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 Jeff Bagwell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeff Bagwell. Show all posts
Sunday, January 8, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)