Given Harold Baines' shocking election, I guess anything's possible. Still, even though I really liked Joe Carter as both a player and as a person, I think his chances are slim and none.
"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."
@ArtVandelay said:
My top 10 most deserving of HoF consideration
Dave Parker
Jim Kaat
Dick Allen
Steve Garvey
Lou Whitaker
Tommy John
Minnie Minoso
Tony Oliva
Fred McGriff
Al Oliver
Dave Parker was one of the best players in baseball for a 5 year period. Some real good players in this group.
I'd put Shoeless Joe Jackson at the top of the list. Perhaps a polarized view, but I suppose I like the romanticized opinion that he truly did not participate in throwing the series...
And, FWIW, Abe Attell is in the International Boxing Hall of Fame, which IMO sets more precedence for Jackson in the Baseball hall.
@LGC said:
Great thread here and as others are going OT with their own personal favourite players, I have to put in a plug for Dave Stieb.
I remember Stieb well. He was a great pitcher!
Shorter career (bad back) hurt his career. Better than Morris in the 1980's imo.
Yes, agreed. Stieb was as good as Morris. He had a nasty slider, but unfortunately, besides the health issues, he had a nasty temperament - not liked by media, umpires and own players. I remember him staring down his own players during games. You do have to be liked, IMO, if you are a borderline HOF player.
@saucywombat said:
I've got to say that Jim Edmonds comes to mind as someone who deserves to be included in any HOF discussion.
All time defensive outfielder plus career OPS over .900
Jim Edmonds is a guy I've been touting for a long, long time. All-time elite defensive CF AND 393 homers? No-brainer.
As for Bill Freehan, he's not in because voters in his era saw his low batting average and didn't consider anything else. He was a great player and deserves to be in the Hall.
@PatsGuy5000 said:
Carter did have some mediocre years, but also 10 years of 100+ RBI’s, ...
It's the "but also" that I'm taking exception to here. Carter had some years in which he was both less than mediocre and happened to drive in more than 100 runs. There's lots of ways to approach this, but consider this:
Over the course of their careers, Carter drove in 16.7% of the runners on base ahead of him, Baines drove in 17.3%. Carter had more seasons of 100+ RBI than Baines because, and only because, Carter had more people on base to drive in than Baines did. Have them switch places, and it's Baines with 10 or 11 100+ RBI seasons, and Carter with 1 or 2; and it would still be the case that neither one of them was close to a HOF level player.
Carter was mediocre in 1987 and drove in 106; he was bad in 1990 and drove in 115; he was absolutely putrid in 1997 and drove in 102. Whatever you are looking at that tells you Joe Carter was better than Dave Kingman, stop looking at it; Kingman was better, and Kingman wasn't very good.
Those are interesting stats that I was not aware of. Carter was on better teams which may have helped his stats. Do you really think Kingman was better? I know he had great power, low average, and struck out a lot.
I would put Kenny Lofton on the list of players that didn't get a fair shake at the HOF. In his 16 full seasons he averaged 96 runs with 39 steals and a 300 average. Also played a great CF with 4 GG. His WAR ranks 10th all time for CF and all players ahead of him are in the HOF except Mike Trout and Carlos Beltran.
@PatsGuy5000 said:
Those are interesting stats that I was not aware of. Carter was on better teams which may have helped his stats. Do you really think Kingman was better? I know he had great power, low average, and struck out a lot.
Honestly, I just looked him up and had forgotten how many games Kingman missed. So, no, I went a little too far there and Carter was better than Kingman. But when Kingman was playing, he was better than Carter.
So now I feel obligated to find you a better comparison player. The three players who I found who were most similar in value to Carter are Cecil Cooper, Don Baylor, and Lee May. Don Baylor peaked at 2.6% in the HOF vote, Lee May peaked at 0.7%, and Cecil Cooper got no HOF votes at all. These three are all virtually the same player as Carter, but I'd say Cooper was a little bit better, Baylor was as close to identical as you can get, and Carter was a hair better than May. Baines was a little bit better than all of them, solely by virtue of playing longer; per season he was also in the same group. But for a player who was clearly better than Carter, and who got 2 votes in his sole appearance on a HOF ballot, I'll toss Rick Monday's name into the ring.
And nice to see a shout out for Bill Freehan and Dave Stieb, both fine candidates for the HOF.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
How do you feel about Edmonds? I remember him from his AL days. Real nice player. Now I look at what he did in STL and am very impressed.
Edmonds, to me, is borderline. His hitting was very good, but not quite HOF-level, but he was also a tremendous CF. One problem, though, is that he never led the league in anything, other than some fielding metrics of dubious value. Even Harold Baines led the league in slugging once, and we've got Dick Allen outside looking in leading the league in just about everything at one point or another. I don't want to make too big a deal out of that, but HOFers are, or ought to be, the "best" in some sense. Best for a season, best at hitting doubles, best at throwing out runners - it doesn't matter what, but best at something, at some time.
All of the above is with respect to how the HOF used to be, how it ought to be, and how I wish it was. Jim Edmonds towers like a Colossus over Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Jim Rice and many others who have come to pollute the HOF in the last decade or so, and on that basis it won't make any sense to keep him out of the HOF forever. The bigger problem is that if "better than Harold Baines" becomes the threshold for entry, then there are hundreds of players waiting for their turn along with Edmonds.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@PatsGuy5000 said:
Those are interesting stats that I was not aware of. Carter was on better teams which may have helped his stats. Do you really think Kingman was better? I know he had great power, low average, and struck out a lot.
Honestly, I just looked him up and had forgotten how many games Kingman missed. So, no, I went a little too far there and Carter was better than Kingman. But when Kingman was playing, he was better than Carter.
So now I feel obligated to find you a better comparison player. The three players who I found who were most similar in value to Carter are Cecil Cooper, Don Baylor, and Lee May. Don Baylor peaked at 2.6% in the HOF vote, Lee May peaked at 0.7%, and Cecil Cooper got no HOF votes at all. These three are all virtually the same player as Carter, but I'd say Cooper was a little bit better, Baylor was as close to identical as you can get, and Carter was a hair better than May. Baines was a little bit better than all of them, solely by virtue of playing longer; per season he was also in the same group. But for a player who was clearly better than Carter, and who got 2 votes in his sole appearance on a HOF ballot, I'll toss Rick Monday's name into the ring.
And nice to see a shout out for Bill Freehan and Dave Stieb, both fine candidates for the HOF.
I changed my mind for Joe. I remember him being better than what the stats show. Didn’t recall he was a below average fielder and had a .259 career BA. I guess the 93 WS homer stuck in my mind
@JoeBanzai said:
How do you feel about Edmonds? I remember him from his AL days. Real nice player. Now I look at what he did in STL and am very impressed.
Edmonds, to me, is borderline. His hitting was very good, but not quite HOF-level, but he was also a tremendous CF. One problem, though, is that he never led the league in anything, other than some fielding metrics of dubious value. Even Harold Baines led the league in slugging once, and we've got Dick Allen outside looking in leading the league in just about everything at one point or another. I don't want to make too big a deal out of that, but HOFers are, or ought to be, the "best" in some sense. Best for a season, best at hitting doubles, best at throwing out runners - it doesn't matter what, but best at something, at some time.
All of the above is with respect to how the HOF used to be, how it ought to be, and how I wish it was. Jim Edmonds towers like a Colossus over Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Jim Rice and many others who have come to pollute the HOF in the last decade or so, and on that basis it won't make any sense to keep him out of the HOF forever. The bigger problem is that if "better than Harold Baines" becomes the threshold for entry, then there are hundreds of players waiting for their turn along with Edmonds.
Pretty much agree completely with you here. One of the things I take into consideration is "years in top ten" and Jim had at most 4 in offensive categories. Defensively..........10?
Just for fun look at his WAR from 2000-2004 and then take the juicers out of the equation. Best player in NL? Not the best hitter, but a GG in CF should elevate his value over a better hitting 1B?
Without the (IMO) inflated numbers put up by guys like Bonds, Sosa and Sheffield (maybe Bagwell), Edmunds certainly looks a lot better. Guerrero gets ignored as well in 1998 and 2002.
Seven Center Fielders (and Mike Trout) had a higher SLG all time. Jim has to be in the top five of those guys defensively. He played in more games than two of them (Hack Wilson and Earl Averill).
Every CF ever (and Mike Trout) with a higher OPS int he HOF as well.
Just sayin'
Thanks Tabe for bringing him up! I knew he was good, but he was a lot better than I thought.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@saucywombat said:
I've got to say that Jim Edmonds comes to mind as someone who deserves to be included in any HOF discussion.
All time defensive outfielder plus career OPS over .900
Jim Edmonds is a guy I've been touting for a long, long time. All-time elite defensive CF AND 393 homers? No-brainer.
As for Bill Freehan, he's not in because voters in his era saw his low batting average and didn't consider anything else. He was a great player and deserves to be in the Hall.
Jim Edmonds was hand down the best centerfielder I ever saw. Andruw Jones got more attention when they were both in their prime (Jones was great, too), but I'd definitely give the nod to Edmonds. While I still think Edmonds will come up short, Ozzie Smith made the HOF almost solely for his defense, so maybe there's hope. While we're on the topic, Scott Rolen was an absolute wizard in the field in addition to having a potent bat. I'm glad his HOF vote totals are trending upward. Hopefully he'll get in in the next few years.
"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."
Jim Edmonds and Andruw Jones are very similar to me. Both above average hitters with a lot of power, but both were all time great defensive center fielders. It is the combination of hitting and fielding that makes me think they should both be in. Paul Blair is a player that may have been close to as good as Edmonds and Jones defensively, but he was a below average hitter for most of his career. It helps to be above average at both hitting and fielding, and for both of these guys exceptional at one of them, fielding.
What I Collect:
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
@orioles93 said:
Jim Edmonds and Andruw Jones are very similar to me. Both above average hitters with a lot of power, but both were all time great defensive center fielders. It is the combination of hitting and fielding that makes me think they should both be in. Paul Blair is a player that may have been close to as good as Edmonds and Jones defensively, but he was a below average hitter for most of his career. It helps to be above average at both hitting and fielding, and for both of these guys exceptional at one of them, fielding.
Good call on Paul Blair absolutely wonderful defensive player.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@orioles93 said:
Jim Edmonds and Andruw Jones are very similar to me. Both above average hitters with a lot of power, but both were all time great defensive center fielders. It is the combination of hitting and fielding that makes me think they should both be in. Paul Blair is a player that may have been close to as good as Edmonds and Jones defensively, but he was a below average hitter for most of his career. It helps to be above average at both hitting and fielding, and for both of these guys exceptional at one of them, fielding.
Edmonds was a much better hitter than Jones - career OPS+ of 132 vs 111. Jones hit more homers but that's about it. I honestly don't see a case for keeping an 8-time Gold Glove CF with an OPS+ of 132 and nearly 400 homers out of the Hall.
I honestly don't see a case for keeping an 8-time Gold Glove CF with an OPS+ of 132 and nearly 400 homers out of the Hall.
I am on board!
Given the current state of the HOF, no argument, Edmonds must eventually get in.
Hypothetically, discussing a HOF that one has to actually be great to get in to, my line has always been defined by Orlando Cepeda. I think Cepeda belongs in the HOF, but I think he ought to be the worst player (other than GOAT fielders) in it. Was Edmonds better than Cepeda? Extremely close call, I think, which is why I called him borderline.
Edmonds OPS+ is 1 point lower than Cepeda's and he played 100+ fewer games; Cepeda is a nose ahead
Edmonds WPA is about 5 lower, which means something, but doesn't mean a lot; Cepeda is a neck ahead
Cepeda won a ROY and an MVP (and at least arguably deserved both); Cepeda up by half a length
Cepeda's Black Ink stat (measure of league leading stuff) is 14, which is low, but Edmonds is literally 0; Cepeda pulls ahead by a length
Cepeda's Gray Ink stat (Top 10 stuff) is 196, which is high even for a HOFer, Edmonds is 60 (Dave Kingman's is 74); Cepeda opens up a lead of 2-3 lengths.
Which brings us to the one lone area where Edmonds makes up ground - fielding. Cepeda wasn't a bad fielder, but he wasn't good either; he could play first base, the easiest position on the field, without hurting his team. Let's call that a zero for fielding value. Edmonds, on the other hand, was a stellar fielder; like everyone else with a mantel full of Gold Gloves, he got more than he deserved, but he deserved several. The question, then, is whether that makes up the 2-3 length lead Cepeda has for being better than Edmonds at everything else. The answer is, I don't know. If Edmonds played C, 2B, SS, or 3B, then no question; he'd pass Cepeda. If he played 1B, LF, or RF then, again, no question - he would not catch Cepeda. But Edmonds played CF, and I think he ends up too close to Cepeda to call; one of them wins by a nose, and I don't know which. I'd have to think longer about whether I'd vote for him, and someone like Edmonds who's that close a call shouldn't mind waiting 10-15 years to get in. But it wouldn't bother me at all if he got in before I'd made up my mind.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@saucywombat said:
I've got to say that Jim Edmonds comes to mind as someone who deserves to be included in any HOF discussion.
All time defensive outfielder plus career OPS over .900
Jim Edmonds is a guy I've been touting for a long, long time. All-time elite defensive CF AND 393 homers? No-brainer.
As for Bill Freehan, he's not in because voters in his era saw his low batting average and didn't consider anything else. He was a great player and deserves to be in the Hall.
I'm a Cardinals fan, live in Cardinal country, and I had no idea Edmonds had 393 career dingers. Wow.
@JoeBanzai said:
How do you feel about Edmonds? I remember him from his AL days. Real nice player. Now I look at what he did in STL and am very impressed.
Edmonds, to me, is borderline. His hitting was very good, but not quite HOF-level, but he was also a tremendous CF. One problem, though, is that he never led the league in anything, other than some fielding metrics of dubious value. Even Harold Baines led the league in slugging once, and we've got Dick Allen outside looking in leading the league in just about everything at one point or another. I don't want to make too big a deal out of that, but HOFers are, or ought to be, the "best" in some sense. Best for a season, best at hitting doubles, best at throwing out runners - it doesn't matter what, but best at something, at some time.
All of the above is with respect to how the HOF used to be, how it ought to be, and how I wish it was. Jim Edmonds towers like a Colossus over Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Jim Rice and many others who have come to pollute the HOF in the last decade or so, and on that basis it won't make any sense to keep him out of the HOF forever. The bigger problem is that if "better than Harold Baines" becomes the threshold for entry, then there are hundreds of players waiting for their turn along with Edmonds.
I totally agree, that you should be the best at something for a time in order to get into the hall of fame. For me, I think you should be MVP, Cy young winner, ROY, lead your team to multiple WS victories, or something very significant to get to the HOF.
I honestly don't see a case for keeping an 8-time Gold Glove CF with an OPS+ of 132 and nearly 400 homers out of the Hall.
I am on board!
Given the current state of the HOF, no argument, Edmonds must eventually get in.
Hypothetically, discussing a HOF that one has to actually be great to get in to, my line has always been defined by Orlando Cepeda. I think Cepeda belongs in the HOF, but I think he ought to be the worst player (other than GOAT fielders) in it. Was Edmonds better than Cepeda? Extremely close call, I think, which is why I called him borderline.
Edmonds OPS+ is 1 point lower than Cepeda's and he played 100+ fewer games; Cepeda is a nose ahead
Edmonds WPA is about 5 lower, which means something, but doesn't mean a lot; Cepeda is a neck ahead
Cepeda won a ROY and an MVP (and at least arguably deserved both); Cepeda up by half a length
Cepeda's Black Ink stat (measure of league leading stuff) is 14, which is low, but Edmonds is literally 0; Cepeda pulls ahead by a length
Cepeda's Gray Ink stat (Top 10 stuff) is 196, which is high even for a HOFer, Edmonds is 60 (Dave Kingman's is 74); Cepeda opens up a lead of 2-3 lengths.
Which brings us to the one lone area where Edmonds makes up ground - fielding. Cepeda wasn't a bad fielder, but he wasn't good either; he could play first base, the easiest position on the field, without hurting his team. Let's call that a zero for fielding value. Edmonds, on the other hand, was a stellar fielder; like everyone else with a mantel full of Gold Gloves, he got more than he deserved, but he deserved several. The question, then, is whether that makes up the 2-3 length lead Cepeda has for being better than Edmonds at everything else. The answer is, I don't know. If Edmonds played C, 2B, SS, or 3B, then no question; he'd pass Cepeda. If he played 1B, LF, or RF then, again, no question - he would not catch Cepeda. But Edmonds played CF, and I think he ends up too close to Cepeda to call; one of them wins by a nose, and I don't know which. I'd have to think longer about whether I'd vote for him, and someone like Edmonds who's that close a call shouldn't mind waiting 10-15 years to get in. But it wouldn't bother me at all if he got in before I'd made up my mind.
I like Cepeda too, but he would not get my vote for MVP in 1967 over Santo, Aaron or Clemente. I don't understand how he finishes so high in 1961 either.
Voters tired of Aaron and Mays being the best every year?
I like Edmonds a little better, but I think there's room in the HOF for both AND Tony Oliva AND Dick Allen.
I'll stop now ;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I totally agree, that you should be the best at something for a time in order to get into the hall of fame. For me, I think you should be MVP, Cy young winner, ROY, lead your team to multiple WS victories, or something very significant to get to the HOF.
14 full seasons with 8 Gold Gloves (those are awards for being the best, like Cy Young, ROY etc.) in Center field with a SLG of .527 and an OPS of .903 is significant to me.
Mays and Griffey Jr look to be the only Center fielders with more GG. Garry Maddox had 8 as well but is not the hitter Edmonds was.
Griffey played much longer, but his SLG and OPS+ are only very slightly higher than Jim's. SLG by one point, OPS+ by four.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I like Cepeda too, but he would not get my vote for MVP in 1967 over Santo, Aaron or Clemente. I don't understand how he finishes so high in 1961 either.
Voters tired of Aaron and Mays being the best every year?
I like Edmonds a little better, but I think there's room in the HOF for both AND Tony Oliva AND Dick Allen.
I'll stop now ;-)
I did say Cepeda "arguably" deserved the MVP that year, but I do agree Santo had the strongest case. Aaron, Clemente, and Cepeda were in a virtual dead heat for second and nobody else was close. On the list of worst MVP picks, Cepeda winning in '67 is way down the list, and in fact was a better pick than the average MVP.
I do part ways with you on Oliva. Oliva was a HOF player for 8 years, but then dropped off way too fast, and ended his career with fewer plate appearances than Dick Allen. That keeps his OPS+ up in borderline HOF territory, by skipping the decline phase of his career, and I think he falls short because of that.
Allen also skipped the decline phase of his career, but he was the best player in baseball (measured by Win Shares) for a decade (1964-1973). He is one of only three players not in the HOF who can make that claim. The others are Pete Rose (1965-1976), who would obviously be in the HOF except for the ban, and Stan Hack (1937-1946) who (1) is a borderline HOFer, and (2) would clearly not have this title if Williams, DiMaggio, etc. hadn't lost multiple years to the war.
Allen being excluded from the HOF didn't use to bother me because he was, by pretty much all accounts, a colossal jerk. But while he was always better than most HOFers, he is now better than so many, and by such an enormous margin, it's just too stupid to bear to leave him out.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Quick little story about Joe Carter (some may have seen me post it elsewhere). I was a poor kid in inner city Cleveland, mid-80’s. Joe Carter was one of the biggest stars on the team at the time. Joe comes to my crappy neighborhood school, and he spent a ton of time with us, kidding around, signing, and just being cool. 10 year old me was blown the heck away. It meant so much him giving of his time like that. I am sure if he did it at our school, he did plenty of others.
I always thought karma was on his side when he came to the plate in 1993 - dude deserved to be the hero on the field because he already was one off it.
Which brings us to the one lone area where Edmonds makes up ground - fielding. Cepeda wasn't a bad fielder, but he wasn't good either; he could play first base, the easiest position on the field, without hurting his team. Let's call that a zero for fielding value. Edmonds, on the other hand, was a stellar fielder; like everyone else with a mantel full of Gold Gloves, he got more than he deserved, but he deserved several. The question, then, is whether that makes up the 2-3 length lead Cepeda has for being better than Edmonds at everything else. The answer is, I don't know. If Edmonds played C, 2B, SS, or 3B, then no question; he'd pass Cepeda. If he played 1B, LF, or RF then, again, no question - he would not catch Cepeda. But Edmonds played CF, and I think he ends up too close to Cepeda to call; one of them wins by a nose, and I don't know which. I'd have to think longer about whether I'd vote for him, and someone like Edmonds who's that close a call shouldn't mind waiting 10-15 years to get in. But it wouldn't bother me at all if he got in before I'd made up my mind.
Nice analysis. I disagree with the conclusion but don't fault the methodology or the support.
I'm not going to ding Edmonds for not winning an MVP going up against Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols for that award half of his career. I'll give credit to Cepeda winning one but the voters leaned real hard into the "best player on the best team" that year, for sure.
OPS+ has Edmonds with the best season between the two, then Cepeda with #2 & #3, then Edmonds with #4 & #5.
Cepeda gets credit for being healthy - he played 148 games 10 times, while Edmonds only did it 4 times.
I wouldn't have a problem with Cepeda in the Hall but more homers and equal OPS+ while playing all-time great defense at a prime defensive position vs "meh" defense at the easiest position puts Edmonds easily ahead for me.
Which brings us to the one lone area where Edmonds makes up ground - fielding. Cepeda wasn't a bad fielder, but he wasn't good either; he could play first base, the easiest position on the field, without hurting his team. Let's call that a zero for fielding value. Edmonds, on the other hand, was a stellar fielder; like everyone else with a mantel full of Gold Gloves, he got more than he deserved, but he deserved several. The question, then, is whether that makes up the 2-3 length lead Cepeda has for being better than Edmonds at everything else. The answer is, I don't know. If Edmonds played C, 2B, SS, or 3B, then no question; he'd pass Cepeda. If he played 1B, LF, or RF then, again, no question - he would not catch Cepeda. But Edmonds played CF, and I think he ends up too close to Cepeda to call; one of them wins by a nose, and I don't know which. I'd have to think longer about whether I'd vote for him, and someone like Edmonds who's that close a call shouldn't mind waiting 10-15 years to get in. But it wouldn't bother me at all if he got in before I'd made up my mind.
Nice analysis. I disagree with the conclusion but don't fault the methodology or the support.
I'm not going to ding Edmonds for not winning an MVP going up against Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols for that award half of his career. I'll give credit to Cepeda winning one but the voters leaned real hard into the "best player on the best team" that year, for sure.
OPS+ has Edmonds with the best season between the two, then Cepeda with #2 & #3, then Edmonds with #4 & #5.
Cepeda gets credit for being healthy - he played 148 games 10 times, while Edmonds only did it 4 times.
I wouldn't have a problem with Cepeda in the Hall but more homers and equal OPS+ while playing all-time great defense at a prime defensive position vs "meh" defense at the easiest position puts Edmonds easily ahead for me.
BAM!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Tabe said:
Nice analysis. I disagree with the conclusion but don't fault the methodology or the support.
I'm not going to ding Edmonds for not winning an MVP going up against Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols for that award half of his career. I'll give credit to Cepeda winning one but the voters leaned real hard into the "best player on the best team" that year, for sure.
OPS+ has Edmonds with the best season between the two, then Cepeda with #2 & #3, then Edmonds with #4 & #5.
Cepeda gets credit for being healthy - he played 148 games 10 times, while Edmonds only did it 4 times.
I wouldn't have a problem with Cepeda in the Hall but more homers and equal OPS+ while playing all-time great defense at a prime defensive position vs "meh" defense at the easiest position puts Edmonds easily ahead for me.
I don't think we're far apart here, but I'll add a few clarifications:
Cepeda did play longer, at the same or slightly higher level; as I said, it's not a big difference, but it can't be thrown out.
I'm not dinging Edmonds - and it is just a ding - for not winning an MVP, but for not deserving one. Yes, he had some stiff competition most years, and I'll even make an allowance for that, but that's not the only reason he was never MVP. Take 2004 - by far Edmonds best season: Bonds and Pujols topped him in the MVP voting (and deserved to, if Bonds' cheating is ignored), but so did Rolen and Beltre - and they were better than Edmonds that year. Part of it, too, is that Edmonds missed so many games most seasons, that he never really got on the MVP radar. And Edmonds isn't "dinged" for not getting a ROY, but Cepeda does get another small bump. I hate when somebody like Andre Dawson wins an MVP when he wasn't remotely close to deserving it, and then using that joke of an MVP to justify putting him in the HOF. But Cepeda did deserve his ROY not matter how you look at it, and you can make a case that Cepeda deserved his MVP, too. In the end, Cepeda got more award recognition because he deserved more award recognition, and that's a prefectly legitimate variable to consider in HOF voting.
This may just be a semantic point, but it does play a large part in my conclusion, so it's important in any event. To me, the "prime" defensive positions are C and SS, with 3B a step down, and 2B another small step down. I put CF a small step down from that, but I could be convinced that it's equal to 2B, more or less. As I said, in different words, if Edmonds had played a "prime" defensive position then absolutely, he passes Cepeda, and if he played a ho-hum position like 1B, LF, or RF, then I think you agree that he doesn't catch Cepeda.
So we're reaching more or less the same conclusion, you've just got CF being worth somewhat more than I do - a "prime" position where I rate it as "choice". But, if you've got CF being worth as much as C or SS, then I think you're just wrong. If you've got it in the 2B-3B range, you've got it a bit higher than I do, and you may be right, and if you are right about that then I would agree that your conclusion is also right.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Tabe said:
Nice analysis. I disagree with the conclusion but don't fault the methodology or the support.
I'm not going to ding Edmonds for not winning an MVP going up against Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols for that award half of his career. I'll give credit to Cepeda winning one but the voters leaned real hard into the "best player on the best team" that year, for sure.
OPS+ has Edmonds with the best season between the two, then Cepeda with #2 & #3, then Edmonds with #4 & #5.
Cepeda gets credit for being healthy - he played 148 games 10 times, while Edmonds only did it 4 times.
I wouldn't have a problem with Cepeda in the Hall but more homers and equal OPS+ while playing all-time great defense at a prime defensive position vs "meh" defense at the easiest position puts Edmonds easily ahead for me.
I don't think we're far apart here, but I'll add a few clarifications:
Cepeda did play longer, at the same or slightly higher level; as I said, it's not a big difference, but it can't be thrown out.
I'm not dinging Edmonds - and it is just a ding - for not winning an MVP, but for not deserving one. Yes, he had some stiff competition most years, and I'll even make an allowance for that, but that's not the only reason he was never MVP. Take 2004 - by far Edmonds best season: Bonds and Pujols topped him in the MVP voting (and deserved to, if Bonds' cheating is ignored), but so did Rolen and Beltre - and they were better than Edmonds that year. Part of it, too, is that Edmonds missed so many games most seasons, that he never really got on the MVP radar. And Edmonds isn't "dinged" for not getting a ROY, but Cepeda does get another small bump. I hate when somebody like Andre Dawson wins an MVP when he wasn't remotely close to deserving it, and then using that joke of an MVP to justify putting him in the HOF. But Cepeda did deserve his ROY not matter how you look at it, and you can make a case that Cepeda deserved his MVP, too. In the end, Cepeda got more award recognition because he deserved more award recognition, and that's a prefectly legitimate variable to consider in HOF voting.
This may just be a semantic point, but it does play a large part in my conclusion, so it's important in any event. To me, the "prime" defensive positions are C and SS, with 3B a step down, and 2B another small step down. I put CF a small step down from that, but I could be convinced that it's equal to 2B, more or less. As I said, in different words, if Edmonds had played a "prime" defensive position then absolutely, he passes Cepeda, and if he played a ho-hum position like 1B, LF, or RF, then I think you agree that he doesn't catch Cepeda.
So we're reaching more or less the same conclusion, you've just got CF being worth somewhat more than I do - a "prime" position where I rate it as "choice". But, if you've got CF being worth as much as C or SS, then I think you're just wrong. If you've got it in the 2B-3B range, you've got it a bit higher than I do, and you may be right, and if you are right about that then I would agree that your conclusion is also right.
I appreciate the debate here, but I am not as versed regarding Edmonds. I can see he is a borderline HOF that merits discussion and a closer look.
Right now, It seems Curt Schilling will be the next to get in and perhaps also Richie Allen. I do not see much debate opposing their places in the HOF.
I agree with the previous notion already made in the discussion that a HOF has to have that notoriety of being the best at something and do some extraordinary things in the sport. Joe Carter had his moments that are noteworthy and he gets credit for driving in runs. Based on proportion of population, the players of the 80's are underrepresented in the HOF, so there is still room to add a few deserving athletes.
Imagine a pitcher who was so good that multiple teams were pursuing him to be part of their team and lead their staff not only during the season, but the post-season too. This pitcher got the usual accolades that one would expect from a HOF caliber pitcher like leading in wins and strikeouts, getting voted to 5 All-Star teams, having more than one 20 win seasons, being ranked very high All-Time in a well known stat (25th in Strikeouts), and being in the top 10 seven times for one of the most important pitching stats (ERA+). Yes, he did throw a No-Hitter, won a CY-Young award, and got multiple World Series rings. He even has a winning record in the postseason (8-3), which is a testament that he does well under pressure and teams depended on him. He did not have the longest career, but he was one of the most feared pitchers in his prime. A strikeout pitcher early in his career, he managed to adjust through the years and broaden his variety of pitches, and was known to simply invent stuff on the spot to get out of jams. An intelligent pitcher that I feel deserves another look. Have you guys figured it out? It is David Cone!
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
@saucywombat said:
If Jack Morris got in both Cone and Brown should probably end up there as well
Do you realize just how many pitchers there are, in addition to Cone and Brown, who were as good or better than Jack Morris but aren't in the HOF? I don't know the exact number, but it's at least close to 100. Putting such clearly undeserving players as Jack Morris and Harold Baines in the HOF can either be viewed as stupid mistakes, in which case the damage is contained, or the damage can keep growing if people think the multitude of better players "should" also be in the HOF.
Brown and Cone were both so much better than Morris that they do deserve HOF consideration on their own merits, regardless of Morris. My wish is that we can all agree that putting Morris in the HOF was absurd, and just move forward as if it hadn't happened.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I am definitely not considering Jack Morris' induction to justify Cone's and I do not see the relevance as the careers of the two are quite different. Comparing Cone, Brown, and Dwight Gooden would be good to look at because they were similar type pitchers from around the same era. Brown is 33rd All-Time in WAR for Pitchers; Cone is 55th. Cone led once in WAR for pitchers, Brown twice. Cone was in the top 10 in that category for 7 seasons, Brown for 6 seasons. Brown and Cone both deserve more discussion. Both Cone and Brown had the spot light in various parts of their careers as being the Ace and having the nastiest stuff.
Gooden can be considered in that camp as well, but the trouble with him was his career was plagued with too many personal problems for too long and just did not have enough outstanding seasons. For example, he cracked the top 10 in WAR for pitchers 4 times, and even led twice in that span. He was in the top 10 for ERA+ 4 times. I still think the career was good for what it had, but I think Brown and Cone had more complete careers and dominance closer to 10 years than Gooden. I would not end the discussion of Gooden on that basis alone, but it does make the careers of Cone and Brown worthy of a second look. With that said, Gooden will always be a fan favorite, his cards are already priced just like a HOFer, and will be in the HOF of people's hearts, even if not Cooperstown.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Comments
Given Harold Baines' shocking election, I guess anything's possible. Still, even though I really liked Joe Carter as both a player and as a person, I think his chances are slim and none.
I'd put Shoeless Joe Jackson at the top of the list. Perhaps a polarized view, but I suppose I like the romanticized opinion that he truly did not participate in throwing the series...
And, FWIW, Abe Attell is in the International Boxing Hall of Fame, which IMO sets more precedence for Jackson in the Baseball hall.
I've got to say that Jim Edmonds comes to mind as someone who deserves to be included in any HOF discussion.
All time defensive outfielder plus career OPS over .900
saucywombat@hotmail.com
I remember Stieb well. He was a great pitcher!
Shorter career (bad back) hurt his career. Better than Morris in the 1980's imo.
Yes, agreed. Stieb was as good as Morris. He had a nasty slider, but unfortunately, besides the health issues, he had a nasty temperament - not liked by media, umpires and own players. I remember him staring down his own players during games. You do have to be liked, IMO, if you are a borderline HOF player.
Jim Edmonds is a guy I've been touting for a long, long time. All-time elite defensive CF AND 393 homers? No-brainer.
As for Bill Freehan, he's not in because voters in his era saw his low batting average and didn't consider anything else. He was a great player and deserves to be in the Hall.
Those are interesting stats that I was not aware of. Carter was on better teams which may have helped his stats. Do you really think Kingman was better? I know he had great power, low average, and struck out a lot.
I can’t believe such a ludicrous question has generated this much response. Moises Alou and Rafael Furcal were twice the player Carter was.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Stieb shouldn't be a HOFer, but was far better than Morris.
I would put Kenny Lofton on the list of players that didn't get a fair shake at the HOF. In his 16 full seasons he averaged 96 runs with 39 steals and a 300 average. Also played a great CF with 4 GG. His WAR ranks 10th all time for CF and all players ahead of him are in the HOF except Mike Trout and Carlos Beltran.
Honestly, I just looked him up and had forgotten how many games Kingman missed. So, no, I went a little too far there and Carter was better than Kingman. But when Kingman was playing, he was better than Carter.
So now I feel obligated to find you a better comparison player. The three players who I found who were most similar in value to Carter are Cecil Cooper, Don Baylor, and Lee May. Don Baylor peaked at 2.6% in the HOF vote, Lee May peaked at 0.7%, and Cecil Cooper got no HOF votes at all. These three are all virtually the same player as Carter, but I'd say Cooper was a little bit better, Baylor was as close to identical as you can get, and Carter was a hair better than May. Baines was a little bit better than all of them, solely by virtue of playing longer; per season he was also in the same group. But for a player who was clearly better than Carter, and who got 2 votes in his sole appearance on a HOF ballot, I'll toss Rick Monday's name into the ring.
And nice to see a shout out for Bill Freehan and Dave Stieb, both fine candidates for the HOF.
How do you feel about Edmonds? I remember him from his AL days. Real nice player. Now I look at what he did in STL and am very impressed.
Had a few issues at/near the end of his career, which was maybe a bit on the short side. Nitpicking.
Great SLG and was a superb defender at least early in his career. Looks like he won a lot of GG in the NL.
HOF?
Edmonds, to me, is borderline. His hitting was very good, but not quite HOF-level, but he was also a tremendous CF. One problem, though, is that he never led the league in anything, other than some fielding metrics of dubious value. Even Harold Baines led the league in slugging once, and we've got Dick Allen outside looking in leading the league in just about everything at one point or another. I don't want to make too big a deal out of that, but HOFers are, or ought to be, the "best" in some sense. Best for a season, best at hitting doubles, best at throwing out runners - it doesn't matter what, but best at something, at some time.
All of the above is with respect to how the HOF used to be, how it ought to be, and how I wish it was. Jim Edmonds towers like a Colossus over Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Jim Rice and many others who have come to pollute the HOF in the last decade or so, and on that basis it won't make any sense to keep him out of the HOF forever. The bigger problem is that if "better than Harold Baines" becomes the threshold for entry, then there are hundreds of players waiting for their turn along with Edmonds.
I changed my mind for Joe. I remember him being better than what the stats show. Didn’t recall he was a below average fielder and had a .259 career BA. I guess the 93 WS homer stuck in my mind
Pretty much agree completely with you here. One of the things I take into consideration is "years in top ten" and Jim had at most 4 in offensive categories. Defensively..........10?
Just for fun look at his WAR from 2000-2004 and then take the juicers out of the equation. Best player in NL? Not the best hitter, but a GG in CF should elevate his value over a better hitting 1B?
Without the (IMO) inflated numbers put up by guys like Bonds, Sosa and Sheffield (maybe Bagwell), Edmunds certainly looks a lot better. Guerrero gets ignored as well in 1998 and 2002.
Seven Center Fielders (and Mike Trout) had a higher SLG all time. Jim has to be in the top five of those guys defensively. He played in more games than two of them (Hack Wilson and Earl Averill).
Every CF ever (and Mike Trout) with a higher OPS int he HOF as well.
Just sayin'
Thanks Tabe for bringing him up! I knew he was good, but he was a lot better than I thought.
Jim Edmonds was hand down the best centerfielder I ever saw. Andruw Jones got more attention when they were both in their prime (Jones was great, too), but I'd definitely give the nod to Edmonds. While I still think Edmonds will come up short, Ozzie Smith made the HOF almost solely for his defense, so maybe there's hope. While we're on the topic, Scott Rolen was an absolute wizard in the field in addition to having a potent bat. I'm glad his HOF vote totals are trending upward. Hopefully he'll get in in the next few years.
Jim Edmonds and Andruw Jones are very similar to me. Both above average hitters with a lot of power, but both were all time great defensive center fielders. It is the combination of hitting and fielding that makes me think they should both be in. Paul Blair is a player that may have been close to as good as Edmonds and Jones defensively, but he was a below average hitter for most of his career. It helps to be above average at both hitting and fielding, and for both of these guys exceptional at one of them, fielding.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
Good call on Paul Blair absolutely wonderful defensive player.
Edmonds was a much better hitter than Jones - career OPS+ of 132 vs 111. Jones hit more homers but that's about it. I honestly don't see a case for keeping an 8-time Gold Glove CF with an OPS+ of 132 and nearly 400 homers out of the Hall.
I honestly don't see a case for keeping an 8-time Gold Glove CF with an OPS+ of 132 and nearly 400 homers out of the Hall.
I am on board!
Given the current state of the HOF, no argument, Edmonds must eventually get in.
Hypothetically, discussing a HOF that one has to actually be great to get in to, my line has always been defined by Orlando Cepeda. I think Cepeda belongs in the HOF, but I think he ought to be the worst player (other than GOAT fielders) in it. Was Edmonds better than Cepeda? Extremely close call, I think, which is why I called him borderline.
Edmonds OPS+ is 1 point lower than Cepeda's and he played 100+ fewer games; Cepeda is a nose ahead
Edmonds WPA is about 5 lower, which means something, but doesn't mean a lot; Cepeda is a neck ahead
Cepeda won a ROY and an MVP (and at least arguably deserved both); Cepeda up by half a length
Cepeda's Black Ink stat (measure of league leading stuff) is 14, which is low, but Edmonds is literally 0; Cepeda pulls ahead by a length
Cepeda's Gray Ink stat (Top 10 stuff) is 196, which is high even for a HOFer, Edmonds is 60 (Dave Kingman's is 74); Cepeda opens up a lead of 2-3 lengths.
Which brings us to the one lone area where Edmonds makes up ground - fielding. Cepeda wasn't a bad fielder, but he wasn't good either; he could play first base, the easiest position on the field, without hurting his team. Let's call that a zero for fielding value. Edmonds, on the other hand, was a stellar fielder; like everyone else with a mantel full of Gold Gloves, he got more than he deserved, but he deserved several. The question, then, is whether that makes up the 2-3 length lead Cepeda has for being better than Edmonds at everything else. The answer is, I don't know. If Edmonds played C, 2B, SS, or 3B, then no question; he'd pass Cepeda. If he played 1B, LF, or RF then, again, no question - he would not catch Cepeda. But Edmonds played CF, and I think he ends up too close to Cepeda to call; one of them wins by a nose, and I don't know which. I'd have to think longer about whether I'd vote for him, and someone like Edmonds who's that close a call shouldn't mind waiting 10-15 years to get in. But it wouldn't bother me at all if he got in before I'd made up my mind.
I'm a Cardinals fan, live in Cardinal country, and I had no idea Edmonds had 393 career dingers. Wow.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
I totally agree, that you should be the best at something for a time in order to get into the hall of fame. For me, I think you should be MVP, Cy young winner, ROY, lead your team to multiple WS victories, or something very significant to get to the HOF.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
I like Cepeda too, but he would not get my vote for MVP in 1967 over Santo, Aaron or Clemente. I don't understand how he finishes so high in 1961 either.
Voters tired of Aaron and Mays being the best every year?
I like Edmonds a little better, but I think there's room in the HOF for both AND Tony Oliva AND Dick Allen.
I'll stop now ;-)
14 full seasons with 8 Gold Gloves (those are awards for being the best, like Cy Young, ROY etc.) in Center field with a SLG of .527 and an OPS of .903 is significant to me.
Mays and Griffey Jr look to be the only Center fielders with more GG. Garry Maddox had 8 as well but is not the hitter Edmonds was.
Griffey played much longer, but his SLG and OPS+ are only very slightly higher than Jim's. SLG by one point, OPS+ by four.
I did say Cepeda "arguably" deserved the MVP that year, but I do agree Santo had the strongest case. Aaron, Clemente, and Cepeda were in a virtual dead heat for second and nobody else was close. On the list of worst MVP picks, Cepeda winning in '67 is way down the list, and in fact was a better pick than the average MVP.
I do part ways with you on Oliva. Oliva was a HOF player for 8 years, but then dropped off way too fast, and ended his career with fewer plate appearances than Dick Allen. That keeps his OPS+ up in borderline HOF territory, by skipping the decline phase of his career, and I think he falls short because of that.
Allen also skipped the decline phase of his career, but he was the best player in baseball (measured by Win Shares) for a decade (1964-1973). He is one of only three players not in the HOF who can make that claim. The others are Pete Rose (1965-1976), who would obviously be in the HOF except for the ban, and Stan Hack (1937-1946) who (1) is a borderline HOFer, and (2) would clearly not have this title if Williams, DiMaggio, etc. hadn't lost multiple years to the war.
Allen being excluded from the HOF didn't use to bother me because he was, by pretty much all accounts, a colossal jerk. But while he was always better than most HOFers, he is now better than so many, and by such an enormous margin, it's just too stupid to bear to leave him out.
Quick little story about Joe Carter (some may have seen me post it elsewhere). I was a poor kid in inner city Cleveland, mid-80’s. Joe Carter was one of the biggest stars on the team at the time. Joe comes to my crappy neighborhood school, and he spent a ton of time with us, kidding around, signing, and just being cool. 10 year old me was blown the heck away. It meant so much him giving of his time like that. I am sure if he did it at our school, he did plenty of others.
I always thought karma was on his side when he came to the plate in 1993 - dude deserved to be the hero on the field because he already was one off it.
Nice analysis. I disagree with the conclusion but don't fault the methodology or the support.
I'm not going to ding Edmonds for not winning an MVP going up against Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols for that award half of his career. I'll give credit to Cepeda winning one but the voters leaned real hard into the "best player on the best team" that year, for sure.
OPS+ has Edmonds with the best season between the two, then Cepeda with #2 & #3, then Edmonds with #4 & #5.
Cepeda gets credit for being healthy - he played 148 games 10 times, while Edmonds only did it 4 times.
I wouldn't have a problem with Cepeda in the Hall but more homers and equal OPS+ while playing all-time great defense at a prime defensive position vs "meh" defense at the easiest position puts Edmonds easily ahead for me.
BAM!
I don't think we're far apart here, but I'll add a few clarifications:
Cepeda did play longer, at the same or slightly higher level; as I said, it's not a big difference, but it can't be thrown out.
I'm not dinging Edmonds - and it is just a ding - for not winning an MVP, but for not deserving one. Yes, he had some stiff competition most years, and I'll even make an allowance for that, but that's not the only reason he was never MVP. Take 2004 - by far Edmonds best season: Bonds and Pujols topped him in the MVP voting (and deserved to, if Bonds' cheating is ignored), but so did Rolen and Beltre - and they were better than Edmonds that year. Part of it, too, is that Edmonds missed so many games most seasons, that he never really got on the MVP radar. And Edmonds isn't "dinged" for not getting a ROY, but Cepeda does get another small bump. I hate when somebody like Andre Dawson wins an MVP when he wasn't remotely close to deserving it, and then using that joke of an MVP to justify putting him in the HOF. But Cepeda did deserve his ROY not matter how you look at it, and you can make a case that Cepeda deserved his MVP, too. In the end, Cepeda got more award recognition because he deserved more award recognition, and that's a prefectly legitimate variable to consider in HOF voting.
This may just be a semantic point, but it does play a large part in my conclusion, so it's important in any event. To me, the "prime" defensive positions are C and SS, with 3B a step down, and 2B another small step down. I put CF a small step down from that, but I could be convinced that it's equal to 2B, more or less. As I said, in different words, if Edmonds had played a "prime" defensive position then absolutely, he passes Cepeda, and if he played a ho-hum position like 1B, LF, or RF, then I think you agree that he doesn't catch Cepeda.
So we're reaching more or less the same conclusion, you've just got CF being worth somewhat more than I do - a "prime" position where I rate it as "choice". But, if you've got CF being worth as much as C or SS, then I think you're just wrong. If you've got it in the 2B-3B range, you've got it a bit higher than I do, and you may be right, and if you are right about that then I would agree that your conclusion is also right.
>
No he doesn’t.
I put CF above everything except C and SS.
Andruw Jones had 10.
He's also the career leader in dWAR among outfielders. Everyone above him is either an infielder or catcher.
I appreciate the debate here, but I am not as versed regarding Edmonds. I can see he is a borderline HOF that merits discussion and a closer look.
Right now, It seems Curt Schilling will be the next to get in and perhaps also Richie Allen. I do not see much debate opposing their places in the HOF.
I agree with the previous notion already made in the discussion that a HOF has to have that notoriety of being the best at something and do some extraordinary things in the sport. Joe Carter had his moments that are noteworthy and he gets credit for driving in runs. Based on proportion of population, the players of the 80's are underrepresented in the HOF, so there is still room to add a few deserving athletes.
Imagine a pitcher who was so good that multiple teams were pursuing him to be part of their team and lead their staff not only during the season, but the post-season too. This pitcher got the usual accolades that one would expect from a HOF caliber pitcher like leading in wins and strikeouts, getting voted to 5 All-Star teams, having more than one 20 win seasons, being ranked very high All-Time in a well known stat (25th in Strikeouts), and being in the top 10 seven times for one of the most important pitching stats (ERA+). Yes, he did throw a No-Hitter, won a CY-Young award, and got multiple World Series rings. He even has a winning record in the postseason (8-3), which is a testament that he does well under pressure and teams depended on him. He did not have the longest career, but he was one of the most feared pitchers in his prime. A strikeout pitcher early in his career, he managed to adjust through the years and broaden his variety of pitches, and was known to simply invent stuff on the spot to get out of jams. An intelligent pitcher that I feel deserves another look. Have you guys figured it out? It is David Cone!
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Yes, of course. Forgot him.
Cone was very good. Good call.
If we're talking David Cone check out Kevin Brown's WAR
If Jack Morris got in both Cone and Brown should probably end up there as well
saucywombat@hotmail.com
I remember hearing the announcers always saying Brown had the "nastiest" stuff in the league.
Do you realize just how many pitchers there are, in addition to Cone and Brown, who were as good or better than Jack Morris but aren't in the HOF? I don't know the exact number, but it's at least close to 100. Putting such clearly undeserving players as Jack Morris and Harold Baines in the HOF can either be viewed as stupid mistakes, in which case the damage is contained, or the damage can keep growing if people think the multitude of better players "should" also be in the HOF.
Brown and Cone were both so much better than Morris that they do deserve HOF consideration on their own merits, regardless of Morris. My wish is that we can all agree that putting Morris in the HOF was absurd, and just move forward as if it hadn't happened.
I am definitely not considering Jack Morris' induction to justify Cone's and I do not see the relevance as the careers of the two are quite different. Comparing Cone, Brown, and Dwight Gooden would be good to look at because they were similar type pitchers from around the same era. Brown is 33rd All-Time in WAR for Pitchers; Cone is 55th. Cone led once in WAR for pitchers, Brown twice. Cone was in the top 10 in that category for 7 seasons, Brown for 6 seasons. Brown and Cone both deserve more discussion. Both Cone and Brown had the spot light in various parts of their careers as being the Ace and having the nastiest stuff.
Gooden can be considered in that camp as well, but the trouble with him was his career was plagued with too many personal problems for too long and just did not have enough outstanding seasons. For example, he cracked the top 10 in WAR for pitchers 4 times, and even led twice in that span. He was in the top 10 for ERA+ 4 times. I still think the career was good for what it had, but I think Brown and Cone had more complete careers and dominance closer to 10 years than Gooden. I would not end the discussion of Gooden on that basis alone, but it does make the careers of Cone and Brown worthy of a second look. With that said, Gooden will always be a fan favorite, his cards are already priced just like a HOFer, and will be in the HOF of people's hearts, even if not Cooperstown.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee