Hall of Fame debate

[EKU1969]

that list of players came straight from Hector's post...I realize that Rice was a LF'er and Pinson played CF...it was just a list of players and their stats.

And, of that list I believe that Rice is the most HOF worthy...enough said?

[Olympic Fan]

Fair enough ... sorry for the confusion ... I thought we were talking rightfielders.

But you know, outfield positioning is not always easy to nail down. For some years, we don't have a breakdown on which OF position players played. For others, it's not always simple ...

Take Babe Ruth, for example. We use list him as a rightfielder, but that's not strictly accurate. He played in the same outfield with Long Bob Meusal, a natural rightfielder with -- by all contemporary accounts -- the best arm in baseball. Ruth's arm was good (he had been a pitcher after all), but everybody agreed that Meusal was better.

So why wasn't he in right?

The answer is that Ruth was so valuable as a hitter that the Yankees played him in left or right to protect his eyes from the sun field (remember, that was the era of all day games). In Yankee Stadium, left field was the sun field, so Ruth played in right for half his games. He played in right in two other stadiums and in left in the other five stadiums. That still worked out to playing the majority of his games in right.

I've never been able to figure why Joe DiMaggio played mostly left field as a rookie in 1936. He only moved to center fulltime in 1937.

But I do know why Ty Cobb started his career as a rightfielder. He had a violent personal clash with the incumbent centerfielder, Marty McIntyre. They couldn't play side-by-side, so his manager played Cobb in right and McIntyre to left and played Sam Crawford, who played most of his career in left, in center!

PS I can see the support for Rice from among the list of near-miss outfielders, but in a way, he represents an interesting angle on the question I raised about the value of defense at various positions.

Compared to his old teammate, Dwight Evans, Rice has eeriely similar offensive numbers: 2,542 hits, 382 HRs, 1451 RBIs, .854 OPS; to Evans' 2,446 hits, 385 HRs, 1384 RBI, .840 OPS. Rice won an MVP in 1978 and finished top 10 six times; Evans never won an MVP, but finished top 10 four times (and 11th once).

Similar -- but a slight edge to Rice (although I'd have never guessed that Evans hit more home runs).

The kicker could be defense -- Rice was a very average leftfielder; Evans was a superior right fielder, one of the best in his era.

Does Evans' defensive superiority at a less-than-vital defensive position give him enough of an edge over Rice to off-set his ex-teammates very slight offensive advantage?

Interesting (to me, anyway) question.

[hurleyfor3]

The answer is that Ruth was so valuable as a hitter that the Yankees played him in left or right to protect his eyes from the sun field (remember, that was the era of all day games). In Yankee Stadium, left field was the sun field, so Ruth played in right for half his games. He played in right in two other stadiums and in left in the other five stadiums. That still worked out to playing the majority of his games in right.

I thought Ruth played right at home because left in Yankee Stadium was huge back then (like 480 or so to left-center) and his range wasn't the greatest.

As for Jim Rice, that '78 season was a monster (pun intended). Four hundred total bases in those years was unheard of.

[dkbaseball]

Since using stats entirely for determining HOF status has become a bit problematic in the steroid era, I think that the look test needs to get substantial consideration as well -- when you go out to the park and watch him does the player strike you as a freakish talent who clearly stands out? In that light, Smoltzie is a slam-dunk first ballot -- about the best stuff in the game for years, the sweetest motion, big, strong, super-competitive, just the textbook pitcher. Morris, by comparison, while big, strong and competitive, had bad arm action and simply didn't look like a HOFamer. Andruw does well with the look test, and also guys like Rice (ungodly natural power) and Parker (who was probably the most notable talent in the game circa late '70s to mid '80s).

I'm interested to see some regard Trevor Hoffman as clearly in. He's the leading exhibit in my case for having a HOF eye for talent. I saw him play shortstop for the Univ. of Arizona in 1989, and after seeing him throw over to first twice decided that he definitely needed to be on the mound -- the velocity, overhand point of release and downward trajectory, great balance in his legs. A couple of years later, after he was flaming out in the minors as an infielder, it finally occurred to someone else to try him on the mound. Especially given that he came to pitching late, I give him great credit because he apparently lost that gun he had early on to an injury about ten years ago, but became dominant by developing the best change in the game.

Finally, a freak alert to the board, since I haven't seen his name mentioned here yet: Tim Lincecum, brought up a couple of weeks ago by the Giants. He's about five-ten, 160 lbs,and looks ten years old. Has hit 101 on the radar gun, and has a vicious 12-6 curve when it's on. Totally dominant in the minors, in the majors has out-dueled Oswalt twice. I saw Lincecum in spring training this year, watching from close and behind him as he warmed up in the bullpen. I had watched Oswalt and Ben Sheets from a similar vantage point before they came to the majors, and I think this kid has a better arm than either one of them. Also has an interesting full-body motion designed by his father (who supposedly was still throwing 85 mph at age 50), patterned after old-timers from the full wind-up era, such as Koufax, Marichal and Feller. I think too many guys these days are using the Clemens "tall-and-fall" minimalist motion. Lincecum may end up being a revolutionary.

[Hector Vector]

While rice and evans have similar career stats, Rice was for about a 12 year period (75-86) a giant superstar in baseball, a status Evans arguably never achieved, or certainly not for more than 2-3 year period.

In fact, if you asked baseball fans in 1986, at age 33 whether Rice would be a HOF, it would have been an absolute no brainer. 350 HR, 8 100 rbi and 4 200 hit seasons, average over .300. one mvp and many high finishes With just a decent end of career he looked like a 450-500 HR, 2800 H, 1700-1800 rbi guy.

But from age 34-36 he accumulated only 180 rbi, and 31 HR, and then was out of baseball. Voters have to weigh medium term dominance against failure to accumulate huge career stat totals.

[JasonEvans]

Voters have to weigh medium term dominance against failure to accumulate huge career stat totals.

This has always been my beef with the Hall of Fame, especially the baseball hall where stats seem to take on such a huge role.

Is it better to be a great player for 8-10 years and then leave the game or is it better to be a good player for 15+ years?

Which is better, a guy who hits 40 homers and 120 RBI for 10 years (400 homers, 1200 RBI) or a guy who hits 30 homers and 90 RBI for 15 years (450 homers, 1350 RBI)? When it comes to HOF debates, the guy who did 450 homers and 1350 RBI is probably going to get a lot more support, but I think the 10 year stud is more worthy of the Hall of Fame.

I might add that if you are considered one of the top 3-5 players in the game for more than a few years, regardless of the rest of your career you deserve to be in the Hall. That's why I think it is a shame that Dale Murphy will never make it.

-Jason "MVP balloting and All-star appearances should certainly play a larger role in Hall voting" Evans

[Bostondevil]

David Ortiz is almost a shoo in, a couple more good years or one more post-season walk-off hit and he's in. There are some players whose ability to come through in the clutch define their careers more than their stats. David Ortiz might get in over some players with similar career stats because of those hits in late October 2004. I think Carlton Fisk, whose numbers while solid but not shoo in level, got the extra push because of his iconic World Series moment. We remember Carlton Fisk and we will remember David Ortiz, that counts for something in HOF balloting.

Team you play for, unfortunately, matters a lot too. Yankees get more benefit of the doubt than Royals. If Ozzie Smith had played his entire career in San Diego, I doubt he makes it, not just because the Cardinals are the better known team but also because he never would have gotten the chance to shine in a World Series with San Diego.

Speaking of career numbers, one of my favorite trivia questions - see how many you can get before you start looking! The last time I checked in detail, 8 players had career numbers of at least 2500 hits, 250 HRs, and 250 stolen bases. Hint: some have been mentioned in this discussion. There is only one member of the 3000, 300, 300 club but there's one guy who is only 3 HRs short.

[Olympic Fan]

I thought Ruth played right at home because left in Yankee Stadium was huge back then (like 480 or so to left-center) and his range wasn't the greatest.

Sorry, this is one of the great misconceptions about Ruth. I think the image of the big, fat, immobile guy with the skinny legs comes from all the newsreels from late in his career.

The fact is that a lot of people think Ruth is the greatest player ever because he was such a great all-around player. Bill James, in his historical baseball abstract picks Ruth as the best baserunner of the 1920s. His outfield arm was judged at the time as second only to Meusel's.

Ruth's range had nothing to do with his assignment to play right. As a matter of fact, he had better range numbers than Meusel in the first seven years they played together ... only in 1928 did Meusel finally pass him. Ruth also led the Yankees in stolen bases five times in his first six years with the team.

The flipflop of Ruth from left to right to protect his eyes started in 1920, when the Yankees were playing their home games in the Polo Grounds (which had similar left- right- areas). It had nothing to do with range.

PS: I think Ortiz is definitely on track for the HOF, but he's still got a ways to go. I know his reputation as a clutch hitter will help, but Mattingly was regarded as a clutch hitter and he has much better career numbers than Ortiz. Okay, he doesn't have that WS moment -- but Joe Carter, who finished with 1,000 more hits and 150 more home runs that Papi, had a more dramatic WS moment than Ortiz and he's not going in anytime soon.

Again, Ortiz is on track -- but so were Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly, George Foster and a bunch of others. All I'm saying is that as great as we think he is today, he's really only had four exceptional seasons -- plus he's a DH and some voters are going to hold that against him.

By comparison, he's a year older than Andruw Jones, who has more than 100 home runs more, more hits and more RBIs -- plus he's a great defensive player at a key defensive position ... and for all that, I think Jones has a way's to go too.

[Mal]

MVP balloting and All-star appearances should certainly play a larger role in Hall voting

I strongly disagree. Especially as someone who roots for a small media market team. MVP and Cy Young balloting invariably end up helping guys on major market teams that make the playoffs. All-Star appearances are far too reliant on (i) ignorant and/or big city homer fans (this is not to say I'm against fan voting - that's another discussion, but you cannot deny that multiple players at the All-Star game every year are having average seasons at best), and (ii) the previous year's World Series managers stacking their squads with guys from their own team.

Perhaps more importantly, MVP and Cy Young voters (Cy Young especially) rely on outmoded statistical analyses (where wins are heavily overweighted) and fuzzy elements, like the very individualized notions of what "valuable" is.

There already exists a layer of imprecision and outmoded statistical analysis and individual notions in Hall of Fame balloting, based on the fact that it's a bunch of sportswriters voting. Having the previous votes of those same sportswriters taken into account in Hall of Fame voting adds another institutionalized layer of imprecision, by essentially double-counting the individual biases and axes to grind of the voters.

Back on the old board, I spent a lot of time pushing for Blyleven. Part of his case is that voters keep saying "He wasn't high enough in the Cy Young voting often enough." Well, a run through individual season stats, while he was playing on crappy Angels, Twins, and Indians teams, reveals that, probably due to his membership on said squads, he got hosed in Cy Young voting at the time in multiple seasons. Your proposal would justify perpetuating those injustices.