Hall of Fame debate

[Olympic Fan]

... Or like attacking Iraq in response to 9/11 ... oops, I guess I better take that one over to the public policy board.

[JasonEvans]

Terry Pendleton, whenever he decides to leave the dugout.

Wait, are you suggesting Pendelton for the Hall of Fame? Look, I like the guy and appreciate the leadership he brought to the young Braves in the early 90s but no way is he a HOFer.

He had 2 great seasons for the Braves in 1991 and 92, MVP in 91 and 2nd in the MVP balloting in 92, but hit over .300 only three times in his career. He never hit more than 22 homers in a season and had over 100 RBIs only once. He was a good fielder, a very good one (3 Gold Gloves), but it is not like he was a legendary 3B glove. He was an All-star only once in his entire career.

There is nothing about his career that screams HOF. Aside from 2 exceptional seasons, he was really just an average 3B for most of his career.

-Jason "TP's career as a batting coach is not the stuff of legend either" Evans

[JasonEvans]

2 more Braves to add to the Hall of Fame list-- both are locks too.

Bobby Cox and Leo Mazzone -- unless Leo's years in Baltimore have tainted his legacy. And is John Schuerholtz gonna go in? Do GM's make the Hall the way managers do? Has there ever been a pitching coach to make the Hall?

-Jason "Leo will leave Baltimore after this year, when his buddy gets fired as manager... I wonder if he comes back to ATL?" Evans

[Mal]

1. Oh, lord, I just realized my Canton/Cooperstown gaffe. What a fool! Not sure what I was thinking - if it were October, I could understand having football on the brain, but it's May, for crying out loud. Glad to provide you all with a nice lob down the middle, though. I love the "interesting application of the Bush Doctrine" comment - ha! Well done, Duvall.

2. Jason, Leo Mazzone's not getting enshrined. No non-manager coach ever has. The MLB Hall of Fame is all about the players, to the point that, if my recollection is correct, only ten or twelve actual managers have even been inducted. Bobby Cox maybe, but no way on Leo.

3. I think Hector's right about Trevor Hoffman. He compares favorably to just about any closer in the game's history except Rivera, who happens to be his contemporary and in the New York market. Thus, Hoffman's been incredibly underrated most of his career. Other guys have dominating runs as closers but fade fast (Brad Lidge, anyone?), but Hoffman's been consistently one of the best 4 or 5 in the game for 15 years.

[hurleyfor3]

A career pitching coach in the Hall of Fame? For a club whose endless string of postseason flameouts can be directly attributed to crappy middle relief? You braves fans never cease to crack me up.

[JasonEvans]

A career pitching coach in the Hall of Fame? For a club whose endless string of postseason flameouts can be directly attributed to crappy middle relief? You braves fans never cease to crack me up.

Yeah, it is just Braves fans who think Leo is great. No one else could possibly think that.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ose/index.html

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives...zone_eff_1.php

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/etick...y?page=mazzone

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomi...r-leo-mazzone/

As an aside, the Braves endless post-season flameouts were generally a result of horrible offensive performances, particularly clutch hitting, not middle-relief pitching or any pitching problems. Take a look at what guys like Sheffield, Andruw, and others do in the playoffs at the plate with the Braves and you'll see why the Braves have only won one World Series in the looong playoff run they have had. As a general rule, the Braves playoff pitching is excellent.

-Jason "look at 1998 vs. the Padres, the Braves lost games 3-2, 3-0, 4-1, and 5-0... yeah that's the fault of the pitchers all right" Evans

[captmojo]

When the going gets tough....
the tough get going!
Now, who's with me?

[hc5duke]

If I had to pick two guys younger than 30 who I think are locks, I'd go with Pujols and Johan Santana. And the best bet in the under 25 group is Miguel Cabrera - he's 24 with a .312 career ave. and already has 112 HRs.

I'm sure I'm leaving some obvious ones out.

Adding to the "obvious ones out", I'm obviously a biased Astros fan, but Oswalt should also be mentioned if you're going to say Santana - Oz has a better ERA and more wins (in 1 fewer years I might add) than Santana.

[mr. synellinden]

Adding to the "obvious ones out", I'm obviously a biased Astros fan, but Oswalt should also be mentioned if you're going to say Santana - Oz has a better ERA and more wins (in 1 fewer years I might add) than Santana.

Agreed.

What's amazing about Oswalt is that his highest season ERA is 3.49. His first full season was 19-9; 3.01; 228 K's. He's proven to be consistent and durable so far. His K/BB ratio is astounding.

The problem with pitchers is they can go south at any time. There are probably 100 pitchers who had stats like Santana and Oswalt at age 29 and fizzled.

That being said, I like Oswalt's HOF chances as much as any pitcher under 30.

[Dukerati]

I'm a little weary of Oswalt because his pitching motion is a little too herky-jerky and at least on the surface, looks like it produces a lot of unnecessary torque on the body (Tim Hudson, anyone?). In addition, Oswalt is very slight of frame so I just can't see him having the longevity necessary for a HOF run.

[Olympic Fan]

As a Braves fan, I agree that I should have mentioned Bobby Cox ... he will PROBABLY go in. His record is far superior to Earl Weaver, who had no trouble getting in:

Cox 1 World championship; 5 pennants; 15 division titles; 2207 wins
Weaver 1 World championship; 3 pennants; 6 division titles; 1480 wins

As for Leo, no chance. I'm not ripping on you for suggesting him -- I agree that he's the most highly regarded pitching coach of this generation and one of the greatest all time. But no pitching coach has ever been elected to the hall. Johnny Sain and Roger Craig -- two previous pitching coaches with similar reputations -- never made it (and Craig later won a NL pennant and two division titles as a manager).

I like a lot of the suggestions I've seen in this thread -- Oswalt, Pujols, etc. I agree that they are on track to the HOF candidates. Just a few worlds of caution -- Don Mattingly, George Foster, Dale Murphy. For someone like Pujols, he's clearly HOF material, but he's not there yet. I think he will be, but ...

Go back and look at Frank Thomas' career. He was an absolute, no-brainer HOFer through 2000 -- very comparable to Pujols. Then his play took a big dip before his strong comeback year last season. Personally, I think that 2006 season was enough to clinch his election, but without it, I don't know if he would have gotten in.

Projecting pitchers is especially risky -- they break down far more often than hitters.

For the record, in my arguments for Chipper Jones and Andruw Jones, I was assuming normal career paths. I don't think either is in the HOF at the moment. Maddox and Glavine are in, no matter what (barring a cheating or drug scandal of epic proportions) and I think John Smoltz is very, very close -- a maybe if his career ends tomorrow ... very likely if he adds just a little to his resume.

[greybeard]

A guy named Frank Bisogno, who compiled a book of famous people from the great state of Brooklyn, NY (for those of you who are interested, it is titled "Is Anyone Here From Brooklyn") has made it his mission in life to have justice done and get Carl Furillo inducted. Unfortunately, I lost the leaflet that came with the book that made the case in detail. However, Furillo had much better numbers that any number of luminaries of his era that made it to the Hall, including star outfielders like the Duke himself. Career batting average over 300 (in '53 lead the league with 353 or so), best right fielder in the game, clutch hitter (he won the 59 series for the then (ugh) LA Dodgers, and the best throwing arm ever.

So why ain't Carl in. Seems that he didn't like what the Dodgers offered him following the '59 season, and refused to take it. He was blackballed from the game. Ended his career years early and died a bitter man, managing a ma and pa grocery store in Brooklyn. A few years after Furillo's holdout, Sandy and Don held out together, and got paid what they demanded. Then came Kurt Floyd, who was able to get the publicity that Furillo never could for his fight, and the legal support too.

But Furillo was the real pioneer in the fight, and he was a terrific, terrific ball player too. I'd hope that some day Bosogno wins his battle; until then, this little shout out is the least an old Dodger fan can do.

[EKU1969]

Best rightfielder of all time. Threw out numerous batters at first on what should have been routine singles to right. First to third was almost unheard of against him. .299 career hitter with 1058 rbi's and 1910 hits in 15 seasons.
I agree...he belongs in the HOF!

[hurleyfor3]

Best rightfielder of all time.

I don't think so.

He assisted on his share of 9-3 groundouts, too.

[greybeard]

I don't think so.

He assisted on his share of 9-3 groundouts, too.

Sounds like you was from da Bronx to me.

[Hector Vector]

And wouldn't have been if he played another 5-6 years. Even if one assumes he was the greatest defensive RF of all time, that is a position with only moderate defensive impact (not like C or SS). He was a .300 hitter with less than 200 career HR who didn't draw walks. He made only 2 all star games his whole career! There are many, many non-admitted OF with a better case than him: Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, Kirk Gibson, Vada Pinson, Tony Oliva, and I'm sure I could make a longer list.

If you are looking for a Brooklyn Dodger with a better case, its Gil Hodges, 7-8 100 rbi seasons in a row, several 40 hr seasons, drew many walks, plus managed the miracle Mets to a WC.

[hurleyfor3]

Sounds like you was from da Bronx to me.

No, although the Bronx Bombers have had their share of Hall of Fame right fielders. Not that they were known for their fielding prowess.

[Olympic Fan]

I'm sorry, but the idea that Furillo's exclusion from the Hall of Fame is an injustice is a joke.

He was a very good player on a famous team. Period. I don't know what the gossip is about him being "blackballed" -- he was 38 when he retired after playing eight games in 1960 (he was able to play just 50 games the year before). He was played out.

Furillo is a .299 career BA with 1,910 hits, 192 HRs and 1,058 RBIs and a career .813 OPS. That's a HOF resume?

Compare it with Dave Parker, a better defensive rightfielder, who finished with 2,712 hits, 339 home runs and 1,493 RBI and almost exactly the same OPS.

I know Furillo was regarded as a good defensive outfielder, but the best defensive rightfielder of all time? Give me a break. He had 151 assists in 1,739 career games -- good. He also had a career .979 fielding percentage ... not good. His range factor for his career was .013 worse than the league average.

Now Parker "only" had 143 assists in 2,000 games and a slightly lower FA, but his range factor was .11 higher than Furillo and was .17 better than his league average.

A better comparison for Furillo is Paul O'Niell, who just finished his career with the Yankees a couple of years ago. He finished with 2,105 hits, 281 HRs,1,269 RBIs and a .833 OPS. Like Furillo, O'Niell won one batting title. He didn't have nearly as many assists as Furillo, but his FA was slightly higher and his range factor was .20 better than his league. He had five all-star appearances to Furillo's two.

Then there's Roger Maris, whose career was a little shorter. But he was a good enough defensive rightfielder to play center when Mantle was hurt. Again, he didn't match Furillo's assists, but he owned a better FA and a much better range factor (.07 better than his league average) ... as a hitter, it's not close -- 275 home runs in 800 less games and an .824 OPS.

Maris won two MVPs -- Furillo finished in the top 10 of the MVP vote twice (never higher than sixth).

Or how about Tommy Heinrich -- another very good player on great teams (actually on greater teams than Furillo's). His career was cut short by WWII and he ended up playing about two-thirds as many games as Furillo. Yet he averaged more assists per game, more home runs per game, a better fielding average, a better range factor and his OPS of .872 was significantly better. He also made five all-star games in less seasons than Furillo made two.

And as for the comparison for Snider -- that's ridiculous. In a very similar number of games, Snider had more hits (2,116), more RBIs (1,333) and more than twice as many home runs (407). His career .920 OPS is more than 100 points higher than Furillo's.

Tough to compare a centerfielder with a rightfielder on defense, but Snider's fielding percentage was better and his range factor, compared to other national league CFs was .14 OVER the league average).

Snider is a no-brainer Hall of Famer, whose stature is somewhat diminished because he was usually compared to contemporaries Mantle and Mays. Furillo is a good player, but not a Hall of Famer.

PS I agree that Gil Hodges has a better case. His problem is that he almost makes it as a player and he almost makes it as a manager. Put the two parts of his career together and he's in ... seperately and it's a tough sell.

[EKU1969]

Furillo, Parker, Oliva, Pinson, Rice, Evans, O'Neill, and Gibson for their careers. Gibson was injured so much that in 17 seasons he averaged 96 games/year and hit only .268. Therefore, I'd rule him out of HOF consideration. Evans is the only one in the group to average less hits than games played per year and hit .272. Other than average, Oliva fell short of Furillo in games, AB's, runs, triples, and RBI's/year.

So, after reviewing all of these stats, I believe that Rice, Parker, and Pinson are the only 3 from this group that deserve HOF consideration, with Rice having the strongest case all together.

But, having seen Furillo play righ field at Ebbetts Field, I still marvel at his prowess and will always consider him one of the best (but not the best, I stand corrected). I know, there are some gentlemen named Ruth, Aaron, Clemente, and Kaline that are well ahead of Furillo overall. Plus others, but I'll leave it at that.

[Olympic Fan]

Please, I don't mean to disparage the guy. Carl Furillo was a very good player.

Can I speculate (based on the numbers, not personal observation) that as a rightfielder, he had a great arm, one of the outstanding arms of all time. That's a big part of a rightfielder's job, but not everything ... and the numbers seem to show that in the other areas (range and consistency), he was at least a little below par.

The problem is, as Hector points out, that right field is an offensive position -- you need offensive production there more than a slight improvement in defense. And as an offensive player Furillo (who played almost half his career in that offensive paradise, Ebbets Field) is a very average --maybe slightly above average player.

The impact of defense on a player's selection is an interesting subject for debate. I think it's positional -- you'd give up a lot of offense for a GREAT defensive shortstop ... hence, Ozzie Smith.

Statistically, Bill Mazeroski is the best defensive second baseman of all time -- in fact, he has the best defensive numbers of any player at ANY position. Apparently, the Hall of Fame veterans committee eventually decided that was worthy for induction, despite very average offensive numbers (and one memorable WS moment).

At the other end of the spectrum is Keith Hernandez. Offensively, he's above average, but not HOF quality. But he was the best defensive first baseman of his era and one of the best of all time. Does that make him Hall worthy?

I would argue no -- based on the idea that the difference between a great defensive first baseman and an average one has only a limited impact on the game (although a lousy one can have a huge impact!).

Bill James once listed defensive positions in descending order of difficulty, noting that most players could move left to right on his list with ease, but that it was rare to see a player move right to left:

shortstop>second base>centerfield>third base>rightfield>first base>leftfield

catcher was a different story ... it's a key defensive position that usually goes: catcher>first base>leftfield. Somebody like Craig Biggio (catcher-to-second base) is a freak of nature.

The point is that positions near the left end of the James scale are the ones that reward the best defensive performance, while those on the righthand side are those that demand offense.

PS Jhoagland: two quibbles with your RF list (which I mostly agree with). You list Evans AND Rice ... but they were contemporaries at Boston. My memory is that Rice was basically a leftfielder.

Also, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Vada Pinson was mostly a centerfielder. I know that's the position he played when he and Frank Robinson were together in the Cincinnati outfield. He may have played right late in his career when he slowed down, but I think that for the bult of his career he was in center.