Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

That's not the only reason though, another reason for the shortening of eligibility is to shed a ton of the backlog that's bound to happen in the next few years with sure fire HOFers coming up.

...and the current and future backlog consists of guys who played a substantial part of their careers in the steroid era and are either confirmed or suspected PED users: Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Piazza, McGwire, Sosa, A-Rod, Thome, Manny, Ivan Rodriguez, etc.

You restated my point in different terms. The backlog exists because the voters largely don't want these guys in the HOF.

Also aren't they grandfathered into it because they have been ballot before the new rule was passed?

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/86398586/baseball-hall-of-fame-changes-its-induction-rules

The only players grandfathered in were the guys who were on the ballot for longer than 10 years at the time the rule was adpoted, which at this point consists of Alan Trammell and Lee Smith.

Again, not exactly a coincidence that the rules got changed when the candidates on the ballot now and for the forseeable future are steriod-era players. The HOF apparently thinks an entire generation of players isn't worthy of induction.

[dickey1331]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

He's totally Dave Kingman Jr. I'd wager a fair amount on that.

I'd take that wager. You just really don't like the Rangers or Texas in general.

[lhslancers]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Unless you are 80 years old (or older) Bonds is the best baseball player you have seen in your life.

Willie Mays.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Another interesting way to take this:

Are there any guys in the Hall that you don't think should be in?

[redsox4evur]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Another interesting way to take this:

Are there any guys in the Hall that you don't think should be in?

Jim Rice, Jack Morris.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Another interesting way to take this:

Are there any guys in the Hall that you don't think should be in?

Jim Rice. He can thank the backlash to the steroid era for his induction, since he doesn't have much of a case otherwise.

Lou Brock is a poster child for why compiling flashy milestone numbers (3,000 hits! 900 SBs!) is sort of a useless barometer for HOF worthiness. He hit a lot of singles and stole a lot of bases, but he didn't do much else.

I like to think of both of those guys as the absolute lower bound for HOF worthiness, as in "Does in your career WAR surpass both of them?" If not, you better have a fantastic case for enshrinement.

The Veterans Committee has inducted a couple of guys who objectively don't belong in the HOF, but they don't just take production into account and I won't begrudge their selections.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Jim Rice, Jack Morris.

Morris never made it in, thankfully.

I have never seen one player get so much mileage from one game.

[Speedy]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Morris never made it in, thankfully.

I have never seen one player get so much mileage from one game.

Best game in the past 25 years though.

.......if only Lonnie Smith had a brain.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Probably the most fascinating "should he be in?" players are the objectively borderline guys who reside on the extreme ends of the peak vs. longevity debate.

Andy Pettitte would be a great example of the latter. Career 70 WAR, consistently good for a long period, but never elite (one season over 6 WAR). Also can't ignore that he threw 270+ solid, high leverage innings in the playoffs.

Johan Santana didn't have that longevity, but in the mid-2000s, was probably the answer to the question, "If you had to win a game right now, which current starting pitcher would you choose to take the mound for your team?" Had a five-year period from '04 to '08 where he posted RA/9 WARs of 9.0, 7.8, 8.1, 5.8, and 7.6. That's almost 40 WAR in a five-year period, and without checking the stats, there probably aren't too many pitchers in the history of the game who were that dominant over that stretch of time. Also won 2 Cy Youngs during that period (and should have had a third), with 3 other top-5 finishes.

Plenty of people would say no to both these guys, but it's an illuminating contrast since Pettitte has a far greater chance at induction than Santana. I would favor Santana since I value peak more.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Plenty of people would say no to both these guys, but it's an illuminating contrast since Pettitte has a far greater chance at induction than Santana. I would favor Santana since I value peak more.

I think the playoff success is a confounding factor in the comparison, too. Pettitte will surely get consideration based on helping anchor the rotation on some dominant Yankees teams. Santana was never on a team that won anything beyond a playoff berth/division title.

I wouldn't vote either in, but I'm not sure who I'd give the edge to if I had to.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Probably the most fascinating "should he be in?" players are the objectively borderline guys who reside on the extreme ends of the peak vs. longevity debate.

Andy Pettitte would be a great example of the latter. Career 70 WAR, consistently good for a long period, but never elite (one season over 6 WAR). Also can't ignore that he threw 270+ solid, high leverage innings in the playoffs.

Johan Santana didn't have that longevity, but in the mid-2000s, was probably the answer to the question, "If you had to win a game right now, which current starting pitcher would you choose to take the mound for your team?" Had a five-year period from '04 to '08 where he posted RA/9 WARs of 9.0, 7.8, 8.1, 5.8, and 7.6. That's almost 40 WAR in a five-year period, and without checking the stats, there probably aren't too many pitchers in the history of the game who were that dominant over that stretch of time. Also won 2 Cy Youngs during that period (and should have had a third), with 3 other top-5 finishes.

Plenty of people would say no to both these guys, but it's an illuminating contrast since Pettitte has a far greater chance at induction than Santana. I would favor Santana since I value peak more.

I think the Santana case is an interesting one because he is actually an excellent comp to Koufax. Aside from also being lefty, they both had 5-year runs at their peak that were dominant (Koufax a little bit more, averaging about 1 more WAR/season at the peak than Johan), but they were basically the same pitcher during this their runs. The difference is, of course, that Santana only won one CY and didn't play in 3 World Series where he turned in amazing performances.

On another note, there is a pitcher who is on the ballot next year that I think will be interesting - Billy Wagner. Guy put up insane numbers as a closer, but he really bombed in the post season and was never considered the best at his position (hard to when Mo Rivera is your contemporary). All that said, his post season numbers are such a small sample size (11 IP) and there are already relievers in the HOF who are not the pitcher he was, so it will be interesting to see what happens to him.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I think the playoff success is a confounding factor in the comparison, too. Pettitte will surely get consideration based on helping anchor the rotation on some dominant Yankees teams. Santana was never on a team that won anything beyond a playoff berth/division title.

I wouldn't vote either in, but I'm not sure who I'd give the edge to if I had to.

Yeah, it's not a totally one-for-one comparison of peak vs. longevity because Pettitte was a key piece on the dynasty Yankees, but I struggled to find another example. Among hitters, the comparison probably would be Chase Utley (superstar peak, but unfortunately got a late start to his career) vs. Kenny Lofton (very good player for a very long time, but never a superstar).

The larger point is where to draw the line between the guys who converge in the grey area of HOF worthiness (roughly 60 WAR) in completely different ways: being a superstar for a brief period of time vs. being merely good for a long time. I won't fault anyone who prefers longevity over peak, but yeah, the peaks are what we really remember. There's a reason why people are more likely to say that Pedro Martinez is the best ever instead of Tom Glavine.

Of course, if you're a believer in an exclusive HOF that only honors the Ruths and Mantles, none of the guys I've mentioned are worthy, which is fine. If you're a believer in a more inclusive HOF, it's really tough.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I think the Santana case is an interesting one because he is actually an excellent comp to Koufax. Aside from also being lefty, they both had 5-year runs at their peak that were dominant (Koufax a little bit more, averaging about 1 more WAR/season at the peak than Johan), but they were basically the same pitcher during this their runs. The difference is, of course, that Santana only won one CY and didn't play in 3 World Series where he turned in amazing performances.

On another note, there is a pitcher who is on the ballot next year that I think will be interesting - Billy Wagner. Guy put up insane numbers as a closer, but he really bombed in the post season and was never considered the best at his position (hard to when Mo Rivera is your contemporary). All that said, his post season numbers are such a small sample size (11 IP) and there are already relievers in the HOF who are not the pitcher he was, so it will be interesting to see what happens to him.

I thought Johan won a pair of Cy's ('04 and '06)?

That aside, while I also see a reasonable comparison between Santana and Koufax with a variety of metrics, I'm not totally buying it. For one it's expansion era vs pre/early-expansion era and all the arguments that go with dilution of talent. Aside from that, Santana played on some Twins teams that simply abused an awful division. During Santana's peak, the AL Central was generally abysmal with the Tigers and Royals being pretty terrible most of the time and the Indians being pretty bad save for a season or 2. The White Sox had a 'chip in there and were mostly competitive, but for the most part Santana was dominating some weaker players as a result of the unbalanced sked.

On top of that, Koufax nearly won 3 MVPs as a pitcher!!! One time runner up to a scrub named Willie Mays and another time to a terrible ballplayer by the name of Clemente.

Sure, some important metrics, such as IP, FIP-, ERA+, WAR (although using FanGraphs WAR, Koufax is about 8-10 WAR ahead of Santana with a 9-10 WAR peak to Santana's 7 WAR peak), K% have Koufax and Santana pretty similar in some ways, but for me there are some contextual issues that would make me hesitate at that comparison as I alluded to above. Koufax's '63, '65, and '66 could be among the 10 best seasons ever pitched along with some combination of Pedro's '99 and 2000, Bob Gibson's '68 and '70, Denny McClain's '68, Tom Seaver's '71, Steve Carlton's '72, Ron Guidry's '78, Roger Clemens' '97 and a handful of Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux seasons (take your pick, lol). At least 10 best post-WWII.

Yeah, it's not a totally one-for-one comparison of peak vs. longevity because Pettitte was a key piece on the dynasty Yankees, but I struggled to find another example. Among hitters, the comparison probably would be Chase Utley (superstar peak, but unfortunately got a late start to his career) vs. Kenny Lofton (very good player for a very long time, but never a superstar).

The larger point is where to draw the line between the guys who converge in the grey area of HOF worthiness (roughly 60 WAR) in completely different ways: being a superstar for a brief period of time vs. being merely good for a long time. I won't fault anyone who prefers longevity over peak, but yeah, the peaks are what we really remember. There's a reason why people are more likely to say that Pedro Martinez is the best ever instead of Tom Glavine.

Of course, if you're a believer in an exclusive HOF that only honors the Ruths and Mantles, none of the guys I've mentioned are worthy, which is fine. If you're a believer in a more inclusive HOF, it's really tough.

I think it's difficult to say it's always peak or it's always longevity as I usually look for a combination of both. I am fine expanding the Hall beyond the Ruths and Mantles of the world, but I tend to slant a touch on the being more selective side of the issue.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I think Pettitte should be a slam dunk HOFer.

"Who's pitching Game 2? Pettitte?" and most of the time, that game was signed, sealed, and delivered.

[redsox4evur]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Morris never made it in, thankfully.

I have never seen one player get so much mileage from one game.

I thought he had made it in. But still I expect the Veterans Committee to put in him later on.