Options
Current Players HoF Bound?
Axtell
Posts: 10,037 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Just curious to what others think about this topic....specifically as it applies to baseball and football.
Is it me or do there seem to be a greater number of 'sure thing' HoF'ers in football than in baseball? I think it might be due to the fact that the measures of excellence in football really haven't changed all that much...the 1,000 yard season for RBs and WRs is still the hallmark of a good season, and someone who can rack up many consecutive 1000 yard seasons is a superstar. QBs who hit 3500 yards and 30+ TDs while keeping picks low is a great QB, just like always.
In baseball, and the entire steroid era, I think our views of who is 'great' has been clouded. I'd see the great pitchers like the Rocket and RJ of course going in, and Maddux...but other than that, who has been consistent long enough (do you feel) warrants mentioning?
On the batting front, Bonds of course...but how much negative backlash will the whole steroid scandal bring about? I'm sure not enough to deny him Cooperstown...just a curiosity. And other than that, I'd assume Puljols, if he can keep these numbers up for another 6-7 years, would be a sure thing. But the depth of players who seem a lock for the hall seem suspiciously shallow in baseball compared to football.
I'd think it's due to what's considered 'superstar' status in hitting to have changed so drastically in the past decade.
What do you think?
Is it me or do there seem to be a greater number of 'sure thing' HoF'ers in football than in baseball? I think it might be due to the fact that the measures of excellence in football really haven't changed all that much...the 1,000 yard season for RBs and WRs is still the hallmark of a good season, and someone who can rack up many consecutive 1000 yard seasons is a superstar. QBs who hit 3500 yards and 30+ TDs while keeping picks low is a great QB, just like always.
In baseball, and the entire steroid era, I think our views of who is 'great' has been clouded. I'd see the great pitchers like the Rocket and RJ of course going in, and Maddux...but other than that, who has been consistent long enough (do you feel) warrants mentioning?
On the batting front, Bonds of course...but how much negative backlash will the whole steroid scandal bring about? I'm sure not enough to deny him Cooperstown...just a curiosity. And other than that, I'd assume Puljols, if he can keep these numbers up for another 6-7 years, would be a sure thing. But the depth of players who seem a lock for the hall seem suspiciously shallow in baseball compared to football.
I'd think it's due to what's considered 'superstar' status in hitting to have changed so drastically in the past decade.
What do you think?
0
Comments
<< <i>I'd think it's due to what's considered 'superstar' status in hitting to have changed so drastically in the past decade.
<< <i>
I definitely agree with that statement. I would like to add two names that you didn't mention:
1. Craig Biggio was one of the best two or three players in baseball, at ANY position, in the 1990's and will only miss the Hall if he is penalized for having played for too many weak teams (plus, he is one of my all-time favorite players, so if anyone feels the need to disagree, please do so kindly)
2. Pedro Martinez, while his absence from baseball, or the planet for that matter, would cause not a single tear to form in a single eye, has been as dominant as any pitcher ever when he is healthy, and he has been healthy more than long enough to make the HOF.
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
<< <i>I agree about Pedro. He will go in...also Rivera and possibly Glavine in addtion to the Clemens and Maddux. >>
Gemmy
Here comes my bias...I think Glavine is a definite to the HOF.
your friend
Mike
<< <i>I think the better measure will be who gets the unaminous, first time nod. Maybe 15 guys, tops. >>
The next unanimously elected player will be the first. I do think it's possible for Cal Ripken, though. I thought McGwire had a shot, but the steroid issue has tainted him enough to get a few no votes on his first (and only) ballot.
That's right. If Mussina stays healthy and gets 300 wins then he will become a shoe-in too. 300 wins makes a sure HOFer
Axtell Rose mentioned them. I didn't because they are locks.
So is Mike Piazza.
Roberto Alomar is highly likely, even if he retired now.
Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Derek Jeter, Chipper Jones, and Ivan Rodriguez are well on pace for HOF election.
Vladimir Guerrero needs a couple more seasons to be eligible, but barring a major collapse, he will be a shoo-in. The same holds true for Todd Helton.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Somebody must know this. And as further proof some of the electors are idiots some people actually voted that Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver should NOT be in the HOF. WTF?!
GG
In terms of shoo-ins in baseball, I think that some of the active guys that have been mentioned in this thread, while still possible HOFers, are not shoo-ins. The "sure thing" HOFers, in my opinion: Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clements, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez.
"Very Likely" HOFers, in my opinion: Mike Piazza, Rafael Palmeiro, Mariano Rivera, Jeff Bagwell, Sammy Sosa.
"Possible but deserving" HOFers, in my opinion: John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Manny Ramirez, Ken Griffey, Gary Sheffield, Ivan Rodriguez, Mike Mussina, Jim Edmonds.
"Close, but no Cigar" HOFers, in my opinion: Frank Thomas, Carlos Delgado, Roberto Alomar, Craig Biggio, Nomar Garciaparra, Chipper Jones, Jeff Kent, Kevin Brown.
"Too Early To Tell" HOFers, in my opinion: Derek Jeter, Miguel Tejada, Vladimir Guerrerro, Scott Rolen, Andruw Jones, Albert Pujols, Jim Thome,.
My two cents.
-Al
I don't put Edgar in, but I love him as a player (and hate him, too, as I'm a Yankee fan).
-Al
<< <i>Has Larkin been mentioned? Local radio is talking to Rob Neyer right now and he feels he's a shoo-in. I don't see it. >>
TIme to bust out those thousand count lots of 87 topps Larkins again! and just when I needed kindling
I dont see Larkin making it. Does he deserve it? Maybe. But deserving and making are two different things.
I really dont see where there is a Palmeiro issue. He is so far over 500 hrs and has so many RBI's that it seems to be a moot point.
<< <i>Who is Rob Neyer?
I dont see Larkin making it. Does he deserve it? Maybe. But deserving and making are two different things.
I really dont see where there is a Palmeiro issue. He is so far over 500 hrs and has so many RBI's that it seems to be a moot point. >>
The argument against him is as such:
1) He was never the dominant player at his position, and was never really considered one of the most dangerous hitters in his league
2) 500 HR today is not the same as 500 HR 25 years ago; 500 HR today is probably more akin to 350-400 HR 25 years ago
3) One of his gold gloves was a complete joke, won in a year he played a total of 23 games in the field and the rest at DH
I don't think Larkin will make it, simply because of the sheer number of other players who will go in before he does. I think he'll get shut out the same way other deserving guys like Ron Santo did.
-Al
But I have 200 posts now. That means I'm no longer a "member"!
I HATE being called a "member".
-Al
Al - Does "Senior Member" make you feel any better?
Guess I need to go post 16,000 times in Open Forum, so I can put "heh" or "poof" by my name.
-Al
3 statistics, always and forever, mean you get in the hall of fame, no exceptions, no debate, it always happens (unless your Pete Rose):
1) 3,000 hits automatic
2) 500 homers automatic
3) 300 wins automatic
no exceptions, Palmeiro is in easy!
Babe Ruth, Yankees
Jimmie Foxx, Red Sox
Mel Ott, Giants
Ted Williams, Red Sox
Willie Mays, Giants
Mickey Mantle, Yankees
Eddie Mathews, Astros
Hank Aaron, Braves
Ernie Banks, Cubs
Harmon Killebrew, Twins
Frank Robinson, Orioles
Willie McCovey, Giants
Reggie Jackson, Angels
Mike Schmidt, Phillies
Eddie Murray, Orioles
Mark McGwire, Cardinals
Barry Bonds, Giants
Sammy Sosa, Cubs
Rafael Palmeiro, Rangers
Ken Griffey Jr.
Your friend,
Bill
Hey, do any of you have an "Old Hoss" Radbourn card?
The 300-Win Club
Player Wins Losses PCT
Cy Young 511 315 .619
Walter Johnson 417 279 .599
Christy Mathewson 373 188 .665
Pete Alexander 373 208 .642
Warren Spahn 363 245 .597
Pud Galvin 361 302 .544
Kid Nichols 360 205 .637
Tim Keefe 341 223 .605
Steve Carlton 329 244 .574
John Clarkson 327 177 .649
Eddie Plank 326 194 .627
Don Sutton 324 256 .559
Nolan Ryan 324 292 .526
Roger Clemens 322 164 .663
Phil Niekro 318 274 .537
Gaylord Perry 314 265 .542
Tom Seaver 311 205 .603
Charles Radbourn 310 196 .613
Mickey Welch 309 212 .593
Lefty Grove 300 141 .680
Early Wynn 300 244 .551
Greg Maddux 300 170 .638
Your friend,
Bill
However, a full 20% of the 500 HR club are current players - 25% if you count McGwire. By my count, there are EIGHT more players within striking distance of 500 - McGriff (if he played), Bagwell, Thomas, Gonzalez, Thome, Sheffield, Ramirez, and A-Rod. Home runs have never been as prolific as they are right now. Only 35 times in history has a player hit 50 HR or more, and NINETEEN of them have happened in 1990 or later.
George Foster hit 52 home runs in 1977 with the Reds. It was the first time someone hit 50 in more than 20 years. Conversely, someone hit 50 every season between 1995 and 2002.
So I guess I agree with the argument that 500 HR is less of an accomplishment in 2004 than it was in 1970. Much less, in fact. Eventually, someone is going to hit 500 that does not belong in the hall.
However, I still put Rafael Palmeiro in the hall.
-Al
<< <i>George Foster hit 52 home runs in 1977 with the Reds. It was the first time someone hit 50 in more than 20 years. Conversely, someone hit 50 every season between 1995 and 2002. >>
Which makes what guys like schmidt and jackson do more so important....hitting homeruns in an era of pitching and singles/doubles. The 80's produced some of the best pure hitters in the game....boggs, gwynn, brett, molitor, puckett and so on. But, the 80's really had no pure power hitters with definite hall of fame credentials outside mcgwire and murray. It wasnt until big cecil fielder hit 50+ in 90 (or was that 91?) that another player reached the 50 home run mark. Since then, bombs away. I think palmeiro deserves to be in the hall because he has been consistently good...someone brought up his averages over a certain span and those numbers were remarkable. It's a shame that he's be pushed behind guys like griffey, thomas, mcgwire, bonds and his former teammate juan gone during those seasons. Not only was he in the shadows in the game of baseball...but also in the hobby. While everyone gobbled up griffey, thomas and gonzalez cards....one could have gotten a palmeiro card for a quarter.
The 500 home run mark's value will diminish in value somewhat, but not especially so. To hit 500+, you need to be a consistently good hitter throughout your career or a especially great hitter during a short span. I think in both cases, that deserves a hall of fame vote. Jim Rice? His short period of greatness was 1.) too short and 2.) wasnt that great. If brady anderson had 4 or 5 more years of 40-50 homerun seasons and had enough before and after that period to reach 500...he should be considered in the hall. Of course, we all know he didnt....and he'll be remembered only for that one season and his beverly hills 90210 side burns.
As far as the 300 win club....there wont be a new member for quite sometime. Before clemens and maddux entered the club, i believe steve carlton was the last one to do so back in the early 80's. So, it took enearly 20 years to get another member. My guess, it will take another 20 if moose and glavine dont have a few 18 win seasons in them. Glavine makes the hall..no doubt in my mind. Johnson as well. Curt schilling??? We'll see what he does the rest of his career. If he retired now, regardless of his heroics in AZ and Beantown....i would say no.
300 wins will (and should) always be the hallmark of a great pitcher...but not at the expense of overlooking other stats like ERA.
I think in the next few years we will be seeing a renaissance of sorts with contact hitters, and the era of the 80s with boggs/gwynn/etc. will be upon us again. I think Ichiro breaking the hits in a season record last year was the first step in that direction. I don't think people will have the same awe of HRs ever again, with the suspicion of steroid use plaguing the league...whereas someone slapping 200+ hits relies more on pure skill and speed.
Perhaps teams will rely more on hits and stolen bases for runs, instead of praying for HRs as they've done for the past decade...it'd sure be a lot more exciting (at least to me). Who doesn't remember Ricky Henderson going buck wild stealing bases, seemingly at will? Who doesn't remember him breaking the single season steals record? It seemed to be a lot more exciting brand of baseball then.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think the better measure will be who gets the unaminous, first time nod. Maybe 15 guys, tops. >>
The next unanimously elected player will be the first. I do think it's possible for Cal Ripken, though. I thought McGwire had a shot, but the steroid issue has tainted him enough to get a few no votes on his first (and only) ballot. >>
Ripken won't be unanimous. There'll be people who knock him for hurting his team by not taking days off during the streak and for not being as great as other guys who also didn't get 100% (Ryan, Cobb, Ruth, etc).
Tabe
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity,
sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
With this in mind, I can never understand how in one year's voting, Player A was not
voted into the HOF, but the next year he was voted into the HOF. This basically applies
to everyone who was not voted in the HOF in their first year of eligibility.
How can Player A not be voted in, in 2004 (a la Ryne Sandberg), but voted in, in 2005?
Did he improve upon his player's record? Did his playing ability improve? Did he display
greater integrity, sportsmanship, character or make further contributions to the Cubs in
2005 than in 2004? The answer to all these questions is likely no. (As an aside, I believe
Ryno should have been a first-timer.)
Subsequent to five years retirement, 99.9% of the players are either a HOFer or not a
HOFer. (The 0.1% applies to those "ineligible players.")
So for me, I would make voting a single isolated occurrence. So after the five years, a
player is eligible for ONE (1) year. Either you get in or don't get in.
Another point I saw above was with regards to hitting 500 career HRs. Just as a thought,
if it has become easier to hit 500 HR, conversely, has it become harder to win 300 games?
Simply, if 500 HRs means LESS today than it did yesterday, does 300 wins mean MORE today
than what it did yesterday? If so, maybe 200 wins, or 240 wins, or 260 wins gets you into
the HOF.
Off the top of my head, if these players did not play another game, I'd put them in:
Will Clark
Tony Gwynn
Mark McGwire
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Rickey Henderson
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Sammy Sosa
Barry Bonds
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Jeff Bagwell
Alex Rodriguez
Tom Glavine
Randy Johnson
Mike Piazza
NOT Rafael Palmeiro. He's just a hitters version of Tommy John, Bert Blyleven or Jim Kaat
<< <i>Off the top of my head, if these players did not play another game, I'd put them in:
Will Clark
Tony Gwynn
Mark McGwire
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Rickey Henderson
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Sammy Sosa
Barry Bonds
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Jeff Bagwell
Alex Rodriguez
Tom Glavine
Randy Johnson
Mike Piazza
NOT Rafael Palmeiro. He's just a hitters version of Tommy John, Bert Blyleven or Jim Kaat >>
Two points need to be made:
1. Leaving aside whether Palmeiro is or is not a hitters version of Tommy John, etc., it would be nearly impossible to construct an argument that Will Clark is better than Palmeiro. They are very similar statistically on a per season basis, but Palmeiro is at least a little better than Clark at everything but B.A., and he did it longer.
2. Of the three pitchers mentioned (John, Blyleven, Kaat) all three were in the top 10 in victories about the same number of seasons, although one played for much worse teams during his peak years. But, one of those pitchers was in the top 10 in ERA more than the other two combined, in the top 10 in strikeouts almost 4 times as often as the other two combined, in the top 10 in complete games 50% more than the other two combined, in the top 10 in shutouts as often as the other two combined, and has a career differential of ERA to league ERA equal to the other two combined. In short, one of those pitchers was, in a manner of speaking, as good as the other two combined. If that pitcher had been lucky enough to play for the teams that the others played for, he would have won well over 300 games and would have been a first ballot HOFer. He has been screwed over worse than any (eligible) player in history. Which starting pitcher has more _____ than anyone else not in the HOF (and 75% of those IN the HOF)? It makes no difference what you use to fill in the blank, the answer is always Bert Blyleven.
<< <i>Off the top of my head, if these players did not play another game, I'd put them in:
Will Clark
[snip]
NOT Rafael Palmeiro. He's just a hitters version of Tommy John, Bert Blyleven or Jim Kaat >>
You have got to be kidding. Tommy John and Jim Kaat were never in Palmeiro's class of player. NEVER. And Clark ahead of Palmeiro? Since when do first basemen with 1 30-HR season in their career get in the HOF? Palmeiro had *8* straight seasons of 38 or more. Clark never had 38 even once, but he managed to have less than 20 in 9 of his 15 seasons. True, he played at Candlestick and was hurt by that, but I seriously doubt his HR output was cut in half playing there - especially since it didn't go up in Texas or Baltimore.
Somewhere along the line, the notion has taken hold that Palmeiro was just this pretty good player plugging along, piling up numbers. The guy had a HR/RBI stretch of 37/105, 23/76 (strike), 39/104, 39/142, 38/110, 43/121, 47/148, 39/120, 47/123, 43/105, 38/112. How can you seriously argue that those aren't HOF numbers? 551 career HRs, 1775 RBIs, and a .289 avg. Those aren't borderline #s, they're first-ballot.
Tabe
<< <i>The Edgar Martinez for HOF argument is, in my opinion, one of the most fun and intriguing arguments that you can have about a modern players - right up there with the Bonds steroid argument, the McGwire steroid argument, and the Palmeiro HOF argument.
I don't put Edgar in, but I love him as a player (and hate him, too, as I'm a Yankee fan).
-Al >>
I love Edgar too. But I don't think he gets in either.
In my eyes, if a guy plays DH, he'd better have overwhelming numbers to get in the HOF, since he's only playing half the game. And Edgar doesn't get there. He had excellent numbers, even great at times, but I think he just misses. His run of greatness was just too short (7 years basically).
Tabe
they were done in an era where hitting is obviously quite easy, and the competition is FAR thinner than it was in the 1980's.
Lets check Palmerio and how he ranked among his peers....He finsihed twice in the top ten in OB% (9th, 9th). He finsihed in the top ten in SLG% seven times(2, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 10). Seven top ten OPS+ finsihes (3, 5, 6, 9, 9, 10, 10).
So on the surafce his numbers may look better than a Brett or Murray, or Schmidt, but when you put it into context he was not as good as those three 80's Hall of Famers. Those guys had five year stretches where they were in the top one, two or three in the league, plus other years where they were in the top ten. Murray had OPS+ finsihes of 2,2,2,2,3, 5, 7, 8, 10. Brett 1,1,1 5,5,5,7,8,10. Schmidt's were even better. Compare that to Palmeiro where he cracked the top three(finishing third) just once!
There are many reasons why it is easier to hit now, and I'm not going to state the obvious again. There are also other important factors that make it easier to dominate now than before, and that will take a book to explain. But the numbers above sum it all up pretty clearly.
Palmeiro falls somewhere between Dave Winfield and Harold Baines. Will Clark was at 2,2,2, 7, 7, 10. Not bad. BUt he did nothing after age 36. Clark would be similar to Dave Winfield, except Winfield contributed for another five more years than Clark did. Although Clark played in probably the three of the easiest years in history for a hitter to hit, and to dominate, 1998-2000. The next easiest are the next few years. So when considering that, he is no Dave WInfield, and NO Hall of Famer. Plus also remember that Clark has good percentages, but he doesn't have a lot of plate appearances in many years, partly because he didn't hit against some tough lefties, so if he had his 700 plate appearances, then his percentages would fall.
Palmeiro would be a borderline HOF right now, but if he adds a couple of more average years(remember, those do count for something), he could get in on being semi-dominant, and being good enough for a long period of time.
These specialty players, are playing a position that baseball has created, and done very, very well with it. Edgar is (along with Baines) the best DH ever.
The argument then breaks down to those who dislike the DH rule, or dislike the reliever rule, and therefore attempt to discredit their stats.
And on another completely unrelated (well sort of) note, how are these new-age players going to have their rookie cards distingushed say, for the HoF set?
I'd say a player like Ken Griffey Jr, it'd be an easy pick to say 89 UD...but where do these other players go?
I am willing to bet at some point that PSA is going to have to halt the current HoF set and start a new one...it's going to get messy very quickly otherwise.
I already laid out other relievers who were just as good as Goose in his day who are not in the Hall Then there were about a dozen starters who were better pitchers, who were responsible for preventing more runs and creating more wins for their teams, than Goose was. Those twelve pitchers are not in the Hall, and they have more merit than Gossage, and they were all from the same era. It makes no difference if one were a SP or RP, as they are both pitchers, and they have the same job of preventing runs.
Just because you are the best at a job, doesn't mean you get in. Being the best pinch hitter, or pinch runner, middle man, utility man, defensive specialist, doesn't mean you should get in the hall just because you dominated that job. YOur value must be meausred, cross position, and cross era.
Also, dominating a position for your era does not automatically get you in either. Your domination must also compare well with the dominators of other eras. It is very possible that a guy can dominate his position simply because he was fortunate that during the ten years of his prime that there just wasn't as much competition that guys from other eras may have faced. If a player plays ten years of dominating his position, and then on the twelfth year there are four guys who come along who are clearly better, then what? The fourth guy of that four may be better, but he is ranked lower among his position, so you have to add a historical analysis.
It is also possible that players from other positions are clearly better, but are playing at deeper positions, so you have to measure against all players, NOT just your position. A positional adjustment is taken into account. There are accurate ways to do that.
A historical analysis has to be done well. First step is to measure against league average. That gets you part way there. Second step is to measure against top players(dominance factor) in the league. Third step is to make the competition adjustment. Basically the years 1997 to now are the easiest years to dominate a league. The 1980's are the most difficult, and the 50's-70's are right there. Pre war years are also easy to dominate. That is why you see all the best seasons occuring(even vs league average) during the pre war years, or the current years, because those years are the easiest to dominate. Then there are many other factors that may go into account. When you are all done, you are 99% of the way there.
The Hall is so clearly watered down, that there is no way to deny Palmeiro.
If it was the Hall as it SHOULD be (think of the FIRST players inducted) Palmeiro would have no chance.
But under today's Hall where they put players like Sandberg in, Palmeiro and a whole bunch of other "Good" players are going in.....
<< <i>
But under today's Hall where they put players like Sandberg in. >>
Sandberg was just 'good'?
Huh? Where did I miss that? It sounds to me like some people really don't appreciate the feats of the players before us, and attach too much value to the old-time players.
10 consecutive all-star appearances, MVP award (finished in top 5 two other times), career .285 hitter, 9 consecutive gold gloves, and top 10 in slugging 5 times.
I take it you think Wade Boggs was just a 'good' player too?