POLL: Johnny Damon and the Hall of Fame
Posted by Andy on July 20, 2010
Next up in our Hall of Fame poll series is Johnny Damon.
This is a tougher poll since Damon's career isn't over yet. He's having a nice season for the Tigers, with an OPS+ of 112 over 81 games and OBP and SLG values that are close to his career averages. He's on pace for a WAR of about 2.0 in 2010, good enough to be an everyday player.
So it's not clear how much Damon has left. He'll be 37 just after this season ends and certainly may stick around for another 2-4 seasons.
Let's take a look at Damon's HOF credentials based on his career totals right now. After that, I'll make some guesses about what his final career numbers might look like.
Case for Damon in the Hall of Fame:
- 2,510 career hits puts him in the top 100 all-time
- Also cracks the top 100 in total bases (98th), runs (55th), doubles (72nd), stolen bases (83rd), and numerous other categories
- Member of 7 playoff teams including two World Series winners (2004 Red Sox and 2009 Yankees)
- Hit well in the playoffs, and extremely well in the World Series: 10 games, .904 OPS, 10 runs scored, 4 doubles, a triple, and a homer
- Over 1,200 games in center field
- Reputation as a very tough guy who plays through injuries, and this is backed up by his numbers: played at least 141 games every year of his career after his rookie season and averaged nearly 149 games.
Case against Damon for the Hall of Fame:
- Career OPS+ of 105 would be in the bottom tier for Hall of Fame players. It would make him about tied with Brooks Robinson (104), or among players Damon overlapped at all with, closest to Ozzie Smith (87) and Cal Ripken (112.) Almost without exception, the HOF players on this part of the list were defensive aces, which Damon was not. (He played a valuable defensive position and often played it well, but also often did not.)
- Garnered just a few low-placing MVP votes, two All-Star selections, and no other significant awards such as Gold Gloves or Silver Sluggers.
- WAR is 47.9 which is just 185th among position players
- WPA is 16.7 for his career, just 209th all-time
- Blank ink is just 6 and Gray Ink is just 75
Now, for the future:
His HOF Monitor is at 88, whereas a typical HOFer is around 100. With a few more seasons, he might possibly get there. Same with his HOF Standards, which is at 41 now and an average HOF is around 50.
More significantly to the voters, Damon is just 490 hits shy of 3,000 for his career. He has a real shot to get there. If he plays the equivalent of 3 more full seasons including the rest of this one, he needs to bat about .272 to get enough hits. (I'm assuming 1,800 more at-bats.) It seems quite likely to me that he'll get to 3,000 hits, especially since he's likely to get close, and a few teams would be willing to let him hang around until he gets there.
So what happens when Damon gets there?
If he doesn't get in the Hall of Fame, he'll become the only Hall-eligible player not in. That might happen, because if he does get 3,000 hits, he'll replace Cal Ripken (or maybe Lou Brock) as the worst hitter with 3,000 hits.
Damon also needs to score only about 250 more runs to get into the top 20 all time. Currently, the highest ranked players for all-time runs who are Hall eligible and not in are #34 Jimmy Ryan, #35 George Van Haltren, #47 Bill Dahlen, and #50 Tim Raines. Yes, that's right. Damon is already within 40 runs scored of Raines and should eventually finish way, way, past him.
So, let's do our HOF poll a bit differently for Damon since he's an unusual case.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:29 am
#85/rootbeersoup - "{" And also, your HOF standards are way too high, and would exclude worthy players such as Eddie Matthews, Robin Roberts, Roberto Clemente, Sam Crawford, Al Kaline, and many others. Even if you are talking about first-ballot Hall-Of-Famers, your standards are too high."
Show me where I said that these guys are not HOFers and I'll show you some beach property in Colorado.}"
You can hold off on the beachfront property in Colorado - I am merely pointing out that the players I mentioned above would NOT meet your HOF standards of Ruth, Mays, Aaron, etc..., so even if you did not mention the above players by name, that is what you are implying.
As for Damon; I do not consider a HOFer. As many people have pointed out, both Brock and Damon had no peak to speak of, being slightly above-average players over the course of their careers, but with very impressive career totals in several career counting stats,such as hits, runs, and stolen bases (much more for Brock). Damon has the additional point in his favor of being a good defensive CFer (despite the "you throw like a girl!" arm), compared to Brock being a below-average LFer. Brock does have the SB record(s) and outstanding World Series performances.
Damon's been very, very good over most of his career, but never a truly elite player. HOWEVER, if he can maintain his productivity for the next three years or so as a full-time player, he'd have a valid case on longevity, like Lou Brock. Granted, I consider Brock one of weakest players voted into the HOF by the BBWAA, but that's a whole separate discussion...
July 21st, 2010 at 10:27 am
Milestones should not be written off because they do serve a purpose. If someone reaches a milestone but their "gut" test says no it probably means the gut test was wrong rather than the milestone is silly. Right now if you look at the active hit list there are several players who could reach 3000 with a few more good years left: Vizquel, Damon, Garret Anderson, Renteria (whos only 33)... Abreu, Tejada and Helton if they all start into their 40s. However, probably none of them will hit 3000 because it is very difficult to be servicable in the majors long enough to get that many hits. That is why reaching that milestone says something about your HOF worthiness. There are probably 100s of players every generation who turn 30 and you could say if they keep it up theyll reach 3000 hits but then only 1-2 of them do.
I think if Damon actually reaches 3000 hits and your gut test tells you he is not good enough it probably means your gut test is wrong. He would really be the ultimate longevity case with an OPS+ probably below 100 if he gets to 3000 hits with no real peak making him 1 of the worst HOFers, but he would be looked at as a guy who only made it due to longevity and I dont see why that is any worse than Ozzie or Maz who only made it due to defense.
My gut tells me to not vote for him no matter what else he does but that may be wrong and I would really need to think about his case a lot if he retires with 3000+.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:03 am
Matt Young gives us the perfect example- Jamie Moyer. Even if he were to get 300 wins, I defy you to find one major leaguer who would say he deserves to be in the Hall.
But I think Young eers on Trammell. I don't know how old you are, but I don't remember anyone saying he was Cooperstown bound while he was playing.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:06 am
oh, and what the hell, I may as well rant about Lou Brock. Again, I grew up watching him. He was like ichiro Suzuki, or Rickey henderson. His mere presence in the box made pitchers and defenders wish it was anyone else. The disruptive factor that players like this have on each at bat is a testament to their greatness and cannot be readily captured in a stat.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:16 am
Barkfart,
I was buying/selling baseball cards during the early 90's and the general consensus in the baseball world was that Trammell was a future HOF.
Basically 4 things happened to Trammell:
1: I think part of the problem with Trammell is a case of perception. He didn't retire until 1996, so that meant he wasn't eligible until 2001, the heart of the Steroid era. Suddenly it became common to see middle infielders hitting 35+ hr in a season. You started to see guys like Jay Bell and Aaron Boone do it, so the writers started to perceive that Trammell's accomplishments weren't so great in retrospect.
2: As Hartvig alluded to Trammell was right in the middle of a little mini SS renaissance with Ripken, Smith, Yount, and Larkin overlapping his career. That's 4 of the top 10 SS in baseball history playing during the same time as Alan Trammell.
3: A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar. Then you have 3 great SS at their unbelievable peaks right when Trammell is first eligible.
4: Getting royally screwed for the 1987 A.L. MVP. MVP awards hold weight. I don't know if Andre Dawson gets in without his 1987 MVP award, which I might add he didn't deserve. So basically the writers screw-up and don't give Trammell the MVP in 1987 and then hold it against him for not winning a MVP award? Screwy logic.
And since you're a Tigers fan, basically the same can be said about Lou Whitaker. Two glaring HOF omissions IMO. Whitaker not even being on the ballot shows what an incompetent group the BBWAA are.
These are my top ten glaring HOF omissions:
Blyleven
Santo
Larkin
Alomar
Trammell
Raines
Grich
Raines
Whitaker
D. Allen
July 21st, 2010 at 11:21 am
"...only made it due to defense"?
You don't think defensive excellence is worthy of Hall apppreciation?
It's okay to be a total rock on defense, have the footspeed of a snail, an average in the mid-.250's, but still be considered a Hall of Famer.
It's okay to have a won-lost record barely over .500, if you strike out enough guys and throw a few no-hitters.
It's okay to pitch as little as one inning in your games, maybe never face the top hitters on a team, and still make the Hall, for doing little more than not blowing a lead.
But it's not okay to be in the Hall of Fame if you're merely the best-ever defensively in the history of the game at your position? Not that his .273 lifetime average and 392 stolen bases are an embarrassment.
I was watching the Mariners lose another game to the White Sox last night, when the announcers were talking about another stunning play by Vizquel (now starting at third base).
Mike Blowers commented that when he joined the M's, he was watching Omar take ground balls during infield at the Kingdome.
Blowers remarked that Vizquel said he didn't like the carpet, because it was "too easy."
Omar makes playing the middle infield look so easy, that you lose sight as to how amazing his lifetime record of excellence really is.
You are stunned when he actually makes errors in back-to-back games, because he usually won't make errors in back-to-back weeks! The man could play shortstop and go months without a miscue.
Omar's Hall Monitor and Hall Standards scores put him well within the range of inclusion. And seven of the 10 listed in his similarity scores are also in. Another, Dave Concepcion, also has many supporters.
Damon, on the other hand, is well-shy in all areas (Black Ink, Gray Ink, Monitor and Standards), and none of the 10 listed in his similarity range are in.
It's one thing, when seven of your 10 most comparable peers are in the Hall.
But it's quite different when none of your peer group of 10 is in.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:21 am
Trammell will always be associated with that great 84 world series team. But I think I speak for many detroiters when I say he was, at best, the third most deserving hof player on that team behind Morris and Gibson
July 21st, 2010 at 11:29 am
Gibson??? Kirk Gibson never even played in a all star game? Chet Lemmon and Lance Parrish were much better players than Gibson.
I already made my feelings clear on how overrated Morris was.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:32 am
I have wondered recently how much Trammell was hurt by the terrible record of the Tigers team he managed. His managerial performance should have no affect on the HOF voting as a player, but I can't help but wonder if it made some writers think of his as a loser.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:38 am
@ 105, Where did I say only making it on defense is a bad thing? No where. I just stated the fact that Ozzie Smith (87 OPS+) and Bill Maz clearly (84 OPS+) are ONLY in the HOF for playing all-time defense, they were 1 trick ponies.
So if Damon only makes it because he hung around long enough to collect 3000 hits, which many, many players have tried to do yet failed, is that such a bad reason to be in the HOF?
July 21st, 2010 at 11:40 am
JeffW,
With Monitor and Standards of 88 and 41, he is not "well short" of the standard criteria and you can't use the current top 10 similarity for an active player until he retires. That being said, we don't know yet who he will be similar to when he hangs up the spikes. After all, two years ago, Jay Bell and Ray Durham were on Derek Jeter's similarity list.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:42 am
How do you rate the relative merits of someone who was really good as a player, and as a coach, manager, and/or general manager, but not necessarily a Hall-worthy candidate in one single area?
What about the "total package" vote?
I bring this up with the announcement that Sweet Lou is calling it quits at the end of the season.
Trammell had what I consider to be a Hall-worthy career, but should not be dragged down by the one-year stint as manager. He was handed a truly terrible club, and he shouldn't be blamed for that, any more than Casey Stengel was blamed for the '62 Mets.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:43 am
Mike @109,
My thoughts exactly. I mentioned yesterday that Harold Baines and Staub got high hit counts as part-timers. And we don't know if Damon will collect a lot of hits past age 35 like Finley or Molitor did.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:43 am
Torre would be a better argument than Pinella.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:49 am
Lou Brock was nowhere near the class of player that Rickey and Ichiro were/are. Comparing Brock to those two guys is like comparing Carney Lansford or Garry Gaetti to Mike Schmidt.
Brock was a very good player from 1964-1971. But overall for his career he's very overrated. He was a below average fielding corner outfield who had a below average (.410) slugging percentage for the position. He was a lead-off hitter with a career (.345) on base percentage. Good numbers but certainly not HOF caliber for a left fielder. Roy White, a contemporary in Left Field hit in a worse hitter's park and still had a higher career on base percentage, .360 and about the same slugging percentage .404.
He stole 938/1245 for his career, 75% success very good rate but not exceptional. And if it's about stolen bases then why not elect Davey Lopes? He was 557/671, an 83% success rate while having an on base percentage (.349) higher than Brock.
He was a durable player that was able to get a ton of plate appearances (700+ a season) because he batted lead-off and played on mediocre teams (70's Cardinals). That's the only way he was able to get 3000 hits/600+ SB.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:50 am
#104/John Q - "These are my top ten glaring HOF omissions:
Blyleven
Santo
Larkin
Alomar
Trammell
Raines
Grich
Raines
Whitaker
D. Allen"
Good list, I'd add Dwight Evans, and maybe Sherry Magee and Ted Simmons. Blyleven and Alomar will probably be elected this year for the "class of 2011", IMHO. Doesn't look good for Trammell and Raines, tho.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:55 am
Gibson was a solid player but he's not even remotely a HoFer. Trammell was a much better player over the long haul and I did see Trammell play. As for Morris, some, many here, don't even think he's a borderliner which is just garbage. He's a borderliner but just on the wrong side. As stated above, Damon's Hall of Fame Stats are not well short -he's in the ballpark and still adding. He really needs 3 more productive seasons and he'll have a legit argument, don't know if I'd vote for him though.
As for managers, I think Torre is a lock, especially since you could argue he was a borderline HoF player. He's on the wrong side of the line as aplayer IMO, but he'll definitely go in as a manager and should. As for Lou, he's a bordeliner. He's something like 13th all-time in wins as a manager and he was a solid player, but clearly not at the level of playing as Torre. I think every manager ahead of him on the wins list is in the Hall except Torre and Mauch. Torre will go in, Mauch's very debatable.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Molitor is a great case, from ages 21-36:
2016 G (including 519, 25% as DH) 2492 H, 1396 R, 182 HR, 901 RBI, 434 SB .306/.370/.449 126 OPS+ 47.9 WAR
Damon from ages 21-36 (including the current incomplete season):
2215 G (including 156, 7% as DH) 2511 H, 1539 R, 213 HR, 1025 RBI, 381 SB .288/.356/.438 105 OPS+ 66.3 WAR
Then Molitor from ages 37-41:
667 G (including 619 at DH) 827 H, 386 R, 52 HR, 406 RBI, 70 SB .309/.367/.445 109 OPS+
8.5 WAR (only 1.7/season)
For an obvious HOF worthy total career of:
3319 H, 1782 R, 234 HR, 1307 RBI, 504 SB, .306/.369/.448 122 OPS+
Although it is obvious Molitor was better than Damon through age 36, the question is was Molitor HOF worthy at age 36? What if he couldnt get that DH gig and stuck around until age 41 as a part-timer and finished with 2800 hits? What if Damon has a similar 37-41 stretch as primarily a full time DH and collects 800 hits to bring him up to 3300?
July 21st, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Sorry I switched the WAR values for them, Molitor = 66.3 WAR from 21-36 and Damon only has 47.9
July 21st, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Dan,
I apologize. Upon re-reading, I see where your point was actually quite different.
However, I have seen a lot of comments in various threads that intimate a "who cares?" attitude for defensive excellence as a worthy measure for Hall consideration.
I should have read what you wrote more thoroughly.
If Dave Kingman had hit 500 home runs, it's likely someone somewhere would be screaming for his inclusion ("But he hit 500 home runs!"). However, truly fine all-around players, like Vada Pinson, are given short-shrift. That bugs me.
Also, points taken on the scores. What caught my eye was Damon's 88 on the Monitor, while Omar has a standards score of 120, and still gets snubbed by a lot of people.
They are very close on Standards, though.
And the similarity listings do change, as you said.
But if we're polling based on where Damon and Vizquel are right now, you have to go by what you have at hand. Omar is already very-comfortably situated amongst other Hall members, which would seem to make the point in his case.
Damon is not. He clearly has more work to do.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Good list, I'd add Simmons and Tiant. Blyleven, Larkin and Alomor will go in this year (Alomor and Bly) or in a few years (i.e. Larkin), and I still think Raines will go in. In his 3rd year Raines made a move to 30.4% after starting at 22%. Given these scores I'd say he goes in between years 9-12. Morris started at the same 22% and didn't hit 32% until 6th year. Blyleven hit 35% his 7th year after starting out at 17%. Other than some cronyism votes by the Veterans committee in the 60-70's the writers haven't done that bad of a job at all, especially when it comes to who actually gets in. Where I think they fail is with certain players dropping off too soon before they get a good look at what they actually were. Whitaker is a great example of this, as is Cone. I don't think Cone is a HoFer, but Whitaker was borderline and should have received good consideration.
Blyleven
Santo
Larkin
Alomar
Trammell
Raines
Grich
Raines
Whitaker
D. Allen"
July 21st, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Dan (on 113)
Agreed. It's just that Lou was in the news...
July 21st, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Vizquel is borderline, but should probably go in b/c of ridiculously good defense. Again, defense, saves, speed and even starters are harder to get a handle on.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:17 pm
oops.
From #119
What caught my eye was Damon's 88 on the Monitor, while Omar has a standards score of 120, and still gets snubbed by a lot of people.
I meant "Omar has a Monitor score..."
I need more coffee...
July 21st, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I don't understand the 3,000 hits or other arbitrary clear line milestones. It's a simpleton's argument. I mean, is a player with 3,012 hits really more deserving of consideration than someone with 2,950 hits all other statistics being substantially equal?
Damon's out. But the discussion points are always interesting because many of the writers have that simpleton view of things.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Pinson is a great example of a player who through age 30 season
2007 H, 1036 R, 196 HR, 884 RBI, 225 SB .294/.338/.463 117 OPS+ 45.4 WAR
looked like with a reasonable decline he would reach 3000 hits, 1500 runs, keep his OPS+ above 110, get 60+ WAR and be a great HOF candidate. Instead, he couldnt do it and ended up with 2757 hits,a 110 OPS+ and only 3.9 WAR after age 30 so I dont think he deserves the HOF.
If Damon shows he is good enough to stick around to get the milestones he will do something that many, many players fail at....although who knows what Pinson would have done as a DH like Molitor?
July 21st, 2010 at 12:26 pm
If Aparicio is in, why wouldn't Vizquel be? I think Vizquel has a better case than Damon since he has a similar player already in. Damon has no equivalent player in the HOF with his current stats which is why so many feel he shouldn't be in.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Lou Brock, another Jack Morris (WAR of 39), and his numbers are looked at through a prism and in a vacuum of the WAR only. I know, he wasn't even a borderliner even though he went in on the first ballot. Delusional writers it must be damn it. How about the truth lying somewhere in the middle? There's an idea. He was a HoFer, certainly not first ballot and certainly not 14th ballot. Brock is on the right side of the line, and Morris perhaps just on the wrong side.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:39 pm
SS and C are a bit shortchanged and it's funny that the HoF Monitor actually tries to adjust for being a catcher or middle infielder even though the Monitor is really only a tool used for whether one is likely to get in or not.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Lou Brock being "overrated" has been talked about for 20 years, way before WAR was created, back when Pete Palmer put out his Total Baseball book and Bill James put out his Historical Abstract during the late 80's early 90's.
Baseball overrated hitting for contact and overrated the stolen base in general during Brock's time. They underrated on-base percentage and never factored in things like fielding.
Brock was also in a unique situation where he was a veteran on mediocre Cardinal teams during the mid to late 70's (1975-1979) and was able to amass 2390 Plate Appearances with a .330 on base percentage and a .368 slugging percentage, 185/261 (70%) stolen bases, with below average defense for a corner outfielder.
He was basically a replacement level player from '75-79 but he was able to get 600 hits which gave him 3000 and he was able to get 185 stolen bases which got him the record. In reality he was hurting the team.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Mike,
It was your point about defense, not Dan's (my head is spinning right now...) that I was responding to.
It was Dan's comment on Torre, while I was sorting my thoughts on Omar's defensive qualifications, that got me mixed up.
Now, I think I'm back on course.
Dan,
While Joe Torre is indeed a better choice than Piniella, what about Gil Hodges? In or out?
John Q,
Gibby's career arc looked very good ('84-'88), until the the injuries that sidelined him for all but one at bat in the '88 Series.
He never really recovered.
Still, he won an MVP (the only player ever to do so without making an All-Star team) in '88, and also finished sixth in the voting in '84.
I don't know that he would have been Hall-considered, but he was considered a top player during his peak years.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Gibson had an at-bat in the 88 World Series? I forgot.
(Just kidding...I didn't forget.)
July 21st, 2010 at 1:07 pm
But that mindset was developed by Palmer and particularly James when they were developing the whole WAR/Sabermetrics approach. So, yes, it might have been before WAR actually came out and was known to us, but they were already thinking along those lines and had developed metrics to make such a claim is the books they were writing.. Yes, Brock was overrated, and he wasn't a first balloter as I said, but he was deserving regardless of his WAR. Again, WAR is great, but there will always be anomalies and nuances of each player, some more than others, that don't tell the whole story.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:25 pm
"And also, your HOF standards are way too high, and would exclude worthy players such as Eddie Matthews, Robin Roberts, Roberto Clemente, Sam Crawford, Al Kaline, and many others. Even if you are talking about first-ballot Hall-Of-Famers, your standards are too high."
I'm a little surprised anyone would include Roberto Clemente with Eddie Matthews, et al. I feel strongly that he would be among the 50 greatest players if the Hall was pared down to the truly great. The only flaw in his game was his power numbers, which were merely good and not great. As a defensive outfielder, he was the equal of Mays and better than Aaron. He hit .317 for his career, higher than both of them by 12 and 15 points, respectively. Clemente never got a chance to pad his stats like Mays and Aaron, both of whom played past the age of 40. His role as the first Hispanic superstar also counts a great deal in a game that is about 28 percent Hispanic right now.
I'll admit I'm a little biased -- my oldest son's middle name is Clemente. Others can argue OBP, red and gray ink, whatever -- but there have been few players in baseball history that can match what Clemente accomplished on and off the field.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Padding stats in your 40s causes your rates to go down.
Through age 37 Aaron: 3272 H, 1901 R, 639 HR, 1960 RBI .313/.377/.569 131 WAR with 105 Rfield above ave.
Mays: 2812 H, 1763 R, 587 HR, 1654 RBI .308/.384/.578 138 WAR with 191 Rfield above ave.
Clemente: 3000 H, 1416 R, 240 HR, 1305 RBI .317/.359/.475 84 WAR with 205 Rfield above ave.
Clemente is not even close, his defense does not come close to making up for his lack of offense. However, if you assume he would have gotten to 90 WAR that would put him top 30 all-time so he would be much closer to the all time greats than those other guys.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Baseball...never factored in things like fielding.
That's not true at all. Fielding has always been considered important. Some would argue that during Brock's time, managers considered fielding too much while playing 150-lb shortstops who couldn't hit the ball out of the infield.
July 21st, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Clemente has a very well-rounded resume with no holes. He has the sabermetrics, the raw numbers, some signature moments and was well-liked. He'd be considered a great in anybody's book whether writer or sabermetrician. It's for the Brown's, Morris', Brock's, and Reuschel's where the entire resume with no gaping holes helps tip the balance one way or another.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:23 pm
#133/Kway - "I'm a little surprised anyone would include Roberto Clemente with Eddie Matthews, et al. I feel strongly that he would be among the 50 greatest players if the Hall was pared down to the truly great. The only flaw in his game was his power numbers, which were merely good and not great. As a defensive outfielder, he was the equal of Mays and better than Aaron. He hit .317 for his career, higher than both of them by 12 and 15 points, respectively. Clemente never got a chance to pad his stats like Mays and Aaron, both of whom played past the age of 40. His role as the first Hispanic superstar also counts a great deal in a game that is about 28 percent Hispanic right now."
Look, I love Clemente, grew up with him in my youth and loved his five-tool skills, but he wasn't close to being the offensive force that Mays or Aaron or Frank Robinson (or more to the point, Eddie Matthews) were. Clemente has the great batting averages, but they are more than offset by his lack of walks and his good, but not great home run power. Mays was just as great (or better) in center as Clemente in right; Aaron was good in center and excellent in right field. Defense makes up very little of the difference.
BA/ OBP/ SLG
CLEMENTE:.317/.359/.475
AARON:....305/.374/.555
MAYS:.....302/.384/.557
They mostly played in the same league and era, so those differences are rather small. If you look at yearly WAR postion player leaders, Clemente often made the Top-10, but both Mays and Aaron were usually Top-3:
CLEMENTE - Top-10 9 years, but Top-3 only three times
Aaron - Top-10 for 17 staight years (!!), mostly Top-3
Mays - Top-3 13 years in row (!!), except one year at #4
Matthews - Top-10 11 straight, except missing one year; all but three are Top-5 finishes
I'd certainly place Clemente in the Top-60/70, but Top-50 is a stretch. Eddie Matthews simply had a better career, and Mays and Aaron (and Frank Robinson) had MUCH better careers.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Valid point Twisto, I was a bit vague on the language. I should have said baseball tended to overrate or underrate the impact fielding had on the game.
Brock had a career .330 on base percentage with a .410 slugging percentage. You can't even find corner outfielders from 1955-1995 with those kind of career numbers.
Brock had 39.1 career WAR, no doubt a very good/great player but not HOF caliber for a corner outfielder. Here's a list by WAR of Corner Outfielders with at least 34 WAR and no more than 45 Career WAR from 1961-2010:
23 J.D. Drew 46.3
24 Luis Gonzalez 46.3
25 Rusty Staub 45.2
26 Roy White 44.5
27 Darryl Strawberry 42.9
28 George Foster 42.5
29 Tony Oliva 42.4
30 Jim Rice 41.5
31 Ken Singleton 40.6
32 David Justice 39.7
33 Lou Brock 39.1
34 Reggie Sanders 38.4
35 Moises Alou 38.2
36 Frank Howard 37.9
37 Dave Parker 37.8
38 Tim Salmon 37.6
39 Albert Belle 37.4
40 Lonnie Smith 37.2
41 Magglio Ordonez 36.6
42 Jesse Barfield 35.7
43 Paul O'Neill 35.6
44 Dusty Baker 34.8
The only guys in the HOF on that list are Rice and Brock which just goes to show what terrible selections they were. Many of the players on this list had some great seasons but none are HOF caliber players for Corner Outfielders.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Hey, I'm willing to concede on Mays and Aaron, probably the greatest all around player and greatest offensive player ever, respectively. Even Frank Robinson was probably better overall. But Eddie Matthews had a better career than Clemente? A great power hitter, a Hall of Famer, but there is no way he was a better complete player then Clemente, WAR notwithstanding. Matthews never won an MVP award or a World Series MVP; his .271 lifetime average is mediocre; and it took him 10 years to get into the Hall. Clemente's fielding, especially his arm, are the stuff of legend. I think Eddie Matthews is a more consistent version of Vern Stephens than anything else.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Here's the corner outfielders ranked by WAR from the Expansion Era-today, 1961-2010:
1 Barry Bonds 171.8
2 Rickey Henderson113.1
3 Hank Aaron 93.5
4 Carl Yastrzemski88.7
5 Frank Robinson 79.0
6 Reggie Jackson 74.6
7 Roberto Clemente72.6
8 Tony Gwynn 68.4
9 Larry Walker 67.3
10 Manny Ramirez 67.3
11 Tim Raines 64.6
12 Gary Sheffield 63.3
13 Dwight Evans 61.8
14 Sammy Sosa 59.7
15 Dave Winfield 59.7
16 Vladimir Guerrero59.0
17 Willie Stargell 57.5
18 Bobby Abreu 57.2
19 Billy Williams 57.0
20 Bobby Bonds 57.0
21 Al Kaline 56.6
22 Jack Clark 55.0
23 Ichiro Suzuki 52.5
24 Jose Cruz 52.2
Kaline, Aaron, F. Robinson and B. Williams rank higher overall because they're careers started in the 50's. It's going to be interesting how the voters look at Larry Walker and Bobby Abreu. 60 WAR is usually the lock point for a corner outfielder and the HOF.
Sheffield and Manny got cut off for some reason so the previous list should start at 25.
July 21st, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Larry Walker is going to be an interesting case indeed, since he's going to be the first Colorado hitter with legitimate Hall credentials. Walker's park-adjusted numbers still leave him looking like a very solid choice (67.3 WAR, 140 OPS+), but I can see his candidacy stirring up quite a bit of debate. His career home/road splits are very pronounced:
Home: .348/.431/.637
Away: .278/.370/.495
Still very good road numbers, but the difference is huge. Of course, another corner outfielder who benefited greatly from a hitter's park was recently inducted, and his home/road splits are pretty dramatic, too:
Home: .320/.374/.546
Away: .277/.330/.459
That would of course be Jim Rice. Maybe Larry Walker is going to have convince voters that he, too, was "feared."
July 21st, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Jim Rice: Yeah he was awful. Can you say his WAR was destroyed by too many DP.
OPS+ 128
Black Ink Batting - 33 (50), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink Batting - 176 (58), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 144 (92), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 43 (124), Average HOFer ≈ 50
July 21st, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Brock: "How about the truth lying somewhere in the middle? There's an idea. He was a HoFer, certainly not first ballot and certainly not 14th ballot."
I'm not going to deny people thought Brock was a big star at the time, because certainly people thought he was, and that's why he is in the HOF. Nevertheless, sometimes people at the time are just wrong in their evaluations, and we don't need to give their views credit when we know better. We don't weight flat Earthers' opinions after all when we know better. People at the time valued raw hits, a raw batting average near .300, and raw steals. They didn't realize raw batting average without power or walks does not make a great hitter, particularly for a poor defensive corner outfielder. They didn't realize 900+ steals at a 75% rate are good, but not any more valuable than fewer steals at a better rate. Brock had a great 92 postseason PA no doubt, but that doesn't make up for a guy who was a below average player in more than half his seasons and was never all that great. Brock was good, but he wasn't any better than a couple of dozen other outfielders whose value wasn't totally tied in having a ton of PAs with a .290s batting average and lots of raw steals at a non-elite success rate.
July 21st, 2010 at 8:50 pm
The peripherals always know better.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Speaking of Rice and Walker...
You think wicked splits might also be what's keeping Ron Santo out of Cooperstown?
Ronnie was barely a .257 hitter away from the Friendly Confines. Even in the Second Deadball Era, I would think that's pretty low for HoF consideration.
I've often thought that he would be fine for the Hall, but those road numbers make me pause.
What's funny is that there was one park Santo was hitless: Fenway (0-15). Just two walks in 17 PA's.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:50 pm
No, I think the problem with Santo is no adjustments were made for the mini dead ball era he played in. Third Basemen are extremely underrated in baseball history and underrepresented in the HOF which also hurt Santo. Also On base percentage was an extremely underrated skill during his first shot on the ballot.
Remember that he played the bulk of his career during a dead ball so you have to put his raw numbers in context. Carl Yazstremski had a .306/.264 Home/Away split no one ever brought that up for not voting for Yaz. Ernie Banks played in Wrigley with Santo and had a .259 Road Average, Lou Brock had a .290 road on-base percentage, Bobby Doerr had a .261 road average, Apparicio had a .263 Road Average, Ralph Kiner had a .269 road average, Joe Morgan had a .268 road average, Mike Schmidt had a .263 road average, Mazerowski had a .252 road average, McCovey had a .269 road average. Ryne Sandberg had a .269 road average, Brooks Robinson had a .263 road average, Ozzie Smith had a .260 road average. etc.
I have a Boy's Life magazine from 1969 and they refer to him as "Future" Hof Ron Santo and I've read it in other periodicals of the day referring to Santo. Santo is one of the top 5 or 6 third base in baseball history, one of the top 75 position players in baseball history and his omission from the baseball HOF is just a joke.
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:24 am
John Q,
I've looked up a number of the splits you mentioned, in particular Brooksie and Yaz.
Yaz struck me as in interesting case. A lefty in Fenway, he actually received some interesting protection: fewer lefties to bang away at him, and his .244 lifetime average versus southpaws.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:27 am
Great stuff on Santo John Q. Santo should be in a long time ago and like what the Veterans Committee did to put Bunning in a few years after he had received 74.2% of the vote from writers, they should also correct a wrong by putting Santo in now and not later. As far as I'm concerned, the Veterans Committee has a fair amount of payback to do for some bad cronyism picks of 60-70's. Put Santo in now.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:16 am
#139/kway
Eddie Mathews is probably one of the three greatest third basemen of all time, behind Schmidt and Brett (this may be revised if ARod is considered a 3B-man); Clemente is, at minimum, not in the Top-5 for right fielders, behind Ruth, Aaron, F.Robinson, Ott, and P. Waner and perhaps several others such as Al Kaline. Yes, he has 46 points of batting average on Mathews, but BA is a VERY poor method of evaluating offensive performance. Matthews has 17 points of OBA and 34 points of SLG on Clemente. You simply can't ignore Mathews hitting over twice as many HR's and drawing over twice as many walks as Clemente.
Vern Stephens is not even in the ballpark with Mathews; Mathews is #28 all time in WAR; Stephens is #238. Mathews certainly wasn't in the same class defensively as Clemente, but for most of his career, he was considered a good third baseman. As for MVP/Hall of Fame voting: as several other people above have pointed out, just because the BWWAA made mistakes in the past, we don't need to perpetuate them (remember both 1987 MVP awards??). Mathews probably could have won an MVP if the Braves had won the pennant instead of finishing a close second several years. He received votes in 10 different years, so he was certainly well-respected by the writers when active. There are a number of first-ballot HOFers who were not as well-qualified as Mathews was. Yogi Berra wasn't elected on the first ballot, unlike Johnny Bench; does that make him a distinctly lesser player than Bench?
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:14 am
Mathews is an overlooked superstar kind of like Mel Ott, Tris Speaker or Frank Robinson.
I think there's three basic problems why Mathews has been overlooked.
1-He played in the shadow of Hank Aaron all of those years. Sometimes it's hard for writers/fans to accept the fact that the Braves had two players of that caliber and only won one WS during their tenure.
2-The Braves moved from Boston-Milwaukee-Atlanta during his time with the team. He's probably most beloved in Milwaukee but the team doesn't exist anymore and he went to Atlanta past his prime and at the end of his career.
3-Third Basemen are the most underrated/overlooked players in baseball history. I think there are about 11 3b in the HOF, the least among any position. To make matters worse two of the picks were terrible, Lindstrom and Kell and two of the picks, J. Collins and Pie Traynor rank among the 15-20 best 3b in baseball history. So that only gives you 7 of the top 15 third basemen in the HOF. There's no other position remotely like that.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 am
I remember Bill James taking about Ron Santo about 18 years ago saying he was a glaring omission and frankly I'm shocked he still hasn't gotten in. Part of the problem is this new voting procedure by the HOF members which is just crap IMO. They haven't elected anybody, what kind of solution is that?
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:41 am
To be fair to the Veterans Committee I believe they actually changed the format a few years back in hopes they would elect someone-- The most recent changes I thought were invoked because they weren't electing anyone. Now obviously what they came up with still isn't working and they should probably try a change again. Between cronyism of the 60-70's, and ineffectiveness of recent years, the Veterans Committee has a ways to go to become something of merit.
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:05 pm
"{#150/John Q Says:
Mathews is an overlooked superstar kind of like Mel Ott, Tris Speaker or Frank Robinson.
I think there's three basic problems why Mathews has been overlooked.}"
THANKS, John Q, I was going to make several of your points (especially #3),but my post was already quite long. Speaking of the HOF - why did it take the writers F_I_V_E years (not 10 as stated above) to be elected, and Duke Snider 11 years? They seemed like obvious choices to me.
That brings me to a core problem in discussing Damon's HOF validity - if Lou Brock is a first-ballot HOFer, but Duke Snider (MUCH more qualified than Brock, IMHO), takes ELEVEN years to get, who really knows how the BBWAA percieves HOF-worthyness??
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Collectively the writers as a whole look at the sabermetrics, raw numbers, signature moments/playoffs/ Cy Young/MVP's, and ones relationships with teammates and media. Not every single writer does this since more and more are looking at the sabermetrics, but as a whole some look to raw numbers a bit more, some look to sabermetrics a bit more and many seem to decide borderliners by signature moments/ playoffs/championships/MVP's/Cy Youngs etc. As time goes by I suspect more writers will look at sabermetrics more, but they will always look to more than just the sabermetrics........ and they should. Brock hit some magic moments of 3000 hits and all-time stolen base record and Snider didn't, but Snider was surely more deserving.To me they both were deserving, but it should have been more like Snider going in in first few years of eligibility and Brock going in towards the end of his eligibility.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Snider retired 15 years prior to Brock. Those were very different times in terms of ballot backlog. Into the 1960s they didn't even vote every season. In Snider's first year he finished behind 13 HOFers. In Brock's year on the ballot, there were only 6 future HOFers who finished behind him, a number of whom are considered borderliners.
A large percentage of the first-ballot electees have come in the past 30 years or so. It's really not very informative to compare how many ballots guys from different eras waited.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:20 am
Lawrence Azrin,
Snider taking 11 years to get in is really kind of shocking in retrospect considering the way he's been lionized over the last 30 years.
I remember when he was voted in but I didn't really understand all the nuances about the HOF and the voting process. The whole voting process with the writers and then the veteran's committee is really screwy anyway. There were 40 players/managers/negro league/executives voted in from 1970-1980 by the veterans committee, I think there were only 14 players voted in by the BBWAA during the same time period. Only baseball could have such a screwed-up voting process.
As far as Snider goes they're were about 4 things that made him wait 11 years:
1-Centerfielders are underrated historically in baseball so that probably hurt him a little
2-He played the same position in the same city at the same time as two of the greatest players in baseball history were playing; Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle, so being overshadowed by those two greats hurt him. The same thing happened to Richie Ashburn.
3-HOF voting tends to skew towards Career value instead of peak and Snider's big value is his peak performance from 1949-1957. He basically was a part-time player from 1958-1965.
4-As Twisto alluded to there was a strange protocol that players had to go through during that time period and there's still a strange protocol that goes on. If you weren't a first ballot guy, you had to wait. So even though he was better than Lemon and Kiner, he had to wait because they had been on the ballot longer. And I bet some writers wouldn't vote for him until Mantle and Mays were elected because they were the far superior players. I don't think it's a coincidence that he was voted in immediately one year AFTER Willie Mays was elected.
In an similar way I don't think some writers were willing to vote for Tim Raines before Andre Dawson was elected. Dawson is perceived by them (incorrectly) to have been better than Raines, so Dawson must be elected before Raines.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:39 am
You know what's interesting? How similar Duke Snider and Jim Edmonds match up.
Snider:
Career WAR: 67.5
Best 7 Seasons: 49.6
(Career + Best 7)/2=58.55
Edmonds:
Career WAR: 68.1
Best 7 Seasons: 48.7
(Career + Best 7)/2=58.4
Edmonds really is a solid HOFer, top 10 Center Fielder All time.
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:21 am
John,
I think Raines's lack of HOF support has a lot more to do with Rickey Henderson than with Andre Dawson. I'm not sure that Dawson's election has cleared the way for increased support for Raines. It's Rickey's shadow that Raines will have to work his way out of.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:44 am
Edmonds is borderline and won't get in unless he hits a milestone or two. 400 homers and 200 more hits would help. He should get play and stay on ballot for while but who knows if he will. I find him to be similar to Abreu in overall quality (yes Abreu is a corner outfielder which is different), but with more power whereas Abreu more hits. He was a better outfielder for sure and certainly played the game the right way which should help him. He's a half notch above Abreu b/c of defense and intangibles and full notch above Bernie Williams. Overall I wouldn't be surprised if he gets less play than Bernie Williams, but Bernie shouldn't go in for sure. Edmonds was the better player. He'd be an interesting poll.
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:04 am
actually I ran an Edmonds HOF poll a while back here:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4708
Lots of discussion there about Edmonds and his chances.
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:56 am
DavidJ,
Yeah there's a lot of other things that hurt Raines' HOF support other than Dawson. Dawson not being in there was just another little thing working against Raines. There's basically 9 things I can think of that hurt Raines' HOF candidacy:
1-Raines was the player most affected by the labor problems of 1981-1995. He lost a shot at breaking Brock's stolen base record in '81, lost one month of the 1987 season and possibly the MVP award, and overall he lost about 1 full year of stats. He probably would have ended up with 2750-2800 hits and 4200 times on base. Every eligible player with more than 4051 times on base has been elected to the HOF.
2-Lead-Off hitters are generally underrated.
3-On base percentage, runs scored, and walks have been underrated skills historically.
4-He played in Montreal during his peak.
6-The big O became a very good pitcher's park around the mid 80's when they were screwing around with that retractable roof. This unfortunately coinciding with Raines' peak.
7-He became a part-time player too early which is an image that has stayed with a lot of writers.
8-Stolen base success % is overlooked and underrated.
9-Henderson was the greatest lead-off hitter in history and their careers overlapped.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
#156/John Q Says:
"{Lawrence Azrin,
Snider taking 11 years to get in is really kind of shocking in retrospect considering the way he's been lionized over the last 30 years.}"
John Q, thanks for backing me up, and expanding on my "...what took Duke Snider so long to get into the HOF??" comment. Yes, as you said in your reason #4, there seems to be a two-tiered system of HOF voting by the writers; if a candidate is a "no-brainer", he gets in the first year; otherwise, they have to get in line and wait, while the writers have an extended discussion over a period of years. There are the exceptions, like Carlton Fisk and Ryne Sandberg, who sometimes have to wait till year #2.
As you said, Snider suffered from the "yeah, he was great, but he was no Mays/Mantle" perception that is currently being applied to Tim Raines vs. Rickey Henderson. I even heard someone compare Raines to Vince Coleman! The main things they have in commom are:
- they were in the the NL in the 1980s
- they were primarily left fielders
- they stole a huge number of bases at a great rate
Otherwise there is NO comparison; Raines is VASTLY better than Coleman; Coleman never had a year where he was more than a few runs above average with the bat. Coleman's best WAR (1987)was 3.2; Raines exceeeded that TEN times. Coleman's best few full years are barely better than Raines' WORST ful years.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Raines was worlds better than Coleman.
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Turns out that Tim Raines' #1 Comp is...
Johnny Damon (868)
his #2 comp is...
Lou Brock (863)
Then again, maybe that says more about the merits (or lack thereof...) of the Similarity Scores, than Raines' HOF merits? Damon plays in an era of higher run levels, Brock in lower run levels,and the similarity scores don't adjust for that(do they?).
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
They don't.
Also, 868 and 863 are not that similar.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
There was definitely an odd protocol in the way voting was handled with the writers in the first 40-50 years of the HOF ballot. For example, Joe Dimaggio wasn't even a first ballot HOF??
Snider was a much better player than Ralph Kiner which I think almost all the writers in the 70's would agree with yet Kiner was elected in 1975 and Snider had to wait until 1980. It'like the protocol was if you weren't a first ballot guy then you had to wait your turn. Kiner was on ballot before Snider so the Duke had to wait.
It's just odd in retrospect because even back in the 70's Snider was in all these books about the 100 greatest players and the great players of the 50's, etc. I bet if you polled today's writers, most of them would assume he was elected in the first 3 years on the ballot.
I don't think those similarity scores have much merit because they take stats from different eras, different ballparks, and different positions and they don't factor defensive skill into the equation. Ron Santo has 5 outfielders on his comp and Ruben Sierra is one of them. There's a big difference between a gold glove 3b from the 60's and a below average fielding Rf from the 90's-00's.
If anything those similarity scores muddle more than enlighten.
July 25th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
DiMaggio was inducted sooner after his retirement than any players except Gehrig and Clemente (I think). A five-year waiting period was observed by some but not official. He didn't get inducted sooner because a lot of voters didn't even think he was eligible.
July 26th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
#166/John Q - "There was definitely an odd protocol in the way voting was handled with the writers in the first 40-50 years of the HOF ballot. For example, Joe Dimaggio wasn't even a first ballot HOF??"
Yes, as Johnny Twisto pointed out, there was no "official" five year waiting period after a player retired; most writers waited the five years,but quite a few did not. In the first several years of HOF voting(1936/1937), quite a few active players received votes, and several got substantial totals. As a matter of fact, do you know how many players got elected on the first ballot:
- after the first election in 1936,
AND
- before the "five year waiting period" 1962 elections?
NONE. That's right, from 1937-1960, there were NO first ballot HOFers. All of these players WERE NOT elected on the first ballot:
Cy Young
Tris Speaker
Rogers Hornsby
Eddie Collins
Mel Ott
Pete Alexander
Nap Lajoie
Jimmie Foxx
Charlie Gehringer
They sure sound like "first-ballot" HOFers to me...
July 27th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I don't view Damon as a HOFer, but I am rooting for him to get to 3,000 hits and 2,000 runs scored, if for no other reason than it will make for a fun debate. If people were annoyed at the elections of Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, I can only imagine what they'll say when Damon comes up!
I don't believe in automatic entry points based on numbers such as 500 HRs or 3,000 hits. The only reason people viewed those numbers as worthy of automatic entry had less to do with the accumulated numbers, but more to do with the players who achieved those numbers. So, sure, Mickey Mantle hit over 500 HRs and is a HOFer. Yet if he hit 490 HRs, he still would have made the HOF on the first ballot, just as Lou Gehrig made the HOF without hitting 500 HRs. If Sandy Koufax didn't have arthritis and decide to call it quits when he was only 30, he easily would have blown passed 250 wins, might have even made it up over 300 wins considering he was an extreme power pitcher. Yet he didn't need to win 300 to make the HOF. Pedro Martinez doesn't need to win 300 games either to make the HOF.
So perhaps Damon will serve an important role if he does get to 3,000 hits and does NOT get elected to the Hall. If so, we can finally remove the "automatic entry" category for 3,000 hits. Years ago I had hoped Dave Kingman played for a few more years and made it to 500 HRs because he would have removed the automatic entry for anyone who hits 500 HRs.
On the other side, if Damon is elected, what hat are they going to put on him? He is the ultimate example of free agency and the Scott Boras generation, moving to a new team every three to five years. He played for the Yankees and the Red Sox an equal period of time, being productive at both stops and winning a World Series for both teams. He came up as a Royal and spent a bit more time there, but wasn't quite as effective. This actually might be a case where they should let Damon decide. I don't think any one team has a right to claim him as their own more than several other teams. I really do think that's one reason he went back to the Yankees to try and negotiate a deal after the Yankees walked away. He really is a player without a home, which may hurt him to some degree when it's voting time.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:28 am
I understand the argument against the automatic entry point, but I disagree with it mostly. To me there's really nobody that has hit these plateaus and not been worthy of the Hall. Some are a bit more questionable, but they are Hall worthy. If Damon hits both Plateaus he surely should go in, if he just hits 3000 hits I'm not sure. I don't see him as being a problem as much as I see Moyer hitting 300 wins. I think these numbers mean something. Lets just hope both don't hit these plateaus.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
This is why benchmarks like "3,000 hits" are overvalued in my view as determinants of Hall of Fame candidacy. Damon will probably get to 3,000 hits-he will only need 150 hits per season over the next three seasons-assuming he stays healthy. He is in no way qualified to be in the Hall of Fame other than that benchmark.
3,000 hits was used as a benchmark because relatively few players reached that mark, and those that did were pretty good hitters (with notable exceptions-Ripken, Brock, Yount, etc.). These (rather arbitrary now) benchmarks need to be changed in my view-3,000 hits, really a .260 career hitter could reach that mark over 22 years in theory. A .280 hitter can reach that with relative ease-Biggio, Ripken (.276), Yount (.285)-if they stay healthy. I would much rather have the .330 hitter with 2,700 hits (probably Ichiro) or .340 hitter with 2,700 hits (Gehrig) then the .280 hitter with 3,000 hits.
Make the threshold 3,500 hits or make it an OPS threshold, or better yet judge these guys on a case-by-case basis and don't even use silly benchmarks because then you put hitter like Biggio, or some day Damon, in the same class as Cobb, Gehrig, Gwynn, Musial, Mays etc. just because they reached the same threshold on hits. It is an embarrassment to the game of baseball and insulting to those great players.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
@110 "Mike"-"Where did I say only making it on defense is a bad thing? No where. I just stated the fact that Ozzie Smith (87 OPS+) and Bill Maz clearly (84 OPS+) are ONLY in the HOF for playing all-time defense, they were 1 trick ponies."
Bill Maz was selected by the Veteran's Committee, a downgrade in my view, and Ozzie was arguably the greatest defensive shortstop of all time, the toughest or second toughest defensive position (I think catcher is rated as the toughest) in baseball.
"So if Damon only makes it because he hung around long enough to collect 3000 hits, which many, many players have tried to do yet failed, is that such a bad reason to be in the HOF?"
Well yeah, it is an unremarkable reason to be in the HOF. Ozzie was remarkable at least defensively which is what his vote was based on. The 3,000 hit mark is just a longevity mark, an arbitrary benchmark set probably retroactively by the voters. They looked around a few decades ago and said "Gosh not many hitters have gotten 3,000 hits you must be really good to get to 3,000 career hits. Let's make them all Hall of Famers"-regardless of how good they actually are or were.
What else in Damon's obviously HOF career stands out as a cause for induction for you? Looking at his yearly stats I see he was an All-Star twice (As opposed to Ozzie's 15 times). He led his league in runs scored and stolen bases once each (same year) and once led the AL in triples. He has had 5 seasons of hitting over .300, and only twice hit over .310, and had one season of 40+ stolen bases. His career OPS+ will be near or below 100 without the defense of Smith, or even Ashburn. He is a decent player but not a Hall of Famer even if he reaches 3,000 hits (which he probably will).
July 29th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@171 "I understand the argument against the automatic entry point, but I disagree with it mostly. To me there's really nobody that has hit these plateaus and not been worthy of the Hall. Some are a bit more questionable, but they are Hall worthy. If Damon hits both Plateaus he surely should go in, if he just hits 3000 hits I'm not sure. I don't see him as being a problem as much as I see Moyer hitting 300 wins. I think these numbers mean something. Lets just hope both don't hit these plateaus."
So do you think Biggio is a Hall of Fame player because he reached 3,000 hits? Would he be a Hall of Fame player if he only had 2,950 hits? Or is your thinking colored because he has 3,000 hits he must be in the Hall of Fame? What about Yount?
Ripken had "the streak" in his favor (which is a silly reason to induct someone-is AC Green in the NBA HOF?-especially when his playing for the sake of the streak arguably hurt his team) and was popular with the fans, but if he had taken a day off in 1990 thus disrupting his streak would he still be a first ballot Hall of Famer? Ripken only had four really good seasons- only 3 full seasons with an OPS+ above 128 or an OPS above .825 but he was a shortstop so he did play a tough defensive position.
As for Damon if he does reach 3,000 hits and his OPS+ numbers decline, and even if they don't, he will be one of the worst hitting players to be seriously considered for the Hall, and that is without playing a premium defensive position. I think only Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, and Rabbit Maranville have lower OPS+ who were voted in by the BBWAA, and they were all defensive specialists.
Well it is all academic if he does not make it to 3,000 hits, he will be a footnote, and he'd be lucky to get the minimum 5% his first year. However if Damon has 2,950, or 2,990, hits when he retires and he isn't considered a Hall of Famer then why would he be considered one if he got just fifty more hits or ten more hits? This is why these thresholds are silly.