because he killed Ray Chapman with a beanball; in reality, it's because he was throwing games.

The Baseball Establishment turned a blind eye to gambling until it blew up in its face ... and even when Hugh Fullerton finally broke the Black Sox conspiracy story late in the 1920 season, their first response was to trash Fullerton and try to ignore it again.

That's all just like the modern establishment turned a blind eye to PEDs as long it could. Yeah, blame the union. Yeah, insist the public doesn't care. So what if a player or two dies prematurely ... there's nothing we can do.

PS Let me add one thing about Rose. I am clearly not a Rose apologist (and I believe he should be banned forever), but I don't put much stock in the argument that he "accepted a lifetime ban." At the time, "a lifetime ban" meant an indefinite ban, rather than any fixed time period. You have to remember that just a couple of years earlier, Yankee owner George Steinbrenner accepted "a lifetime ban" for hiring Howard Spira to spy on Dave Winfield (that's a simplified summary of the situation). The point is that Steinbrenner's lifetime ban lasted one year and was lifted. When Rose took a lifetime ban, he expected it to last a few years and then have it lifted.

I had a friend bring up an interesting point. If Rose has a lifetime ban, does that mean it's lifted when his life is over? Unlike Jackson, will a dead Rose be eligible for the Hall of Fame?

[cspan37421]

Let me say, that I don't buy the BS argument that "everybody" was juicing in that era. The 2003 test found 106 positives -- out of over 900 players tested. It's a large minority, but it's not "everybody" ... it's not even close to a majority. ALL minor leaguers have been tested for more than six years (the players union doesn't cover them) and only a handful have been caught.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are PEDs for which there is no testing in place and/or there is no effective test that could be put in place. I've heard HGH given as one example. I think BALCO had a number of others in development.

Of course this does not prove that more than 106 WERE actually juicing, but it does suggest that the 106 is a minimum figure. My view is that, if you're inclined to take a PED, once you know of an effective PED for which there is no test, you would logically switch to it. Who knows how many others did that.

I suspect the development of undetectable PEDs has continued, as well. We can only test for those substances about which we know, and for which we have a test. Given the dollars at stake and the history of this problem in this and other sports, I am not optimistic that we are anywhere close to identifying most of the "cheaters" - past or present.

[tommy]

Now, I am very much in favor of including everything about a player in their HOF display, and that would include prominent "bad acts" they might commit outside the game. For example, I think OJ Simpson's plaque at the football HOF should include mention of his criminal and civil trials.

I've heard this floated by others as some sort of compromise to all of this. I don't think this is a good idea at all. For who decides what goes on the plaque? The HOF or some committee thereof? What would the standards be? How bad does something have to be before it is included on the plaque? Would the player have the right to modify it somehow, to "tell" his side of the story? Something like, to make up an example, where the HOF were to include "tested positive for performance enhancing drugs in 2004-2006" on the plaque, would the player get to add to the plaque "although he never knowingly took any such drug"? Would the HOF then want to add something in rebuttal to that? For sure, the lawyers would get involved. Ugh.

The tit for tat could go on at length, far lengthier than a plaque could hold or than people would want to read. In fact, when you're walking around enjoying yourself at the Hall of Fame, this kind of lawyerly, my version/your version of controversial events is the LAST thing you want to be reminded of.

And what other "bad acts" would the HOF be able to or be obligated to include on the plaque? (X player) "was convicted of beating up his wife in a drunken rage on two occasions"? Player would add "after she was found to be cheating on him." HOF: "because he cheated on her first." And it would/could go on ad infinitum.

WADR, I think the whole idea of including this stuff on plaques would open up a huge Pandora's box of problems. These guys should either be in or out (I say out) but not "in with an explanation."

[Olympic Fan]

Holy #$&*@,

I can't believe that in our discussion of the player or players who most deserve induction into the Hall of Fame, we forgot the No. 1 omission in recent times -- Tim Raines.

Let me make my position clear -- Tim Raines is the second greatest leadoff hitter in history (who just happened to have the bad luck of being a comtemporary of the clearcut greatest leadoff hitter ever).

Raines is not a borderline choice like Jim Rice ... or Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson or Don Mattingly would be. He's a lock-solid, mid-level Hall of Famer. Pete Palmer's 2000 edition of Total Baseball rates Raines as the No. 21 player (actually non-pitcher) in baseball history. Bill James rates Raines a little lower -- as his No. 81 player (a list that includes pitchers). With more than 250 HOFers, that puts Raines clearly in. In fact, he rates him just ahead of Willie Stargell, Paul Waner, Frankie Frisch, Al Kaline, Brooks Robinson, Sam Crawford, Carl Hubbell, 3-Finger Brown, Kirby Puckett, Carlton Fisk, Ed Delehany and Billy Williams.

I don't know the exact rating, but I do have an essay by ESPN's Rob Neyer about the 1998 Yankees, responding to an article that suggests they compiled the best record in baseball history without a Hall of Famer -- his dismissive take was that Jeter would almost certainly become a HOFer, but that Raines was a no-brainer, first-ballot HOFer.

Instead, he's barely received 25 percent of the vote in his first two years of eligibility. He's a guy who had a career 385 .OBP, an .810 OPS. He's fifth alltime in stolen bases, 49th alltime in runs scored and 73rd all-time in hits. He won a batting title and finished in the top three four times.

His exclusion is a crime.

[JasonEvans]

Peter Gammons disagrees with you about Tim Raines.

--Jason "I think Raines was good for a long time but rarely truly great-- is that enough for the Hall, perhaps" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

I could suggest that Peter Gammons is still suffering from brain damage after his stroke ... or I could blame it on the fact that Tim Raines never played in Boston ...

Let's be generous and suggest that even the great ones are wrong at times. Well, maybe not ... by the end of the article you quoted, Gammons admits that he's wrong and that he WILL be voting for Raines.

To begin with, "being a very good player for a long time" has long been grounds for induction into the Hall of Fame.

But the fact is that Raines was a VERY good player for a VERY long time. And his peak years -- 1985-87 -- were as good as the three-year run of almost anybody not in the absolute pantheon (the Ruths, Williams, Gehrigs ...). Let's see, his 3-year OPS of 150 in that span is better than the best three-year run for Pete Rose, Paul Molitor, Cal Ripken or the recently elected Jim Rice (those are just the first names that I looked up as they came to mind).

Raines had more seasons of 133-plus (meaning he was one-third better than the average hitter) than Molitor, Ripken, Rice or Rose. He had more 120-plus OPS seasons than any of them. He had 19 seasons of 100-plus (meaning better than an average hitter), which is more than Pete Rose, Paul Molitor, Cal Ripken and, of course, Jim Rice.

Now, as I said before, Rice is a very borderline pick (which Gammons happened to support .. I'm sure his days playing in Boston had nothing to do with that) and Ripkin gets extra credit for playing most of his career at shortstop, but Raines was a MUCH more effective offensive player than either -- both at his peak and for the length of his career.

Rose offers a better comparison -- both Rose and Raines had careers of similar length and both made similar defensive contributions (Rose played a lot of positions, but he was barely adequate at all of them). Raines was a better hitter at his peak. He was better over the long extent of his career (11 120 OPS plus seasons; 19 100 OPS plus seasons) than Rose (9 120 plus seasons and 17 100 OPS plus seasons).

And that doesn't even count the extra credit he deserves as the fifth best basestealer in history.

PS Reading Gammons' argument, it basically comes down to the fact that Rice has more "black lines" -- fared better in the traditional triple crown categories and that Rice did better than Raines in the MVP voting. As for the first, Jayson Starks correctly points out that Raines actually has better stats in the non-traditional (but often more important) statistical categories. As for the MVP voting, maybe its not surprising that a guy who was underappreciated in his own era should be so overlooked now.

[A-Tex Devil]

How about this nugget which I heard on talk radio recently...

If Derek Jeter had played in Houston and Craig Biggio had played in NYC, Jeter would be the borderline, but likely, HOFer and Craig Biggio would be the sure fire lock...


Although historically, I think the BBWA haven't been too regionally biased in their selections. We'll see if that changes in the future with the gross favoritism the worldwide leader shows the NYY-BoSox rivalry the past 7 years.

[Olympic Fan]

How about this nugget which I heard on talk radio recently...

If Derek Jeter had played in Houston and Craig Biggio had played in NYC, Jeter would be the borderline, but likely, HOFer and Craig Biggio would be the sure fire lock...

You can hear a lot of stupid stuff on talk radio (almost as much as you can read on the Internet). This is one of those moments of stupidity.

Look, I don't disagree with your premise that players in New York (and Boston or LA) get too much national hype. And I don't disagree that Craig Biggio is a first-ballot Hall of Famer -- he is.

But the talk-radio idiot making the statement quoted above is suggesting that Biggio and Derek Jeter are roughly equal players and that Jeter's superior reputation is based on his year in the New York spotlight.

Not true -- Jeter has been a significantly better player in his career than Biggio was.

Jeter has a better career BA (.316 to .281), a better on-base pct. (.387 to .363), a better slugging pct. (.458 to .433), a MUCH better OPS (.845 to .796) and a superior OPS-plus (120 to 111).

Plus, Jeter has played a more difficult defensive position -- shortstop. Biggio played two-thirds of his career at second and split the other third equally between catcher and outfield.

Plus, Biggio played most of his career in a far better hitter's park. Enron Field (or whatever its called these days) has consistently been the best hitter's park in baseball. The old Yankee Stadium, where Jeter played most of his career, has been close to neutral (actually, very slightly more of a pitcher's park overall). The new Yankee Stadium is a power hitter's paradise, but it still ranks second to Enron in home runs allowed.

Obviously, in New York, Jeter has had the chance to shine in postseason. But having the chance and doing it are very different (ask A-Rod). Jeter's postseason OPS is .846 -- actually a point better than his regular season OPS. He's made play after play that have impacted baseball history.

Biggio, on the other hand, has played in nine postseason series -- with a dismal .620 OPS. He's averaged .234 with a .297 OBP and a .323 SLUG -- all far below his regular season numbers.

All of this is not to knock Biggio. In fact, if you match his numbers with the sainted Cal Ripken, you'll find them very, very similar. Ripken gets a little edge for being a shortstop, but Biggio-Ripken are much more similar than Biggio-Jeter. The gripe should be that Ripken's reputation is so much better than Biggio's -- but you can blame that on New York City.

I shouldn't say this, because it will make some Ripken worshippers mad, but the numbers show that Jeter was also clearly a better offensive player over the course of his career than the Baltimore HOFer. Defensively? I don't know, except that Jeter has three Gold Gloves to Ripken's two Golf Gloves.

[NOTE: This is the second time I've tried to post this response. My computer ate my first try. If this shows up twice, I'd appreciate it if the moderators would cut one of them. Thanks]

[Deslok]

A few notes of correction to the Jeter/Biggio comparison. Biggio played 12 season in the Astrodome, and only 8 in the new Enron or whatever field. And while the new stadium is definitely a hitters park, the Astrodome was just as definitely a pitchers park. So if anything, the park adjustment would help Biggio's numbers. And, Yankee Stadium(old version) was not a pitchers park, it was, by a slight factor, a hitters park. But broken down further, it was very much a left handed hitters park, and neutral/slightly below average for right handed hitters like Jeter. Also, while you can consider SS a more difficult position to play than 2B, Jeter stinks at it. He is, for most of the last decade, just about at the bottom of shortstops defensively by all the metrics out there. Biggio was no great shakes as a 2B, but was better at his position than Jeter was at his.

All that being said, Jeter's numbers far outstrip Biggio's so saying the two are roughly equal is nowhere close to correct. And I am one who subscribes to the belief that Jeter is vastly overrated by the media and fans of NY - the best SS in baseball history plays in New York, he just happens to play 3B there.

[A-Tex Devil]

You can hear a lot of stupid stuff on talk radio (almost as much as you can read on the Internet). This is one of those moments of stupidity.

Look, I don't disagree with your premise that players in New York (and Boston or LA) get too much national hype. And I don't disagree that Craig Biggio is a first-ballot Hall of Famer -- he is.

But the talk-radio idiot making the statement quoted above is suggesting that Biggio and Derek Jeter are roughly equal players and that Jeter's superior reputation is based on his year in the New York spotlight.

Not true -- Jeter has been a significantly better player in his career than Biggio was.

Jeter has a better career BA (.316 to .281), a better on-base pct. (.387 to .363), a better slugging pct. (.458 to .433), a MUCH better OPS (.845 to .796) and a superior OPS-plus (120 to 111).

Plus, Jeter has played a more difficult defensive position -- shortstop. Biggio played two-thirds of his career at second and split the other third equally between catcher and outfield.

Plus, Biggio played most of his career in a far better hitter's park. Enron Field (or whatever its called these days) has consistently been the best hitter's park in baseball. The old Yankee Stadium, where Jeter played most of his career, has been close to neutral (actually, very slightly more of a pitcher's park overall). The new Yankee Stadium is a power hitter's paradise, but it still ranks second to Enron in home runs allowed.

Obviously, in New York, Jeter has had the chance to shine in postseason. But having the chance and doing it are very different (ask A-Rod). Jeter's postseason OPS is .846 -- actually a point better than his regular season OPS. He's made play after play that have impacted baseball history.

Biggio, on the other hand, has played in nine postseason series -- with a dismal .620 OPS. He's averaged .234 with a .297 OBP and a .323 SLUG -- all far below his regular season numbers.

All of this is not to knock Biggio. In fact, if you match his numbers with the sainted Cal Ripken, you'll find them very, very similar. Ripken gets a little edge for being a shortstop, but Biggio-Ripken are much more similar than Biggio-Jeter. The gripe should be that Ripken's reputation is so much better than Biggio's -- but you can blame that on New York City.

I shouldn't say this, because it will make some Ripken worshippers mad, but the numbers show that Jeter was also clearly a better offensive player over the course of his career than the Baltimore HOFer. Defensively? I don't know, except that Jeter has three Gold Gloves to Ripken's two Golf Gloves.

[NOTE: This is the second time I've tried to post this response. My computer ate my first try. If this shows up twice, I'd appreciate it if the moderators would cut one of them. Thanks]

I am actually with you here (other than the fact that Biggio played over half his career in the Astrodome, not Enron/Minute Maid) -- Jeter will get to 3000 much faster than Biggio did. Biggio was more of a unique player, which helps his case. He had a career path like no other.

And, as mentioned, I think there hasn't historically been an east coast bias in HOF voting. But I will be curious how things shape in the future. The fact that a guy like Todd Helton gets no love for the HOF is very interesting to me. I am pretty sure there is no one with better numbers than him (assuming he plays another 5 years) that isn't in the hall.

[JasonEvans]

I am actually with you here (other than the fact that Biggio played over half his career in the Astrodome, not Enron/Minute Maid) -- Jeter will get to 3000 much faster than Biggio did. Biggio was more of a unique player, which helps his case. He had a career path like no other.

And, as mentioned, I think there hasn't historically been an east coast bias in HOF voting. But I will be curious how things shape in the future. The fact that a guy like Todd Helton gets no love for the HOF is very interesting to me. I am pretty sure there is no one with better numbers than him (assuming he plays another 5 years) that isn't in the hall.

Biggio starting out as a C before moving to 2B is truly unique. 20+ stolen bases out of your catcher?!?! Are you kidding me?!?!

That said, comparing him to Jeter seems off by a bit

As for Todd Helton, he's gonna make the Hall. You may not hear much talk about it because it is somewhat undebatable. His career batting average is a sick .328. And, get this, his career OPS is .998 -- which is 10th all-time. You read that right, his career OPS is higher than Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, and Joe Dimaggio.



He is 35 and if he plays even 3 more years, he is gonna be well north of 2500 hits. Helton is signed through 2011 with a club option in 2012 (the option is for $23 million in 2012 but with a hefty $4.6 million buy-out). He's gonna play at least 2 more years and probably even more than that. His career numbers will be gaudy. I don't think he gets to 3000 hits (unless he plays to about the age of 42), but he is going to have some tremendously impressive stats.

--Jason "Helton is a Hall of Famer. Book it." Evans

[Olympic Fan]

Also, while you can consider SS a more difficult position to play than 2B, Jeter stinks at it. He is, for most of the last decade, just about at the bottom of shortstops defensively by all the metrics out there. Biggio was no great shakes as a 2B, but was better at his position than Jeter was at his.

... I am one who subscribes to the belief that Jeter is vastly overrated by the media and fans of NY - the best SS in baseball history plays in New York, he just happens to play 3B there.

Jeter “stinks” at shortstop. Really? Or are you as guilty of denigrating the guy as the New York media that insists on glorifying him?

Forget for a moment the three gold gloves he was awarded – managers don’t know anything about baseball and their opinion shouldn’t count.

Let’s look at the numbers. For his career, Jeter has recorded lower-than-average range numbers. His career range/9 innings is 4.17 vs. a league average of 4.57.

On the other hand, his fielding percentage is better than the league average. His double-play rate is better than the league average – and has, in fact, been among the top 3 (in percentage of expected double plays, a new Bill James stat) of AL shortstops in 11 of his first 13 seasons.

Is Jeter a great defensive shortstop? Absolutely not. But does he really stink?

What he is an adequate defensive shortstop (his sureness and his double play ability offsetting his lack of range) who also happens to be the second greatest offensive contributor at short in modern times – better than Ripken, better than anybody who has played the position post WWII other than Alex Rodriguez and maybe Ernie Banks, if you count his years at first base.

Yeah, A-Roid was a better offensive shortstop ... but I’m not sure that he was a great defensive shortstop either. In his years at short, his range per 9 innings was exactly the league average and his fielding percentage was the same small amount better than the league average as Jeter. And his double play rate was significantly worse than Jeter’s.

Did the Yankees make the right move keeping Jeter at short and moving A-Roid to third? Well, although A-Roid is a slightly better defensive shortstop, I think he makes the shift to third easier than Jeter. I think SS-Jeter and 3B-A-Roid is a stronger combo than SS-A-Roid and 3B/OF-Jeter.

And BTW, A-Roid is NOT the greatest SS of alltime and wasn't on a path to be. He's very close to Honus Wagner as an offensive force at shortstop -- indeed, his career .964 OPS dwarfs Wagner's .857. Of course, Wagner played in the heart of the deadball era, while A-Roid played in the greatest power era in history. To compare the two, look at OPS plus: Wagner's 150 is better than A-Roid's 147. Wagner won 8 batting titles (A-Roid 1), led in OBP four times (A-Roid 0), won six slugging titles (A-Roid 4) led the majors in OPS 8 times (A-Roid 5).

The conclusion -- Wagner was a greater offensive force in his era than A-Roid is today.

But it doesn't stop there. Wagner was a great base stealer (in the deadball era, when stealing bases was an effective way to manufactor runs), leading the NL five times in stolen bases.

And where he really gets the edge is defensively. A-Roid was an average defensive SS. Wagner was not only the greatest defensive SS for his era, he was generally acknowledged as the greatest defensive PLAYER of his era (he played enough at 2B, 3B and OF to convince observers that he was the best at those positions too ... he played SS because that was -- and is -- the most important defensive position). The numbers seem to back up the opinion at the time -- his career range factor of .563 was well above the average SS range of .518, his fielding percentage was .940 in an era where the average SS fielded .926.

Honus Wagner, not Alex Roidriguez, is the greatest shortstop who ever lived ... and it's not close (plus he never took PEDs).

As for Biggio’s prowess at second base, we’ll set aside his four gold gloves because we’ve already agreed that managers are idiots who don’t understand baseball.

His career range per 9 innings were also below league average and his fielding percentage was also a touch above league average. He was never a great double-play guy.

PS Good catch on the ballpark issue. I knew Biggio started in the Astrodome, but didn’t realize he played 60 percent of his career there. That does balance things out. Let's see how much. I checked the ballpark ratings and saw that for Biggio's first 12 seasons in the Astrodome the ballpark was a cumulative 40 points under the league average (100 is average ... 90 is 10 points below; 110 is 10 above). That's an average of 3.3 percent a year worse than the league average. But for his eight full seasons in Enrown, the cumulative was 24 points better than average -- so for his career, his home ballpark was 16 points (less than one a year) worse than the league average.

In Jeter's 13 full seasons in the old Yankee Stadium, the ballpark was a cumulative -3 ... about as close to average as you can get. I suspect that will change with the New Stadium, although despite all the home runs, its current ranking is just 103.

But I apologize for mistakenly suggesting that Biggio hit in easier home ballparks than Jeter ... actually Jeter's was very, very slightly easier than Biggio's combination of the Astrodome and Enron.