Baseball HOF gets one new member

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by clintl

Mattingly - 1982-1995
Clark - 1986-2000

10 of those seasons (71% of Mattingly's career, 67% of Clark's) overlap. So if there's an era-related perception, it's an unfair one, because they were really contemporaries. And that's not mentioning the fact that Mattingly played in the best stadium not located in Denver ever built for a left-handed power hitter.

Yeah, the MVP probably helps. If that's the big difference, it shouldn't make as much difference as it does.

There eras overlap, but their prime years are a little different. Poor Alan Trammel has been overlooked because of the modern SS even though he was from an older era. You are right that perceptions of eras are sometimes problematic.

As for the MVP, the Cy Young seemed to make a difference for Sutter because otherwise I can't find a good reason he is in the HOF.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by clintl

There are 520 sportwriters voting - it's not like they get together and decide they collectively decide they need to vote someone in. Each writer gets 10 votes. I think what happens in a year with a strong class is that the top 2 or 3 candidates eat up such a big proportion of the votes cast, leaving the borderline guys like Sutter, Gossage, Rice, Blyleven, and the guys farther down the ballot with no chance but significant support, to divide up a fairly small pool of available votes. On the other hand, in a year like this with no serious first ballot contender, the votes that would normally go to the slam-dunk first balloters are suddenly available to the borderline guys, and the potential vote pool to be divided up is much greater. And that's why you see the borderline guys elected in years like this.

I understand how the voting works. I have a hard time believing, though, that 10% of the voters cast votes for ten guys last year and didn't have room for Sutter. My point is that someone is either Hall-worthy or not. He's not Hall-worthy after 12 years because it's a down year among candidates.

[stevew]

I think mattingly gets a lot of bonus points cause of his career altering back issues.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

See, I see that as the reinforcement of stupidty. Bobby Abreu, one of the 5 best players in the NL over the last 5 years, has made the all-star team once - because fans or writers think Scott Posednik or Juan Pierre are more deserving. Its ridiculous - and it perpetuates the belief that there may have been some reason for the problem. Not targetting you here- just a general beef of mine.

There will always be exceptions -- even moreso when you factor in injuries, guys declining invitations, guys getting picked by fans based on name value, or even the stupid rule that every team needs to send a player.

But in general, I've just found that all-star appearances is actually a pretty decent way to get a quick snapshot of a guy's impact. It's a quick and dirty way to find out how many times in a guy's career he was considered one of the best in the big leagues at his position (well, at least at mid-season).

A guy like Ozzie Smith doesn't have great stats. They're not even all that good, compared to other HOFers. His defence was spectacular, but that's hard to measure. If you were a new fan and had never seen him play, you might look at his baseball-reference page and not think he was HOF material. But the guy was an all-star 15 times -- for a decade and a half, he was one of the best at his position. That ends the debate right there, for me. And it also "feels" right based on my memories of being a fan during that era. You watched Ozzie, you thought you were watching a superstar. We'd argue over who got to "be" him on the sandlot.

Compare that to Blyleven. Great stats over his career, sure. But he was never a guy who "felt" like a hall of famer to me as a kid growing up during that time. And the all-star selections bear that out -- he was always good, but never seemed to be one of the very best. And to me, that's what you need to go into the Hall -- it's not enough to be really good for a really long time.

Like I say, it's simplistic and I know it can be picked apart by a more detailed look at the stats. But as a quick check on a player's credentials, I've found it usually works pretty well (in all sports).

[John Galt]

All-Star selections trouble me, though. First, looking at the snubs every year, there are a lot of bad voting decisions. Second, all star voting (especially in the older days) tend to feed off themselves. If you get selected one year, you are very likely to be selected again even if your performance falls off. Third, all-star voting assesses less than half a season of performance in baseball. Fourth, players that played in good small market teams are often horribly underrepresented. Fifth, the requirement that each time have a player on the team means a good player can be screwed by playing the same position as a bad team's best player.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by stevew

I think mattingly gets a lot of bonus points cause of his career altering back issues.

OK - but why doesn't Clark get the same bonus points for his elbow issues that similarly affected his career? That was my point earlier - Mattingly is remembered for his great years, and credited for it, while Clark is being remembered for the years when chronic injuries diminished his batting skills, and downgraded for it. And yet, in aggregrate, the numbers pretty clearly say that Clark was a more effective player over his whole career. Even looking at their peak years, Clark's best OPS+ was 175, compared to Mattingly's 161, and Clark had more years with an OPS+ of 150 or greater. His peak OBP is a lot higher (.431 to .397). His peak SLG is higher (.580 to .573).

Either Clark is being way underrated by the voters, or Mattingly is being way overrated.

[st.cronin]

Keith Hernandez > Will Clark > Don Mattingly

All three should be put in before McGwire.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

All-Star selections trouble me, though. First, looking at the snubs every year, there are a lot of bad voting decisions. Second, all star voting (especially in the older days) tend to feed off themselves. If you get selected one year, you are very likely to be selected again even if your performance falls off. Third, all-star voting assesses less than half a season of performance in baseball. Fourth, players that played in good small market teams are often horribly underrepresented. Fifth, the requirement that each time have a player on the team means a good player can be screwed by playing the same position as a bad team's best player.

All of which is true. But a lot of that seems to cancel out, or at least even out over time.

Put it to the test this way: how many guys can you think of who should be Hall of Famers but didn't play in many all-star games? And how many played in a ton of all-star games but weren't really HOF guys? There will be players in both groups, but (at least for me) there are surprisingly few given how flawed a measurement it seems to be on the surface.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

All of which is true. But a lot of that seems to cancel out, or at least even out over time.

Put it to the test this way: how many guys can you think of who should be Hall of Famers but didn't play in many all-star games? And how many played in a ton of all-star games but weren't really HOF guys? There will be players in both groups, but (at least for me) there are surprisingly few given how flawed a measurement it seems to be on the surface.

There should be an incredibly large overlap. All-star selections are a proxy for HOF-worthiness. Similarly, different stats are proxies for HOF-worthiness. My problem is that all-star selections are a much worse proxy than certain stats for determining HOF-worthiness, IMO.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by clintl

Either Clark is being way underrated by the voters, or Mattingly is being way overrated.

Ding! As opposed to Gossage who gets some support for this but not overwhelming, Mattingly really does benefit from being the face of the Yankees for a few years.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by digamma

I understand how the voting works. I have a hard time believing, though, that 10% of the voters cast votes for ten guys last year and didn't have room for Sutter. My point is that someone is either Hall-worthy or not. He's not Hall-worthy after 12 years because it's a down year among candidates.

You have to keep in mind that there will be some voters who think no one is worth voting in so they will vote for 0 of 10 or maybe 2 of 10, their own pet guys. There's only a max of ten but no minimum.

SI

[digamma]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You have to keep in mind that there will be some voters who think no one is worth voting in so they will vote for 0 of 10 or maybe 2 of 10, their own pet guys. There's only a max of ten but no minimum.

SI

I applaud those voters.

[ntndeacon]

If I had a ballot this year:
Sutter, Blyleven, Trammell

[dawgfan]

Rob Neyer's most recent article, discussing the "rules of relief pitchers" summarizes my feelings on relievers and the Hall of Fame quite well. No offense to Sutter, who was a very good closer, but I think Gossage deserves a spot over him, and I'm reluctant to consider Sutter as more than a fringe candidate. To me, he's the relief equivalent of Jack Morris as far as Hall of Fame worthiness - close, but not quite there.

[Ksyrup]

After reading Verducci's article today, I don't think Sutter deserves to get in, or at least doesn't deserve to get in over Gossage. He was almost the statistical equivalent to Dan Quizenberry, and he dropped off the ballot after one year. Popularizing a pitch isn't worth THAT much. If he had put together another 3-4 above-average years with Atlanta, perhaps I could understand it. But injuries essentially ended his career (in terms of being anything but a mediocre, injured pitcher) at 31.

The bottom line is, Gossage was better for longer. It's not even debatable.

[lungs]

I think Dock Ellis deserves to be in the hall of fame for throwing a no-hitter while on acid.

[Butter]

This won't help Goose, I can't imagine...

From FoxSports.com:

Former closer Rich "Goose" Gossage isn't too happy that he failed to win election into baseball's Hall of Fame, according to a report in the New York Post.

Gossage received 336 votes, which is short of the 390 needed for election. The former right-hander finished behind fellow closer Bruce Sutter, who won election by getting 400 votes, and former slugger Jim Rice who got 337 votes.
"I just don't get it," a frustrated Gossage told The Post from Colorado on Tuesday. "I'm at a loss for words."

Gossage, a former Yankees' fireballer, seems angry that he failed to get into the Hall of Fame despite the fact that he has, among other things, more career saves, victories, and strikeouts (948!) than Sutter.

"I just can't believe Sutter "I just can't believe Sutter got in before me," Gossage added."He deserved it. I was hoping Sutter and I could go in together. ... I don't know if I ever will make it."

"You know what, I never hear from these guys who don't vote for me," Gossage said. "But I'll take on any writer, anywhere, on any show, and I will bury him."

Gossage also feels badly for peers such as Rice, Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven — all of whom were left on the outside looking in.

The "Goose's" feelings concerning Rice's snub were particularly strong as he called it a "joke" that the Twins' Kirby Puckett was elected on the first ballot. Rice meanwhile is now 0-for-12 in Hall entry attempts.

"If Jim Rice had played in the Metrodome, he would have torn the place down, and that's nothing against Kirby Puckett, that's just the way it is," Gossage said.

What's more, Gossage often pitched two or three innings to earn his saves, and he says comparing him to current closers such as Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera is like comparing apples to oranges.

"The job is so easy because they're only pitching one inning," Gossage said. "Writers have forgotten how the role has changed."

And don't get him started on Barry Bonds and other allegedly drug-enhanced sluggers we watch now.

"Hitting in a game is no different than hitting in a home run contest," Gossage said. "It [ticks] me off to say Barry Bonds is the greatest hitter. He's playing in a wussy era. The game is soft. You never get thrown at today. Last thing a hitter has to worry about today is getting hit. The first thing Hank Aaron had to worry about is: Am I going to survive this at-bat because I'm black."

[clintl]

I agree with most of what Gossage said there. He should have gone in with or before Sutter, especially what he says about Rice. No one in the AL in the 80s was a more feared hitter than Jim Rice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by clintl

No one in the AL in the 80s was a more feared hitter than Jim Rice.

Hmm ... are we talking about the same guy? OF, played for Boston?

The same guy who:
-- Was in the top 10 in BA only twice in the 80's
-- Was in the top 10 in OBA only once in the 80's
-- Was in the top 10 in SLG only three times in the 80's
-- Was in the top 10 in OPS only twice in the 80's
-- Was in the top 5 in Total Bases only once in the 80's
-- Was in the Top 10 in GIDP eight times in the 80's

That Jim Rice?

Sorry, he was a darned good ballplayer, very darned good ... but "most feared"? I don't see that at all.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, George Brett probably ('probably' because I was too young to remember much of the 80s) was a Hell of lot more feared than Rice.

[st.cronin]

Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in baseball, for about two years. His resume is not as impressive as Dale Murphy's.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in baseball, for about two years.

I'd agree with that... but they were in the late 1970s.

edit: but I disagree that Dale Murphy's resume was better. I'd take Rice into the Hall over Murphy.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd agree with that... but they were in the late 1970s.

yep

Although you can find Red Sox fans who will insist that in a normal ballpark he would have hit 500 homeruns. They believe that he consistently hit singles off the wall that would have been homeruns in other parks. I don't think that's really true to any real extent, but there are guys who say that.

[ISiddiqui]

Like he was the only right handed batter to ever play at Fenway?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd agree with that... but they were in the late 1970s.

edit: but I disagree that Dale Murphy's resume was better. I'd take Rice into the Hall over Murphy.

Yeah, looking at his page, late '70s is more accurate - but it was more like 4 years. He still racked up plenty of black ink and gray ink leaderboard stats over his career - eoough, I think, that he should be in.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Like he was the only right handed batter to ever play at Fenway?

Well, the idea is that he hit an unusual number of line drives. I do remember him hitting balls like that - balls that were maybe a couple feet above the shortstop, and were still rising when they hit the wall, that seemed like in a normal park, would have been easy homers, but turned into singles in Fenway. I just don't think it really affected his stats that much.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by clintl

Now that Sutter's in, the only pitchers eligible and not in the Hall that I see who are more deserving than Morris are Gossage and Blyleven. Possibly you can make a case for Tommy John, too. Like it or not, Morris was one of the best pitchers of the 80s, despite the blemishes he has on his record. Everyone regarded him as such at the time. The level of support he's getting (significant but short of HOF election) is entirely reasonable. The same goes for Dawson and Murphy.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You can't justify giving a vote to Morris on the same ballot where Blyleven is left off. Blyleven was just flat out better.

That's just some writer voting for his pet player. In a year or so, Albert Belle is going to get on the ballot. He's a suped-up version of Jim Rice. He's probably not any of our idea of a HOFer. But he was a better ballplayer than Rice. I can't see how you could justify voting for Rice and leaving Belle off the ballot.

I think that's the first criteria we should be looking at when discussing Hall eligibility. Are there any other players that can be easily compared to this one that are more worthy (i.e. better) for enshrinement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by oykib

In a year or so, Albert Belle is going to get on the ballot.

Psst ... Albert Belle 40(votes) 7.7%

[oykib]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Psst ... Albert Belle 40(votes) 7.7%

There you go. Albert Belle's offeensive numbers are clearly better than Jim Rice's. Rice had an OPS+ of 128; Belle - 143. They finished almost the same in counting stats. They were effective for almost the same amount of time.

Neither was a good defender. But Belle was better. How do you vote for Rice and leave Belle off the ballot?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by oykib

How do you vote for Rice and leave Belle off the ballot?

You mean beyond the whole "Joey" is freakin' nuts thing?

Belle 1726 Hits, over 10 full seasons (plus 2 years partial seasons)

Rice 2452 Hits, over 15 full seasons (+2 partial seasons)

All I can figure is that you're trying to be funny & my sense of humor is on the blink tonight.

[vtbub]

http://www.smart-guys-sports.com/?p=336

Shameless plug.

In Short, Gossage yes. Rice borderline. Sutter no.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by oykib

There you go. Albert Belle's offeensive numbers are clearly better than Jim Rice's. Rice had an OPS+ of 128; Belle - 143. They finished almost the same in counting stats. They were effective for almost the same amount of time.

Neither was a good defender. But Belle was better. How do you vote for Rice and leave Belle off the ballot?

Originally Posted by clintl

I'm guessing that with numbers Albert Belle put up in his career, he would have done a little better than 7.7% if he had a different personality.

In Albert's case, I think his numbers are right on the border, and voters were looking for a reason not to vote him in.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You mean beyond the whole "Joey" is freakin' nuts thing?

Belle 1726 Hits, over 10 full seasons (plus 2 years partial seasons)

Rice 2452 Hits, over 15 full seasons (+2 partial seasons)

All I can figure is that you're trying to be funny & my sense of humor is on the blink tonight.

I'd rather have the guy who was great for those ten seasons than the guy who was very good for fifteen myself.

These guys were there for power. Their counting stats in the power numbers favor Belle despite his shorter career, with the exception of triples. Rice played longer and has more hits. But does he even have five years worth of extra hits? He's got 726 more. That's only 140 a season. Are you really adding any value to your team at ~140 hits/season while playing a lousy left field?

The difference was that Rice's bad eyes and getting old let him have three hang around seasons while Belle's hip forced him to retire immediately. Belle would easily have had 2100 hits or so with two and a half hang around seasons.

Belle's numbers were better. Comparing their 162 game averages:

 Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP

 162 Game Avg        616  103  182  41  2  40  130   9  4  72 101  .295  .369  .564  347   0   8  10   6  20 

 162 Game Avg        638   97  190  29  6  30  113   4  3  52 110  .298  .352  .502  320   0   7   6   5  24

Remember, Belle's OPS+ is also fifteen points higher than Rice's. So it's not just that the era had inflated numbers.

Had Belle hung around, of course, his averages would have come down a bit. But I think that gives you a wash. Rice hung a round and added a few hundred hits. Belle retired early and maintained great rate stats. But Belle's overall numbers are better. I don't see how you can justify Rice getting 60% and Belle getting less than ten.

I'm not saying Belle is a HOFer. I'm saying that we all think he's not. But the truth is that he was a better player than Rice.

edit: cause I can't do basic arithmetic anymore

[dawgfan]

Rice had 3 great seasons from age 24-26, then dropped off quite a bit and had 1 great year again at age 30 and dropped off again. Somehow, psychologically, I think people just got it in their heads during Rice's glory years that he was great (and he was for those 3 years) and gave him the benefit of the doubt after that which was reinforced by his 1 great year thereafter at age 30.

He just isn't a Hall of Famer. He came close, but not really much closer than Dale Murphy (and you could argue Dale Murphy's fielding puts him even with Rice).

Belle's problem is simply not enough career longevity. There's just no way a guy nowadays is getting in the Hall with 1700+ hits, not unless half of them are homeruns. He was great for most of his playing time, and if his bad hip hadn't done him in he might very well have been able to compile a better career resume, but his time was too short to warrent entry.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I would have been interested to see what Belle could do if he hadn't had his hip hurt. Nothing quite like the numbers he already put up, but even decent numbers for another 5 years would have made the argument against him VERY difficult.

[oykib]

I'll agree with both of those points about Belle.

He's not a Hall of Famer. But he's got the same power numbers as Rice in about five less years. So his rate stats are significantly better. I just don't see him getting only 7.7% while Rice is on the border of being elected.

[Ksyrup]

Just reading the most recent Neyer chat (pre-HOF decision), and thought this was pretty funny:


Marty (Detroit): Why no Jack Morris for the Hall? You know damn well that he was better than Blyleven.

Rob Neyer: It's simple, Marty: Blyleven once signed an autograph for me, while Morris ran over my puppy with his snowmobile.