I agree that Sandberg was more then just good. There weren't too many great hitting middle infielders during his time, he was in a class by himself. Plus he had "icon" status (how many kids idolize him, Jersey's sold, etc.). Whenever I was a kid and played pick up games someone would always be Sandberg. I know that doesn't really count for much in HOF voting, but it should - it would make Mattingly a shoe in.
Sandberg is better than Good, no question. Played in most competitive and toughest era to dominate the average player. In comparison, Jeff Kent played in the easiest era to dominate the average player, and the easiest era of inflated numbers overall. On the surface, Kent will finish with sexier looking numbers, but when you dissect it, he is not as good. You folks are going to have to wait for my nice evidence to support this easiest to domiante era(Like I said before, it is practically a book), but it certainly clears up a lot of lopsided stats.
They might as well put in Don Mattingly and Will Clark now as well.
The Hall is becoming a pathetic place where "good" or "a bit better than good" players go.
None of these guys defined an era or a generation the way a Mantle or Mays did. Aaron or Ruth. Williams or Cobb.
Bonds will go to the Hall even though he is a cheater. But he does define an era, even if it is the BALCO-steroids era, he defines it and his numbers support it.
Any of you who think mcgwire doesnt get in are crazy. He is first ballot all the way. steroids havent tarnished his image at all. He is loved by fans you cant say that about bonds or sosa.
Piazza maddux clemens griffey jr. jeff bagwell with 2 more years stats jeter arod Bonds like it or not Thome John Franco??? alomar pujols baring injury todd helton larry walker glavine randy johnson curt schilling manny ramirez chipper jones John Smoltz eric gagne vlad g
Again, Sandberg is, and should be, in. Not sure where any supportive(with merit) argument can say otherwise.
Kuhlman, that list you have is probably pretty accurate, but it seems kind of long for one era. Take off John Franco. Smoltz will be a ?. Smoltz's best three ERA finsihes are 4th, 5th, and 6th, and he doesn't have longevity or lots of IP to make his value higher. He has three good years as a closer. He may find it tough.
Larry Walker has some good rate stats, but his plate appearances(lack of) on a yearly basis really hurt his value. Then of course the Coors factor....Larry probably won't make it.
Gagne needs a few more years, but he is off to a heckuva start.
That leaves 20 guys from this era as being HOFers. I wonder how that compares to more recent era's. I'll let somebody else figure that out.
Helton needs more years too, and it would be nice if his away numbers were a bit better(relative to the era he plays in...not compared to guys from 1983). Bagwell is a stronger candidate.
Skinpinch you make some fine points, however one comment you have made confuses me slightly. You state that R. Palmiero has played in the weakest era in terms of competition? I repectfully disagree. The more baseball changes the more it stays the same. One can never compare ers's soley on competition. At least from 1900 and on.
Steve
I also whole heartedly agree in regards to Blyleven and insist that Jim Katt is worthy as well. Jack Morris was a dominant pitcher in his era.
<<Furthermore, Tom Glavine and Mike Mussina are the only current players who have even a remote shot at 300 at this point, and they're 38 and 35 years old, respectively. >>
Please look up Mr. Randall Johnson, the newest member of the New York Yankees. Even though he is 41 years old, I think he will pitch at least 3 more years and do it, especially with a strong offensive team like the Yankees. He could average 20+ wins over the next 3 years. He wons 16 games on a team that only won 51 games last year.
Winpitcher, the talent pool of MLB is at its thinnest point from 1998-2004. Rapid expansion '93, and '94, coinciding with less players available, as compared to just 15 to 20 years earlier, has created an environment where the stars of the league can easily dominate their peers, because those peers would not be good enough to play MLB in say 1985. I have lots of proof to back that up, yet it is a loooong essay.
That is part of the reason why a majority of the best seasons, even seasons where players are compared to the league average, have occured from 1998-2004. The next best seasons came predominatley from pre WWII. The decades that barely crack the top 100 seasons of all time in clude the 80's, 70's, and early 90's. ALso right there are the 40's and 60's.
Why would all the best seasons occur either before WWII, or from 1998 to 2004? Did all the good players go away in between, only to reemerge in 1998. Did God say, only good baseball players will be born in 1910, or 1975. No. I have very strong evidence to back it up, and 1998 to now HAS THE THINNEST POOL OF PLAYERS PLAYING, AND AVAILABLE. That is why it has been soo easy for these guys to dominate. Read my new thread about Palmeiro, and see how he fared during the other era he played in.....he was a 17 home run a year guy in his five years before all this started happening. Then when he was in his mid 30's he morphed into a 44 year home run guy. That does not happen without help. He received help from a few different things.
WOuld you say a 1B who hits 17 Home RUns per year, and Slugs .460 through age 27 is a Hall of Famer? That was Palmeiro in the tougher era. Hank aaron was good in his late 30's home run wise, but he was equally as good in his 20's. Aaron didn't go from 17 home runs a year in his prime youth years, and then all of a sudden jump to 40 a year in his mid 30's. Nobody in baseball has done that, except the guys who have played in the cross eras. They did it because of other things, not because of their true ability.
I made an error above....it should read expansion in '98 instead of '94.
Also, after looking at Todd Helton, he is not a Hall of Famer either. He has one top five OPS+ finsihes, and then a couple of 8's. That is during his PRIME, and that is Not a hall of famer.
To that guy who keeps saying Sandberg NO, use some evidence.
Sandberg had OPS finsihes of 3,4,7,8,9,and 9. Add that he was in the top five of DEFEENSIVE PLAYERS in all of baseball, then he certainly is. NOt just the top five second basemen, but of all positions during his playing days. He was clearly the best defensive second basemen of his era.
Compare Sandberg to Robin Yount....Yount had OPS finsihes of 1,3, and 7, and thats it. Yount was not as good defensively as Sandberg.
Jeff Kent......had a grand total of ONE top ten OPS finishes, and that was tenth place! Add that he was more of a butcher than Sam the meat man, and you should start to get the point.
Roberto Alomar......also has a grand total of ONE top ten OPS finish at 7. He was of near equal of Sandberg defensively.......is the picture getting clearer?
Nellie Fox.....zero top ten finsihes......Almost as equal as Sandberg defensively......is the picture at the Plasma T.V. level yet?
Biggio....one top ten finish in OPS at ninth......Not as good defensively........This picture should be clearer than a Palsm and Hi Defintion TV combined.
Cal Ripken had OPS finishes of 3, 5, and 9. THERE'S THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH! Cal's defensive value was a tad higher as he was a SS, and overall Cal is better, but Sandberg compares nicely with the guy who has the best chance of getting 100% of the vote.
Comments
They might as well put in Don Mattingly and Will Clark now as well.
The Hall is becoming a pathetic place where "good" or "a bit better than good" players go.
None of these guys defined an era or a generation the way a Mantle or Mays did. Aaron or Ruth. Williams or Cobb.
Bonds will go to the Hall even though he is a cheater. But he does define an era, even if it is the BALCO-steroids era, he defines it and his numbers support it.
Piazza
maddux
clemens
griffey jr.
jeff bagwell with 2 more years stats
jeter
arod
Bonds like it or not
Thome
John Franco???
alomar
pujols baring injury
todd helton
larry walker
glavine
randy johnson
curt schilling
manny ramirez
chipper jones
John Smoltz
eric gagne
vlad g
Kuhlman, that list you have is probably pretty accurate, but it seems kind of long for one era. Take off John Franco. Smoltz will be a ?. Smoltz's best three ERA finsihes are 4th, 5th, and 6th, and he doesn't have longevity or lots of IP to make his value higher. He has three good years as a closer. He may find it tough.
Larry Walker has some good rate stats, but his plate appearances(lack of) on a yearly basis really hurt his value. Then of course the Coors factor....Larry probably won't make it.
Gagne needs a few more years, but he is off to a heckuva start.
That leaves 20 guys from this era as being HOFers. I wonder how that compares to more recent era's. I'll let somebody else figure that out.
Helton needs more years too, and it would be nice if his away numbers were a bit better(relative to the era he plays in...not compared to guys from 1983). Bagwell is a stronger candidate.
<< <i>Sandberg should not be in the Hall of Fame.
>>
Why not?
He didn't define the position? He wasn't the face of second base for over a decade?
Steve
I also whole heartedly agree in regards to Blyleven and insist that Jim Katt is worthy as well. Jack Morris was a dominant pitcher in his era.
Just my 2 cents
Please look up Mr. Randall Johnson, the newest member of the New York Yankees. Even though he is 41 years old, I think he will pitch at least 3 more years and do it, especially with a strong offensive team like the Yankees. He could average 20+ wins over the next 3 years. He wons 16 games on a team that only won 51 games last year.
That is part of the reason why a majority of the best seasons, even seasons where players are compared to the league average, have occured from 1998-2004. The next best seasons came predominatley from pre WWII. The decades that barely crack the top 100 seasons of all time in clude the 80's, 70's, and early 90's. ALso right there are the 40's and 60's.
Why would all the best seasons occur either before WWII, or from 1998 to 2004? Did all the good players go away in between, only to reemerge in 1998. Did God say, only good baseball players will be born in 1910, or 1975. No. I have very strong evidence to back it up, and 1998 to now HAS THE THINNEST POOL OF PLAYERS PLAYING, AND AVAILABLE. That is why it has been soo easy for these guys to dominate. Read my new thread about Palmeiro, and see how he fared during the other era he played in.....he was a 17 home run a year guy in his five years before all this started happening. Then when he was in his mid 30's he morphed into a 44 year home run guy. That does not happen without help. He received help from a few different things.
WOuld you say a 1B who hits 17 Home RUns per year, and Slugs .460 through age 27 is a Hall of Famer? That was Palmeiro in the tougher era. Hank aaron was good in his late 30's home run wise, but he was equally as good in his 20's. Aaron didn't go from 17 home runs a year in his prime youth years, and then all of a sudden jump to 40 a year in his mid 30's. Nobody in baseball has done that, except the guys who have played in the cross eras. They did it because of other things, not because of their true ability.
Also, after looking at Todd Helton, he is not a Hall of Famer either. He has one top five OPS+ finsihes, and then a couple of 8's. That is during his PRIME, and that is Not a hall of famer.
To that guy who keeps saying Sandberg NO, use some evidence.
Sandberg had OPS finsihes of 3,4,7,8,9,and 9. Add that he was in the top five of DEFEENSIVE PLAYERS in all of baseball, then he certainly is. NOt just the top five second basemen, but of all positions during his playing days. He was clearly the best defensive second basemen of his era.
Compare Sandberg to Robin Yount....Yount had OPS finsihes of 1,3, and 7, and thats it. Yount was not as good defensively as Sandberg.
Jeff Kent......had a grand total of ONE top ten OPS finishes, and that was tenth place! Add that he was more of a butcher than Sam the meat man, and you should start to get the point.
Roberto Alomar......also has a grand total of ONE top ten OPS finish at 7. He was of near equal of Sandberg
defensively.......is the picture getting clearer?
Nellie Fox.....zero top ten finsihes......Almost as equal as Sandberg defensively......is the picture at the Plasma T.V. level yet?
Biggio....one top ten finish in OPS at ninth......Not as good defensively........This picture should be clearer than a Palsm and Hi Defintion TV combined.
Cal Ripken had OPS finishes of 3, 5, and 9. THERE'S THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH! Cal's defensive value was a tad higher as he was a SS, and overall Cal is better, but Sandberg compares nicely with the guy who has the best chance of getting 100% of the vote.
RYNE SANDBERG = HALL OF FAMER