It’s that time of year again, when the fans of baseball sit around, eagerly awaiting to find out who the next players are that are being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. As always, debates rage on about the candidacy of the various players, and chuckles are met at seeing certain names on the ballot (for this year, that list includes Brad Radke, Terry Mulholland, and Phil Nevin).
Even though we here at the blog do not have a vote, that is not going to stop us from going over the players we feel should be inducted, and highlighting reasons why some big names should not be. So, enjoy.
The following players should get their due:
1. Jeff Bagwell. Quick question – how many first basemen have 400+ home runs and 200+ stolen bases? Um, that would be Jeff Bagwell. His career WAR of 79.9 ranks 57th all time, ahead of such players as Rod Carew, Ken Griffey Jr, Reggie Jackson, and Robin Yount. He was an MVP and a Gold Glove winner. So why is he not in the Hall? Because, even though he never tested positive for any PEDs, nor was he named in Jose Canseco’s book, he still falls under that cloud. Get over the moral indignation, and let Bagwell in.
2. Barry Larkin. Larkin was overshadowed throughout his entire career by other shortstops: Cal Rpiken and Ozzie Smith at the beginning of his career, Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez at the end. Through it all, Larkin managed to be a 12 time All-Star, a three time Gold Glove winner (while Ozzie Smith was playing), won nine silver slugger awards, and was an MVP. He also was a major offensive force, turning in a 30-30 season, being the only shortstop to steal over 50 bases during the entire 1990′s, having a career OPS that was 137 points higher than the average shortstop, and a slugging percentage 83 points higher. Add it all together, and Larkin flat out dominated as a shortstop during his ear. That states hall of Fame player.
3. Rafael Palmeiro. The writers of the BBWAA need to get over themselves. If they are truly going to be outraged over players cheating, then how did they allow Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton into the Hall? Also, they are ignoring the era in which Palmeiro played, where it is believed that roughly 50% of players were on the juice. Despite all that, Palmeiro still managed to be in a tier above, getting over 3000 hits and 500 home runs. Players that hit both of those benchmarks are the truly elite in the game, and deserve enshrinement. Palmeiro, despite the steroids, needs to be inducted.
4. Tim Raines. Everyone knows that Rickey Henderson was the greatest leadoff hitter in the history of the game. But how many people realize that Tim Raines was probably the second best? Raines reached base more times than such players as Tony Gwynn, Honus Wagner, and Lou Brock. In an era when most leadoff hitters were slap singles hitters, Raines had an OPS+ of 123. He finished fifth all time in stolen bases, and, as a leadoff hitter, managed to get intentionally walked 148 times, 47th on the all time list. Raines deserves his due, and is a Hall of Famer.
The following players are not quite Hall of Fame caliber.
1. Mark McGwire. Again, ignore the PED scandal. What you have is a player that was only capable of hitting home runs. Yes, his 583 is an impressive number, but he only had 1043 other hits. In fact, his total of 1626 hits ranks behind Tim Salmon, Eric Young, and Alfredo Griffin, amongst others. None of those players are sniffing the Hall of Fame unless they purchase a ticket. McGwire was also a black hole defensively. If he was not hitting the ball into the stratosphere, he provided absolutely nothing on the field. McGwire was a great power hitter, but he was not a Hall of Fame player.
2. Jack Morris. Morris gets a lot of support for how he pitched in the postseason, specifically for being the winning pitcher in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. These accomplishments overshadow the truth that Morris was not a dominant pitcher in his era. His 3.90 ERA would be the highest of any pitcher enshrined. Morris’ career statistics are actually very similar to both Jamie Moyer and Dennis Martinez. You don’t see a lot of support for those players getting inducted. Basically, his support comes down to a mystique that he truly never deserved. Morris was an innings-eater, and a solid middle of the rotation starter. He was not a Hall of Famer.
Showing posts with label Hall of Fame. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hall of Fame. Show all posts
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Monday, June 20, 2011
Johnny Damon and the Hall of Fame
On Saturday, Johnny Damon just became the 11th player in major league baseball history to record 500 doubles, 100 triples, 200 home runs, and 2500 hits. The previous ten players - George Brett, Goose Goslin, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Willie Mays, Paul Molitor, Stan Musial, Babe Ruth, Robin Yount, and Al Simmons - are all members of the baseball Hall of Fame.
So, this leads into the question - is Damon a Hall of Fame caliber player? Based on the eyeball test, where watching a player gives his value compared to his contemparies, he would seem not to be. Keep in mind, he has only been on two All-Star teams (2002 and 2005) and has never finished higher than 13th on any MVP ballot. On his career rankings, the best he places all-time is with his hit total, which is 72nd, with a present total of 2646.
The list of the top ten players he compares to is also an interesting mix. There is a Hall of Famer in Roberto Alomar, and two players that should make it in, with Tim Raines and Jimmy Ryan. The other seven are Vada Pinson - who is considered the best player not in the Hall, Steve Finley, Willie Davis, Jose Cruz Sr., Mickey Vernon, and Al Oliver. THis is a pretty good list of former players, but no one that truly stands out.
The two things that Damon has going for him are the group that he managed to join on Saturday, and being an intergral part of the Boston Red Sox World Series winning team in 2004. Baseball, being a sport that is truly based in history, is mindful of when players hit special milestones or join exclusive company. Also, being one of the members of the Sox during their curse busting season can only help in the minds of the voters, which will be noticed when Curt Schilling becomes eligable.
For Damon to make it in as a definite, chances are that he will need to put together another couple of years of solid production. However, at this point in his career, he is mainly a designated hitter, as his arm strength and defensive capabilities have decreased dramatically. The question will then be whether or not some team is willing to take on a 38 year old DH with limited power next season.
Right now, Damon seems to be on the outside looking in. However, a couple more solid years of production that move him closer to 3000 hits would do wonders for his case.
So, this leads into the question - is Damon a Hall of Fame caliber player? Based on the eyeball test, where watching a player gives his value compared to his contemparies, he would seem not to be. Keep in mind, he has only been on two All-Star teams (2002 and 2005) and has never finished higher than 13th on any MVP ballot. On his career rankings, the best he places all-time is with his hit total, which is 72nd, with a present total of 2646.
The list of the top ten players he compares to is also an interesting mix. There is a Hall of Famer in Roberto Alomar, and two players that should make it in, with Tim Raines and Jimmy Ryan. The other seven are Vada Pinson - who is considered the best player not in the Hall, Steve Finley, Willie Davis, Jose Cruz Sr., Mickey Vernon, and Al Oliver. THis is a pretty good list of former players, but no one that truly stands out.
The two things that Damon has going for him are the group that he managed to join on Saturday, and being an intergral part of the Boston Red Sox World Series winning team in 2004. Baseball, being a sport that is truly based in history, is mindful of when players hit special milestones or join exclusive company. Also, being one of the members of the Sox during their curse busting season can only help in the minds of the voters, which will be noticed when Curt Schilling becomes eligable.
For Damon to make it in as a definite, chances are that he will need to put together another couple of years of solid production. However, at this point in his career, he is mainly a designated hitter, as his arm strength and defensive capabilities have decreased dramatically. The question will then be whether or not some team is willing to take on a 38 year old DH with limited power next season.
Right now, Damon seems to be on the outside looking in. However, a couple more solid years of production that move him closer to 3000 hits would do wonders for his case.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Papi For the Hall?
When people think of David Ortiz, they think of the run from 2003 through 2007, where Big Papi may have been the most feared hitter in baseball. With his outgoing, gregarious personality, his larger-than-life persona, and his seemingly uncanny ability to come through in the clutch, Ortiz had become something akin to a god amongst Boston sports fans.
Yet, what has been somehow overlooked through his career is that Ortiz's numbers have reached a point where he may receive legitimate consideration for the Hall of Fame when he retires. As it stands presently, Papi has 1675 hits, 366 home runs, 1213 RBI, a .283 batting average, and an OPS+ of 136. These statistics will only improve, as he is just 35 years old and has at least three more years in him. At that point, he should be around 2000 hits, 430 home runs, and 1400 RBI.
Looking at baseballreference.com, the top 10 players on his comparison chart are interesting. There are only two Hall of Famers amongst them, with Ralph Kiner and Hank Greenburg at 9 and 10. The other eight are Lance Berkman, Paul Konerko, Mo Vaughn, Albert Belle, Derrek Lee, Kent Hrbek, David Justice, and Tim Salmon. None of these eight really strike anyone as a Hall of Fame caliber player, however, this list can change in the next three years.
What Papi has working for his Hall of Fame candidacy is entirely outside the realm of statistics, however. Ortiz has become a legend in the game, in part for his role on the Boston Red Sox World Series winning clubs in 2004 and 2007. He also has gained a reputation as the most feared clutch hitter in baseball, perhaps of all time. When it was close and late and Ortiz came to the dish, it was a must see event. More often than not, he would come through. This is one person whose reputation may exceed what he actually accomplished, and help his case going forward.
Ortiz seems like the type of player who will hang around the ballot for the 15 years he is allotted, then have his fate decided by the Veteran's Committee. Like a Don Mattingly or an Alan Trammell, he will be considered too good to fall off the ballot entirely, but not be good enough to get voted in. However, this could change. If Ortiz manages to get around 2200 hits and 450 home runs, which is an unlikely scenario, his mystique may be sufficient to elevate him to the hall at some point.
Papi will be an interesting case going forward. It will be fun to see if his reputation will outweigh his statistics.
Yet, what has been somehow overlooked through his career is that Ortiz's numbers have reached a point where he may receive legitimate consideration for the Hall of Fame when he retires. As it stands presently, Papi has 1675 hits, 366 home runs, 1213 RBI, a .283 batting average, and an OPS+ of 136. These statistics will only improve, as he is just 35 years old and has at least three more years in him. At that point, he should be around 2000 hits, 430 home runs, and 1400 RBI.
Looking at baseballreference.com, the top 10 players on his comparison chart are interesting. There are only two Hall of Famers amongst them, with Ralph Kiner and Hank Greenburg at 9 and 10. The other eight are Lance Berkman, Paul Konerko, Mo Vaughn, Albert Belle, Derrek Lee, Kent Hrbek, David Justice, and Tim Salmon. None of these eight really strike anyone as a Hall of Fame caliber player, however, this list can change in the next three years.
What Papi has working for his Hall of Fame candidacy is entirely outside the realm of statistics, however. Ortiz has become a legend in the game, in part for his role on the Boston Red Sox World Series winning clubs in 2004 and 2007. He also has gained a reputation as the most feared clutch hitter in baseball, perhaps of all time. When it was close and late and Ortiz came to the dish, it was a must see event. More often than not, he would come through. This is one person whose reputation may exceed what he actually accomplished, and help his case going forward.
Ortiz seems like the type of player who will hang around the ballot for the 15 years he is allotted, then have his fate decided by the Veteran's Committee. Like a Don Mattingly or an Alan Trammell, he will be considered too good to fall off the ballot entirely, but not be good enough to get voted in. However, this could change. If Ortiz manages to get around 2200 hits and 450 home runs, which is an unlikely scenario, his mystique may be sufficient to elevate him to the hall at some point.
Papi will be an interesting case going forward. It will be fun to see if his reputation will outweigh his statistics.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
The Different Eras of Baseball
With Manny Ramirez failing a second drug test, and subsequently retiring from baseball, there has been a lot of discussion as to how this will affect his Hall of Fame candidacy. In all likelihood, the BBWAA will climb upon their moral high ground, and refuse to vote him in, claiming that his admission would somehow cheapen and demean the Hall itself. Ramirez, and Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and others, will fall into the same purgatory that Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro find themselves in - not enough votes to get in, and too many to fall off the ballot.
This stance is entirely hypocritical. Because the manner of cheating was an injectable substance, this is considered to be taboo and enough to immediately dismiss the candidate from the Hall? Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton made their careers off of cheating with the spitball and scuff ball respectively. In fact, Perry wrote a book called 'Me and the Spitter', which came out in 1974 - during the middle of his playing career! Yet, both pitchers managed to gain entry into the Hall. Why the double standard?
The steroid era was nothing more than another age in the history of baseball. Until Jackie Robinson broke into the Major Leagues in 1947, there had not been a black major league player since the 1880's. Does this mean that Cy Young, Ty Cobb, and Babe Ruth were not as great as they are considered to be? They did not have to face Satchel Paige, Cool Papa Bell, Josh Gibson, and the other stars of the Negro Leagues. But that does not matter - they were amongst the best of their era and competition.
During World War 2, quite a number of major league players were fighting in the war overseas. As such, a number of players had their career years during that time frame due to an overall decrease in the talent on the field. Hal Newhouser, inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1992, had his best three years from 1944 to 1946, when the players were just starting to come back to baseball. Yet, he made the Hall of Fame. The lack of talent then was not held against him.
In the 1960's through the 1980's, quite a number of players were hopped up on 'greenies', cocaine, and other various substances. In fact, baseball lore has it where Dock Ellis pitched a no-hitter while on acid. The voters have not held the drugs of that era against those playing during that time frame. In fact, prior to their ban in 2006, it was estimated that between 50% to 80% of baseball players were using greenies, yet it was an open secret in Major League Baseball. No one cared. The use of amphetamines has not affected anyone from reaching the Hall either.
So why the uproar over steroids when the other eras had their own issues? Yes, steroids can give an advantage to players, but how much of an advantage is it when roughly 50% of the league is on them? At this point, everyone that played during the mid to late 1990's through present is under a cloud of suspicion, even if there is absolutely nothing tying them to steroid use. Look at Jeff Bagwell, who should have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. However, since quite a number of writers think he was on steroids, despite a lack of any proof or any rumors that he was, he only received 41.7% of the vote.
The steroid era is simply another stage in the evolution of the game, and should be treated as such. Players like Ramirez, Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, and Palmeiro should be judged based on what they accomplished DURING THE ERA THEY PLAYED IN. After all, Manny Alexander was busted for steroids, and they obviously did not turn him into a Hall of Fame caliber player.
These players should be looked at in context of when they played. Aside from their statistics, there should be no other criteria.
This stance is entirely hypocritical. Because the manner of cheating was an injectable substance, this is considered to be taboo and enough to immediately dismiss the candidate from the Hall? Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton made their careers off of cheating with the spitball and scuff ball respectively. In fact, Perry wrote a book called 'Me and the Spitter', which came out in 1974 - during the middle of his playing career! Yet, both pitchers managed to gain entry into the Hall. Why the double standard?
The steroid era was nothing more than another age in the history of baseball. Until Jackie Robinson broke into the Major Leagues in 1947, there had not been a black major league player since the 1880's. Does this mean that Cy Young, Ty Cobb, and Babe Ruth were not as great as they are considered to be? They did not have to face Satchel Paige, Cool Papa Bell, Josh Gibson, and the other stars of the Negro Leagues. But that does not matter - they were amongst the best of their era and competition.
During World War 2, quite a number of major league players were fighting in the war overseas. As such, a number of players had their career years during that time frame due to an overall decrease in the talent on the field. Hal Newhouser, inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1992, had his best three years from 1944 to 1946, when the players were just starting to come back to baseball. Yet, he made the Hall of Fame. The lack of talent then was not held against him.
In the 1960's through the 1980's, quite a number of players were hopped up on 'greenies', cocaine, and other various substances. In fact, baseball lore has it where Dock Ellis pitched a no-hitter while on acid. The voters have not held the drugs of that era against those playing during that time frame. In fact, prior to their ban in 2006, it was estimated that between 50% to 80% of baseball players were using greenies, yet it was an open secret in Major League Baseball. No one cared. The use of amphetamines has not affected anyone from reaching the Hall either.
So why the uproar over steroids when the other eras had their own issues? Yes, steroids can give an advantage to players, but how much of an advantage is it when roughly 50% of the league is on them? At this point, everyone that played during the mid to late 1990's through present is under a cloud of suspicion, even if there is absolutely nothing tying them to steroid use. Look at Jeff Bagwell, who should have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. However, since quite a number of writers think he was on steroids, despite a lack of any proof or any rumors that he was, he only received 41.7% of the vote.
The steroid era is simply another stage in the evolution of the game, and should be treated as such. Players like Ramirez, Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, and Palmeiro should be judged based on what they accomplished DURING THE ERA THEY PLAYED IN. After all, Manny Alexander was busted for steroids, and they obviously did not turn him into a Hall of Fame caliber player.
These players should be looked at in context of when they played. Aside from their statistics, there should be no other criteria.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Kevin Love's Streak
Last night, Kevin Love set the record for the most consecutive double doubles since the ABA-NBA merger back in 1976. His 16 point, 21 rebound performance was his 52nd straight double double, breaking the previous mark held by Moses Malone. Up next for Love is the all time record of 55, which is held by Elvin Hayes.
Looking at the players who have managed to get 50 consecutive double doubles, all are members of the NBA Hall of Fame. The eight names - Moses Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Elgin Baylor, Walt Bellamy, Wilt Chamberlain, Elvin Hayes, Jerry Lucas, and Bill Russell - are all part of the truly elite in basketball history. Love, who is only in his third season, has already positioned himself amongst the best ever.
Over his career, Love has come close to averaging a double double each season, missing in his rookie campaign when he averaged 11.1 points and 9.1 rebounds. For this season, Love is averaging 20.8 points and 15.8 rebounds. And he is only 22. Imagine how much better he could get, as he gains experience and more knowledge of the game and the players.
There is no indication that Love is close to slowing down in his pursuit of the record. In fact, he is picking up these statistics with ease, typically having his double double by halfway through the third period. Why can't Love get to 60 straight? There doesn't appear to be anything stopping him.
The problem for Kevin Love is that he plays on a truly abysmal team in the Minnesota Timberwolves. Despite his statistics and transcendent performances, the Timberwolves are 16-50. How much worse would that team be without him? For his sake, the Timberwolves need to get dramatically better, or he should demand a trade to a team that will actually compete. His abilities and talents are being wasted in what may as well be basketball Siberia.
Congratulations to Kevin Love on his partial record. Let's see if he can get the next four.
Looking at the players who have managed to get 50 consecutive double doubles, all are members of the NBA Hall of Fame. The eight names - Moses Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Elgin Baylor, Walt Bellamy, Wilt Chamberlain, Elvin Hayes, Jerry Lucas, and Bill Russell - are all part of the truly elite in basketball history. Love, who is only in his third season, has already positioned himself amongst the best ever.
Over his career, Love has come close to averaging a double double each season, missing in his rookie campaign when he averaged 11.1 points and 9.1 rebounds. For this season, Love is averaging 20.8 points and 15.8 rebounds. And he is only 22. Imagine how much better he could get, as he gains experience and more knowledge of the game and the players.
There is no indication that Love is close to slowing down in his pursuit of the record. In fact, he is picking up these statistics with ease, typically having his double double by halfway through the third period. Why can't Love get to 60 straight? There doesn't appear to be anything stopping him.
The problem for Kevin Love is that he plays on a truly abysmal team in the Minnesota Timberwolves. Despite his statistics and transcendent performances, the Timberwolves are 16-50. How much worse would that team be without him? For his sake, the Timberwolves need to get dramatically better, or he should demand a trade to a team that will actually compete. His abilities and talents are being wasted in what may as well be basketball Siberia.
Congratulations to Kevin Love on his partial record. Let's see if he can get the next four.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Of Blyleven and Bagwell
Yesterday, the National Baseball Hall of Fame announced the results of the 2011 election. Inducted were Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven, Alomar on his second attempt and Blyleven on his 14th. Alomar received 90.9% of the vote, and Blyleven finally made it over 75%, with 79.7%. Following them were Barry Larkin, Jack Morris, and Lee Smith to round out the top five.
Now, any time the human element is involved in any process, there are bound to be flaws - it is simply a part of what makes people who they are. However, some of the votes made absolutely no sense. For instance, B.J. Surhoff received two votes. In fact, one of the people that voted for Surhoff (ESPN news editor Barry Stanton) did not vote for Roberto Alomar. Exactly what criteria was used showing that Surhoff is a Hall of Famer while Alomar is not? Because I would absolutely love to know the rationale behind that vote. Then again, Stanton also voted for Tino Martinez, so it would seem his idea of what a Hall of Famer is would be completely dismissible. At least he didn't vote for Lenny Harris.
For Blyleven, the fact that he had to wait nineteen years after his last pitch to be inducted in is ludicrous. He struck out 3701, which is fifth all time. He pitched 60 shutouts, good for ninth all time. His 242 complete games is good for 91st all time, which counts the days when teams routinely had two starting pitchers and the bullpen was made up of position players. His career WHiP is 1.198, he struck out 2.8 hitters for every one that he walked, and was actually decent with the glove. however, voters for years focused on his won/loss record (287-250), his lack of Cy Young votes, and only making two all-star games as justification on why he was not a Hall of Famer.
Blyleven's case was truly helped by the advent of advanced statistics and sabermetrics. When looking at the innings pitched by pitchers with an ERA+ of 118 or higher, Blyleven is fifth (thanks to baseballreference.com for the chart: http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9619 ). His adjusted pitching wins is 36.1, which is 19th all time. His win probability added was 30.6, which is 26th all time. And his wins above replacement for pitchers was 90.1, 13th all time.
The other problem with Blyleven is how he accumulated his statistics. Unlike a Nolan Ryan or a Bob Gibson, Blyleven did not strike people out with a 100 mile per hour fastball. He relied on a devastating curve, which does not capture the imagination of the casual fan or sportswriters. Blyleven also pitched for some truly terrible teams in his career, which limited his ability to garner wins. All of this was held against him. Blyleven has long been the poster child for how traditional statistics do not point to the true value of a player, and now these statistics have led to his induction.
Now, to Jeff Bagwell. Regardless of what criteria is used to view his statistics, they are amazing. He is one of only three first basemen to score 1500 runs and drive in 1500 hitters without spending a lot of time as a designated hitter. The other two - Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx. He is the ONLY first baseman with 400 home runs and 200 stolen bases. This is a player who, from 1991 until 2004, ranked in the top five in home runs, RBI, hits, doubles, runs, and walks. Bagwell made four All-Star games, was a Rookie of the Year and an MVP, and won a Gold Glove. Typically, these are all things that the writers look at when determining whether or not a player should get into the Hall.
The strike against Bagwell is the era in which he played. A number of writers did not vote for him based off of the suspicion that he was on performance enhancing drugs, despite his never testing positive for banned substances. He was never named on the Mitchell report, his name was not on any of the information taken from BALCO, and Jose Canseco (the most credible person in the entire steroids saga) did not mention him in any of his books. In fact, Dan Shaughnessy even mentioned that he was withholding his vote on Bagwell based on his suspicions. "Bagwell never tested positive for anything," Shaughnessy wrote. "But like a lot of players who will follow him to the ballot, he was a guy who made you wonder."
Here is the point: Bagwell NEVER tested positive for anything. A case cannot be made against someone just based off of a hunch. Especially when confirmed cheaters such as Gaylord Perry (who wrote a book during his playing career about the art of the spitball) and Don Sutton (who threw a scuff ball) are in the Hall. In fact, it was once said that if anyone can find a baseball that was not doctored in a game where those two faced each other, that it should be sent to the Hall. Yet Perry is celebrated for being a 'competitor' who would 'do what he needed to win'. How is this any different than using PEDs? I understand not voting for someone who did take them, but in no way should someone be held out on suspicion.
Bagwell deserves to be inducted. Unfortunately, it looks like he is going to have a Bert Blyleven type wait before making it to Cooperstown.
Now, any time the human element is involved in any process, there are bound to be flaws - it is simply a part of what makes people who they are. However, some of the votes made absolutely no sense. For instance, B.J. Surhoff received two votes. In fact, one of the people that voted for Surhoff (ESPN news editor Barry Stanton) did not vote for Roberto Alomar. Exactly what criteria was used showing that Surhoff is a Hall of Famer while Alomar is not? Because I would absolutely love to know the rationale behind that vote. Then again, Stanton also voted for Tino Martinez, so it would seem his idea of what a Hall of Famer is would be completely dismissible. At least he didn't vote for Lenny Harris.
For Blyleven, the fact that he had to wait nineteen years after his last pitch to be inducted in is ludicrous. He struck out 3701, which is fifth all time. He pitched 60 shutouts, good for ninth all time. His 242 complete games is good for 91st all time, which counts the days when teams routinely had two starting pitchers and the bullpen was made up of position players. His career WHiP is 1.198, he struck out 2.8 hitters for every one that he walked, and was actually decent with the glove. however, voters for years focused on his won/loss record (287-250), his lack of Cy Young votes, and only making two all-star games as justification on why he was not a Hall of Famer.
Blyleven's case was truly helped by the advent of advanced statistics and sabermetrics. When looking at the innings pitched by pitchers with an ERA+ of 118 or higher, Blyleven is fifth (thanks to baseballreference.com for the chart: http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9619 ). His adjusted pitching wins is 36.1, which is 19th all time. His win probability added was 30.6, which is 26th all time. And his wins above replacement for pitchers was 90.1, 13th all time.
The other problem with Blyleven is how he accumulated his statistics. Unlike a Nolan Ryan or a Bob Gibson, Blyleven did not strike people out with a 100 mile per hour fastball. He relied on a devastating curve, which does not capture the imagination of the casual fan or sportswriters. Blyleven also pitched for some truly terrible teams in his career, which limited his ability to garner wins. All of this was held against him. Blyleven has long been the poster child for how traditional statistics do not point to the true value of a player, and now these statistics have led to his induction.
Now, to Jeff Bagwell. Regardless of what criteria is used to view his statistics, they are amazing. He is one of only three first basemen to score 1500 runs and drive in 1500 hitters without spending a lot of time as a designated hitter. The other two - Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx. He is the ONLY first baseman with 400 home runs and 200 stolen bases. This is a player who, from 1991 until 2004, ranked in the top five in home runs, RBI, hits, doubles, runs, and walks. Bagwell made four All-Star games, was a Rookie of the Year and an MVP, and won a Gold Glove. Typically, these are all things that the writers look at when determining whether or not a player should get into the Hall.
The strike against Bagwell is the era in which he played. A number of writers did not vote for him based off of the suspicion that he was on performance enhancing drugs, despite his never testing positive for banned substances. He was never named on the Mitchell report, his name was not on any of the information taken from BALCO, and Jose Canseco (the most credible person in the entire steroids saga) did not mention him in any of his books. In fact, Dan Shaughnessy even mentioned that he was withholding his vote on Bagwell based on his suspicions. "Bagwell never tested positive for anything," Shaughnessy wrote. "But like a lot of players who will follow him to the ballot, he was a guy who made you wonder."
Here is the point: Bagwell NEVER tested positive for anything. A case cannot be made against someone just based off of a hunch. Especially when confirmed cheaters such as Gaylord Perry (who wrote a book during his playing career about the art of the spitball) and Don Sutton (who threw a scuff ball) are in the Hall. In fact, it was once said that if anyone can find a baseball that was not doctored in a game where those two faced each other, that it should be sent to the Hall. Yet Perry is celebrated for being a 'competitor' who would 'do what he needed to win'. How is this any different than using PEDs? I understand not voting for someone who did take them, but in no way should someone be held out on suspicion.
Bagwell deserves to be inducted. Unfortunately, it looks like he is going to have a Bert Blyleven type wait before making it to Cooperstown.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Mark McGwire and the Hall of Fame
For the fifth season, Mark McGwire's name appears on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. In the previous four years, he has received between 21.9 and 23.7% of the vote. In order to gain induction, one needs 75%, so McGwire has been significantly below that threshold for the entirety of his candidacy.
On the surface, it would appear that the reason for his lack of support is due to his being linked to steroids. His pathetic performance in front of Congress when he stated that he was 'not there to talk about the past' certainly did not help his case. In an effort to attempt to help his chances for enshrinement, he apologized for 'mistakes' he made during his playing days, and has returned to baseball in the form of a hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals. In doing so, he became reunited with his biggest enabler, Tony LaRussa.
However, there is more to McGwire not being inducted than just the steroid issue. Quite simply, when looking at his statistics, he does not deserve to be enshrined. McGwire did one thing well, and that was hit home runs. In fact, his 583 home runs currently ranks tenth all time. Over his career, he hit a home run for every 10.6 at bats, which is the top rate of all time. Solid numbers, yes.
Yet, McGwire only had a grand total of 1626 hits over his 16 year career, which ranks 463rd all time. He is behind such notable names as Mark Kotsay, Shannon Stewart, Alfredo Griffin, and Tony Taylor. His batting average stands at a very underwhelming .263. While he was relatively valuable with the bat, mainly for his power numbers, his fielding at a fairly critical position was lacking. His defensive wins about replacement over his career was a -3.6. The last full season that he played where he was not a liability in the field was in 1992.
Furthering the argument against McGwire, http://www.baseballreference.com/ provides a list of the top ten players who McGwire compares favorably to. Only two are Hall of Famers, Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey. The list is as follows: 1. Jose Canseco (ironic), 2. Jason Giambi, 3. Killebrew, 4. Carlos Delgado, 5. McCovey, 6. Jim Thome, 7. Norm Cash, 8. Jaun Gonzalez, 9. Dave Kingman, and 10. Gil Hodges. Of the eight not presently in the hall, a case can be made only for Thome. Also, three of the top ten have been linked to steroids in Canseco (who broke the story), Giambi, and Gonzalez.
McGwire was simply a player who could hit for tremendous power, but was essentially useless otherwise. Steroids or not, he simply does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame - not in 2010 or any other year.
On the surface, it would appear that the reason for his lack of support is due to his being linked to steroids. His pathetic performance in front of Congress when he stated that he was 'not there to talk about the past' certainly did not help his case. In an effort to attempt to help his chances for enshrinement, he apologized for 'mistakes' he made during his playing days, and has returned to baseball in the form of a hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals. In doing so, he became reunited with his biggest enabler, Tony LaRussa.
However, there is more to McGwire not being inducted than just the steroid issue. Quite simply, when looking at his statistics, he does not deserve to be enshrined. McGwire did one thing well, and that was hit home runs. In fact, his 583 home runs currently ranks tenth all time. Over his career, he hit a home run for every 10.6 at bats, which is the top rate of all time. Solid numbers, yes.
Yet, McGwire only had a grand total of 1626 hits over his 16 year career, which ranks 463rd all time. He is behind such notable names as Mark Kotsay, Shannon Stewart, Alfredo Griffin, and Tony Taylor. His batting average stands at a very underwhelming .263. While he was relatively valuable with the bat, mainly for his power numbers, his fielding at a fairly critical position was lacking. His defensive wins about replacement over his career was a -3.6. The last full season that he played where he was not a liability in the field was in 1992.
Furthering the argument against McGwire, http://www.baseballreference.com/ provides a list of the top ten players who McGwire compares favorably to. Only two are Hall of Famers, Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey. The list is as follows: 1. Jose Canseco (ironic), 2. Jason Giambi, 3. Killebrew, 4. Carlos Delgado, 5. McCovey, 6. Jim Thome, 7. Norm Cash, 8. Jaun Gonzalez, 9. Dave Kingman, and 10. Gil Hodges. Of the eight not presently in the hall, a case can be made only for Thome. Also, three of the top ten have been linked to steroids in Canseco (who broke the story), Giambi, and Gonzalez.
McGwire was simply a player who could hit for tremendous power, but was essentially useless otherwise. Steroids or not, he simply does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame - not in 2010 or any other year.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Why is Joe Namath in the Football Hall of Fame?
With every hall of fame, regardless of the sport, there are certain players enshrined that do not make sense to be there. Either the player in question gains a reputation far beyond his actual abilities, there is a weak class of eligible players for that year, or the player gains entrance through the votes of his peers - a number of which may be on the voting committee (this is actually how 'High Pockets' Kelly made the baseball Hall of Fame, but I digress). In the case of Joe Namath, we have a classic case of the first way in, a player that made it in solely on reputation.
Looking at Namath's career stats, he should not be allowed in Canton even if he bought a ticket. What are his statistics? He had 173 touchdowns, against 220 interceptions. That is a difference of 47 more interceptions than touchdowns. Not good at all. For passing yards, he amassed 27,663 over a 13 year career, which averages out to just over 2100 per season. His per game average - 152. Again, not a good number. His career quarterback rating was a miserable 65.5. The highest quarterback rating he had in any season over his career was 74.3 in 1969. This career mark leaves him tied for 180th all time with Norm Snead. Who? Exactly. Some of the luminaries of the quarterback position that are ahead of him on the list are Eric Hipple (68.7), Joey Harrington (69.4), and Quincy Carter (71.7). Namath is barely ranked ahead of Rick Mirer (63.5) on this list. This is not exactly a list of all time greats that he is surrounded by.
So does this mean that Hipple, Harrington, Carter and Mirer should be enshrined? They are comparable, and in some cases better, than what Namath was in his career. Yet no one is rushing to give them a bust in Canton and the ugly mustard yellow blazer received upon induction.
Then there is the argument that Joe Namath was a winner. His career winning percentage was 48%. He was not even a .500 quarterback overall. All he had was one game when he predicted a victory in a major upset. The image of Joe Namath became clouded with that one boast, and the subsequent images of 'Broadway Joe' in fur jackets, wearing tights, and being the consummate ladies man - which is something Joe still thinks he has, just ask Suzy Kolber.
Stripped away of all the glitz and legend surrounding Joe Namath, he was nothing more than a below average quarterback. Unless there is a Hall of Fame for mediocrity, he should not be enshrined anywhere.
Looking at Namath's career stats, he should not be allowed in Canton even if he bought a ticket. What are his statistics? He had 173 touchdowns, against 220 interceptions. That is a difference of 47 more interceptions than touchdowns. Not good at all. For passing yards, he amassed 27,663 over a 13 year career, which averages out to just over 2100 per season. His per game average - 152. Again, not a good number. His career quarterback rating was a miserable 65.5. The highest quarterback rating he had in any season over his career was 74.3 in 1969. This career mark leaves him tied for 180th all time with Norm Snead. Who? Exactly. Some of the luminaries of the quarterback position that are ahead of him on the list are Eric Hipple (68.7), Joey Harrington (69.4), and Quincy Carter (71.7). Namath is barely ranked ahead of Rick Mirer (63.5) on this list. This is not exactly a list of all time greats that he is surrounded by.
So does this mean that Hipple, Harrington, Carter and Mirer should be enshrined? They are comparable, and in some cases better, than what Namath was in his career. Yet no one is rushing to give them a bust in Canton and the ugly mustard yellow blazer received upon induction.
Then there is the argument that Joe Namath was a winner. His career winning percentage was 48%. He was not even a .500 quarterback overall. All he had was one game when he predicted a victory in a major upset. The image of Joe Namath became clouded with that one boast, and the subsequent images of 'Broadway Joe' in fur jackets, wearing tights, and being the consummate ladies man - which is something Joe still thinks he has, just ask Suzy Kolber.
Stripped away of all the glitz and legend surrounding Joe Namath, he was nothing more than a below average quarterback. Unless there is a Hall of Fame for mediocrity, he should not be enshrined anywhere.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)