Baseball Hall of Fame discussion

[rasputin]

Olympic Fan, your last post beat me to the punch. The best SS in history (as an overall player) is Wagner, and there is no room for intelligent discussion otherwise. Wagner was widely regarded as the greatest player ever, at least until Ruth came along.

When the ridiculous "Team of the Century" was put together 10 or so years ago, fans voted for a most of the entries, and a panel of experts was there to supplement (to correct glaring omissions). There were two added in this fashion, IIRC: Stan Musial and Honus Wagner. (They should have added Frank Robinson, too). Musial's absence was partly occasioned by the fan voting for Pete Rose (this was during a time of some pro-Rose sentiment re: the ban). I think the fans' SS voting was for Ripken and Ozzie Smith. They were both great players, but to put them above Honus Wagner is a joke.

[Angel]

Though I loved Murph as a player I've never thought he was HOF-worthy. However, I don't see a huge difference between him and Jim Rice. If Rice is HOF-worthy perhaps Murph deserves another look.

During their heyday, both were considered the best player in their leagues and maybe the best player in baseball.

[Angel]

Well, in my view, Rice doesn't belong either, but I'm in the minority. He was a feared hitter, yes. He was not a good outfielder. He was not a particularly good baserunner. He hit into tons of double plays.

There are plenty of players who were not good fielders, good baserunners who have made the Hall. And most power hitters hit into a lot of DP's.

[Angel]

I've always thought of the HOF in different terms. I think it should be reserved for the true all-time greats. It's the Holy Grail of individual achievement, and I just have never thought it should admit the good or even the nearly-great, but rather just the guys who when you mention their names, you instantly say to yourself "all-time great." I'm thinking, among current players, of guys like Jeter, A-Rod, Randy Johnson, Griffey, Rivera, probably Smoltz and Glavine, and not too many others. To me, Jim Rice would be a borderline admittee, but he'd probably get in. Dale Murphy? Very good player, in fact an excellent player for a number of years. All-time great? Not in my book.

Your description of the Hall is not what it is. It's for Superstars and Stars.

I think Rice and Murphy both qualify as stars.

[Angel]

Agreed. Zito's a bit of a throwback in having the UC as his money pitch. Or erstwhile money pitch. He's been very effective since the all-star break. I'm rooting for him. The guy's a real pro in his preparation, and has handled the adversity after getting a big contract with a lot of class.

How many HOF'ers do the Giants have in their starting rotation right now? At least two, I'd think, assuming Lincecum's little body doesn't break down, and maybe more.

I would say none. I'm wary of good starts by players who look like they could be great only to turn into good or lesser players.
Players like Steve Avery, Strawberry and others. Lets let them earn it before we start the enshrinement.

Lincecum is good, but he's one fastball away from slicing meat in a deli.

[rasputin]

There are plenty of players who were not good fielders, good baserunners who have made the Hall. And most power hitters hit into a lot of DP's.

Rice's power numbers are not sufficient, IMO, to overcome his weaknesses. Compare that to a guy like Killebrew (who was a power hitter, slow runner, ordinary fielder), who was in the top 5 in career HR and in career HR% when he retired. Rice isn't in that discussion.

[Mal]

I would say none.

I think you're forgetting about the guy in his 40's in the Giants rotation. Otherwise, I don't disagree with your general point, I just don't think the poster was referring to Cain and Lincecum as their 2 HOF'ers.

[Angel]

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.

It seems the bigger crime is lying about doing steroids rather than doing steroids. But, I have to admit until any of the above come clean, I don't think I would consider them for the Hall.

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."

Well, McGwire hit 49 HR's for the A's before the juice, so I think he may have made it anyway, but Sosa is one that may be an all steroid made career.

And his acting like he couldn't speak English at the Senate hearings was just laughable.

[Angel]

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.

One small difference is that Rose was not a player when he bet on baseball.

And Jackson was a far greater player than Rose?!?!?

Considering the different times they played in, I think you would get a big argument on that one.

[Angel]

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).

Saying we don't know that McGwire didn't take steroids is like saying we don't know that OJ did it.

He refused to answer the question at the Senate hearings basically admitting guilt and steroids were illegal in the 90's whether they were against the rules or not.

[Angel]

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.

I'm so glad you brought him up. The most underated player in baseball for the last 10 years. He is an outstanding hitter, but being buried on mostly non-winning teams has kept him one of the best-kept secrets in baseball.

[Olympic Fan]

And Jackson was a far greater player than Rose?!?!?

Considering the different times they played in, I think you would get a big argument on that one.

A big argument from whom -- people who don't know the history of the game? What do you mean "considering the different times they played in"? That works in Jackson's favor.

Joe Jackson played almost all of his career during the deadball era, the toughest offensive era in baseball history. Rose started his career during a slow offensive period in the '60s, but played the bulk on his career in the run-friendly '70s.

In terms of raw numbers, it's not close. Rose had a career .303 BA with a .375 OBP, a .409 SLUG and a .784 OPS. Jackson had a .356 BA with a .423 OBP, a .517 SLUG (amazing for that era) and a .940 OPS. The average Rose season was .303 7 HR 60 RBI 98 runs. The average Jackson season was .356 7 HR 95 RBI 106 runs.

And Jackson did it in a much tougher batting era -- hence his career OPS plus is 170 (he was 70 percent better than the average hitter in his era) ... vs. 118 for Rose (who was 18 percent better than the average hitter in his era).

Yes, Shoeless Joe Jackson ... for all his crimes, was a MUCH better player than Pete Rose.

Now, I think that as a player (setting aside his crimes for the moment), Rose is a Hall of Famer quality player. But he's also one of the most overrated players in baseball history. He did the thing that tends to make you overrated -- he did one thing very well ... he hit singles.

It's funny because he played with a guy who is underrated because his skill set was much broader. Joe Morgan, who played on those same Cincinnati teams, was a much better player than Rose. He didn't hit as many singles and hence his batting average was lower, but he reached base at a higher rate, slugged at a higher rate and had a higher career OPS (.819 -- a 132 OPS plus). Plus he was a great defensive second baseman and a great baserunner. Morgan and Bench were the far and away the two greatest players on the Big Red Machine ... either Rose or Tony Perez (.804 OPS ... 122 OPS plus) was third best.

[Matches]

Saying we don't know that McGwire didn't take steroids is like saying we don't know that OJ did it.

He refused to answer the question at the Senate hearings basically admitting guilt and steroids were illegal in the 90's whether they were against the rules or not.

Many baseball players do things that are illegal, before, during, and after their careers. Those actions do not disqualify them for consideration for the HoF.

Baseball should have banned steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs long before it actually did so. MLB's failure to act has stained the game in a major way. I absolutely believe McGwire used steroids but I have no evidence that he broke any of baseball's rules. I can discount his numbers because they probably were chemically-generated, just like I can somewhat discount pitching stats during the Dead Ball Era - it's always fair to take into account the era in which someone played. Taking that into account, I do not believe McGwire to be a HoFer. But I'm not going to automatically take him out of consideration because he juiced, when juicing wasn't against the rules. Ethically and morally I'm opposed to what he did, but I'm also opposed to baseball players using cocaine, getting arrested, drinking and driving, cheating on their spouses, and a variety of other things.

[rasputin]

A big argument from whom -- people who don't know the history of the game? What do you mean "considering the different times they played in"? That works in Jackson's favor.

Joe Jackson played almost all of his career during the deadball era, the toughest offensive era in baseball history. Rose started his career during a slow offensive period in the '60s, but played the bulk on his career in the run-friendly '70s.

In terms of raw numbers, it's not close. Rose had a career .303 BA with a .375 OBP, a .409 SLUG and a .784 OPS. Jackson had a .356 BA with a .423 OBP, a .517 SLUG (amazing for that era) and a .940 OPS. The average Rose season was .303 7 HR 60 RBI 98 runs. The average Jackson season was .356 7 HR 95 RBI 106 runs.

And Jackson did it in a much tougher batting era -- hence his career OPS plus is 170 (he was 70 percent better than the average hitter in his era) ... vs. 118 for Rose (who was 18 percent better than the average hitter in his era).

Yes, Shoeless Joe Jackson ... for all his crimes, was a MUCH better player than Pete Rose.

Now, I think that as a player (setting aside his crimes for the moment), Rose is a Hall of Famer quality player. But he's also one of the most overrated players in baseball history. He did the thing that tends to make you overrated -- he did one thing very well ... he hit singles.

It's funny because he played with a guy who is underrated because his skill set was much broader. Joe Morgan, who played on those same Cincinnati teams, was a much better player than Rose. He didn't hit as many singles and hence his batting average was lower, but he reached base at a higher rate, slugged at a higher rate and had a higher career OPS (.819 -- a 132 OPS plus). Plus he was a great defensive second baseman and a great baserunner. Morgan and Bench were the far and away the two greatest players on the Big Red Machine ... either Rose or Tony Perez (.804 OPS ... 122 OPS plus) was third best.

The quality of Shoeless Joe's play also may be underrated just because his career was shortened so he isn't high on the all-time additive lists (less than 1800 hits).

And I agree about Rose and Morgan; Morgan was a much more valuable player. Having said that, Rose did represent a hustling style and all-out effort that everyone appreciates. He was an excellent baserunner, although he was not a superb base stealer. IIRC, "Charlie Hustle" was originally a derisive term, hung on him by Whitey Ford (or was it Mantle?) Over time, people figured out that his wasn't false hustle and that he always gave 100%effort.

[Mal]

A few random thoughts on a number of the topics here:

First, my HOF exclusion cause celebre is certainly Bert: there are basically three arguments lobbied against him, none of which hold water.

The first is one advanced by deslok way up thread, which is that including guys like Blyleven casts the net too wide. Well, it's already cast too wide, then, and the argument should be with the system generally and not punishing Blyleven specifically for that failing. I know Oly noted it's dangerous to use the lowest common denominator argument, but if Don Sutton's in, the door's been open to consistently excellent throughout a long career players. And wariness of the lowest common denominator issue dissipates when you could make pretty favorable statistical arguments in Bert's favor compared to a number of current HOF'ers, not just one or two (Drysdale, Jenkins, Sutton, Perry, Niekro, Bunning, Hunter come to mind).

The second is that he wasn't "dominant," or never the top pitcher in the league. For one thing, you don't have to be the absolute best in the game at some point in your career to be a Hall of Famer. We wouldn't be talking about how the top 3 guys in the Braves '90s rotation would all be HOF'ers, not to mention the fact that Clemens, Martinez and Johnson were all in their primes simultaneously, otherwise. We could take half the pitcher's plaques down from Coopersville based on that criteria, too. For another, Blyleven's lack of "dominance" is more a matter of lack of media attention while he played in third world markets. He finished in the top 5 in the league in RSAA 8 times in his career. He's 5th on the all-time K list. And he was likely the best pitcher in the league in 1973. He was one of the top 10 starters in the majors every single season in the '70s. He was just criminally neglected based on geography and the teams he was stuck with. No other pitcher in the top 20 in wins, shutouts and strikeouts isn't in the Hall. Plus, Blyleven was a stud in the playoffs.

The final argument often advanced (mostly by old school sportswriters who can't be bothered to understand a Rob Neyer article) is the old "he didn't finish high enough in Cy Young voting" chestnut. As if Cy Young voting is somehow an objective measure. In 1973, Blyleven threw 325 innings, had 258 Ks and a 2.52 ERA. He led the A.L. in K/BB ratio, shutouts, ERA+ and had 26 neutral wins. He was 2nd in ERA, K's, WHIP, and RSAA (53), 3rd in CG, 4th in innings pitched and had 20 wins. For this, he got one stinkin' 3rd place vote for the Cy Young.

On another issue raised in the posts above, I don't object to the Helton discussion generally, but I don't recall any of the people remarking on him even mentioning the Coors Field thing here. If I recall correctly, his stats have started catching up on the road in recent years, but you can't make statements about his lifetime OPS being higher than Mickey Mantle's without mentioning the need for a severe discount due to altitude (Jason, I'm looking your way). He's a heck of a hitter, and probably good enough to overcome the statistical anomaly of Coors Field and the discount to his stats that will come with it, but let's at least acknowledge it.

Re: Hall inclusion for 'roids Era players, I generally agree with Matches' take a few posts up. There's a fundamental difference in my mind between following the crowd in trying to get a competitive advantage (whether it be in an ethically questionable way or not), and tampering with the outcomes of supposedly competitive games by taking money from others to intentionally perform poorly.

And on the idea of denoting bad deeds, etc. on Hall plaques, I don't think that's necessary. If MLB were to allow Pete Rose in, it's not like the Pete Rose backstory would go away and future generations of kids visiting Cooperstown would come away thinking of him as an unblemished hero. The same will hold true of Bonds and any one else from the current PED years, and the same is true of Shoeless Joe.

[Angel]

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.

Being the greatest force in one's era over another does not necessarily make one the greatest player. Plus, Wagner batted against inferior pitching.

I say picking one over the other is just opinion and not really knowable.

[Angel]

Rice's power numbers are not sufficient, IMO, to overcome his weaknesses. Compare that to a guy like Killebrew (who was a power hitter, slow runner, ordinary fielder), who was in the top 5 in career HR and in career HR% when he retired. Rice isn't in that discussion.

Other than HR's, he is in that discussion.

Rice had 250 more hits than Killebrew, he hit .300 7 times, Killebrew never did nor did he really get close. Rice had 4-200 hit seasons. Again, Killebrew never had close to one. They scored about the same amount of runs and Killebrew only had 89 more RBI's for his career.

The average for a 162 game season Rice wins 97-85 in runs, 190 hits to 139, and 113 RBI's to 105. Killebrew wins 38 top 30 in HR's.

So Rice's career was very comparative to Killebrew's.

[Angel]

Many baseball players do things that are illegal, before, during, and after their careers. Those actions do not disqualify them for consideration for the HoF.

Baseball should have banned steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs long before it actually did so. MLB's failure to act has stained the game in a major way. I absolutely believe McGwire used steroids but I have no evidence that he broke any of baseball's rules. I can discount his numbers because they probably were chemically-generated, just like I can somewhat discount pitching stats during the Dead Ball Era - it's always fair to take into account the era in which someone played. Taking that into account, I do not believe McGwire to be a HoFer. But I'm not going to automatically take him out of consideration because he juiced, when juicing wasn't against the rules. Ethically and morally I'm opposed to what he did, but I'm also opposed to baseball players using cocaine, getting arrested, drinking and driving, cheating on their spouses, and a variety of other things.

Sorry, but the difference in steroids and all the other infractions players have done is that the drugs has really altered their level of play.

But, I agree with you about the immoral infractions not keeping players out. That's why I'm for Rose being allowed in.

[tommy]

Well, McGwire hit 49 HR's for the A's before the juice . . .

And how exactly do you know he wasn't juicing when he hit the 49?

[Angel]

A big argument from whom -- people who don't know the history of the game?

From people who saw Rose get over 4000 hits. And how many players have more hits than him?

And to say anyone is a far greater player than Rose is just laughable. If you want to consider Jackson better that's fine. But, let's not exaggerate

What do you mean "considering the different times they played in"? That works in Jackson's favor.

I don't think so. Pitchers pitched a lot of innings back then. A lot of tired pitchers. Plus, the specialization of relief pitching wasn't big then.

In terms of raw numbers, it's not close. Rose had a career .303 BA with a .375 OBP, a .409 SLUG and a .784 OPS. Jackson had a .356 BA with a .423 OBP, a .517 SLUG (amazing for that era) and a .940 OPS. The average Rose season was .303 7 HR 60 RBI 98 runs. The average Jackson season was .356 7 HR 95 RBI 106 runs.

And for his career, how many more hits did Rose have over Jackson? It's not close. Rose in a landslide.

Now, I think that as a player (setting aside his crimes for the moment), Rose is a Hall of Famer quality player. But he's also one of the most overrated players in baseball history. He did the thing that tends to make you overrated -- he did one thing very well ... he hit singles.

Yep, over 4000 hits. More than anyone. Of course, he's overrated.

It's funny because he played with a guy who is underrated because his skill set was much broader. Joe Morgan, who played on those same Cincinnati teams, was a much better player than Rose. He didn't hit as many singles and hence his batting average was lower, but he reached base at a higher rate, slugged at a higher rate and had a higher career OPS (.819 -- a 132 OPS plus). Plus he was a great defensive second baseman and a great baserunner. Morgan and Bench were the far and away the two greatest players on the Big Red Machine ... either Rose or Tony Perez (.804 OPS ... 122 OPS plus) was third best.

Far and away?!?! Did you see him play?

By the way, I loved Bench and Morgan, but I think Rose had a better overall career.