Fixing the Hall of Fame – Part 2
by Daniel Greenia
Part 2a – It’s Too Big: The Screeners and the 5% Rule
The hall of fame ballot screening committee of the BBWAA was instituted for the 1968 election to cut the ballot down to a “reasonable” size. Due to expansion and the proliferation of role players, some recent ballots had included more than 60 candidates.
Jump ahead to 1978. The screening committee was scrutinizing the list of 10-year players who retired in 1973 to decide who should appear on the next ballot. Looking through the pitchers they saw Bobby Bolin, Ray Culp, Eddie Fisher, Fred Gladding, Milt Pappas, Ron Perranoski, and Chris Short. The big winner among these, the only pitcher with more than 135 wins, was Pappas. His 209 wins were more than several hall of famers, including recent inductees (at that time) Addie Joss (160) and Bob Lemon (207). It was also exactly the same as Don Drysdale, who was drawing over 50% support on his way to eventual election.
In all likelihood, most screeners were unaware of any numbers, but simply relied on their subjective impressions of the players. When the ballot for the 1979 election was announced in the fall of 1978, Milt Pappas was not on it: few of the screeners thought he was worthy of consideration. Well, Pappas was not the sort to take this quietly; in fact, he screamed holy hell. Pappas appealed to his friends among the Chicago writers: “I belong on the ballot! I won 100 games in each league” (actually, only 99 in the NL). It led to the BBWAA petitioning the Hall for a rule change: do away with the Screening Committee and require that a man must get 10% of the vote to remain on the ballot.
The Hall reacted as it always has to controversy it can’t ignore; with short-sighted accommodation. They said, OK, forget the screening committee; everyone retiring in 1973 that played ten years is on the ballot. However, 10% is too strict. How about we give everyone at least two years on the ballot? The BBWAA countered with one year and 5%, and so it was agreed. It sounded harmless enough.
The result was the ballot increased from 36 candidates in 1978 to 54 in 1979. Sixteen players received zero votes (making an argument for having some sort of screening process). Another 15 players received votes, but less than 5%. This included several that the screening committee had passed through for many years despite not once attaining 5% support, such as Bobby Thomson (14 years, 4.6% maximum support), Harvey Haddix (9 years, 2.8% max), and Vern Law (7 years, 2.4% max).
It turned out the screeners had Pappas pegged. Despite being a cause celebre, he received only five votes, one-and-done with 1.2%. However, there was one foreboding deletion: Ken Boyer. Boyer averaged 3.9% in five years on the ballot and was dropped after getting 4.6% in 1979. Appropriately, he was reinstated to the ballot six years later. To this day, Boyer is still ranked among the top twenty at third base in baseball history by most analysts, ahead of several hall of famers at the position.
Part 2b – FUBAR: Victims and Gaffes of the 5% Rule
Subsequent elections only confirmed the undesirable effects of the 5% rule.
The 1980 election saw an even larger ballot. Out of 62 candidates that year, 29 received zero votes, while nine others were under 5%. This was the year that Ron Santo was one-and-done, with 3.9% support. I hardly need to mention the large body of evidence showing that Santo is one of the game’s great third basemen, an egregious oversight by the hall of fame.
The grumblings among the writers that the ballot was too large to handle led to a reversal by the Hall. For 1981 they decided to reinstitute the screening committee; unfortunately, they kept the 5% rule. This trimmed the ballot to a mere 39 candidates.
The next year saw a major mishap: whoever created the ballot for the 1982 election largely overlooked the 5% rule. Eight of the ten vote-getters with under 5% in 1981 were put on the 1982 ballot (another one of these ten showed up in 1983). The 5% rule did claim another significant casualty in 1982: Bill Freehan, a top 20 catcher, was one-and-done after getting only two votes (0.5%).
The 1983 ballot dampened any hopes that the 5% rule might be on the way out. Vada Pinson (who must’ve had an uncle on the ballot committee) was the only sub-5% player held over, receiving only 1.4% in 1982. The 1983 election also saw more 5% victims who deserved a longer look. Jimmy Wynn, we now know, is a top 20 center fielder; but he received ZERO votes. Worse than this, the controversial great Dick Allen was one-and-done with only 3.7% support.
For 1984, Thurman Munson was given the pass that Pinson had received the previous year, being allowed back on the ballot despite only 4.8% support. In a weak year for new candidates, the ballot had shrunken to 29 candidates.
The 1985 election brought renewed hopes to those who opposed the 5% rule. An official review was made of all players who dropped off the ballot due to the rule. It resulted in 11 players being reinstated to the ballot. Chief among these were three players previously touted here: Ron Santo, Dick Allen and Ken Boyer. Others were Vada Pinson, Curt Flood, Wilbur Wood, Dave McNally, Harvey Haddix, Ron Fairly, Denny McLain and Clay Carroll. Among those who were not reinstated were Bill Freehan, Jimmy Wynn…and the guy that caused it all, Milt Pappas.
For the 1986 election, it was looking like maybe the Hall had decided to phase out the 5% rule. Six of the top seven closest to 5% in 1985 were allowed to continue on the ballot, the exception being Harvey Haddix. Despite getting 3.8% Haddix was not reinstated; this was because he was no longer eligible due to retiring more than 20 years ago. For some reason, George Scott was also put on the ballot, despite getting no votes in 1985.
Part 2c – 5% Rule Continuing Errors
All retraction of the 5% rule stopped dead in 1986. In the 24 elections since then, the rule has been firmly applied, except for an occasional mistake. Players worthy of a longer look, as indicated by modern statistical analysis, continue to be one-and-done. Here is a chronological rundown of the more serious errors:
1989: Manny Mota is on the ballot, despite only 4.2% support the previous year.
1990: Ken Boyer is allowed on the BBWAA ballot more than 20 years after retiring, in violation of the Hall’s rules. Contrary to Haddix’ treatment, this establishes a new precedent for reinstated players, that they will be allowed up to their normal 15 years of eligibility to make up for the years they missed after being disqualified by the 5% rule. This precedent will be followed for Pinson, Flood and Santo, but not for Allen.
1992: Bobby Grich is one-and-done with 2.6%. Grich is generally ranked among the top 15 second basemen in baseball history.
1994: Ted Simmons is one-and-done with 3.7%. Simmons is generally ranked among the top 15 catchers in baseball history.
1995: Vida Blue, George Foster and Don Baylor are on the ballot, despite less than 5% support the previous year. The Hall compounds the error by leaving Blue off the 1996 ballot, despite 5.7% support in 1995.
1995: Darrell Evans is one-and-done with 1.7%. Evans is generally ranked among the top 15 third basemen in baseball history.
1997: Graig Nettles is four-and-out with 4.7%. Nettles is generally ranked among the top 20 third basemen in baseball history.
1999: Dwight Evans is three-and-out with 3.6%. Evans is generally ranked among the top 20 right fielders in baseball history.
2001: Lou Whitaker is one-and-done with 2.9%. Whitaker is generally ranked among the top 15 second basemen in baseball history.
2006: Will Clark is one-and-done with 4.4%. Clark is generally ranked among the top 20 first basemen in baseball history.
2007: Albert Belle gets axed in his 2nd try with 3.5%. Belle is often ranked among the top 20 left fielders in baseball history.
Tags: candidates, Hall of Fame, rules
April 14th, 2010 at 11:44 am
I think Daniel Greenia should write about something else.
May I recommend…the regular season?
The Oakland A’s have gotten off to a good start…
April 14th, 2010 at 11:58 am
“…most screeners were unaware of any numbers, but simply relied on their subjective impressions of the players.”
Correct me if I’m missing something, but you are proposing instead the screeners make subjective impressions of subjective numbers?
April 14th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
“in violation of the Hall’s rules”
I think it would actually be in violation of BBWAA rules.
The BBWAA sets the rules and also administers them. At least that’s how I read it under the section BBWAA Election Rules.
http://community.baseballhall.org/Page.aspx?pid=388
I don’t wish to rehash this again so I’ll try and keep my comments brief.
You’re whole premise in Part 2c is shortsighted and missing the whole reason as to why things are the way they are. The writers are human with biases and pre-assumed judgments.
Unless you’re going to have the BBWAA made up of ego-less Vulcans the “human element” of the process is not changing any time soon.
It’s flawed and there is no reason to change it. It’s controversial and that draws media attention to the Hall and its byzantine process. Almost like electing a Pope.
When people and the media stop caring then the BBWAA will have to change things to stay quasi-relevant.
IMHO, other than Simmons, no one mentioned in Part 2c should be allowed to into the Hall without a ticket.
I think what is over looked is that Hall is for the players that were elite and the best.
Not very good or good. And just because they let a clinker like Rice get through every so often doesn’t mean that it makes guys like Evans, Clark, and Nettles HOF material.
They were good, not elite.
April 14th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
And that’s the problem, Lefty33
The “bar” for the Hall of Fame seems to change constantly with the election of every player.
It’s like the line outside an exclusive nightclub. Some chic gets denied entry for not being hot enough. Then the guy at the rope lets in another girl, and the denied girl stomps her feet and says she’s at least as hot as that last girl…..and the sh*tshow has begun.
April 14th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
As Lefty said the only guy I would put in off that list would be Ted Simmons (which I think it is a travesty he is not in the Hall).
I am a Tiger fan and Whitaker is my favorite 2nd basemen ever but I don’t think he should be in the hall.Dwight Evans is very close and if he was not so average in the early part of his career he would be in. I also love Darrell Evans as he was part of my Tigers success but I have a hard time calling him a 3rd basemen when he played so many games at 1st.Will Clarks numbers could get him into the hall if played any of the other infield postions but not as a 1st basemen.Belle to me was a HOF’er if he played a couple more years and I did not think steroids played a big part of his success.
I think Grich and Wynn are interesting choices because they did so much more than their numbers indicate. we have to give the HOF voters a little room though because numbers from decade to decade change and sometimes guys from higher scoring decades get more credit than they deserve and visa versa.
There is alot of
April 14th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
“The “bar” for the Hall of Fame seems to change constantly with the election of every player.”
That is indeed the maddening double-standard.
The Hall is supposed to be for the top tier only.
But:
If you got enough juice with the writers, you’re in.
If you are perceived as a good guy, you’re in.
If you are perceived to have been ‘Roid-free, you’re in.
If you played in a larger media market, chances are better that you’re in.
Flip those statements and that’s what keeps certain guys out.
Notice that numbers, performance, and facts don’t even enter the equation.
If you are on the fringe and can have those four things on your side then more than likely you’re in. If not then hopefully you live long enough for the VC to help you out.
I think it stays that way to keep the casual fan’s interest in voting. The hard-core baseball nuts amongst us are going to follow and debate regardless of how things are administered.
But when you can set up these paradoxical situations, it seems to keep the casual interest as well.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
A couple of points; Jimmy Wynn was a good player but we don’t “know” that he’s a top 20 all-time CF and Vada Pinson was a very good ball player, easily deserving of more than one year on the ballot.
I see the author has put a lot of effort into this but I don’t think the HOF is broken, or if it is, it can’t be fixed. It is what it is. I think the veteran’s committee has put in some questionable guys like Mazerowski that theoretically should open the door to 500 other guys but so what? It’s not like being in the HOF is a paid job. Pete Rose is still going to get more for his autograph than Maz is any day.
Not to pick on Maz but can you picture Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven saying “WTF?” when Maz got elected? It’s kind of like a handicapped bowling league where the 150 bowler beats the guy with 200.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
The only facts about the HOF are the players who are in and those who are not.
Nothing else matters.
I don’t know who “generally regards xxx to ranked in the top l0/15/20 of xxx position” but it’s irrelevant.
Jim Rice is a HOFer.
Ron Santo isn’t.
Why doesn’t matter.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
God damn. I am getting so tired of defending Mazeroski on this site.
Move on people. Pick on someone I haven’t seen, like Candy Cummings or Ray Schalk, or the wrong Ferrell.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Most of the guys inducted by the Vet’s committee in the span of the 30s and 50s probably don’t belong there, but that’s just me. The hall’s so bloated today because there were a bunch of sentimental old timers who wanted their buddies in the hall. …Sue me if you disagree, but look at some of the names that got in that day.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
“I am getting so tired of defending Mazeroski on this site”
Are you kidding?
Might as well call it http://www.kissronsantosass.com with all the slobbering that goes on here about him.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
There’s a general air of fatalism here, as in most of our society. A submissive attitude of resignation to the status quo. Why do ya’ll bother getting out of bed? The day’s only gonna suck.
Some of us see possibilities for a better way of doing things. The positive changes of tomorrow will only come from the good seed sown today. And let the devil take the hindmost.
This has been a small sermon from someone who cares about the issues surrounding the players in the Hall of Fame.
April 14th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
“The hall’s so bloated today because there were a bunch of sentimental old timers who wanted their buddies in the hall.”
As long as you were associated with the NYY from the ’30’s-’60’s you had a good chance of either HOF induction or VC induction.
Everyone from Red Ruffing to the upper-deck peanut vendor.
April 14th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
“This has been a small sermon from someone who cares about the issues surrounding the players in the Hall of Fame.”
Everybody here cares about the issues surrounding the HOF.
Everybody here has done research on the HOF and it’s process, in some cases probably more than you have.
At the end of the day, what does it matter?
The HOF voting process isn’t perfect, we all know and agree to that.
Changing the process won’t make it any more or less so.
The day’s gonna suck if you spend any time thinking about the HOF.
April 14th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I coulda picked 300 players that are better than Maz besides Santo. I used Santo because he was as good a fielder and twice the hitter in roughly the same era. I saw Maz play so I’m not only going on stats alone. Good glove, slow footed, weak bat. A 2 fielder at 2B in Strato, an E stealer and a running 1-10. We’re talking HOF here.
Brautigan, what did Maz do that seperates himself from the average player? I’m not trying to pick on him, I’ve met him before and he’s a great guy. He was an average ML player and fizzled out by the time he was 31. Apparently the WS HR in 60′ was worth about 450 HR’s. It was a nostalgic selection for a beloved player, IMO.
Really, maybe I’m missing something. I started watching him in 67′ and I just don’t get it (HOF).
Daniel, I wasn’t always a fatalist. It took years of conditioning. No reason not to get out of bed though.
April 14th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
“Everybody here has done research on the HOF and it’s process, in some cases probably more than you have.”
Please, point out to me these knowledgeable people, that I might learn from them.
April 14th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Well, to start, me.
April 14th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Chuck: “Might as well call it http://www.kissronsantosass.com with all the slobbering that goes on here about him.”
Which is sadder?
That I followed the link… or that I’d hoped it was real?
April 14th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Patrick:
What? Do you have the 1970 stratomatic cards? Maz was always a “1″ when he played everyday (unless I am missing something).
Maz and Gene Alley would have easily set the major league record for double plays turned had it not been for the incredibly lousy Athletic teams of the late 40’s. Those guys (I think it was Eddie Joost at shortstop) turned so many double plays because there was so many men on base. The A’s either walked everyone or they got hits off of them. Really was an oddity. But, my point is, guys like Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith (and to some degree, the wrong Farrell) are in the hall because of their glove work. I mean, that would be like omitting Ted Williams because he was a statue in LF. No one would do that. And we speak about the greatest in the game we think of Wagner, Cobb, Ruth (Ruth could have been a great fielder, he just didn’t care that much, but he also is the youngest pitcher to win the ERA title, so his greatness wasn’t just with the bat), Mays, Mantle, these guys were all around great. Maz, his greatness started with that small glove of his, and he was great. No question about it. And that is why he is hall of famer…..because he was FAMOUS due to his glove. Everyone points to his 1960 homerun off of Ralph Terry as to why he is in the hall, but if that’s the case, where is Nippy Jones and Dusty Rhodes? Why aren’t they in the Hall? (And if it wasn’t for Hal Smith, no, not THAT Hal Smith, the other Hal Smith, and his 3 run homer, Maz wouldn’t have hit HIS homerun and he would STILL be in the hall of fame, IMHO.)
dammit, I didn’t want to have to justify MAZ again, and I just did.
April 14th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Um, Daniel, what do you want to know?
April 14th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Braut,
That’s a great point about Maz and Alley, because, at one time, they each held the DP record INDIVIDUALLY, for their position.
Homers and strikeouts sell tickets.
Chicks and BBWAA voters dig the long ball.
Guys who make their living on “web gems” get the shaft, yet, arguably, they are just as important to their teams.
April 14th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
brautigan: “Daniel, what do you want to know?”
What is your best argument for Mazeroski not being a poor offensive player? I recall trying to do this some years back, using evidence based on his hitting compared to the other NL 2B (especially RBI) and the detrimental effects of his home park. Also the offensive dead years of the big strike zone, 1963-68. This was back before he was in the Hall and I was trying to justify him.
April 14th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
During Mazeroski’s career, (1956-1972), 398 different players made at least one appearance at second base.
Mazeroski’s ranks, offensive only.
Games: first
AB: first
Runs: first
Hits: first
2b: first
3B: first
HR: first. Had 138, next closest had 99. Not bad for a guy who couldn’t hit, huh?
RBI:first. Had 853. Next closest? 494. Maz had almost TWICE as many.
Total bases: first
Walks: third
K’s: second
SB: 27th
CS: 17th
OBP: 7th
SLG: 6th
BA: 9th
XBH: first
OPS: 6th.
Not only was Mazeroski the best offensive second baseman during his era, it’s not even close.
Sure, he pales in comparison to others like Sandberg and Morgan and Carew, but you can’t penalize a player because of the era he played in.
Mazeroski’s better than alot of guys playing today.
So, Daniel, about this extensive research on the HOF and the players? I just went St. Valentine’s Day massacre on the “Mazeroski was a lousy offensive player” theory and it took less than ten minutes.
I’m certainly not questioning your effort, but it’s abundantly clear the results don’t match.
April 14th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Daniel: Allow me to put it this way: Mazeroski was not as inept with the bat as most people think. His OPS was greater than league average in ‘57, ‘58, ‘60, ‘62,and he was league average in ‘64 and ‘66.
In 1960, Pittsburgh batted Mazeroski 8th. His OPS was .712. Other number 8 hitters that year were:
Sammy Taylor Chicago (.668)
Billy Martin Cincinnati (.638)
Johnny Roseboro Los Angeles (.692)
Chuck Cottier Milwaukie (.574)
Ruben Amaro Sr. Philadelphia (.565)
Hal Smith (the OTHER Hal Smith) St. Louis (.585)
Eddie Bressoud San Francisco (.666)
Then compare that to 1967 when Harry Walker & Danny Murtaugh hit Maz 5th in the order. Maz’s OPS was .644. Other number 5 hitters were:
Clete Boyer Atlanta (.715)
Ernie Banks Chicago (.765)
Tony Perez Cincinnati (.818)
Eddie Mathews Houston (.714)
Tim McCarver St. Louis (.821)
Al Ferrara Los Angeles (.822)
Jim Ray Hart San Francisco (.882)
We spend a good deal of time talking about context. So, in the above framework, Mazeroski batting 8th in your lineup is an obvious benefit. Hitting him 5th in your lineup can be considered a detriment.
April 14th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Chuck- I’d have bet big money you were wrong about the home run total but when I looked up Dick McAuliffe he played so many games at short & 3rd (as well as getting started 4 years later than Maz) that he probably didn’t hit more home runs WHILE PLAYING second base during that time frame than Mazeroski did. I don’t think I’d call Mazeroski a better offensive player than McAuliffe however…
April 15th, 2010 at 12:15 am
Hartvig: 1967 and 1968 were the only seasons where McAuliffe and Mazeroski both played 2B regularly. That’s a small window for comparison, in my less than humble opinion.
April 15th, 2010 at 1:50 am
Braut: “We spend a good deal of time talking about context. So, in the above framework, Mazeroski batting 8th in your lineup is an obvious benefit. Hitting him 5th in your lineup can be considered a detriment.”
I’m not quite buying it…Maz deserves to be in the HOF because he was an above average #8 hitter? That means he was routinely the worst offensive starter on his own team!
The only justification for Maz in the HOF is his glovework. Whether that’s enough or not, I’m not sure, but there’s no way to spin it positively…he was a mediocre performer with the bat.
April 15th, 2010 at 2:59 am
John: WTF. read post #19 where I say ” my point is, guys like Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith (and to some degree, the wrong Farrell) are in the hall because of their glove work”.
Please explain to me what “mediocre with the bat” is.
No wait, I have a better idea. John, explain to me why Mazeroski with a .712 OPS would bat 8th in the lineup and when he has an OPS of .644, he bats 5th?
April 15th, 2010 at 4:00 am
Braut: “His OPS was greater than league average in ‘57, ‘58, ‘60, ‘62,and he was league average in ‘64 and ‘66.”
Nothing screams “HALL OF FAMER” like six seasons of average, or slightly above average play!
April 15th, 2010 at 8:35 am
“Chuck- I’d have bet big money you were wrong”
I get that alot, actually.
Some people are slow learners.
Present company excluded, of course.
I remember a “debate” a while back with some guy who said his dad was a scout and thought Madison Bumgarner was going to be the next Randy Johnson. I said he had mechanical issues which would effect his command and pitchability and eventually he would become Noah Lowry. (Who was that, Rex? I think he was on the top of your hit list there for awhile).
So, last year Bumgarner goes from throwing 93 to having trouble hitting 88.
Check out his first two starts this year. I know two starts is a small sample size, but the pattern began last year.
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=518516
April 15th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Brautigan, actually it’s the 1971 strato cards, when he was 34 and already in his next to last year. When you put Maz’s offense in context with other 2B’s of his era he fares better than I thought, as you and Chuck point out. I obviously never saw Maz when he was great at anything, so maybe I don’t have the proper perspective to judge him.
I will point out that when he got on the ballot in 78′, he only received 6% of the vote, 23 out of 379, or only 4 votes more than he needed to stay on the ballot, and for his 15 years on the ballot he averaged approx. 20%, so the vast majority of writers that saw him play daily didn’t think he was a worthy candidate.
I use Maz’s induction as the standard to make arguments for other’s inclusion, which I think is fair, but not ever personally witnessing his early career wizardry at 2B has probably tainted my view of him. I knew him as the guy who wasn’t good enough to beat out Dave Cash. I think to go from 6% to in the Hall 23 yrs later, makes him a nostalgic pick but I’ll try to find a new canary in the HOF mine, there are plenty to choose from.
April 15th, 2010 at 9:34 am
The Hall of Fame is nice.
But if baseball had no Hall of Fame, would you love the sport any less? My guess is probably not. So really, why stress yourself out so much about it.
So much debate over it. Daniel, no offense, but I hope you’ve at least BEEN to Cooperstown.
Thanks.
April 15th, 2010 at 9:34 am
The logic used as far as Mazeroski being some kind of great offensive player or the best offensive 2b of his era is extremely flawed.
Using “counting stats” to prove Mazeroski was the best offensive second basemen from ‘56-72 is inherently flawed because that’s Mazeroski “entire” career. I would hope Mazerowski did very well in those counting stats seeing that he was probably the only second basemen to play every season during that time period. You can make a similar case for literally 1000’s of players using that type of logic.
Gary Gaetti hit 360Hr during his career from 1981-2000. From 1981-2000 Gary Gaetti hit the most hr by a 3b during that time period. Does that mean that Gary Gaetti was the greatest power hitting 3b of the last part of the 20th century? Of course not.
If you use “rate” stats from 1956-1972 with a minimum of 3000 plate appearances, you get a better idea where Mazeroski rates as an offensive 2b during that era.
ops+(84)-ranked-18th
OBP:(.299)-ranked-22nd
Slg:(.367)-ranked-8th
BA: (.260)-ranked-14th
So he’s not a bad offensive 2b from that era, I would say he’s above average, but he’s nowhere close to being “The Best” offensive 2b of that era or even one of the top 10 offensive 2b of the era.
April 15th, 2010 at 9:55 am
“Using “counting stats” to prove Mazeroski was the best offensive second basemen from ‘56-72 is inherently flawed because that’s Mazeroski “entire” career. I would hope Mazerowski did very well in those counting stats seeing that he was probably the only second basemen to play every season during that time period. You can make a similar case for literally 1000’s of players using that type of logic.”
Agreed, and yet, this is all the Ron Santo supporters go by.
It either works for everybody, or for nobody.
April 15th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Again Chuck, I’m not a big Ron Santo supporter, I just basically picked him out of a hat as one of many “glove” guys who had vastly better offensive stats than Maz did. I could’ve said Graig Nettles and my point is the same.
“It either works for everybody, or for nobody.”
Agreed Chuck, but wouldn’t that reasoning make you vote for Santo (or Nettles) if you agree that Maz is correctly a HOFer?
April 15th, 2010 at 10:35 am
“Agreed Chuck, but wouldn’t that reasoning make you vote for Santo (or Nettles) if you agree that Maz is correctly a HOFer?”
My point about Maz is that defense is extremely underrated by the voters. The fact the living HOFers boycotted Mazeroski’s induction ceremony is all I need to know about him.
I don’t believe either Nettles or Santo to be HOFers, although with a gun to my head I’d take Nettles. Santo, IMO, is one of the more overrated defensive players ever.
April 15th, 2010 at 10:35 am
So, Patrick, you think BJ Upton reads Dugout Central?
We talk yesterday about him maybe being traded, and he goes out and hits two bombs.
Coincidence?
April 15th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Maybe BJ Upton changed his approach.
Oh wait. That can’t be it. Readers of Dugout Central have already pointed out that if a player could be better, he would be.
Oops.
April 15th, 2010 at 10:50 am
You know Chuck, I thought the same thing about Upton. Really. I didn’t know how powerful we were until last night.
Actually, I think Maddon does read this (he reads everything) and he probably printed it and taped it to BJ’s locker. I should be more careful cuz Upton is only 20 minutes from my front door, though if he’s going to kick my ass he better bring a friend with him.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:17 am
“though if he’s going to kick my ass he better bring a friend with him.”
Or his “little” brother..
April 15th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Ha, Chuck, I purposely decided to leave him out of this for obvious reasons. It’s between me and BJ.
Just kidding BJ, I’ve always been a fan. Just don’t try to pull everything and maybe you’ll make Peter Gammons look like Nostradamus.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Brautigan wrote; “explain to me why Mazeroski with a .712 OPS would bat 8th in the lineup and when he has an OPS of .644, he bats 5th?”
I’d say because he walks more in the 8th spot because the pitcher is on deck but when he bats in a premium spot, like 5th, he gets pitched to. So the .644 is more indicative of his actual hitting prowess, IMO.
But he’s there for his glove, so I’m permanently off his case.
April 15th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
In Maz’s prime, good-hitters at 2B were in scarce supply.
All players with 600 G at 2B and 2400 PA, 1957-66
OPS+ RC .ISO -PA-
97 475 .075 3841 Johnny Temple
92 592 .068 5322 Nellie Fox
91 410 .137 3603 Charlie Neal
87 558 .089 5180 Jerry Lumpe
87 615 .120 5922 Bill Mazeroski
84 291 .106 3154 Jerry Adair
84 546 .109 5354 Frank Bolling
84 535 .087 5194 Tony Taylor
78 535 .070 5250 Don Blasingame
78 533 .069 5747 Bobby Richardson
73 265 .086 3007 Billy Gardner
71 341 .099 3604 Julian Javier
Maz is probably the worst offensive player in the HOF. OPS+ overrates him, since his is SLG-heavy and he was a negative as a baserunner.
Players with lowest OPS+ in the HOF:
OPS+ -PA- From -To-
82 11230 1956 1973 Luis Aparicio
82 11256 1912 1935 Rabbit Maranville
83 06217 1912 1929 Ray Schalk
84 08379 1956 1972 Bill Mazeroski
87 10778 1978 1996 Ozzie Smith
92 08114 1878 1894 Monte Ward
93 10349 1947 1965 Nellie Fox
93 09222 1945 1963 Red Schoendienst
93 06711 1941 1956 Phil Rizzuto
95 07072 1929 1947 Rick Ferrell
96 07152 1902 1916 Joe Tinker
April 15th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Patrick:
You are right. If I remember correctly, Maz was usually in double figures in intentional walks, and I think one year he led the league in intentional passes.
April 15th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Maz never had 30 non-intentional walks in any season.
I also wonder why, if he really was this god-like fielder, why he was beat out for gold gloves by the likes of Charlie Neal, Ken Hubbs and Glenn Beckert.
April 15th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
“I also wonder why, if he really was this god-like fielder, why he was beat out for gold gloves by the likes of Charlie Neal, Ken Hubbs and Glenn Beckert.”
For the same reason Ron Santo won so many.
Probably no more subjective award exists in sports.
April 15th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Daniel Greenia,
I tend to agree with you that Maz is among the worst offensive players in the HOF. But to be fair to Maz, your talking about the best hitters in the games history.
My problem with electing a guy like Maz is that there is a complete lack of consistency in the voting. Maz is basically the same as Frank White, yet Frank never came anywhere close to being considered for the HOF. Maz is probably around the 30th best 2b of all time and there are probably about 10 better 2b not in the HOF.
And two 2b who should be in the HOF, Grich/Whitaker were one and done.
April 15th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
To be fair to Santo, he was one of the top five offensive 3b from 1960-1974:
OPS+125:6th
BA.277:5th
OBP.362:3rd
Slg.464:5th
Santo’s real claim to the HOF is during his 7 year peak from 1963-1969 when he was among the best players in the game.
Here’s how he ranks among 3b 1963-1969:
Ops+144:2nd
BA.292:2nd
OBP.380:1st
Slg.502:2nd
He made the All star team 6 times, won 5 gold gloves and finished in the top 8 in MVP voting 4 times.
Overall from 1963-1969 he ranks:
OPS+144:11th
BA:16th
OBP:7th
Slp:9th
He was an average fieling 3b towards the end of his career, but I’ve never seen a serious claim that he didn’t deserve those 5 gold gloves during the middle 60’s.
April 15th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
“And two 2b who should be in the HOF, Grich/Whitaker were one and done”
Can’t wait to see the shitstorm in a couple of years when Jeff Kent hits the ballot.
April 15th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Daniel, I’ll buy the negative base running skills but a SLG-heavy OPS has a higher correlation to runs scored than a OBP-heavy OPS does. So Maz’s power is a distinct advantage when compared to low end HOFers OPS+ totals.
You brought up Hubbs;
“Second baseman Ken Hubbs of the Chicago Cubs won the 1962 National League Rookie of the Year Award but was killed in a plane crash just a year later.
Hubbs was born in 1941, the same year as Pete Rose, and played in the Little League World Series for the Colton Lions in 1954. He was signed by the Cubs in 1959 and came up for a cup of coffee in 1961, at age 19. The next year, he became a regular and was named National League Rookie of the Year. He was noted for his stellar defense and excellent range and set major league records for consecutive games without an error (78) and consecutive chances accepted (418) without an error. He won a Gold Glove, interrupting a streak by Bill Mazeroski, who had won in 1961 and would win again in 1963 and several times thereafter.”
No shame in Maz losing a GG to him, or to Glenn Beckert in 68′, who had a great all around year in 68′(led the majors in runs scored, for what it’s worth).
April 15th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
“Can’t wait to see the shitstorm in a couple of years when Jeff Kent hits the ballot.”
And is inducted in either his first or second year.
April 15th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I was 10 when Hubbs was killed in Utah. I have never, ever, stopped wondering what his career would have looked like had he not perished in that plane crash.
April 15th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Good memory, Braut.
Mazeroski led the NL in IBB in ‘62 (16). He also had a second place finish in 1960 (15).
April 15th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
“And is inducted in either his first or second year”
At least people will stop whining about Jim Rice being in…
April 15th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Braut: “Please explain to me what “mediocre with the bat” is.
Okay. When you play you’re entire career without a single season above the league average for adjusted OPS, and your career OBP is below .300, you topped .400 in slugging just twice, and your closest offensive comparison for the prime of your career is some guy named Granny Hammer, then you’re a mediocre offensive performer.
Chuck brought up how he compares favorably to other 2B for the period conveniently encompassing his career, but that’s sort of to be expected. It’s not as if 1956-1972 is some sort of clearly defined era. His career started toward the last several years of the careers of superior hitting 2B like Jackie Robinson, Red Schoendienst, and Nellie Fox while ending his career during the first several years of the careers of Rod Carew and Joe Morgan – and those are just the HOFers who were better than him. So, within the context of his “era,” he was really nothing outstanding with the bat, even for a 2B.
“No wait, I have a better idea. John, explain to me why Mazeroski with a .712 OPS would bat 8th in the lineup and when he has an OPS of .644, he bats 5th?”
How the hell should I know? I wasn’t managing the Pirates in the 1960’s, I was too busy being a sperm and hoping my dad would meet a chick. He was a poor hitter batting 8th and an even worse hitter batting 5th. So because he was better than most #8 hitters, and crappier than most #5 hitters, that somehow means something?
As for the whole Santo thing, I’m with Chuck. The guy’s basically Scott Rolen.
April 15th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
“As for the whole Santo thing, I’m with Chuck. The guy’s basically Scott Rolen.”
And yet, here we go, somewhere, somehow, and for some reason, somebody will post something on the web asking if Scott Rolen is a HOFer.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/367326-is-scott-rolen-a-hall-of-famer?search_query=Scott%20Rolen
April 15th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Where is Hossrex???
Regarding that bleacher report piece on Scott Rolen:
“A lot of words come to mind when discussing Rolen: grinder, a “veteran presence,” scrappy, gritty. I hear these a lot. One thing I do not hear a lot, for whatever reason, is “great.”
And there it is….
April 15th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
By the way, the Indians beat the Rangers this afternoon by a score of 3-2.
Time of game: 2:03
Yeah.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Texas is in New York tomorrow, Cleveland’s at home against Chicago.
Getaway day…teams had planes to catch.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
My thing on Maz (who I respect) is people say he is there for his glove…but facts are if he was so good with the glove he would of played SS instead of 2nd.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Bastaducci: Why didn’t Brooks Robinson play shortstop? Joe Morgan anyone?
C’mon, retract that before Hossrex is all over your ass.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
“but facts are if he was so good with the glove he would of played SS instead of 2nd.”
Fact? Says who?
April 15th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
John: Excuse me, but, screw “adjusted OPS”. Maz played half of his games at Forbes field. You know, 365 down the left field line, 406 in left center (where he hit his “famous” homerun), and 457 in CF.
In 15 seasons at Forbes Field, the great Roberto Clemente managed to “only” hit 83 homers at Forbes. That averages at about 6 per season. (again, just for context)
April 15th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
The problem with Thirdbasemen is the don’t elect Thirdbasemen to the HOF. I think there are only 11 3b in the HOF, the least represented position. Kell and Lindstrom were horrible selections so that leaves you with 9. Jimmy Collins and Pie Traynor are about 15-20 all time at the position so that leaves you with only 7 or 8 3b out of the top 15 in baseball history in the HOF. There’s no other position like it.
The modern standard at third is basically Schmidt or Brett, which would be like having the standard at first be Foxx or Gehrig.
Rolen’s a hell of a player and has been kind of underrated throughout his career.
He has a career line of .283/.370/.498, 124ops+, and 7 gold gloves. I would say he’s one of the top 15 3b of all time.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
My idea to fix the HOF would be to have the hof players at each position elect the players. No more writers, no more veterans committee, as long as you played 10 years you’re eligible, no one is taken off a ballot.
For example, the firstbasemen vote for the 1b, the secondbasemen vote for the 2b, etc. They make a list of 5 players from their position, 1-5, you get 5 points for a 1st place finish, 4 points for a second, etc. the player with the most votes gets in. And only one player from each position gets in, but you must elect one player from your position every 3 years.
One year you have the 1b,2b,ss,3b vote, so there would be 4 players inducted
The next year you have the LF,CF,Rf vote, so you would have 3 players inducted
The next year you have the Pitchers/Relievers/Catchers, vote. 2 starters should go in at a time to balance it out. So you would have 4 players inducted.
Then it would go back to the infield, etc.
April 15th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Wow, Len, and here we all are thinking Daniel’s suggestion sucked.
April 15th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I don’t think Hossrex is going to look at any of our links for a while.
April 15th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
I shouldn’t laugh but LOL! @ Chuck
April 15th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Patrick: “Daniel, I’ll buy the negative base running skills but a SLG-heavy OPS has a higher correlation to runs scored than a OBP-heavy OPS does. So Maz’s power is a distinct advantage when compared to low end HOFers OPS+ totals.”
That’s the exact opposite to how I’ve always understood it. A player with a .400 OBP and a .400 SLG makes more runs than one with a .300 OBP and a .500 SLG, though they both have an OPS of .800.
April 15th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Patrick: “No shame in Maz losing a GG to him [Hubbs], or to Glenn Beckert in 68′, who had a great all around year in 68′(led the majors in runs scored, for what it’s worth).”
OK, but look to other players with the rep of “all-time great glove at his position” (Ozzie, Clemente, Brooks, Hernandez) and they were automatics for the GG every year for more than a decade. Unlike Maz, it just didn’t happen that a highly publicized rookie could be better than one of these all-time greats. The subjectivity of the GG award, that Chuck mentions, results in little thought being given to it by most of the voters, they just go with the incumbent, the name with the great reputation. To me, the question is why didn’t the people observing Maz at the time put him in that same “no-brainer” class?
April 15th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Braut: “C’mon, retract that before Hossrex is all over your ass.”
Joe Morgan… simultaneously the worst commentator, and one of the greatest baseball players of all time.
I have a problem with the man.
Not his game.
And… I’ll say it again… it’s ironic how much Joe Morgan hates “new” stats, when it’s the “new” stats that really highlight JUST HOW AMAZING OF A BASEBALL PLAYER Joe Morgan really was.
A guy with an ego as big as his should look at what SABR has to say about him, and wish he were a robot so he could make sweet sweet love to the computer.
If it seems like I’ve been away lately… it’s because I’ve been watching games (YEAH!), and finding myself disappointed that the articles here were more interesting during a slow Hot-Stove league than they have been this last couple weeks. I mean… I hope you guys are too busy watching games… that I understand.
But rerunning this series about how to the hall of fame?
I’m going to agree with whomever said it in whichever thread… no matter how you “fix” the hall of fame”, there will still be people pissed off their favorite players aren’t in, so what’s the point?
Hell… I think Gil Hodges should be in the hall of fame, and frankly I wouldn’t be happy with any changes until that happened. How insane is that? And considering THAT statement is coming from someone who DOES understand baseball… imagine how impossible it would be to fix the hall of fame to EVERYONE’S satisfaction?
Because really… if it isn’t about meeting EVERYONE’S satisfaction… the way it is now is as good as any.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
“but a SLG-heavy OPS has a higher correlation to runs scored than a OBP-heavy OPS does”
Correct.
“A player with a .400 OBP and a .400 SLG makes more runs than one with a .300 OBP and a .500 SLG, though they both have an OPS of .800.”
Incorrect.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Holy shit, Rex, you really do bleed Dodger blue.
Put Gil Hodges in the HOF and we’re having the same conversation about him that we’re having about Bill Mazeroski.
Kent Hrbek is a better HOF candidate than Gil Hodges.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Chuck: “Holy shit, Rex, you really do bleed Dodger blue.”
lol… I said it was insane!
April 16th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Chuck: ““A player with a .400 OBP and a .400 SLG makes more runs than one with a .300 OBP and a .500 SLG, though they both have an OPS of .800.”
Incorrect.”
I can’t find a study that supports the belief you espouse. Can you point me to something?
Many sources say that the proper combination of OBP and SLG is to multiply them, rather than to add them. Many others multiply OBP by 1.2 or a similar factor in order to correct for its undervaluing in standard OPS. Either of these adjustments makes 400-400 better than 300-500.
April 16th, 2010 at 9:48 am
“A player with a .400 OBP and a .400 SLG makes more runs than one with a .300 OBP and a .500 SLG, though they both have an OPS of .800.”
For what it’s worth, I’d rather have Luis Castillo in my lineup than Tony Batista.
But someone – Patrick maybe? – showed last year that slugging correlates more closely with R/g than OBP for teams, so I’m honestly not sure.
April 16th, 2010 at 9:55 am
er…circa 2000. Well, and now.
Chuck: “Kent Hrbek is a better HOF candidate than Gil Hodges.”
I could have sworn that there was no way that was true. But alas, it is.
April 16th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Hodges was a better player Hrbek.
There’s about 10-12 better 1b candidates than Hodges not in the HOF, so I don’t think he’s really a solid candidate. He gets a ton of nostalgia points because he was a member of those 50’s Dodger teams and he was the manager of the ‘69 Mets.
Dolph Camilli, Hodges predecessor, was about as good as Hodges, maybe better when you consider his career was cut short because of WW2. Camilli’s name is never brought up as a HOF candidate.
April 16th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Daniel,
The comment was actually Patrick’s, he “espoused” it, I just happen to agree with him. If you need help finding a study, ask him.
April 16th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I think there was an article in Baseball Prospectus book, “Everything you knew about baseball is wrong” discussing the greater merits of on base vs. slugging.
April 16th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
OBP definitely equates better to runs than SLG.
April 17th, 2010 at 1:25 am
Top 10 teams in R/g (2009):
NYY
LAA
BOS
PHI
MIN
TBR
COL
TOR
MIL
TEX
Top 10 Teams in OBP include
#4: LAD (11 in R/g)
#9: FLA (13)
#10: ATL (17)
Cleveland, Washington, and the Mets all rank right ahead of Philly in OBP (11-14). The Nationals ranked 22nd in r/g, the Mets ranked 25th. Philly ranked 4th.
With slugging:
NYY
BOS
PHI
TEX
COL
LAA
TOR
TBR
MIN
MIL
Notice something? All those teams ranked in the top 10 in r/g too. Different order, but same 10 teams.
Slugging percentage correlates about 91% to scoring. OBP correlates about 85%. That’s just one year, and maybe someday when I get more time (that honestly took about 10 minutes, and I’ve been drinking) I’ll look at others, but I have a hard time seeing definitively how OBP equates better to runs than SLG, when SLG appears as good if not better.
April 17th, 2010 at 2:24 am
Okay. I think the problem is I didn’t phrase my statement as I’d intended.
OBP is the more important “half” of the OPS equation.
It’s better to have a team full of guys with a .400 OBP and a .400 slg than it is to have a team full of guys with a .300 OBP and a .500 SLG.
There was an article about this subject before the change-over.
April 17th, 2010 at 5:08 am
By the way… Hossrex still hasn’t looked up Kent Hrbeck.
If I don’t see the numbers, it isn’t true.
April 17th, 2010 at 6:32 am
brautigan Says:Bastaducci: Why didn’t Brooks Robinson play shortstop? Joe Morgan anyone? C’mon, retract that before Hossrex is all over your ass.
1st Brautigan, 3rd base also a much much tougher position to play than 2nd
2nd Brooks Robinson won a MVP.
3rd Robinson 12 times got votes for MVP
4th Robinson was not the greatest hitter but was twice the hitter Maz was and a better fielder at a tougher position.
5th Joe Morgan was a superstar hitter so bringing his name up brought nothing to your debate.
6th Don’t drop other peoples names when you have a disagreement with someones opinion because it makes you look spineless.
April 17th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Hossrex: “Okay. I think the problem is I didn’t phrase my statement as I’d intended.
OBP is the more important “half” of the OPS equation.”
Your prior phrasing was on the mark as well. Frankly, I was surprised to see anyone disputing this, as it has been “settled law” in sabermetrics for, I’d say, over 25 years.
April 17th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Well Daniel, it’s not like I relied on my gut. I performed some quick analysis, with numbers and things. (Kudos to MATLAB, which made the process painless). Just for kicks, let’s look at a random year (I can use Matlab for that too!). Randint and…1989.
For that year, Slugging correlated 90.5%, OBP was 79.5%.
If it didn’t hold true for teams (not saying it does, I have to look at at least another 6 seasons or so for any kind of trend) why would it hold true for individuals?
April 17th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
John, thanks for doing that. It’s a popular modern day myth that OBP is more valuable than SLG but it’s easy to refute, as you’ve just proved in 10 minutes. If you had 10 hours, you would see that every season plays out with SLG correlating to more runs than OBP. It really isn’t close either.
April 17th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Bastaducci:
1) That was a joke. Sorry if you missed the punchline.
2) Please quantify for me how 3B is a more difficult position to play than 2B.
Wait, before you answer #2, let me shed some light on the subject:
According to Bill James (1983 Baseball Abstract; page 8)”along this spectrum, each position makes larger defensive demands than the position preceding it. Those demands, generally speaking, are for speed, agility, reaction time and throwing. This creates a much larger field of available ball players at the left end of the spectrum than at the right, a fact which has many important consequences in the business of building a baseball club.”
The “spectrum” James is alluding to goes like this:
DH, 1B, LF, RF, 3B, CF, 2B, SS. (He did not include catcher in his spectrum)
Also, Brooks Robinson won an MVP in 1964. What did having 119 RBI’s have anything to do with Brooks Robinson playing 3B?
I’m really doing my best not to comment on your spineless statement. Really.
April 17th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Ah,hell with it. Let me guess Einstein, you didn’t play baseball, did you? Otherwise, you would have known that 2B is a hell of a lot more difficult to play than 3B.
April 17th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
John: “For that year, Slugging correlated 90.5%, OBP was 79.5%.”
You’re using a wholly unscientific method to find your conclusion though.
April 17th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
What does a “settled law of sabermetrics” have to do with baseball?
April 25th, 2010 at 10:48 am
We can talk about it all day, but one fact remains…unless undeserving players are removed from the HOF, then forget trying to fix it now. The damage is done. Chick Hafey rules~!!!!
April 25th, 2010 at 10:50 am
And Norm Cash is better than Hrbek or Hodges. Oops, now I’m doing it.
April 25th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Kevin: “unless undeserving players are removed from the HOF, then forget trying to fix it now.”
You can’t remove players, for the sheer fact that there are always “anti-Biggio” type guys.
We’re all old enough to remember his career. The guy simply wasn’t hall of fame material. Yet by the end of his career he somehow had numbers that’ll allow him to walk into the hall of fame.
By inverse, there are much better players who just never got to those magic numbers that seem to be all that matters these days. Those are the guys that we look back on today, and wonder why they were ever considered worthy of the hall of fame… and of course the answer is we didn’t see them play, so we can’t ever truly judge them.
The induction rules specifically say a player shall not be elected based on reaching a statistical milestone… and yet Biggio will be a first ballot hall of famer, while Barry Larkin and Roberto Alomar have to wait at least a year.
All of this is why I’m a big hall guy. Sure, put the Biggio’s in… but let’s not forget about the other guys who had great 10-15 year careers as well. Before the hall of fame started taking itself too seriously, it used to allow those guys, and that’s why you see “questionable” historical choices.
As much as I opposed the Jim Rice admission… maybe what we need are more players like him and Dawson.
Why not?
April 25th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
“there are always “anti-Biggio” type guys.”
I’m anti-Biggio.
I’m more anti-Bagwell.
Wanna step outside?
I’m a small Hall guy. Everybody knows that.
I can understand the anti-Rice vote.
I can name 20 guys less deserving.
Chick Hafey?
I can name 20 guys less deserving.
The HOF voting process is explicit in it’s bylaws and rules that a player cannot be elected by achieving a certain statisical measure..3000 strikeouts, 3000 hits, three MVP awards, xxx All-Star appearances.
Yet, here we are, having a guy who when he retired was fourth all time on the pitching strikeout list not getting in, yet a guy who ONLY accomplished 3000 hits will be a first ballot electee.
Bert Blyleven is a HOFer with 1000 less strikeouts.
Craig Biggio has NO CHANCE
April 25th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
“Craig Biggio has NO CHANCE..
..with 200 fewer hits.
Sorry about the cut-off.
See what sabermetrics have done?
They have succeeded in putting more emphasis on numbers than on performance.
Sad..
April 25th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
I don’t think “hits” is really a sabermetric thing. The “sabermetric” argument for Biggio is that apparently, according to Bill James, he was the second best player in the ’90’s behind Bonds. Don’t ask me where he got that one from.
April 25th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Why should Biggio be in the Hall of Fame? Because he crossed the plate 1844 times. He did that by putting himself into scoring position with 668 doubles, 55 triples & 291 home runs out of his 3000 plus hits. In addition to that he stole 414 base at a 77% success rate and is 2nd all time in HBP with 285. That’s a season & a half worth of hits for most full time players. Twelve players have scored more runs than Biggio. Yeah, he’s not Babe Ruth but who is? He’s arguably the 2nd best lead off hitter of all time and was a good defensive player at a key position. He’s a clear cut hall of famer, 3000 hits or not in my opinion.
April 25th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
“They have succeeded in putting more emphasis on numbers than on performance.”
Numbers are a (partial) reflection of performance.
April 25th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Hartvig: “Why should Biggio be in the Hall of Fame? Because he crossed the plate 1844 times. He did that by putting himself into scoring position with 668 doubles, 55 triples & 291 home runs out of his 3000 plus hits. In addition to that he stole 414 base at a 77% success rate and is 2nd all time in HBP with 285. That’s a season & a half worth of hits for most full time players. Twelve players have scored more runs than Biggio. Yeah, he’s not Babe Ruth but who is? He’s arguably the 2nd best lead off hitter of all time and was a good defensive player at a key position. He’s a clear cut hall of famer, 3000 hits or not in my opinion.”
In other words…
“Why should Biggio be in the Hall of Fame? Because he crossed the plate counting stat times. He did that by putting himself into scoring position with counting stat doubles, counting stat triples & counting stat home runs out of his counting stat plus hits. In addition to that he stole counting stat base at a 77% success rate and is 2nd all time in HBP with counting stat. That’s a season & a half worth of hits for most full time players. Twelve players have scored more runs than Biggio. Yeah, he’s not Babe Ruth but who is? He’s arguably the 2nd best lead off hitter of all time and was a good defensive player at a key position. He’s a clear cut hall of famer, counting stat hits or not in my opinion.”
Let’s take a look at how many times he led the league in the statistical categories you’ve given.
Runs scored? Twice.
Doubles? Three times.
Triples? Zero.
Homeruns? Zero.
Hits? Zero.
Stolen Bases? Once.
HBP? Five times.
So.
You’re putting him in the hall of fame because he was adept at leaning into pitches without being caught?
April 25th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
To be fair to Biggio, you have to put his numbers in the context of a guy that was a second basemen for most of his career and played in the Astrodome for half of his career.
It’s not just about 3000 hits with Biggio, He made 7 all star games, won the gold glove 4 times, won the silver slugger 5 times, Finished in the top 10 for runs scored 9 times and finished in the top 5 for Times on Base 7 times.
All time he’s 5th in Doubles, 13th in Runs Scored, 30th in Runs Created, and 17th in Times on Base, 20th in Hits, and 30th in Total Bases.
Hossrex,
I tend to agree with you that the writers/veteran’s committee tend to skew the results towards players with better career achievements than a player who was great but for a shorter amount of time.
I guess it’s easier for them because they can just point to certain milestones and say that a player reached the “X” milestone so he’s in the HOF. The only eligible guy, (leaving McGwire out of it for a second), that I can think of that reached a milestone, “3000 k’s” that hasn’t gotten in is Bert Blyleven.
Which makes the Jim Rice selection a real head-scratcher because he didn’t reach any milestones, and yet the writer’s voted him. He was a LF/DH hitting in Fenway Park and he didn’t even get to 400HR. And he didn’t have any kind of dominant period other than say a relatively small 3 year period from 1977-1979. And he didn’t have a lot of support early so go figure.
April 25th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Hoss
“You’re putting him in the hall of fame because he was adept at leaning into pitches without being caught?”
He was in the top 10 in runs scored 9 times, doubles 6, stolen bases 5… and he did this while playing in the Astrodome, the worst hitters park in baseball in at least the last 50 years until he was 33 years old. His job was to get on base & put himself the the best position possible to score runs. Joe Medwick is in the Hall of Fame with a 17 year career (admittedly probably not deservedly) & managed to draw 437 bases on balls. His job was to drive runners in. Biggio, who’s job was to score runs, was in the top 3 in time on base 5 times, top 5 another 2 & 8th & 9th 2 other seasons. All but 1 of those seasons (the 9th place finish) was while playing in the Astrodome. OK, runs scored is a counting stat. But it’s THE counting stat. The team that wins the game is not the team that has the most home runs or base runners or strikeouts but the team that scores the most RUNS. And Biggio did that one thousand eight hundred & forty four times.
Oh hell, Hoss, you’re just being ornery. You’d vote him into the HOF yourself just like I would.
April 25th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Hartvig: “You’d vote him into the HOF yourself just like I would.”
lol…
Yeah…
But I’d feel like a total hypocrite while I was doing it.
April 25th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
“Don’t ask me where he got that from.”
Considering James is an idiot, no need to ask.
I forgot more about baseball than Bill James knows.
He forgot more about math than I know.
YOU do the math on who is more credible.
Just because HE wrote a few books?
Put us in a bar with a couple of pitchers on the line and I’d kick his ugly bearded ass…and not only do I know it..so does he.
April 26th, 2010 at 1:06 am
To me the knock on Blyleven and Biggio is the same with one difference. Both players were very good but both never dominated. The difference, of course, is that Craig got to his stat milestone and Bert never did.
Blyleven never led the league in Wins, ERA, K’s only once, and no CYA.
But he led once for earned runs allowed, twice for home runs allowed, twice for HBP.
His resume to me is not dominating, elite or HOF.
He was a very good pitcher that pitched for 22 years to accumulate and compile what he accomplished. When I think of the pitchers of his era who did dominate and were his peers, I think of Carlton, Ryan, and Seaver. They were elite and dominant pitchers.
To me Biggio is easier.
If you are going to vote Yount (3000 hit club) in than Biggio goes because his numbers are comparable if not better than most of Yount’s.
If you are going to vote Sandberg in than Biggio goes because his number are comparable if not better than most of Sandberg’s.
Yes both Yount and Sandberg won their MVP’s and that certainly goes against Biggio but in the end, statistically he is on par or better than both and unlike the Edgar debate he played the field at three positions while winning 4 GG.
That’s my small-hall opinion.
April 26th, 2010 at 4:10 am
Actually… that’s a pretty fair assessment.
The only reason I’d put Blyleven ahead of Biggio is that he retired as #3 all time on one of the most “significant” (if perhaps overrated) pitching statistics… strikeouts.
I’d be the first one to shoot down “if only”s, or “what if”s… but… if I could be allowed a little more hypocrisy… Blyleven would have been a first ballot hall of famer if he’d spent his career with the Yankees.
April 26th, 2010 at 10:48 am
I have to disagree as far as Blyleven goes, he was a dominating pitcher, he just got stuck on a lot of mediocre mid-western teams pitching in hitter’s parks most of his career.
W-L record is over-rated, more of a team accomplishment than a pitcher’s accomplishment.
I tend to value K’s more for a pitcher because that’s one of the few things a pitcher can control. He can’t control the quality of his fielders or his team’s offense or his ballpark.
He finished in the top ten for ERA 10 times, Top Five 7 times
He finished in the top five in Whip 7 times
He finished in the top ten K/9 14 times, Top Five K/9 9 times
He finished in the top ten K’s 15 times, Top Five K’s 13 times
He finished in the top Five in Shutouts 9 times, he’s 9th alltime
He finished in the top Five K/BB 13 times.
He should have won the 1973 Cy Young. He should have won the 1984 Cy Young when he won 19 games for a horrible Indians team. He came in 3rd, behind two relief pitchers.
He finished his career with over 3700 k’s, third all time to that point.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“If you are going to vote Yount (3000 hit club) in than Biggio goes because his numbers are comparable if not better than most of Yount’s.”
The first ten years or so of Yount’s career was spent during the tail end of the most dominating pitching era since the Deadball.
Craig Biggio spent ALL of his career in the most offensively dominant era in history.
On paper, their numbers are similar.
In reality, they’re not close.
April 26th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
“On paper, their numbers are similar.
In reality, they’re not close.”
On paper their numbers are similar and in a lot of BBWAA voters minds’ they are seen as almost the same player. Hence why Biggio will get first ballot induction the same as Yount.
So in reality, BBWAA reality which is the one that matters since we are talking HOF voting, they are close. In fact almost identical.
April 26th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Usually HOF candidates rank higher in MVP (annual) voting, and Biggio did not do well in this regard (only 2 top 10 ranking during his career). But that said, I cannot see why Biggio would not be inducted, but it is not a sure thing he will be first ballot inductee.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
“but it is not a sure thing he will be first ballot inductee.”
I’ll tell you why I think it is.
In 2011 you have Blyleven and Alomar.
2012 will be a Lazarus vote year. Who gets resurrected for induction?
2013 will have no superstar holdover.
Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa have got no chance because of ‘Roids in their first year at least. Schilling is as hated as he is loved by voters and that will keep him out. (Also to me he is not HOF material and shouldn’t even be considered.)
’13 should be Piazza and Biggio. Both guys have no ‘Roid clouds or personal baggage.
Biggio has his automatic 3000 ticket punched and Piazza’s offensive numbers at catcher speak for themselves.
I can’t see people like Raines, Larkin, or anyone else breaking through except for ’12.
April 26th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
You can look at this two ways, glass half full, or empty.
Craig Biggio is one of just 27 out of roughly 11,000 position players to reach 3000 hits.
He may be the WORST player in the 3000 hit club.
Biggio probably ranks himself 27 out of 11,000.
I rank him 27 of 27.
Look, Biggio, on paper, is deserving. He spent his entire career playing three of not only the most physically demanding positions, but mentally demanding as well.
I’m not going to resign my HOF membership if he’s elected, although if I had a BBWAA vote he wouldn’t get mine.
Steriods.
April 26th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I think Biggio is a clear HOFer assuming he’s never done steroids but I really don’t know why anyone gets a pass on the subject. It’s an important enough subject to keep McGwire and Palmeiro out of the Hall so what’s the rush with other guys from the era?
Robby Alomar almost made the Hall last year but does anyone know for sure that Robby hasn’t juiced? I mean, what happens if it comes out after induction that a guy juiced? Does that open the door for Mac and Palmeiro? Not picking on Robby, but it wouldn’t shock me if he (or anyone) used PED’s at one time or another. Alomar sure lost his pop rather abruptly. Plus, the spitting incident didn’t seem to hurt him, that surprised me.
How politically incorrect would it be to have to pass a polygraph concerning only PED use in order to gain eligibility to the Hall?
When I refer to PED’s, I mean muscle gaining drugs and not speed or coke.
April 26th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Patrick, the fact Alomar wasn’t first ballot proves the spitting incident hurt him.
April 26th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
I agree with you Chuck that Biggio is probably the worst player in the 3000 hit club. (It’s either Biggio, Molitor, or Yount.)
But that said he still has has more hits than 99% of all players that ever played. While playing good defense.
That sounds pretty elite to me. That’s why he’s first ballot in ‘13.
And yes the spitting incident 100% cost Alomar with certain voters.
My brother-in-law didn’t vote for him because of it.
April 26th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
I’d say Brock is the “worst” player in the 3000 hit club but I’d also agree that Biggio is close to the bottom of the list as far as how good a player they were. But that’s a hell of a list, even to be at the bottom of.
April 26th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
It seems like some people are arguing that Biggio shouldn’t be a hall of famer… while the other half are arguing that he WILL be a hall of famer.
I don’t really think anyone is saying he WONT be a hall of famer, but instead that maybe he’s more of a questionable choice than he seems.
I think the readers digest, heavily condensed, overly simplistic version of what Chuck (and, to a *slightly* less fervent degree, I) are saying is:
“Craig Biggio was a below average baseball player during his seasons of age 40 and age 41. In those two mediocre years, he posted 265 hits. Had he retired at the age of 39, when he really should have, he would have finished his career with 2,795 career hits. A Craig Biggio without 3,000 hits would not be a hall of famer (when considering era). So basically Craig Biggio is going to be a first ballot hall of famer, because of two mediocre years.”
April 26th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Hartvig: “I’d say Brock is the “worst” player in the 3000 hit club”
I’m not the biggest Lou Brock fan, so there’s no passion in what I’m about to say… but I disagree.
Retiring with nearly twice as many stolen bases as the next highest on the list, while maintaining a career success rate of 75% is damn impressive.
Sure his OBP was low considering (I’m pretty sure) he was a lead-off hitter… but playing your peak years in the most dominating pitchers era since the dead-ball era (and the entirety of his career in a down offensive period), it really isn’t that bad.
In my opinion, anyone who retires as the career leader in any “significant” category deserves to be a no-brainer first ballot hall of famer.
April 26th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
“Craig Biggio was a below average baseball player during his seasons of age 40 and age 41. In those two mediocre years, he posted 265 hits. Had he retired at the age of 39, when he really should have, he would have finished his career with 2,795 career hits. A Craig Biggio without 3,000 hits would not be a hall of famer (when considering era). So basically Craig Biggio is going to be a first ballot hall of famer, because of two mediocre years.”
Yep, that’s pretty much it.
“In my opinion, anyone who retires as the career leader in any “significant” category deserves to be a no-brainer first ballot hall of famer.”
Yep, nailed that one too. Let’s all agree on something from here on out, shall we?
Let’s stop comparing Tim Raines to Rickey Henderson.
Let’s compare him to Lou Brock.
Raines STILL isn’t a HOFer.
April 26th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Did Biggio do steroids? I mean, the guy gained 5 pounds in 18 years. Hell, I gain 5 pounds looking at cheesecake.
I went from a senior in high school, weighing 184 pounds, to a 205 pound freshman in college. My speed improved, as did my stamina. No steroids, just a different training approach. And Biggio gained 5 pounds and is accused of using steroids? I’m not sure that flies. (Now compare that with Bagwell who DID put on 20 pounds over the course of 12 seasons)
April 26th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
This isn’t scientific, but I’m just curious…
From 1990-2007, how many 2nd baseman would you rather have on your team besides Craig Biggio?
I’m just asking personal opinion.
April 26th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Just off the top of my head, Jeff Kent and Robbie Alomar.
I’d rather have either… and yet neither will have a better HOF induction percentage than Biggio.
April 26th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Braut,
doesn’t it strike you as just a little strange that a guy would go from 18 to 40 and gain five pounds?
Maybe the Astros were protecting him.
Personally, I’ve seen Biggio listed anywhere from 168 to 205. Not saying I’m buying those numbers, but I’m sure not buying five pounds in 20 years, either.
Hell, guys gained more than five pounds just by walking past Bagwell’s locker.
April 26th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Holy shit…
Five years, 125 million for Ryan Howard.
Sounds like Ruben Amaro Jr has been taking idiot lessons from Omar Minaya.
Wow, no way that deal ends well.
April 26th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
If Pujols gets anything less than 30 million per year I’d be shocked.
April 26th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
“Holy shit…
Five years, 125 million for Ryan Howard.”
Even the ESPN radio station in Philly is saying that this is an idiot move by Amaro and will do nothing except make the Phils look stupid for gross overspending and rally the drums more for some sort of salary cap.
When the 3rd or 4th best 1B is getting 25 mil a year, WOW.
It’s a great day for Prince and Albert.
What’s Albert going to get for his next deal per year? 30? 35? 50? I mean he is twice the player that Howard is so the Cards or someone might as well pay him accordingly.
On a side bar for the Saber-crowd.
The same ESPN broadcast also confirmed from Amaro that the Phillies do not have an in-house Saber person and do not use any kind of statistical analysis like the Red Sox, Dodgers and other teams.
It was a “from the gut” signing.
April 26th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
““Craig Biggio was a below average baseball player during his seasons of age 40 and age 41. In those two mediocre years, he posted 265 hits. Had he retired at the age of 39, when he really should have, he would have finished his career with 2,795 career hits. A Craig Biggio without 3,000 hits would not be a hall of famer (when considering era). So basically Craig Biggio is going to be a first ballot hall of famer, because of two mediocre years.””
Why not?
Let’s go ahead and give him 2795 career hits. Exactly 1 eligible player has more: career-long DH Harold Baines. Since Biggio is, in fact, a 2B (with stints at other tough defensive positions like C and CF), 2795 hits is still a pretty remarkable accomplishment.
I will also draw the jury’s attention to Biggio’s 668 career doubles. That’s 5th all-time! He spent 20 years mainly leading off with a very good OBP and excellent speed.
Raul,
To answer your question, I’ll take Biggio over Kent, but not Alomar. Kent always struck me as a crappy defender and his bat seemed really inflated from getting to bat in the same lineup as Bonds (even though he spent most of that time hitting behind Bonds, having him on base a lot certainly helped Kent). Alomar and Biggio are HOFers, but then again, Kent is hard to pass up seeing as he has the record for HR by a 2B.
April 26th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Lefty: “The same ESPN broadcast also confirmed from Amaro that the Phillies do not have an in-house Saber person and do not use any kind of statistical analysis like the Red Sox, Dodgers and other teams.”
And they’ve won back-to-back NL titles. Of course, Chase Utley has to be like, a SABR guy’s wet dream.
Chuck:
“Let’s stop comparing Tim Raines to Rickey Henderson.
Let’s compare him to Lou Brock.
Raines STILL isn’t a HOFer.”
But if you compare him to Brock – who is in the HOF – he’s better. He’s just better in like, every way besides the lack of 3000 hits. And Brock retired as the all-time SB king, but compared to Brock, he stole just 130 more while getting thrown out 150 extra times. Brock exceeded Raines’s career OPS+ just 4 times.
“If you are going to vote Yount (3000 hit club) in than Biggio goes because his numbers are comparable if not better than most of Yount’s.”
I’m 100% supporting Biggio for the HOF. But Robin Yount was an MVP at 2 different positions. He was arguably the best all-around player of the 1980’s (realistically more like top 5).
April 26th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
If the Phillies had a saber guy in-house, they would have given Howard 31 million a year.
And then issued a press release comparing him to Ben Zobrist.
April 26th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Wow. Just checked the fangraphs dollar value for Howard, expecting a good laugh, considering how CONSISTENTLY high they are (I was with Chuck, expecting something above 30 mil per year).
2007: 17
2008: 14
2009: 22
So in other words… Amaro overpaid him, even in regards to the statistic that puts Pujols on nearly a $40 million dollar PER YEAR average over the last two seasons.
That’s hilarious.
John Bowen: “Kent always struck me as a crappy defender and his bat seemed really inflated from getting to bat in the same lineup as Bonds”
San Fransisco was Kent/Bonds… and that’s it.
Ever hear of a little thing called “The Killer B’s”?
You can’t give Biggio points over Kent because of Bonds, while ignoring all the bats that Biggio spent his career batting around.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:42 am
I would assume sometime tomorrow morning Prince Fielder’s going to place a phone call to his agent.
His price just doubled.
April 27th, 2010 at 6:45 am
Chuck sabr stats devalue Howard. Traditional stats do just fine analyzing him. He should at least buy me dinner for all the backing I’ve given him with RPR.
Just because the Phils don’t use sabr stats doesn’t mean they don’t know what they’re doing. The opposite is true, as they realize that Howard scores more guys from first base than any other hitter in the league, year after year. Sabr teams like the Redsox and Dodgers will get to see that on TV in the World Series again this year. The Redsox can make their vacation reservations for early October.
Sabr stats would be fine except for the fact that their creator eliminates RBI and therefore, runners advanced. Talk about an oversight. That’s a big advantage for teams that don’t eat the poisoned sabr pill.
That said, I’d bet in the end that Howard is more Mo Vaughn and Big Papi than he is Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds, so I would’ve tried to to avoid deals that takes him into his mid 30’s but too late for that. I think he only has 2 or 3 big years left. I can’t fathom the buying power of $125M in this economy….. Maybe a better comparison is Willie McCovey with a later start.
Ironically, Zobrist just signed an extension that’s worth $4.5M a year for 4 years, counting this one. $18M overall. Not bad at all but less than half of what Fangraphs calculates his one year’s worth.
How useless is fangraph’s dollar values?
April 27th, 2010 at 9:43 am
“And they’ve won back-to-back NL titles.”
Right, because they have not been overpaying for guys who are bound to be a DH in three years.
I’m not a Phillies fan, but I do live in their market and even a lot of fans and local pundits think this move is stupid.
Howard is a defensive klutz that cannot play another position and isn’t getting any better at the one he plays. Couple that with the track record of big-lumbering power hitters who don’t make a lot of contact and are not on ‘Roids in their thirties and it would seem that that unless the Phillies can win another WS or two during his contract, to me it’s a giant waste of money.
Dave Montgomery and Bill Giles have run the Phils fiscally tight for the last thirty years.
Anyone who thinks that they are going to pay Howard this kind of money and still spend more on other positions is crazy.
At the AAA level they have got shit for prospects. Drew Carpenter is a borderline starter who’s under 30 and Mayberry Jr. is alright. They rest of the team is putrid.
At AA other than Brown and Aumont there is nothing long term there.
The Phils have taken a page from the Yankee playbook of mortgage the future for now.
Other than last year the Yanks have come up short in the last ten years of winning the WS. I can’t imagine Philly will be any different.
April 27th, 2010 at 10:31 am
The Phillies’ payroll for this year is $144M so it’s not like they’re a cheap team. Their 8 position players make almost as much as the Yankees 8 position players.
They have most of their stars locked up for the next 2 years or more, Jason Werth ($7.5M) being the exception. Halladay and Utley for 4 years, thru 2013, Polanco, Victorino and Ruiz thru 2012 and Rollins and Ibanez thru next year.
After that, all of their players are expendable anyway.
With Halladay as their ace, they plan on being the class of the NL East for the next 3 years, at least. I think they have visions of this being their legendary team. $125M is hard to fathom but having Howard protecting Utley is money in the bank.
April 27th, 2010 at 10:42 am
…until every team in the NL East starts throwing left-handed pitchers at Ryan Howard…rendering him a 125 million dollar platoon player.
April 27th, 2010 at 10:55 am
I have to agree that not being able to hit lefties is a major deficiency for a $100M+ player but there just aren’t enough good lefties around.
That makes keeping Werth around for lefty protection a huge priority for the Phils.
I would be tempted to go at the Phillies with an all relief pitcher staff, where Howard (and I suppose Utley too) always hit against lefties with men on. Of course, the manager would probably get fired but what does a team like the Nats have to lose?
April 27th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Patrick I agree with you that they are spending a lot this year.
But most of that has been from locking guys into three year deals at market to below market price and this deal goes against everything that Dave Montgomery has mandated. (No contracts of longer than three years and no contracts that are market setting.)
For next year I think they need to address Ibanez in LF. Since the All-Star break last year he’s been awful at the plate. If he continues to hit sub-.250 with no power I can’t imagine that they just sit back and accept that.
I’ve seen a story or two that suggests they might let Werth walk after this year (Like the Yanks did with Damon and Gardner) and try and replace him with John Mayberry Jr. or equivalent because Werth is obviously going to be looking for a major raise. And that was before the Howard signing.
Victorino, Mayberry Jr., Ruiz, and the pitchers spot are not scaring anyone for a 6-7-8-9.
Other issues for next year are that Lidge is a FA, Moyer is a FA, and Hamels is getting the snot knocked out of him again this year.
They have holes. They are just lucky that the rest of particularly the NL East has been so inept the last couple of years with improving that the Phils have been able to coast.
Too me they are locking too much money into one player that by 33 could be playing DH for the Yankees because he has deteriorated too the point of not being able to play the field and is still striking out 200 times a year without power.
Just an opinion.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Lefty, I don’t disagree with anything that you point out except that it’s good news for them that Lidge and Moyer will be gone at the prices they pay them. Hammel has sucked for 2 years now but they will continue to survive it because they score so much in a weak division.
I’ve been Howard’s biggest backer but I can’t see 5 years either. Too much risk with anyone, much less a guy who has such contact issues.
Ibanez can still hit. As long as he’s a complimentary player in that lineup, they’ll be OK. His LF play may be a bigger issue. I was at WS game 5 last year in Philly and Ibanez unloaded a bomb that hit the upper deck facade in right-center so he can still put a charge into it. I was sitting about 50 feet from where it landed. Then in the next inning, he dropped a fly ball to let in 2 runs though they gave Arod a double. Gives and takes away…
Werth is so valuable to that team but he’ll be looking for a huge payday so I could see him going free agent. Does Mayberry hit LHed like his dad? If he does, he can’t protect Howard and Utley like Werth can, that’s for sure.
I don’t know how much extra money a team earns for making the playoffs and especially advancing. If it’s significant, then the Phillies will get their money back over the next 3 seasons.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
“Does Mayberry hit LHed like his dad?”
Mayberry is a good defender with a cannon for an arm and he can play all three OF spots. He would be an upgrade over Ibanez and Werth in the field.
His problem is that while he has been hitting 15-20 homers a year in the minors, he whiffs a lot and hasn’t hit over .268 and he’s already 26.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Mayberry is a right handed hitter.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Chuck: You may be right. When I was a catcher, I had trouble keeping weight on (catching double headers in 110 degree temperature will do that to you).
(I was using Street and Smith and Bill James yearbook for my weight numbers.)
April 27th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Hossrex: “Ever hear of a little thing called “The Killer B’s”?”
1) My first response was, wow, you just compared Barry Bonds to Jeff Bagwell. But, in fairness to you, Jeff Bagwell was incredible during Biggio’s peak, though a long long way from where Barry Bonds was during Kent’s time in San Fran. Just using OPS+ you’re looking at 202 (Bonds, 1997-2002) vs. 166 (Bagwell, 1994-2000). Still a fair point, just saying Bags, while great, was no Bonds.
2) There’s a big difference between leading off 2 spots in front of a dominant 3-hitter and hitting immediately in front of or behind a great hitter, although the comparison is kind of apples and oranges. Still, Biggio didn’t necessarily always get great pitches to smack around, because instead of Bagwell, the pitcher would next be facing, I dunno, Adam Everett or something. With Kent, he got great pitches to crush when he hit in front of Bonds and, when he hit behind him, was able to rack up RBI’s by hitting behind a guy who reached base over half the time.