Does Todd Helton get into HOF?

jmmiller777

Interesting take for both sides. I think both Helton and Walker will eventually get in. I just can't think of a lot of future players (other than pitchers) who are better, especially newer eligible players.

bobbybakeriv

<< <i>

<< <i>I just don't think so. Good player; not a HOF'er in my opinion. >>



Agreed, plus I like my HOF's really tough to get into. >>



I know this has been espoused many, many times....but, it ain't called the Hall of Very Good for a reason.

Estil

<< <i>Larry Walker has an MVP and more batting titles and he got less than 30% of the vote after 3 tries. Helton should be a Hall of Famer if Jim Rice and Orlando Cepeda are in. If Richie Ashburn made it in with a .308 then Helton should be a Hall of Famer. >>



I don't get it; what's wrong with someone with a .308 average going into the HOF? I'm sure there are guys with far worse BA's.

bobbybakeriv

<< <i>

<< <i>Larry Walker has an MVP and more batting titles and he got less than 30% of the vote after 3 tries. Helton should be a Hall of Famer if Jim Rice and Orlando Cepeda are in. If Richie Ashburn made it in with a .308 then Helton should be a Hall of Famer. >>



I don't get it; what's wrong with someone with a .308 average going into the HOF? I'm sure there are guys with far worse BA's. >>



See Edgar Martinez, see Bill Madlock, see Don Mattingly, and (sadly) see Lyman Bostock.

digicat

<< <i>See Edgar Martinez, see Bill Madlock, see Don Mattingly, and (sadly) see Lyman Bostock. >>



Why are you bringing up Bostock?

CubsKiller99

<< <i>

<< <i>I've got some numbers that might settle matters for those still confused about Helton's gaudy numbers
and how that translates to hall of fame creds >>



Those numbers seem to support Helton and Walker for the Hall-of-Fame; .031 and .032 are pretty damn good. For comparison:

Derek Jeter .043
Robin Young .016
Cal Ripken .012
Mike Schmidt .000
Dale Murphy -.003

For the players that fall short, Murphy, Mattingly, Walker, Helton, lgBA - BA doesn't mean much. The real stat that matters is far fewer games played compared to the others. Had they played as many games as the others, they would all definitely be Hall-of-Famers >>



The guys that I listed before were predominately singles hitters, some with more power.
They were much better comps for Walker and Helton than your list.

Your list has guys that were perennial gold glovers at postitions where that matters,
or also had a lot more power.

Helton and Walker's numbers, adjusted for park and the era that they played in,
are not impressive. And neither will ever get into the whole through the front door.
They might get in through the back door via the Veteran's comittee, a total joke
process that has elected many non-Hall-worthy players.

NVbaseball

<< <i>They were much better comps for Walker and Helton than your list. >>



You compared them to the best average hitters of the past couple of generations using only batting average



<< <i>Helton and Walker's numbers, adjusted for park and the era that they played in,
are not impressive. >>



They certainly are comparable to the players you listed if you use stats that also measure extra base hits (which is a far better measure of offensive success). Even when adjusted for the park and era they played in

OPS+
Walker 141
Brett 135
Helton 134
Gwynn 132
Boggs 131
Mattingly 127

Of those six, Helton and Walker had the highest road slugging percentages. Gwynn, Boggs, Brett and Mattingly hit singles at much higher rates. Helton and Walker hit homeruns at much higher rates (again, even when adjusted for park and era they played in). Brett won one Gold Glove, the others won multiple

Again, when using stats that adjust for park and era, Helton and Walker hit at a Hall-of-Fame level. They just didn't do it long enough

(biggest thing that stands out is how weak Mattingly looks compared to the others given how many fewer games he played in)

bobbybakeriv

<< <i>

<< <i>See Edgar Martinez, see Bill Madlock, see Don Mattingly, and (sadly) see Lyman Bostock. >>



Why are you bringing up Bostock? >>



Because he didn't have the chance to fulfill his promise as a player due to tragedy. In many cases, injuries shorten a player's tenure of greatness (e.g., Mattingly). Bostock is just a case of "what could have been."

CubsKiller99

<< <i>biggest thing that stands out is how weak Mattingly looks compared to the others given how many fewer games he played in >>



Mattingly didn't walk much or hit many homers. The lack of walks especially kills his OPS.
As a pure hitter he was one of the best recent hitters that you can think of but obviously
it takes more than a sweet swing.

Walker and Helton -- and I see them per batting stats as almost the same player with an
edge in power to Helton -- played many their key years during a significantly friendlier hitting
environment of the 90s than Mattingly did in the 80s.

Given that advantage as well as the massive park illusion known as Coors field, Walker and Helton
look like Hall of famers. But they're not.

I also think Helton's lack of MVP props shows that he was not considered one of the best in the
game. Juan Gonzalez has 3x the number of MVP shares as Helton, and he's no longer on the ballot.

PSASAP

Bert Campaneris was a more valuable player than Todd Helton. The A's wouldn't have won three straight WS titles without Campy.

Tabe

<< <i>Bert Campaneris was a more valuable player than Todd Helton. The A's wouldn't have won three straight WS titles without Campy. >>


I'm pretty sure the A's could have found another all-glove, no-hit SS to replace him. Career .259 hitter, .311 OBP, OPS+ of 89. Guys like that are incredibly easy to replace.

Helton is getting trashed for playing in Coors. That's legit. But let's remember that his career OPS+ is 134. That adjusts for era, ballpark, etc - and he's still at 134. That's really, really good.

Tabe

<< <i>I know this has been espoused many, many times....but, it ain't called the Hall of Very Good for a reason. >>


It's also not called the Hall of Great

PSASAP

That's a conclusion only drawn by someone who never saw Campy play, and based his argument strictly on revisionist minded statistics. By the way, Campaneris was one of the best hitting shortstops of his generation and led the league in steals several times.

CubsKiller99

I saw Campy play, and he was almost as good as Fernando!

CubsKiller99

<< <i>

<< <i>Helton is getting trashed for playing in Coors. That's legit. But let's remember that his career OPS+ is 134. That adjusts for era, ballpark, etc - and he's still at 134. That's really, really good. >>



Helton is getting trashed because he's not that good.

Players with career OPS+ better than Helton, how many are Hall of Famers?:

Dick Allen 156
Edgar Martinez 147
Lance Berkman 146
Albert Belle 144
Frank Howard 142
Vladimir Guerrero 140
Norm Cash 139
Jeff Heath 139
Carlos Delgado 138
David Ortiz 138
Darryl Strawberry 138
Jack Clark 137
Will Clark 137
Pedro Guerrero 137
Al Rosen 137
Reggie Smith 137
Jim Gentile 136
Ken Griffey 136
Gene Tenace 136

Tabe

<< <i>Players with career OPS+ better than Helton, how many are Hall of Famers?: >>


I already said Helton isn't a HOF'er. That doesn't mean he wasn't really good. You're gonna tell me most of the guys on the list you posted WEREN'T really good? I think most guys would be pretty darn happy with being on a list of guys that includes Will Clark, Vlad Guerrero, and the like.

NVbaseball

<< <i>

Players with career OPS+ better than Helton, how many are Hall of Famers?:
>>



Griffey definitely is

Of the other 18 players listed, seven played in fewer than 1500 games

Martinez and Allen (and possibly Ortiz) would be Hall-of-Famers if they had any defensive value, let alone multiple Gold Gloves. Those two, along with Smith and Clark, represent some of the very best players not in the Hall-of-Fame (certainly better than Rice and Perez). To put him in that group and while also saying "He's not that good" is a bit silly

(Guerrero isn't going to make it, but another great example of that level)

Tabe

<< <i>That's a conclusion only drawn by someone who never saw Campy play, and based his argument strictly on revisionist minded statistics. By the way, Campaneris was one of the best hitting shortstops of his generation and led the league in steals several times. >>


Or you could say your conclusion is colored by the yellow & green-tinted glasses of nostalgia.

Campaneris led the league in steals 6 times. He also led in caught steals 3 times. Stolen bases are generally a bit overrated anyway. I'm a fan of them but only if you're successful a really high % of the time.

The reality is that the last 40 years have given us much better tools for accurately assessing the value of players. To argue any different would be nonsensical. Thus, it is reasonable to re-evaluate Campaneris using those better tools. When we do that, we see Campaneris wasn't all that special and certainly not more valuable than a guy with multiple 40 HR seasons under his belt. Campaneris was definitely better at throwing his bat at the pitcher though

For a nice look back on that particular incident: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7078903

CubsKiller99

All the players on that list are well above average players as well as Helton.

What I meant is that he's not good enough to make the Hall, especially so in comparison to
some others that that didn't make it and have a higher OPS+. OPS is just one of many
numbers to look at and I was trying to make that point. I guess badly.

Unlike Mattingly, Helton has just continued playing too long. He's been below lgBA three
of the last four seasons. You could make a good argument that his HOF chances
would have been better if he'd just retired after 2009.

CubsKiller99

Campaneris was a very good shortstop but usually not the one of the top two in his league.
He never won a gold glove, and for a player at a position where fielding is the primary
consideration, that's a significant fact.

Even the lumbering Ripken won two gold gloves.

Maybe he should have concentrated more on his fielding and less on stolen bases?

bobbybakeriv

<< <i>

<< <i>

Players with career OPS+ better than Helton, how many are Hall of Famers?:
>>



Griffey definitely is

Of the other 18 players listed, seven played in fewer than 1500 games

Martinez and Allen (and possibly Ortiz) would be Hall-of-Famers if they had any defensive value, let alone multiple Gold Gloves. Those two, along with Smith and Clark, represent some of the very best players not in the Hall-of-Fame (certainly better than Rice and Perez). To put him in that group and while also saying "He's not that good" is a bit silly

(Guerrero isn't going to make it, but another great example of that level) >>



That's got to be Griffey Sr. on the list, no?

Tabe

<< <i>That's got to be Griffey Sr. on the list, no? >>


Nope, it's Jr. I had to look it up to be sure - thought the same thing you did.

Tabe

<< <i>Campaneris was a very good shortstop but usually not the one of the top two in his league.
He never won a gold glove, and for a player at a position where fielding is the primary
consideration, that's a significant fact.

Even the lumbering Ripken won two gold gloves.

Maybe he should have concentrated more on his fielding and less on stolen bases? >>


To be fair, with Mark Belanger around, Campaneris wasn't going to be winning many Gold Gloves.

hammered

<< <i>(Guerrero isn't going to make it, but another great example of that level) >>



Guerrero absolutely will make the Hall

CubsKiller99

<< <i>

<< <i>That's got to be Griffey Sr. on the list, no? >>


Nope, it's Jr. I had to look it up to be sure - thought the same thing you did. >>



Sorry guys, that's Junior.

When I compiled the list I assumed it was Senior otherwise he wouldn't be on there.

CubsKiller99

<< <i>To be fair, with Mark Belanger around, Campaneris wasn't going to be winning many Gold Gloves. >>



I think it's fair to say that Campy was well above average defensively but not great.

But Aparacio, Versalles, Fegosi, Belanger and Brinkman all won Gold Gloves in the years he was
starting while Campy did not.

CubsKiller99

<< <i>Guerrero absolutely will make the Hall >>



Which Guerrero?

Seriously, Vlad's OPS+ ain't much different than Pedro's.

bobbybakeriv

<< <i>

<< <i>That's got to be Griffey Sr. on the list, no? >>


Nope, it's Jr. I had to look it up to be sure - thought the same thing you did. >>



That stuns me....

jmmiller777

So when these guess vote on players, do they compare them with the likes of Mays, Mantle, Aaron, and the like; or do they vote on the players and give consideration to the era of baseball the individuals played in?
It sounds like a lot of guys would not vote for many potential candidates presented on the board here...

CubsKiller99

Unlike the Football Hall where they do it in committee behind closed doors,
Baseball is just a tower of babel with a ton of unqualified voters. If they have
a BBWA card they can vote for anyone on the ballot.

Any one voter's criteria is totally up to them.

If they're smart they look for both of these: peak value and career value.

Were they one of the best in the game when they played, and did they
sustain it long enough.

CubsKiller99

<< <i>It sounds like a lot of guys would not vote for many potential candidates presented on the board here... >>



I think the key thing to take away from this thread is that you just cannot look at raw numbers.

All numbers have context, which is the home park(s) the guy played in and the era played in.

That's why numbers like OPS+ are better than just OPS by itself.

The 90s, when Walker and Helton compiled their gaudy numbers, were years of great domination
of batters over pitchers, so you need to take that into account when looking at raw numbers.
And also look at who was playing during those years. Fact is, Helton was never voted one of
the top four players in his league while Juan Gonzalez won two MVP awards and got no HOF props.

The reason I've done so many posts in this thread -- trying to spread some of my SABERmetric
knowledge around and some of you might not like that -- is that I don't like to see players getting
props for something they didn't earn on the field. And I don't want the Hall of Fame to get more
polluted than it already is.

Cakes

<< <i>

<< <i>It sounds like a lot of guys would not vote for many potential candidates presented on the board here... >>



I think the key thing to take away from this thread is that you just cannot look at raw numbers.

All numbers have context, which is the home park(s) the guy played in and the era played in.

That's why numbers like OPS+ are better than just OPS by itself.

The 90s, when Walker and Helton compiled their gaudy numbers, were years of great domination
of batters over pitchers, so you need to take that into account when looking at raw numbers.
And also look at who was playing during those years. Fact is, Helton was never voted one of
the top four players in his league while Juan Gonzalez won two MVP awards and got no HOF props.

The reason I've done so many posts in this thread -- trying to spread some of my SABERmetric
knowledge around and some of you might not like that -- is that I don't like to see players getting
props for something they didn't earn on the field. And I don't want the Hall of Fame to get more
polluted than it already is. >>



NO no crusade on, you have made some good points, thank you.

I must add I am also on the side of making all HOF's tougher to get into.