Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

I say Barry bonds he still would have a 500 hrs and steals with or without steroids.

Bonds will eventually get in on the 3rd or 4th ballot.

[Hootiefish]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

I think we as baseball fans bog ourselves down in the numbers game far too much when deciding who belongs in the Hall. We worry too much about how Player A from this era compares to Player B from that era. We put too much emphasis on magic numbers, and forget to take into account what impact the player had on the game itself.

I have a simple formula for looking at who deserves to be enshrined. Let me lay out my line of thought.

First, Pete Rose isn't on the ballot, and is therefore out of the conversation. Case closed.

Second, I do not discriminate against one-trick ponies, as long as their one trick was a damn fine trick. Ozzie Smith was more or less a lightweight with the stick, but I don't hear anyone saying he doesn't belong in the Hall (with good reason).

Third, I don't hold DH'ing against anyone. Are we saying that if Edgar Martinez had simply played 10 years of sub-par defense at first/third base he would get in, but because he DH'd, he's automatically out? Doesn't make sense.

Fourth, nothing is more overrated than longevity (except maybe awards - they're voted on by writers, which should say everything). It skews numbers and our perception. Would you rather have Jamie Moyer's career, or Pedro Martinez's?

Fifth, the Steroid Era was simply that, an era. It inflated hitters' numbers (and some pitcher numbers) just like the Dead Ball Era inflated pitching numbers.

Sixth, piggy-backing off of five, do not compare players across eras. I believe that is where we get ourselves in the most trouble. Players should only be compared to their contemporaries when we are talking about the Hall. The game changes. If you want to have a GOAT discussion, then you go across eras.

Seventh, and most importantly, I take a look at a 10-year swath of a players career. Usually the time they become a regular to the time their numbers begin a decline. This way I don't get thrown off by longevity (unless it is pertinent to the discussion). Then I ask myself a simple question - was this player considered the best at their position as compared to their contemporaries? Did this player excel at one facet of the game so much that they transcended their contemporaries?

Taking all of this into consideration makes everything much easier when determining who should, and shouldn't be in the Hall.

[Hootiefish]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

Almost forgot to mention my candidate.

Dale Murphy. How he has become so underrated, I'll never know.

From 1980-1990, He cranked more homeruns (332) than anyone else in the decade. He was second behind Eddie Murray in RBI.

I hate how overshadowed the 1980's have become in terms of the great players.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

I think we as baseball fans bog ourselves down in the numbers game far too much when deciding who belongs in the Hall. We worry too much about how Player A from this era compares to Player B from that era. We put too much emphasis on magic numbers, and forget to take into account what impact the player had on the game itself.

But we do have numbers that are capable of comparing players across eras - OPS+, ERA+, EqA+, WARP3, etc.

Third, I don't hold DH'ing against anyone. Are we saying that if Edgar Martinez had simply played 10 years of sub-par defense at first/third base he would get in, but because he DH'd, he's automatically out? Doesn't make sense.

Agreed, especially when that DH was one of the greatest hitters of his time.

Only 15 players in the history of baseball have a line of .300/.400/.500. All but 2 are in the HOF. One of them is Shoeless Joe Jackson (not in the HOF for obvious reasons). The other is Edgar Martinez.

Fourth, nothing is more overrated than longevity (except maybe awards - they're voted on by writers, which should say everything). It skews numbers and our perception. Would you rather have Jamie Moyer's career, or Pedro Martinez's?

I don't think so. It shouldn't be used as an end-all, be-all in Moyer's case, but I think it's absolutely relevant when you compare Greg Maddux to Pedro Martinez, for an example.

Fifth, the Steroid Era was simply that, an era. It inflated hitters' numbers (and some pitcher numbers) just like the Dead Ball Era inflated pitching numbers.

I agree. Then again, I do have a fairly liberal view when it comes to PEDs.

Seventh, and most importantly, I take a look at a 10-year swath of a players career. Usually the time they become a regular to the time their numbers begin a decline. This way I don't get thrown off by longevity (unless it is pertinent to the discussion). Then I ask myself a simple question - was this player considered the best at their position as compared to their contemporaries? Did this player excel at one facet of the game so much that they transcended their contemporaries?

Sure, but that peak has to phenomenal enough to counter a relative lack of counting stats (case in point, Albert Belle).

Longevity isn't something that should be tossed aside. Players that play for a long time (even if it's only at a merely good rate) are alot more valuable than players with a incredible, yet short-term window.

[Misfit]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

I think we as baseball fans bog ourselves down in the numbers game far too much when deciding who belongs in the Hall. We worry too much about how Player A from this era compares to Player B from that era. We put too much emphasis on magic numbers, and forget to take into account what impact the player had on the game itself.

I have a simple formula for looking at who deserves to be enshrined. Let me lay out my line of thought.

First, Pete Rose isn't on the ballot, and is therefore out of the conversation. Case closed.

Second, I do not discriminate against one-trick ponies, as long as their one trick was a damn fine trick. Ozzie Smith was more or less a lightweight with the stick, but I don't hear anyone saying he doesn't belong in the Hall (with good reason).

Third, I don't hold DH'ing against anyone. Are we saying that if Edgar Martinez had simply played 10 years of sub-par defense at first/third base he would get in, but because he DH'd, he's automatically out? Doesn't make sense.

Fourth, nothing is more overrated than longevity (except maybe awards - they're voted on by writers, which should say everything). It skews numbers and our perception. Would you rather have Jamie Moyer's career, or Pedro Martinez's?

Fifth, the Steroid Era was simply that, an era. It inflated hitters' numbers (and some pitcher numbers) just like the Dead Ball Era inflated pitching numbers.

Sixth, piggy-backing off of five, do not compare players across eras. I believe that is where we get ourselves in the most trouble. Players should only be compared to their contemporaries when we are talking about the Hall. The game changes. If you want to have a GOAT discussion, then you go across eras.

Seventh, and most importantly, I take a look at a 10-year swath of a players career. Usually the time they become a regular to the time their numbers begin a decline. This way I don't get thrown off by longevity (unless it is pertinent to the discussion). Then I ask myself a simple question - was this player considered the best at their position as compared to their contemporaries? Did this player excel at one facet of the game so much that they transcended their contemporaries?

Taking all of this into consideration makes everything much easier when determining who should, and shouldn't be in the Hall.

I agree and disagree with this approach. I agree with the simple premise that numbers aren't everything. Though my basis for that reasoning is that not all numbers are absolute. Anyone can cherry pick a fringe hall of famer's career and make a convincing argument (Jack Morris as the "winningest" pitcher of the 80's) for that player. The inverse is also true. Counting stats, to me, are less important than rate states and while career rate stats matter I think there's something to be said of isolating the player's peak and comparing that to his contemporaries. Of course, that also invites the cherry picking as what constitutes a player's peak? You said 10 years, so going with that...

I've got a player who over a 10 year span (career was longer than 10 years) has a compelling case. This player amassed a triple slash line, average/on-base/slugging, of .319/.357/.541. His Iso over that span was .222, and this player was a middle infielder. The on-base isn't out of this world but no matter how devalued batting average becomes a .319 mark over ten years is impressive and the power numbers look great. However, when we move to the counting numbers it becomes less a clear case. Over that ten year span the player collected 334 doubles, 49 triples, and 207 home runs. Since our sample is ten years, it makes it easy to see what the average season was, roughly 33 doubles, 5 triples, and 21 home runs. Those are very good numbers, but they aren't eye popping. That's because this player played in 1169 games and made it to the plate 5207 times, or 117 games and 521 plate appearances a year.

It's probably become obvious at this point that this player is Nomar Garciapara and those numbers represent his 1997-2006 seasons. The consensus on Nomar seems to be that while his peak was fantastic, he just wasn't around long enough to be considered a hall of famer and I'm in agreement with that assessment. I guess some who favor a big Hall of Fame might think Nomar belongs, but I'd be surprised if he ever made it (then again, Boston got Rice in so anything is possible). Perception and gut reaction plays a role as well, so long as you're judging players you're familiar with. Is Jamie Moyer a hall of famer? My instinct says no, but I don't let it end there. I'll go over the numbers to see if they support my feelings and more often than not the numbers will probably prove out that initial reaction. The fallacy of course lies in being stubborn. Jon Heyman has said many times Blyleven never felt like a hall of famer to him, but he'll dismiss any number that contradicts his "instinct." It's beyond illogical but to be expected. For the better part of 100 years baseball writers have existed to romanticize the sport in words. It's only recently that analytical minds have made their voices heard and some of that has died down, but there's still a long ways to go.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

I agree and disagree with this approach. I agree with the simple premise that numbers aren't everything. Though my basis for that reasoning is that not all numbers are absolute. Anyone can cherry pick a fringe hall of famer's career and make a convincing argument (Jack Morris as the "winningest" pitcher of the 80's) for that player. The inverse is also true. Counting stats, to me, are less important than rate states and while career rate stats matter I think there's something to be said of isolating the player's peak and comparing that to his contemporaries. Of course, that also invites the cherry picking as what constitutes a player's peak? You said 10 years, so going with that...

Oh yes, the Jack Morris "winningest pitcher of the 80s" argument. That one never gets old. But why be so arbitrary, as you pointed out, with the time frame? Why not look at the winningest pitchers from 1984-1994? 1981-1991?

If you're going to cherry-pick a player's best 5 or 10 years, you're going to have to compare it to everyone else's 5 or 10 best years.

(then again, Boston got Rice in so anything is possible)

We'll probably hear in about a decade or so how FEARED Nomar was, so don't hold your breath.

Jon Heyman has said many times Blyleven never felt like a hall of famer to him, but he'll dismiss any number that contradicts his "instinct."

This actually reminds me of an article I read a few years ago that was written by one of the Boston clowns about how Jim Rice was so *get ready* FEAREDDDDD (!!!!!) that managers considered intentionally walking him with the based loaded.

Jim Rice career IBB with the bases loaded: 0.

While subjective measurements usually fail, numbers never do.

[ImTellinTim]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

He deserves to be in the HOF, but he'll get in this year.

Far too late, but yeah, he's in next ballot.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

Far too late, but yeah, he's in next ballot.

Let's play, "Guess that pitcher!"

Player A: 112 ERA+, 1.247 WHIP, 2.04 K/BB
Burt Blyleven: 118 ERA+, 1.198 WHIP, 2.80 K/BB

Player A received 98.9% of the votes the first time he was on the ballot.
Blyleven received 17%.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

Let's play, "Guess that pitcher!"

Player A: 112 ERA+, 1.247 WHIP, 2.04 K/BB
Burt Blyleven: 118 ERA+, 1.198 WHIP, 2.80 K/BB

Player A received 98.9% of the votes the first time he was on the ballot.
Blyleven received 17%.

Without even looking, I'll say pitcher A is Nolan Ryan.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

Without even looking, I'll say pitcher A is Nolan Ryan.

Correct (I'm assuming the HOF vote % gave it away.). I'm not saying Blyleven was better than Ryan, but it's ballpark.

ESPN/media anecdotes can have a numbing effect on people.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

Correct. I'm not going say Blyleven was better than Ryan, but it's ballpark.

ESPN/media anecdotes can have a numbing effect on people.

I think the fact Ryan through so hard, threw 7 no-no's, had all those strikeouts, was a big guy from TX, and pitched for long made him a legend in most people's minds. Blyleven was a moody, goofy guy who didn't win 300.

[adice15]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

I'm surprised that there has never been a unanimous first balloter. I'd like to know who that 1.1% is that didn't vote for Nolan Ryan, or the people that didn't vote for Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, or Willy Mays. I'd like to hear their reasoning behind it.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

I'm surprised that there has never been a unanimous first balloter. I'd like to know who that 1.1% is that didn't vote for Nolan Ryan, or the people that didn't vote for Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, or Willy Mays. I'd like to hear their reasoning behind it.

I'm not.

The BBWAA is a fraternity of douchbags.

[imapotato]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

Sherry Magee

[YanksLincecum]

Re: Players Who Deserve To Be In The Hall of Fame But will Never get In

Lee Smith- 478 Saves 3rd All Time