I stand by my comparison of Ozzie Smith to Omar Vizquel. I think they are nearly a spot on match, neither have HOF worthy statistics, both excellent fielders. Theoretically, Vizquel should get in with his stats, especially considering Ozzie was a first ballot. Vizquel will never be in the HOF.
Ozzie Smith is the best defensive shortstop in history. There are probably only two or three players in the Hall primarily for their defense and that would be Ozzie, Luis Aparicio and Mazeroski. Offensively, Smith did some things well - he walked a lot giving him a decent OBP, he was a superb bunter and base stealer. Bill James ranks him as the seventh greatest shortstop of all-time behind - Wagner, Vaughn, Ripken, Yount, Banks and Larkin. He ranked Trammell ninth.
Can anybody tell me why Red Schoendienst is in the Hall of Fame (aside from the fact that his cronies were on the veterans committee)?
He was not a standout player by any stretch nor was he a standout manager (just a couple of pennants and a world championship). He is Dick Williams, Alvin Dark or Whitey Herzog without Stan Musial as a buddy.
That was the one that I just saw and had to laugh about. There are many more worthy people out there who wont even be considered for the Hall.
Oh well. I got it out of my system this year again .
I think Ozzie is borderline, but in an era that was a lot more speed and defense minded, his value was much more appreciated. The AL had Yount (pre CF), Trammell, and Ripken. Look at the NL though... Rafael Santana, Jose Uribe, Hubie Brooks, Rafael Ramirez, Gary Templeton, Mariano Duncan??? Until Larkin came along he was the prototype SS in the NL.
In the end his reputation was still bigger than his game, but 15 All Star appearences and 13 Gold gloves goes a long way when you put someone into a context of a particular era. Alan Trammell's offensive numbers were stronger, but he had tougher competition; 6 All Star slots and 4 Gold Gloves and didn't have the popularity that Ozzie did.
Some people get in because they accrued stats over a long period of time, others get in because of their wild popularity or some other aspect that stood out, and then there are your no-brainers who had it all. It's not consistent and very subjective, which in some ways adds to it's beauty and other ways leads to frustration. Regardless of how you look at it, it always makes for great conversation and debate.
That last two stats are Gold Gloves and All Star appearences.... Player A (Brooks Robinson) Player B (Rusty Staub!!!). True they didn't play the same positions, but looking at offense stats alone they are very close with Staub having an advantage. Gold gloves and overall reputation making the differences.
I'm glad the board is nearly unanimous in agreeing that Ozzie Smith does not belong in the Hall of Fame, and most certainly did not deserve to be voted in on the first ballot. As for this comment:
<< <i>Ozzie Smith was not a HOF caliber player IMO, but the names being thrown around here - Vizquel, Belanger, etc. - border on the ridiculous. Ozzie Smith was a MUCH better fielder than those guys, and a much better hitter for that matter. >>
Belanger couldn't hit a lick, but he was absolutely one of the best fielding shortstops of all time, so nobody was a much better fielder than him.
As for Puckett, he didn't deserve to be inducted either. I wonder if he would have made it on the first ballot if his wife beating allegations came out a little sooner. My guess is no way. Lastly, anybody have a freakin clue why Nellie Fox is in the HOF??? The guy batted .288 with 35 career HR. Geez.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Nellie Fox, Red Schoendienst, Bill Mazeroski were all three good players. Should they be in the hall of fame - I don't think so. I don't remember if the veterans commitee voted them all in, but history seems to remember these guys more favorably than their stats indicate.
As far as Ozzie being in the hof, having a good relationship with the media always helps when being considered. If he had a relationship with the media like Eddie Murray, he would not be in.
Barry Larkin was a much better all around player than any of these guys. Is he a first ballot hof'er?
Collecting vintage material, currently working on 1962 topps football set.
This is always a fantastic discussion, and it happens every single year, without fail. That's part of what's so wonderful about baseball, and why this game will never go away.
Two years ago, a friend of mine who is a fairly reputable sports journalist made a very convincing argument to me that, by today's standards, Darrell Evans could be a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate. He wasn't pushing for Evans, mind you, he was making the case that today's standards have gotten more lenient on certain things.
As far as Ozzie goes, I don't have a problem with him being in the Hall per se', I'm just ticked that he got in on the first ballot when so many of baseball's elite didn't.
For my dollar, I remove Mazeroski, Shoendienst, Rizzuto, Eckersley, Fox, Puckett, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, and Tony Perez (sorry). Perhaps I remove Billy Williams and Hoyt Wilhelm, too. I add in Gossage, Sutter, Hodges, and Santo. Perhaps I add in Nettles and Sandberg.
And, of course, Pete Rose and Joe Jackson are in MY Hall of Fame.
I'm certainly not convinced that Ozzie Smith doesn't belong in the HOF. His defense was spectacular, at one of the 2 most difficult positions to play. His offense, for most of his career, was either best or 2nd best at his position in his league. Off the field, he was an ambassador of the game (I don't consider this an area which is a real HOF qualification by itself, but being a negative influence in the clubhouse a la Dick Allen or embarrassing off the field a la Jose Canseco can downgrade a player's HOF qualifications).
<< <i> From 1975 through 1985, Rice was No. 1 in his league in homers, RBI, runs scored, slugging and extra-base hits. And aside from homers, only the great George Brett was even close to him in any of those categories. >>
From the above linked article - and a great point. Thanks for the link!
The writers are pretty predictable. Boggs for sure if 3000 hits or 500 HRs continue to be the threshhold. Ryno being 2nd ballot but not 1st ballot looks good to me. I was hoping some relievers got in but was pessimistic even if Eck made it last year.
Good results. I must have watched over half of Sandberg's games. He was amazingly consistent and good in all areas.
Again, when he retired he was the both the all-time leader in Home Runs for a second baseman AND tied for the all-time fielding percentage. He did it all very consistently.
<< <i>Lee Smith does not belong. He has the saves record partially because of longevity, and partially because the rules defining a save were changed during his career to make it much easier to record a save when there was no "fire" to put out. A guy like Gossage would come in with the bases loaded in the seventh, clinging to a one-run lead, and pitch the rest of the game. This is also why you can't look at stats like losses or ERA when it comes to a closer. Case in point:
Let's say it's 1978. The Yankees are winning, 2-1 in the 7th, with the bases loaded. Rich Gossage comes in and gives up a two run single, then pitches the rest of the game and the Yanks lose, 3-2. Gossage has a 0.00 ERA for the game, gives up one hit, but takes the loss.
On the other hand, fast forward to 1988. Lee Smith comes into the game with a 2-1 lead in the 9th, with nobody on, pitches to the bottom of the order, gives up a single then strikes out the side. Smith has a 0.00 ERA for the game, gives up one hit, and gets a save. >>
A few points:
1) The save rule was changed in 1974, and again in 1975. These changes had no effect on Lee Smith whatsoever as he didn't debut until 1980.
2) In the situation you described, Gossage would not receive a loss for losing the lead since the tying and go-ahead runs were already on base when he came into the game.
<< <i>Player A is Don Mattingly. Player B is Kirby Puckett. So does Mattingly belong in the Hall, or does Puckett belong out of it? >>
Because Kirby Puckett had his injury and his career was over immediately. He was still a great player when he got hurt.
Don Mattingly had his injury, then hung around and was average at best for 6 years.
Puckett was an above average or great player for 11 of his 12 seasons in the majors and was a top player when injured. Mattingly was an above average or great player for 6 of his 12 and was nowhere close to great when he retired.
I was living in Minnesoata when Puckett was hit in the eye while at the plate. I don't think I have ever seen so much blood at a baseball game. He never recovered.
Collecting all graded Alan Trammell graded cards as well as graded 1984 Topps, Donruss, and Fleer Detroit Tigers
Wow, Tabe. You stung me twice in one post on matters of baseball rules. I don't think that's ever happened before.
You're right on both, of course. Which is particularly embarrassing because I was using two inaccuracies to make a point.
For some reason I thought the save rule was adjusted to credit a pitcher with a save when the tying run was on deck in the mid-1980s. It happened in 1975. So why is it, do you think, that Gossage averaged 30 more innings pitched per season than Smith, but had 11 fewer saves per season? Or, for that matter, a similar comparison can be made between any "modern" closer and any 1970s closer? Do you think it's just a matter of how managers used closers in the 70s and early 80s versus the way they were used later? I mean, for Lee Smith to average 31 saves a season over the course of his career vs. Goose's 20, that's a big discrepancy. Particularly when over the course of their careers, they pitched in virtually the same number of games per season (67 vs. 65). This would indicate that over the course of their careers, Smith threw 1.27 innings per outing, while Gossage threw 1.9. Furthermore, their ERAs were similar, and Smith averaged one more loss per season than Goose, which would possibly be an indicator of blowing saves (I don't think Blown Saves were introduced as a stat until relatively recently, but I could be wrong on that point as well). This is very interesting, particularly because Gossage pitched 4 more seasons than Smith, and Goose was also a starter for one season, which skew the comparisons slightly.
On the Mattingly vs. Puckett issue, however, I've still got to disagree with you. I don't think "Not even close" is an accurate description, because their stats are virtually identical. 162-game averages were very similar in all categories. Puckett hit 20 HRs or more six times, Mattingly five. Puckett drove in 80 runs ten times, Mattingly eight. Puckett hit .300 eight times, Mattingly seven. At the same time, Mattingly's dominant seasons were MORE dominant than Puckett's ever were - Puckett hit 30 home runs once, Mattingly did it three times. Puckett drove in 100 runs three times, Mattingly did it five. Puckett never won an MVP, Mattingly did.
The glaring difference I see between the two was that Puckett won championships while Mattingly didn't. Aside from that, they appear very close to me in every statistical category.
I agree that Puckett was more productive at the end than Mattingly. However, their stats are virtually identical, and in my opinion, Puckett was never THE dominant player in baseball, where Mattingly was - at least from 1984-87, when he was considered the best in the game.
Again, I don't think I'm saying Mattingly should be in the Hall - I think I'm saying that Puckett SHOULDN'T. Given the era in which they both played, I'm not sure their numbers justify it. I tend to think that Puckett's election was driven by his emotional departure from the game, and what a positive impact he had when he played. For one reason or another, the emotion surrounding Mattingly's departure was just not as strong.
<< <i>Wow, Tabe. You stung me twice in one post on matters of baseball rules. I don't think that's ever happened before.
You're right on both, of course. Which is particularly embarrassing because I was using two inaccuracies to make a point. >>
I was right twice in one post. That's a first as well
<< <i>For some reason I thought the save rule was adjusted to credit a pitcher with a save when the tying run was on deck in the mid-1980s. It happened in 1975. So why is it, do you think, that Gossage averaged 30 more innings pitched per season than Smith, but had 11 fewer saves per season? Or, for that matter, a similar comparison can be made between any "modern" closer and any 1970s closer? Do you think it's just a matter of how managers used closers in the 70s and early 80s versus the way they were used later? >>
Yes, I think that's exactly it. I'm not real sure how to quantify the difference, other than saying that perhaps Goose came in with a 4 run lead several times, only to pitch 2+ innings, thus not getting a save. I dunno. I didn't follow baseball THAT closely back then.
<< <i>On the Mattingly vs. Puckett issue, however, I've still got to disagree with you. I don't think "Not even close" is an accurate description, because their stats are virtually identical. 162-game averages were very similar in all categories. Puckett hit 20 HRs or more six times, Mattingly five. Puckett drove in 80 runs ten times, Mattingly eight. Puckett hit .300 eight times, Mattingly seven. At the same time, Mattingly's dominant seasons were MORE dominant than Puckett's ever were - Puckett hit 30 home runs once, Mattingly did it three times. Puckett drove in 100 runs three times, Mattingly did it five. Puckett never won an MVP, Mattingly did. >>
However, that ignores the difference in their positions - Mattingly played a position dominated by power hitters, one where 20 HR and 80 RBI just isn't very good. Puckett played a position where defense is the key asset, an area in which he excelled. That he essentially matched the power stats of a 1B while at a defensive position indicates that he was the more valuable (better) player.
<< <i>The glaring difference I see between the two was that Puckett won championships while Mattingly didn't. Aside from that, they appear very close to me in every statistical category. >>
That's an unfair comparison. Had Puckett been allowed to play out his full career, with several years of decline like Mattingly, he would have far exceeded Mattingly's stats in every category.
<< <i>I agree that Puckett was more productive at the end than Mattingly. However, their stats are virtually identical, and in my opinion, Puckett was never THE dominant player in baseball, where Mattingly was - at least from 1984-87, when he was considered the best in the game. >>
Mattingly was never considered the best player in the game, especially from 1984-87. Dale Murphy was better during that time frame. Was Puckett ever the best player in the game? No, but he was top 5.
<< <i>Again, I don't think I'm saying Mattingly should be in the Hall - I think I'm saying that Puckett SHOULDN'T. >>
I'm not sure Puckett belongs either, but I'm a heckuva lot more comfortable with him being in than Mattingly or a whole host of other guys that are in.
An argument could be made that Minnesota would not have won those two championships without Puckett. Even with Mattingly, The Yanks didn't win. I think that ups Puckett's credentials.
Collecting all graded Alan Trammell graded cards as well as graded 1984 Topps, Donruss, and Fleer Detroit Tigers
However, Mattingly didn't have the players around him to GET to the postseason for the bulk of his career, and Puckett did. Lack of a championship didn't seem to hurt Ted Williams or Ernie Banks. Of course Mattingly isn't half the player that either of those two guys were, but still.
Again, I'm not saying Mattingly belongs, because I don't think he does.
Did Billy Williams win a championship in Oakland? I suppose I could look that up easy enough, but does someone know off the top of their head?
There needs to be changes to who is casting ballots for the HOF. I don't understand how 42 people could have not voted for Wade Boggs... guys like that should be 100%, how could anyone possibly vote for anyone else and not cast a vote for Boggs? He was far better than every other player on that list. Really, the only people who don't vote for him must have a vendeta against him or the Red Sox or some other unrelated issue. Additionally, obviously, some voters don't take their vote seriously. The fact that Chili Davis, Terry Steinbach, Tom Candiotti, Jeff Montgomery, Daryll Strawberry, Jack McDowell,Jim Abbott and Tony Phillips even received a single vote is ridiculous. The HOF has no room for charity, and these guys should be given the exact recognition they deserve by the HOF... absolutly none. Same with a couple other guys on that list who received more than a handful of votes... like Dale Murphy (Chili Davis was actually better statistically), Willie McGee, Dave Parker, Steve Garvey & Dave Concepcion.
I think HOF admittance should be based purely on statistics and the players role in helping their team win in the future. There are enough players in there now to set a standard. No more voting... it should be more cut and dry to get rid of the BS that media writers drag into the vote. Get rid of the lobbying, get rid of the second chance elections. If a guy has HOF statsistics and meets the standards, he's in. If not, he's out and unless he comes back to play, it'll never change. Otherwise, the standards will become looser and sloppier, and the HOF will continue to be watered down with marginal players of the likes of Rick Ferrell, Phil Rizzuto, Billy Williams...
<< <i> I don't understand how 42 people could have not voted for Wade Boggs... guys like that should be 100%, how could anyone possibly vote for anyone else and not cast a vote for Boggs? >>
I am a big fan of Wade Boggs but I do not think he was head and shoulders above everyone else. I also disagree that he should be a first ballot HOFer. If 3000 hits does not make everyone a "lock", I would have thought Boggs would get in next year. Aside from the hits, his numbers were really really bad. In eighteen seasons he had 1014 RBIs and he broke 80 RBI on only one occasion. Eighteen seasons to hit 118 HRs?
Not everyone gets 100% of the votes. Aaron did not get 100%, Mays did not get 100%....
I don't think any of the writers who vote for guys like Chili Davis actually think they belong in the Hall of Fame. I think that some voters will cast votes for certain guys just so that they have a chance of getting the minimum votes needed to stay on the ballot. There's a certain amount of respect involved with being on the HOF ballot for more than their first year, I guess.
Seems silly.
Great piece on ESPN.com today, addressing the 42 knuckleheads who didn't vote Boggs. I didn't realize the guy had a .350 average over a ten-year span. I knew he was great, but didn't realize he was THAT great. I also didn't realize his OBP was so high. I knew he had a good eye, but wow.
Koby, I think RBI is a statistic that requires guys to be on base in front of you. It's a relevant stat, sure, but tough to look at a guy like Boggs, who hit tons of doubles but didn't have lots of RBI, and say his lack of RBI is a detriment to him.
Early in his career, when Boston still had some offense, Boggs was good for 70 RBI and 100+ runs scored each season. Those are pretty solid numbers. In the late 80s and early 90s, when Boston had NOTHING, he was still driving in 50 runs a year, with nobody hitting in front of him. He scored 100 runs seven years in a row, followed by 89 and 93. Then he moved to the Yankees and hit high in the order - usually #2 - not as many opportunities to create runs up there.
When he was with Boston, he was good for well over 200 total bases each year, and an OBP over .400. He averaged more than 40 doubles a season for an 8-year span. He averaged .350 over a ten-year span. He had 200 hits seven years in a row. He was a twelve-time all star who led the league in OBP six times, with a lifetime OPS of .858. He led the leage in number of times on base eight times. He led the league in intentional walks six times. He only struck out once every 12 at bats over the course of his career.
<<Same with a couple other guys on that list who received more than a handful of votes... like Dale Murphy (Chili Davis was actually better statistically), Willie McGee, Dave Parker, Steve Garvey & Dave Concepcion.
I think HOF admittance should be based purely on statistics and the players role in helping their team win in the future. >>
Statistically, you can make very strong cases for Murphy, Garvey, and Parker
All three fall right around the Average HOFer line on the Gray Ink test. Murphy lies above the Average line and Parker 1 point below it on the Black Ink test.
None is up to the average mark for the HOF Standards test, but all 3 are well over the Likely HOFer mark for the HOF Monitor test.
Did they help their teams win? Parker's teams won division titles 5 times, with 3 pennants and 2 World Series Championships. Garvey's teams won division titles 5 times, with 5 pennants (2 times where he was NLCS MVP) and 1 World Series Championship Murphy only made the playoffs once, but he was the unquestioned dominant player on the only Braves playoff team in a 20-year span.
To say that Chili Davis was better statistically than Dale Murphy misses several things. Davis's peak numbers were from his decade as a DH, in an era where he never dominated the league. He led the league once in an offensive category - Sacrifice Flies in 1988. He was also a lousy defensive player (19 errors in 1 season) (in contrast to the mutltiple Gold Glover Murphy).
There is a strong argument that Murphy, Parker, and Garvey could each be named to a league-wide starting All-Star team of a decade (Parker - 1970s NL OF, Murphy - 1980s NL OF, Garvey - 1970s NL 1B), and Concepcion is probably the dominant NL SS of the 1970s (a decent hitter, the best in the league at his position pre-Templeton, a regular Gold Glove winner, and a 9 time All-Star from a team which won multiple World Series).
By the standards of what has traditionally made a HOF SS, Concepcion fits right in - and is far ahead of Phil Rizzuto (who I agree was an awful pick).
Murphy, Parker, and Garvey may be weaker than the average HOFer at their positions, but none of the 3 would be at all an embarrassing selection.
I don't defend the selection of Rick Ferrell, and don't even understand it. WIth the possible exception of Roger Bresnahan, who at least invented an mportant piece of equipment that could have gotten him selected as a contributor, it may be the worst choice ever for the HOF.
But calling Billy Williams a marginal player is silly.
What's the difference between the 2 players (besides the grossly undeserved MVP Award for Stargell, when he wasn't even the best player on his own team)? Unless you're ready to wipe out most of the HOF, Billy Williams fully belongs.
Comments
I somehow remember Belanger being a better player than his numbers would indicate.
I stand corrected.
-Al
Vizquel: 16 seasons, .983 F%, 2147/7819 = .275 BA, .341 OBP, 318 SB, 1129 R, 715 RBI, 9 Gold Gloves
Smith: 19 seasons, .978 F%, 2460/9396 = .262 BA, .337 OBP, 580 SB, 1257 R, 793 RBI, 13 Gold Gloves
Bill James ranks him as the seventh greatest shortstop of all-time behind - Wagner, Vaughn, Ripken, Yount, Banks and Larkin. He ranked Trammell ninth.
Can anybody tell me why Red Schoendienst is in the Hall of Fame (aside from the fact that his cronies were on the veterans committee)?
He was not a standout player by any stretch nor was he a standout manager (just a couple of pennants and a world championship). He is Dick Williams, Alvin Dark or Whitey Herzog without Stan Musial as a buddy.
That was the one that I just saw and had to laugh about. There are many more worthy people out there who wont even be considered for the Hall.
Oh well. I got it out of my system this year again
Just for arguements sake...
I think Ozzie is borderline, but in an era that was a lot more speed and defense minded, his value was much more appreciated. The AL had Yount (pre CF), Trammell, and Ripken. Look at the NL though... Rafael Santana, Jose Uribe, Hubie Brooks, Rafael Ramirez, Gary Templeton, Mariano Duncan??? Until Larkin came along he was the prototype SS in the NL.
In the end his reputation was still bigger than his game, but 15 All Star appearences and 13 Gold gloves goes a long way when you put someone into a context of a particular era. Alan Trammell's offensive numbers were stronger, but he had tougher competition; 6 All Star slots and 4 Gold Gloves and didn't have the popularity that Ozzie did.
Some people get in because they accrued stats over a long period of time, others get in because of their wild popularity or some other aspect that stood out, and then there are your no-brainers who had it all. It's not consistent and very subjective, which in some ways adds to it's beauty and other ways leads to frustration. Regardless of how you look at it, it always makes for great conversation and debate.
Consider these stat lines
Avg HR RBIs Hits Doubles OBP Slug
0.267 268 1357 2848 482 0.322 0.401 16 15 (Player A)
0.279 292 1466 2716 499 0.362 0.431 0 6 (Player
That last two stats are Gold Gloves and All Star appearences.... Player A (Brooks Robinson) Player B (Rusty Staub!!!). True they didn't play the same positions, but looking at offense stats alone they are very close with Staub having an advantage. Gold gloves and overall reputation making the differences.
<< <i>Ozzie Smith was not a HOF caliber player IMO, but the names being thrown around here - Vizquel, Belanger, etc. - border on the ridiculous. Ozzie Smith was a MUCH better fielder than those guys, and a much better hitter for that matter. >>
Belanger couldn't hit a lick, but he was absolutely one of the best fielding shortstops of all time, so nobody was a much better fielder than him.
As for Puckett, he didn't deserve to be inducted either. I wonder if he would have made it on the first ballot if his wife beating allegations came out a little sooner. My guess is no way. Lastly, anybody have a freakin clue why Nellie Fox is in the HOF??? The guy batted .288 with 35 career HR. Geez.
As far as Ozzie being in the hof, having a good relationship with the media always helps when being considered. If he had a relationship with the media like Eddie Murray, he would not be in.
Barry Larkin was a much better all around player than any of these guys. Is he a first ballot hof'er?
Two years ago, a friend of mine who is a fairly reputable sports journalist made a very convincing argument to me that, by today's standards, Darrell Evans could be a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate. He wasn't pushing for Evans, mind you, he was making the case that today's standards have gotten more lenient on certain things.
As far as Ozzie goes, I don't have a problem with him being in the Hall per se', I'm just ticked that he got in on the first ballot when so many of baseball's elite didn't.
For my dollar, I remove Mazeroski, Shoendienst, Rizzuto, Eckersley, Fox, Puckett, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, and Tony Perez (sorry). Perhaps I remove Billy Williams and Hoyt Wilhelm, too. I add in Gossage, Sutter, Hodges, and Santo. Perhaps I add in Nettles and Sandberg.
And, of course, Pete Rose and Joe Jackson are in MY Hall of Fame.
-Al
Nick
[edited for typo]
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
ESPN Article
I like this guy!!! He has some ggod points.
<< <i> From 1975 through 1985, Rice was No. 1 in his league in homers, RBI, runs scored, slugging and extra-base hits. And aside from homers, only the great George Brett was even close to him in any of those categories. >>
From the above linked article - and a great point. Thanks for the link!
Edit: Yes it Boggs and Sandberg with 91.9% and 76.2% respectively. Sutter, Rice, Gossage and Dawson all got over 50%
Again, when he retired he was the both the all-time leader in Home Runs for a second baseman AND tied for the all-time fielding percentage. He did it all very consistently.
Hall of Fame voting
516 votes cast; 387 needed for election:
Name Votes Percentage
Wade Boggs 474 91.86
Ryne Sandberg 393 76.2
Bruce Sutter 344 66.7
Jim Rice 307 59.5
Rich Gossage 285 55.2
Andre Dawson 270 52.3
Bert Blyleven 211 40.9
Lee Smith 200 38.8
Jack Morris 172 33.3
Tommy John 123 23.8
Steve Garvey 106 20.5
Alan Trammell 87 16.9
Dave Parker 65 12.6
Don Mattingly 59 11.4
Dave Concepcion 55 10.7
Dale Murphy 54 10.5
Willie McGee 26 5.0
x-Jim Abbott 13 2.5
x-D. Strawberry 6 1.2
x-Jack McDowell 4 0.8
x-Chili Davis 3 0.6
x-Tom Candiotti 2 0.4
x-J. Montgomery 2 0.4
x-Tony Phillips 1 0.2
x-Terry Steinbach 1 0.2
x-Mark Langston 0 0.0
x-Otis Nixon 0 0.0
x-By receiving fewer than 26 votes (less than five percent), these players are no longer eligible for election by the BBWAA
<< <i>Lee Smith does not belong. He has the saves record partially because of longevity, and partially because the rules defining a save were changed during his career to make it much easier to record a save when there was no "fire" to put out. A guy like Gossage would come in with the bases loaded in the seventh, clinging to a one-run lead, and pitch the rest of the game. This is also why you can't look at stats like losses or ERA when it comes to a closer. Case in point:
Let's say it's 1978. The Yankees are winning, 2-1 in the 7th, with the bases loaded. Rich Gossage comes in and gives up a two run single, then pitches the rest of the game and the Yanks lose, 3-2. Gossage has a 0.00 ERA for the game, gives up one hit, but takes the loss.
On the other hand, fast forward to 1988. Lee Smith comes into the game with a 2-1 lead in the 9th, with nobody on, pitches to the bottom of the order, gives up a single then strikes out the side. Smith has a 0.00 ERA for the game, gives up one hit, and gets a save. >>
A few points:
1) The save rule was changed in 1974, and again in 1975. These changes had no effect on Lee Smith whatsoever as he didn't debut until 1980.
2) In the situation you described, Gossage would not receive a loss for losing the lead since the tying and go-ahead runs were already on base when he came into the game.
Tabe
www.tabe.nu
<< <i>Player A is Don Mattingly. Player B is Kirby Puckett. So does Mattingly belong in the Hall, or does Puckett belong out of it? >>
Because Kirby Puckett had his injury and his career was over immediately. He was still a great player when he got hurt.
Don Mattingly had his injury, then hung around and was average at best for 6 years.
Puckett was an above average or great player for 11 of his 12 seasons in the majors and was a top player when injured. Mattingly was an above average or great player for 6 of his 12 and was nowhere close to great when he retired.
In my eyes, they're not even close.
Tabe
You're right on both, of course. Which is particularly embarrassing because I was using two inaccuracies to make a point.
For some reason I thought the save rule was adjusted to credit a pitcher with a save when the tying run was on deck in the mid-1980s. It happened in 1975. So why is it, do you think, that Gossage averaged 30 more innings pitched per season than Smith, but had 11 fewer saves per season? Or, for that matter, a similar comparison can be made between any "modern" closer and any 1970s closer? Do you think it's just a matter of how managers used closers in the 70s and early 80s versus the way they were used later? I mean, for Lee Smith to average 31 saves a season over the course of his career vs. Goose's 20, that's a big discrepancy. Particularly when over the course of their careers, they pitched in virtually the same number of games per season (67 vs. 65). This would indicate that over the course of their careers, Smith threw 1.27 innings per outing, while Gossage threw 1.9. Furthermore, their ERAs were similar, and Smith averaged one more loss per season than Goose, which would possibly be an indicator of blowing saves (I don't think Blown Saves were introduced as a stat until relatively recently, but I could be wrong on that point as well). This is very interesting, particularly because Gossage pitched 4 more seasons than Smith, and Goose was also a starter for one season, which skew the comparisons slightly.
On the Mattingly vs. Puckett issue, however, I've still got to disagree with you. I don't think "Not even close" is an accurate description, because their stats are virtually identical. 162-game averages were very similar in all categories. Puckett hit 20 HRs or more six times, Mattingly five. Puckett drove in 80 runs ten times, Mattingly eight. Puckett hit .300 eight times, Mattingly seven. At the same time, Mattingly's dominant seasons were MORE dominant than Puckett's ever were - Puckett hit 30 home runs once, Mattingly did it three times. Puckett drove in 100 runs three times, Mattingly did it five. Puckett never won an MVP, Mattingly did.
The glaring difference I see between the two was that Puckett won championships while Mattingly didn't. Aside from that, they appear very close to me in every statistical category.
I agree that Puckett was more productive at the end than Mattingly. However, their stats are virtually identical, and in my opinion, Puckett was never THE dominant player in baseball, where Mattingly was - at least from 1984-87, when he was considered the best in the game.
Again, I don't think I'm saying Mattingly should be in the Hall - I think I'm saying that Puckett SHOULDN'T. Given the era in which they both played, I'm not sure their numbers justify it. I tend to think that Puckett's election was driven by his emotional departure from the game, and what a positive impact he had when he played. For one reason or another, the emotion surrounding Mattingly's departure was just not as strong.
-Al
long to accomplish mattingly's numbers therefore puckett didn't
and doesn't belong.he was a terrific player though,
Black Ink: Batting - 22 (91) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 122 (151) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 38.8 (155) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 155.5 (65) (Likely HOFer > 100)
above from baseball-reference.com
Donnie Baseball:
Black Ink: Batting - 23 (83) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 111 (180) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 34.1 (206) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 133.5 (92) (Likely HOFer > 100)
above from baseball-reference.com
<< <i>Wow, Tabe. You stung me twice in one post on matters of baseball rules. I don't think that's ever happened before.
You're right on both, of course. Which is particularly embarrassing because I was using two inaccuracies to make a point. >>
I was right twice in one post. That's a first as well
<< <i>For some reason I thought the save rule was adjusted to credit a pitcher with a save when the tying run was on deck in the mid-1980s. It happened in 1975. So why is it, do you think, that Gossage averaged 30 more innings pitched per season than Smith, but had 11 fewer saves per season? Or, for that matter, a similar comparison can be made between any "modern" closer and any 1970s closer? Do you think it's just a matter of how managers used closers in the 70s and early 80s versus the way they were used later? >>
Yes, I think that's exactly it. I'm not real sure how to quantify the difference, other than saying that perhaps Goose came in with a 4 run lead several times, only to pitch 2+ innings, thus not getting a save. I dunno. I didn't follow baseball THAT closely back then.
<< <i>On the Mattingly vs. Puckett issue, however, I've still got to disagree with you. I don't think "Not even close" is an accurate description, because their stats are virtually identical. 162-game averages were very similar in all categories. Puckett hit 20 HRs or more six times, Mattingly five. Puckett drove in 80 runs ten times, Mattingly eight. Puckett hit .300 eight times, Mattingly seven. At the same time, Mattingly's dominant seasons were MORE dominant than Puckett's ever were - Puckett hit 30 home runs once, Mattingly did it three times. Puckett drove in 100 runs three times, Mattingly did it five. Puckett never won an MVP, Mattingly did. >>
However, that ignores the difference in their positions - Mattingly played a position dominated by power hitters, one where 20 HR and 80 RBI just isn't very good. Puckett played a position where defense is the key asset, an area in which he excelled. That he essentially matched the power stats of a 1B while at a defensive position indicates that he was the more valuable (better) player.
<< <i>The glaring difference I see between the two was that Puckett won championships while Mattingly didn't. Aside from that, they appear very close to me in every statistical category. >>
That's an unfair comparison. Had Puckett been allowed to play out his full career, with several years of decline like Mattingly, he would have far exceeded Mattingly's stats in every category.
<< <i>I agree that Puckett was more productive at the end than Mattingly. However, their stats are virtually identical, and in my opinion, Puckett was never THE dominant player in baseball, where Mattingly was - at least from 1984-87, when he was considered the best in the game. >>
Mattingly was never considered the best player in the game, especially from 1984-87. Dale Murphy was better during that time frame. Was Puckett ever the best player in the game? No, but he was top 5.
<< <i>Again, I don't think I'm saying Mattingly should be in the Hall - I think I'm saying that Puckett SHOULDN'T. >>
I'm not sure Puckett belongs either, but I'm a heckuva lot more comfortable with him being in than Mattingly or a whole host of other guys that are in.
Tabe
However, Mattingly didn't have the players around him to GET to the postseason for the bulk of his career, and Puckett did. Lack of a championship didn't seem to hurt Ted Williams or Ernie Banks. Of course Mattingly isn't half the player that either of those two guys were, but still.
Again, I'm not saying Mattingly belongs, because I don't think he does.
Did Billy Williams win a championship in Oakland? I suppose I could look that up easy enough, but does someone know off the top of their head?
-Al
I think HOF admittance should be based purely on statistics and the players role in helping their team win in the future. There are enough players in there now to set a standard. No more voting... it should be more cut and dry to get rid of the BS that media writers drag into the vote. Get rid of the lobbying, get rid of the second chance elections. If a guy has HOF statsistics and meets the standards, he's in. If not, he's out and unless he comes back to play, it'll never change. Otherwise, the standards will become looser and sloppier, and the HOF will continue to be watered down with marginal players of the likes of Rick Ferrell, Phil Rizzuto, Billy Williams...
<< <i> I don't understand how 42 people could have not voted for Wade Boggs... guys like that should be 100%, how could anyone possibly vote for anyone else and not cast a vote for Boggs? >>
I am a big fan of Wade Boggs but I do not think he was head and shoulders above everyone else. I also disagree that he should be a first ballot HOFer. If 3000 hits does not make everyone a "lock", I would have thought Boggs would get in next year. Aside from the hits, his numbers were really really bad. In eighteen seasons he had 1014 RBIs and he broke 80 RBI on only one occasion. Eighteen seasons to hit 118 HRs?
Not everyone gets 100% of the votes. Aaron did not get 100%, Mays did not get 100%....
Seems silly.
Great piece on ESPN.com today, addressing the 42 knuckleheads who didn't vote Boggs. I didn't realize the guy had a .350 average over a ten-year span. I knew he was great, but didn't realize he was THAT great. I also didn't realize his OBP was so high. I knew he had a good eye, but wow.
-Al
Early in his career, when Boston still had some offense, Boggs was good for 70 RBI and 100+ runs scored each season. Those are pretty solid numbers. In the late 80s and early 90s, when Boston had NOTHING, he was still driving in 50 runs a year, with nobody hitting in front of him. He scored 100 runs seven years in a row, followed by 89 and 93. Then he moved to the Yankees and hit high in the order - usually #2 - not as many opportunities to create runs up there.
When he was with Boston, he was good for well over 200 total bases each year, and an OBP over .400. He averaged more than 40 doubles a season for an 8-year span. He averaged .350 over a ten-year span. He had 200 hits seven years in a row. He was a twelve-time all star who led the league in OBP six times, with a lifetime OPS of .858. He led the leage in number of times on base eight times. He led the league in intentional walks six times. He only struck out once every 12 at bats over the course of his career.
This is one of baseball's elite.
-Al
I think HOF admittance should be based purely on statistics and the players role in helping their team win in the future. >>
Statistically, you can make very strong cases for Murphy, Garvey, and Parker
Here's Murphy's profile from baseball-reference:
Black Ink: Batting - 31 (54) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 147 (87) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 34.3 (204) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 115.5 (117) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Here's Garvey's
Black Ink: Batting - 12 (184) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 142 (105) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 31.5 (250) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 130.5 (97) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Here's Parker's
Black Ink: Batting - 26 (68) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 145 (95) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 41.1 (133) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 125.5 (101) (Likely HOFer > 100)
All three fall right around the Average HOFer line on the Gray Ink test. Murphy lies above the Average line and Parker 1 point below it on the Black Ink test.
None is up to the average mark for the HOF Standards test, but all 3 are well over the Likely HOFer mark for the HOF Monitor test.
Did they help their teams win?
Parker's teams won division titles 5 times, with 3 pennants and 2 World Series Championships.
Garvey's teams won division titles 5 times, with 5 pennants (2 times where he was NLCS MVP) and 1 World Series Championship
Murphy only made the playoffs once, but he was the unquestioned dominant player on the only Braves playoff team in a 20-year span.
To say that Chili Davis was better statistically than Dale Murphy misses several things. Davis's peak numbers were from his decade as a DH, in an era where he never dominated the league. He led the league once in an offensive category - Sacrifice Flies in 1988. He was also a lousy defensive player (19 errors in 1 season) (in contrast to the mutltiple Gold Glover Murphy).
There is a strong argument that Murphy, Parker, and Garvey could each be named to a league-wide starting All-Star team of a decade (Parker - 1970s NL OF, Murphy - 1980s NL OF, Garvey - 1970s NL 1B), and Concepcion is probably the dominant NL SS of the 1970s (a decent hitter, the best in the league at his position pre-Templeton, a regular Gold Glove winner, and a 9 time All-Star from a team which won multiple World Series).
By the standards of what has traditionally made a HOF SS, Concepcion fits right in - and is far ahead of Phil Rizzuto (who I agree was an awful pick).
Murphy, Parker, and Garvey may be weaker than the average HOFer at their positions, but none of the 3 would be at all an embarrassing selection.
I don't defend the selection of Rick Ferrell, and don't even understand it. WIth the possible exception of Roger Bresnahan, who at least invented an mportant piece of equipment that could have gotten him selected as a contributor, it may be the worst choice ever for the HOF.
But calling Billy Williams a marginal player is silly.
Here's Williams's profile from baseball-reference:
Black Ink: Batting - 18 (120) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 208 (35) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 48.4 (80) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 121.5 (106) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Here, by contrast, is Willie Stargell:
Black Ink: Batting - 17 (128) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 125 (139) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 43.8 (110) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 107.5 (131) (Likely HOFer > 100)
What's the difference between the 2 players (besides the grossly undeserved MVP Award for Stargell, when he wasn't even the best player on his own team)? Unless you're ready to wipe out most of the HOF, Billy Williams fully belongs.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.