2006 Baseball HOF Inductees?
shagrotn77
Posts: 5,588 ✭✭✭✭
Now that the 2005 class has been announced, I'm curious who will make it in 2006. The only thing close to a lock as far as I see is Bruce Sutter. He garnered 66.7% of the votes this year. While I think Gossage is even more deserving of induction than Sutter and I've always seen them going in together if they do make it, I don't know if the Goose can make the jump from 55.2% to 75% next year.
And then there's Jim Rice. He's right on the doorstep too, with 59.5% of the vote this year. Just as with Gossage over Sutter though, I think Dawson is more deserving than Rice, but Dawson really has some ground to make up at just 52.3%.
I think eventually all of these guys will get in, and Blyleven has a very outside chance. Keep in mind, I am not soliciting opinions of who deserves induction. I'd like to know from the baseball gurus who figures to be inducted in '06. I doubt any of the marginal guys would go in with Ripken, Gwynn and McGwire in '07.
And then there's Jim Rice. He's right on the doorstep too, with 59.5% of the vote this year. Just as with Gossage over Sutter though, I think Dawson is more deserving than Rice, but Dawson really has some ground to make up at just 52.3%.
I think eventually all of these guys will get in, and Blyleven has a very outside chance. Keep in mind, I am not soliciting opinions of who deserves induction. I'd like to know from the baseball gurus who figures to be inducted in '06. I doubt any of the marginal guys would go in with Ripken, Gwynn and McGwire in '07.
"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."
0
Comments
Here's the link to eligible players:
2005 Veteran's Committee Ballot
Bert Blyleven 3000+ K's
Jack Morris Has the stats
I like Sutter as well.
<< <i>Jim Kaat 280+ wins 16 Gold Gloves His low profile has hurt him. >>
It's not his low profile, it's his stats:
In 25 seasons, he had:
- only 7 seasons with 16 or more wins
- a career 3.45 ERA, despite pitching the entire decade of the 1960s when ERAs were down
- his career ERA+ is 107, meaning he just barely gave up fewer runs than the AVERAGE pitcher during his career
- finished in the top 10 in ERA only 3 times
- only *1* top 10 finish in the Cy Young Award voting
- only a 3-time All-Star
- his average season was 12-10 with a 3.45 ERA.
- from 1967 - 1973, he won more than 15 games just once, despite playing for some good teams
Yes, Kaat won 16 Gold Gloves. That would matter for any position other than pitcher. The perception - and reality - is that Kaat hung around just piling up numbers long after he'd stopped being good.
Put Kaat in the "Hall of Very Good", along with Tommy John.
Tabe
I think Jim Rice should be in the hall. His numbers look pale in comparison to what we see every year, but he was the man for over a decade. He won what, 2 MVPs too? Why he's not in the hall is a big question for me.
As far as relievers go, I'm torn. Goose and Sutter really did define the role of the closer, but really how do you put their careers in context? It's a tough call, but I'd vote goose in before Sutter.
It will be a lackluster class next year, with no first year ballot guys, so hopefully it's the year that Rice gets his due. You will probably see a lot of people getting a lot of votes...and spreading it out all over, with no one player dominating the vote like Boggs did this year.
I think guys like Rice, Gossage and Dawson could see above average increases in votes next year because there are certainly no first ballot guys in 2006 and the voters will have to vote for someone besides Sutter. I hear a lot of them use all of their 10 votes even though they obviously don't have to. What do you think?
Shag
Rice's career percentages look good, until you factor in his home ball park, and the fact that he never played through a decline phase like most Hall of Famers do (which drags down their lifetime percentages). Rice only has 206 post AGE 35 at bats.
His dominance ain't bad with three top five OPS+ finishes, and two more in the top ten.
How does Rice's dominance match with his contemporary Hall of Famers in regard top top five and top ten OPS+ finsihes.
Rice: 3 and 5
Murray: 6 and 9
Winfield: 3 and 7
Brett: 6 and 10
Schmidt: 11 and 12
From those dominance numbers Rice is not comparable to the big three hitters of that era; Schmidt, Murray, and Brett. Murray went on and played for lots more longevity too, Brett also.
The best comparable player would be Winfield, where they were of equal dominance, but Winfield added years of longevity on top of the dominance. Winfield added years as an above average performer(or average), even if he wasn't in the top ten, and those years certainly carry plenty of value. Rice didn't do that, and that certainly counts against him.
As for Goose and Sutter, I believe it is a stretch to have them Hall of Famers. Although I still scratch my head why Fingers would get in soo easily. I don't think Sutter did it long enough, and he was not Koufaxian enough in his dominance(not even close actually) to merit getting in.
Blyleven with 7 top five finishes in ERA+, 11 top tens in (B+H)/9IP, and 15 top tens in K's, has the strongest case for a pitcher who is not in the hall.
-One MVP award (not sure why I thought it was 2), 3rd twice, 4th twice, and 5th once...6 top 5 finishes and one win, not too shabby.
-career .298 batter, with nearly 2500 career hits and 380 HRs (remember, this was the pre-steroid era)
-6 seasons batting .300 or better
-8 time all star
-3 top 5 OPS seasons, and 3 more top 10 (total of 6)
-led the league 3 times in HRs
-5 times in top 3 in extra base hits
-led the league 4 times in total bases
-top 3 in SLG 5 times (#1 twice)
While I would have liked to see him excel another year or two, I don't see how the wide variety in which he excelled (200 HRs and 39+ HR's 3 different times) shows to me he was a complete player. Throw in 8 All Star appearances, and he'd get my nod.
<< <i>CTSOXFAN,
I think guys like Rice, Gossage and Dawson could see above average increases in votes next year because there are certainly no first ballot guys in 2006 and the voters will have to vote for someone besides Sutter. I hear a lot of them use all of their 10 votes even though they obviously don't have to. What do you think?
Shag >>
I think it is a good point, but I wouldn't be surprised to see only possibly Sutter and Rice go in. For those not agreeing with Rice (his stats already posted here speak for themselves), remember that he dominated the AL in hitting for almost an entire decade - but Hall voters reward statistic "compilers" who may not dominate, but rather grind out HOF numbers over a longer career. I do think that many voters realize that his time on the ballot is nearing the end, and next year is as good as any to finally vote him in.
I also believe I read that there is no Veterans Committee election in 2006 for some reason, so the sole inductees will come from the writers election. Will that be more incentive to vote a few of the borderline guys in?
Rice was not dominant enough, ala Koufax, to warrant strong consideration being that he lost his skills at 35. Winfield was equally as dominant, BUT he continued to play above average for other seasons, and some average seasons. Those seasons have plenty of value, even though they aren't top ten seasons.
Compare where these guys ranked in top ten OPS+ finishes
Rice's OPS+ finishes were 1, 4, 5, 6, and 6. AVG finish of best five seasons =4.4
Murray OPS+ finishes were 2,2,2,2,3,5,7,8,10. " " =2.2
Brett OPS+ finishes were 1,1,1,5,5,5,7,8,10,10. " " =2.6
Reggie OPS+finishes were 1,1,1,1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10. " " =1.4
As you can see, Murray, Brett, and REggie were at the VERY top(1+2) of their league for about five years. Rice, just once. Those players all played basically the same time frame as Rice. Rice could not have dominated his league if those three competitors clearly dominated much better than Rice did.
Now OPS+ is missing some elements in those players:
One, it doesn't have men on hitting, so there is some missing value. Murray gets a boost in value when you consider his unusually high hitting with men on in those years. Reggie got a big boost from his ballpark disadvantage, and I'm not sure how much of that was realistic(ballpark gave him two extra number one fiinishes) so his numbers may be higher than truly are. Reggie also cost a few runs extra per year with the enormous strikeout totals.
Brett had some years where his OPS didn't have a great as impact as he did it over less plate appearances in those years, so those years carry a little less value.
Rice's RBI totals are inflated a lot because of the number of men he had on base compared to others. He wasn't a guy like Murray who would hit .340 with men on over a four year stretch. So Rice doesn't get any extra value added to his OPS+.
Conclucsion? RIce did not dominate his league to the degree that most people say, as there are three contemporaries who dominated clearly much more in his own league. Don't forget Schmidt in the NL.
P.S. I think this study also destroys the idea that a guy like Murray got to the Hall as being a compiler. When you consider his Men on HItting, he was the most dominate in his league among contemporary competitors.
Rice played LF, in a park where range really wasn't important for him. Learning how to play the ball off the wall was very important, but any major leaguer given sufficient time at a position should be able to do that.
Dawson, by contrast, played CF, and had 8 Gold Gloves. Parker, by contrast, played RF, and had 3 Gold Gloves and one of the two best OF arms in the game at the time (behind Dwight Evans).
I predict Sutter's election with him either being alone, or accompanied by Gossage, Rice, and Dawson.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>For those not agreeing with Rice (his stats already posted here speak for themselves), remember that he dominated the AL in hitting for almost an entire decade - >>
This is demonstrably untrue, no matter how often Peter Gammons repeats it. You can't show me a period of 8 years in which Rice was the best hitter in the American league. Look not just at his OPS, but also look at his OPS+, which is adjusted for his home ballpark. Rice only finished in the top ten in OPS+ five times in his career. Those finishes were 5, 1, 4, 6, 6. Pretty far from domination, don't ya think? George Brett's numbers for the exact same years are 10, 7, 1, 10, 1, 1, 5 with another 8 and 2 later in his career. Eddie Murray's were 10, 8, 3, 2, 2, 2, 5, 7, with another 2 later in his career.
Still think Jim Rice "dominated the AL in hitting for almost an entire decade?"
They call them Relief Pitichers and yes both Gossage and Sutter should be there as they DOMINATED their position specialty. it's about time baseball freaking recognized these guys besides Rollie Fingers.
And I don't give a hoot what James says about Releif Pitchers.
<< <i>
And I don't give a hoot what James says about Releif Pitchers. >>
Yeah, because you know more about baseball than him, right?
The man has forgotten more about baseball than most of us could ever learn.
Go to ESPN.com and check the all-time saves list, and then check their save percentages, and you will be surprised to see guys like Tom Henke, and Jeff Montgomery who were every bit as effective as all the closers who get all the pub.
<< <i>they DOMINATED their position specialty >>
That is an interesting way to phrase it. Of course you can't say they dominated their "position", because their position was pitcher, and guys like Seaver and Palmer and Carlton and Ryan were dominating the position of pitcher while Sutter and Gossage were pitching 50 to 100 innings a year.
Since set-up man, defensive replacement, utility infielder, and pinch hitter are also "position specialties" is it fair to say that the Hall has overlooked Manny Mota, Ed Kranepool and Jay Johnstone for too many years. Manny Mota dominated his "position specialty" for longer than Sutter, played for more innings while he was dominant and played for many more years overall. It is not at all obvious to me that Bruce Sutter is a better candidate for the Hall of Fame than is Manny Mota (I think they are both lousy HOF candidates).
I certainly do agree that Bill James system for relievers stinks - he WAY overrates them.
<< <i>It is absolutely amazing to me that a pitcher with a 68-71 record over a career spanning all of 1,042 innings is the favorite to make the HOF next year. >>
Bruce Sutter shouldn't be judged on how many games he won. By definition, closers don't win many games, they close out the win for someone else. In that capacity, Sutter redefined the role. And while he may not have invented the split-finger fastball, his mastery of it certainly changed the way thousands of subsequent pitchers learned their craft, from high school through the pros.
I'm not saying Sutter must be in the Hall, but his place in history can't be judged by comparing his win total to that of a starting pitcher. Besides, the mere announcement of his name got Cubbie fans all juiced up in "Bleacher Bums."
That counts for something in my book!
You are kidding, right? Bill James is as accurate as it gets. His interpretation of numbers may be debatable but I would highly doubt he what he states is inaccurate.
~"Go to ESPN.com and check the all-time saves list, and then check their save percentages, and you will be surprised to see guys like Tom Henke, and Jeff Montgomery who were every bit as effective as all the closers who get all the pub."~
It is tough to compare modern closers to closers from the 70's and early 80's. Gossage and Sutter pitched more innings per appearance than the closers today. Check out the times a pitcher came into the game with the tying run on base or at the plate and earned the save. Who are the save leaders in that case?
For what it is worth, in his big book James ranks five relievers among the top 100 all-time pitchers (Wilhelm, Gossage, Sutter, Eckersley and Quisenberry).
I know all about modern closers, and the 70's closers. That comment about Montgomery and Henke has more to do with the value of closers in general, and how there really isn't much difference between most them, and that the job is the most overrated in sports.
Willie Hernandez won the 1984 MVP and CY Young. The MVP award he won is the biggest joke in history. That is an example of overrating the closer.
Sutter is a bubble candidate, as is Gossage, and Fingers should not have gotten in soo easily.
The 1984 MVP vote was in part decided by Sparky Anderson. The Tigers were clearly the best team in baseball in 84 but they had a very balanced lineup. No one player stood out. The biggest difference between the 83 Tigers and the 84 Tigers was the addition of Willie Hernandez. Sparky Anderson repeatedly stated this case. The writers hear something enough they are bound to believe it. Throw in the fact that the Tigers nearest rival the Blue Jays had no closer and blew more games from the 7th inning on than any team in the American League and Hernandez was a popular pick. It did not hurt that he threw 140 innings and appeared in 80 games.
Player......Pitching wins above average.
Seaver 51
Niekro 38
Perry 37
Palmer 36
Carlton 35
Blyleven 34
Jenkins 32
John 27
Reuschel 26
Steib 25
Kaat 21
Rogers 19
Tiant 17.8
Guidrey 17
Messersmith 17
Tekulve 17
Quisenberry 17
Goose 15
Lyle 13
Sutter 12.8
Fingers 12.6
Garber 12.6
Marshall 12. 2
So Gossage is much closer to Gene Garber than he is to Steve Carlton. This was also a quick run down using players that played in the 70's and 80's. It isn't including guys like Clemens(or any other mid 80's beginner) who were also contemporaries of Gossage. It also isn't including guys from 60's-70's.
I know full well that Total Baseball has error room, but clearly the guys over 30 wins above are Hall of Famers. I don't see how Goose sitting way down at 15 should jump ahead all of his competitors when they were responsible for more wins above the average player in the exact same era. Tekulve and Quisenberry are both better in this measurement. Gene Garber is knocking on Goose's door.
If there is a reliever that has a beef, it should be Quisenberry. He was a bette pitcher than Goose, and he led the league in saves five times.
None of those relievers are nearly as valuable as the starters. Some people give relievers more credit for pitching in the late innings, but don't forget that back then that those starters also threw a lot of complete games, so they too also pitched in a lot of the late innings. So I don't see that hypothesis altering these rankings too much.
Conclusiion: Goose shouldn't be in. Also, the writers got two things wrong.....Fingers should not be in, and Blyleven should. Other than that, the voters pretty much got it right from this era.
P.S. comparing cross era's is one major deficiency of total baseball. Their defensive adjustments aren't very accurate, and their positional adjustments are not accurate either. It can be said that measuring vs. the league average, instead of the average replacement is not accurate either. However, none of those factors affect this case.