Jay Bell as the very top of the Hall of Very Good? Granted this makes my Ray Lankford fandom much easier, but really?

I'm not in the habit of participating in discussion threads about the stuff I write--if the thread gets interesting enough, I'll follow up with another article, which is exactly what happened here--but I did want to clear something up about the quote you see above, which is the first two paragraphs:

Later on the in the article, I contradict myself by saying that Tony Fernandez is really the player that draws the line. I meant there to be a small paragraph there saying that I changed my mind while studying the various shortstops and concluded that Fernandez was more worthy of the "honor" than Bell, but left the first two paragraphs by way of demonstrating my reversal. I accidentally cut that out during editing; hopefully AHP will have it fixed by the time many of you read this, but if not, just a clarification there. Go wild!

Hey, I'm just glad that Jay Bell is getting some recognition. He was very good, and he sustained that level of play for far longer than most middle infielders. I still can't quite believe he hit 38 homers in 1999. That's nuts.

And Dan, I'm with you on Lankford, too. He deserves more respect--not least from Cards fans, many of whom don't seem to realize how big a bright spot he was on those terrible 90s teams.

I'm not convinced that Larkin is a Hall of Famer, but I'm pretty okay with the title of the piece.

C'mon. If you were picking teams, would anyone pick Ozzie Smith ahead of Barry Larkin or Jeter? Ozzie was a complete waste of time at bat. Do they hand out WARP points for doing backflips? I always figured Ozzie got in because of entertainment value; no way does his defense make up for his lack of offense.

"I always figured Ozzie got in because of entertainment value; no way does his defense make up for his lack of offense."

Ironic to see that and the HoM results electing Ozzie Smith in the same RH column.

"I'm not convinced that Larkin is a Hall of Famer"

Convince yourself. Barry Larkin _raises_ the level of the average player in the Hall of Fame. If you don't induct Barry Larkin from the current era I'd suggest not inducting anyone but Rickey.

My prediction for Larkin is that he gets a good amount of support, but falls a little short.

He was definitely a good player, but I just don't recall ever thinking "Hall of Famer" to myself while watching him play.

Larkin is a Hall of Famer; Vizquel is not

In other news, water is wet.

OK, that's a little too flippant, given that a lot of outstanding players have gotten shafted in the HOF voting recently (Trammell's the one I'm thinking of most, since he played Larkin's position), so I suppose it's not a given that Larkin gets in, but I think he's clearly a HOFer by historical standards for shortstops. 12-time allstar, 1-time MVP, over 2300 hits, career 116 OPS+, good defensive reputation (backed by 3 gold gloves), and a regular for a WS winner (though during one of his weaker seasons). And he was generally regarded as the best shortstop in the NL for many years once Ozzie Smith got old. He might not get in for a few years, but I'll be shocked if he doesn't make it past 5 percent his first year of eligibility, and I think he'll get in eventually. His candidacy will probably be hurt by the fact that his peak was followed immediately by the ascent of ARod, Jeter, Tejada and Nomar.

Vizquel's case boils down to a long career (and consequently, an impressive hit total), good defensive rep, and one outstanding fluke season for the '99 Indians. Not a HOFer in my eyes.

Maybe I'm being a little harsh on Vizquel--his offense wasn't much worse than Ozzie Smith's, who I think is a deserving HOFer. But while Vizquel was regarded as (and, for a few years at least, actually was) an outstanding defensive shortstop, Ozzie was the best who ever played the game. I'm comfortable with Larkin and Ozzie as HOFers while keeping Vizquel out.

My prediction for Larkin is that he gets a good amount of support, but falls a little short.

I don't know, I think sportswriters may like the guy. I think if you spend your entire career with one team, that helps your Hall chances. And the voters liked him in 1995 (not as much in 1996 when he had a much better year though.) He's a twelve time All-Star and I think most sportswriters recognize he came around just before the Jeter/ARod years. I think he gets in on a second or third ballot.

Larkin = Ryne Sandberg

It'll take a couple years, but he'll make it in pretty easily.

Ozzie was a complete waste of time at bat. Do they hand out WARP points for doing backflips? I always figured Ozzie got in because of entertainment value; no way does his defense make up for his lack of offense.

Smith is in both Halls because he has obvious Hallworthy peak and career value on defense, and because he did prove, from about 1984 through 1992, that he could hold his own with the bat (not to mention on the basepaths). Sure, his career OPS+ is 87, but that does not mean that he stunk; it means that he stunk at the bat egregiously in his youth, and then learned how to make a significant offensive contribution. This is not Bud Harrelson or Mark Belanger we are talking about.

I think Larkin is a slam dunk HOFer, but, as with Trammell, I have a feeling he'll get shafted.

Smith was not a terrible hitter, esp. compared to other shortstops of his era. He drew a decent number of walks and stole a lot of bases at a good rate.

My personal opinion: if Barry Larkin is not elected to the Hall of Fame when he becomes eligible, he would immediately become the best eligible player not already in the Hall of Fame.

My personal opinion: if Barry Larkin is not elected to the Hall of Fame when he becomes eligible, he would immediately become the best eligible player not already in the Hall of Fame.

Larkin versus Bill Dahlen - now there's a debate. I haven't looked at Larkin closely enough to have an opinion yet. I know Larkin has one significant negative which will have to be factored in, namely in-season durability. There's no doubt in my mind that Larkin should be a Hall of Famer (and will be a Hall of Meriter - we just elected Trammell, after all). It's just that I haven't looked in enought detail to make the comparison to Dahlen.

Better than Mark McGwire and Dick Allen? I know he played a defensive position, but wow (especially if you're the sort who doesn't care about PEDs).

My personal opinion: if Barry Larkin is not elected to the Hall of Fame when he becomes eligible, he would immediately become the best eligible player not already in the Hall of Fame.

Is that assuming Tim Raines is or is not inducted by the time Larkin becomes eligible?

Larkin is a Hall of Famer; Vizquel is not

Lincoln was a good president; George W. Bush is not

# of 12 time All-Stars who aren't in the Hall of Fame = 0 (Bill Freehan has the most AS of non-HoF players with 11)

Players with 9 or more Silver Sluggers: Barry Bonds, Mike Piazza, Barry Larkin

Throw in a Clemente award and an MVP. I don't know how you could not vote for him.

Throw in a Clemente award and an MVP. I don't know how you could not vote for him.

Also a World Series win on a small market, underdog team. Played his whole career in one city. Kirby Puckett got bonuses for that stuff.

Larkin wasn't just the premiere SS of his time, he easily ranks as one of the 10 best SS of all time. Here's my quickie ranking of the best all-around shortstops, taking into account hitting, fielding and baserunning:

1. Honus Wagner
2. Arky Vaughn
3. Cal Ripken
4. Alex Rodriguez
5. Robin Yount
6. Joe Cronin
7. Barry Larkin
8. Ernie Banks
9. Luke Appling
10. Ozzie Smith

Just missing the list are Alan Trammell and Joe Sewell.

I fully expect others to quibble, but I think that when talking about the greatest SS of all time, this is the dozen players that are in the discussion.

Loren: Dahlen and Davis?

I can kinda sorta understand the HoF debate for Omar Vizquel. I don't think it's the long career that pads his counting stats so much as the fact that even with his declining defense, he's been a league-average shortstop well into his late 30s, as recent as last year when he put up a 28.0 VORP, which I think is saying a lot considering the position and his age. Add the defense he exhibited in his prime and while I'm not convinced he has as big a case as Trammel or Larkin, I'm certainly more than willing to listen.

If you were better than Jay Bell, you probably belong in the Hall of Fame, and if you weren’t, you probably don’t. No Hall discussion is ever quite that simple, but it’s a fine place to start, as we’ll see shortly.

You won't catch me hating on Bell but I think Omar has had the better career value. Bell moved to 2nd base when he was 33 and was a part-timer when he was 35. Bell had an excellent peek but over a career, I think Omar was more valuable. Omar's got a negative VORP at Age 40 this year but I think the level he's sustained through his Age 39 season has been rather impressive. Call me crazy but I'd probably nominate Omar for the Hall of Very Good before I would Bell.

I know Larkin has one significant negative which will have to be factored in, namely in-season durability.

That is, I think, the only legitimate knock on him. It is counterbalanced by a long career in terms of years, but it really cut into his career bulk, and is the reason why none of his career totals are particularly impressive.

Larkin was a very productive offensive shortstop, especially for his times, and a good defensive player. I think he also gets more press than Trammel did. So I rate his chances well above Trammel, but the results of the first vote will be very interesting.

These are the most noteworthy names in the "Class of 2010", not including possible hold overs:

Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff.

No real blockbusters here. I expect Alomar to draw a lot of support, and he may even be a first ballot guy; Martinez to draw support but be dinged for DHing and a short career; and McGriff to get some support, but to come up short compared to the first basemen that followed him. I don't see Larkin as a first ballot guy, but I think he will get enough support in that first vote, and eventually get in.

I agree with half of that, if you weren't better than Jay Bell then you don't belong in the HOF. As for the other half, is he talking about just SS or all players? If its SS, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who's better than Bell or Fernandez but not good enough to be in the Hall, but there's certainly room for such a player to exist. If he's talking about all players, I'm sure there are at least 10 outfielders who are better than Bell but not HOF. I'll start with Dale Murphy.

But then, we could always induct 500 more players and change the name to "Hall of Players who were better than Jay Bell"

What does kinda suck about Ozzie getting in, and especially Mazeroski getting in, is now lots of fans think anyone who was great with the glove should be in. I cringe when I hear Royals fans claim Frank White should be in the Hall.

in post #7 he said he doesn't remember thinking at the time that Larkin was a hof'er? I know that anyone who was a fan in the national league at the time was thinking he was a hof if he stays healthy. Only reason I rank a couple guys higher than Larkin is due to lack of playing time (which has value) Healthy Larkin is clearly better than Ozzie Smith. Heck from my lifetime, Healthy larkin is better than any shortstop in the game not named Arod. I could see cases for Yount and Ripken, but I feel that Larkins defense was so much better than theirs that it probably makes up some of the offensive difference.

I cringe when I hear Royals fans claim Frank White should be in the Hall.

I cringe more when many of those same fans campaign for Frank White to be the next Royals manager.

Better than Mark McGwire and Dick Allen? I know he played a defensive position, but wow (especially if you're the sort who doesn't care about PEDs).

I'm talking HOF, not HOM. Both McGwire and Allen have non-stat negatives on their HOF resumes. I haven't looked in great detail, but I might take Larkin over both of them anyway.

Is that assuming Tim Raines is or is not inducted by the time Larkin becomes eligible?

Is - okay, actually I forgot Raines because he's not eligible yet. I'd put Raines above Larkin and put both of them in the Hall on their respective first ballots.

Larkin versus Bill Dahlen - now there's a debate.

Sorry, I'm way out of my depth here. I know absolutely nothing about Bill Dahlen. Just glancing at BB-Ref, I'll note that Larkin's got a better OPS+ (116 - 110) in the same number of seasons (discounting Dahlen's last two years when he played like 3 games), although Dahlen's got more games (without adjusting for schedule length).

Not that this is any kind of be-all, end-all, but here's WARP1/WARP3 for all of these guys:

Dahlen 171.5/135.1
Raines 118.0/132.3
Allen 98.4/95.1
McGwire 99.3/110.2
Larkin 108.5/122.2

So, Larkin's pretty clearly third, behind a guy that I forgot about (and who certainly deserves to be in the HOF before Larkin's eligible anyway) and a guy who played a century ago that I know nothing about.

If it's SS, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who's better than Bell or Fernandez but not good enough to be in the Hall, but there's certainly room for such a player to exist.

If we're talking career value at SS, then I think Omar Vizquel could be that player.

Loren: Dahlen and Davis?

Well, I said it was my quickie list...
But that's a good question. Here I must admit that I read most of the HoM threads, which I find fascinating, educational and well-mannered (huzzahs to all involved there), but I'm not the most confident fellow to rank 19th-century players (or guys who straddled the two centuries). With that large caveat, I would add Dahlen and Davis to the mix. They're very similar in career and peak value, but -- again, I could be wrong about this -- I would rank Dahlen ahead because Davis spent a larger portion of his career at 3B and OF, reducing his defensive value. Should one of either of these guys be in the Top 10? I'd be interested in others' views.

What does kinda suck about Ozzie getting in, and especially Mazeroski getting in, is now lots of fans think anyone who was great with the glove should be in.

The Hall of Fame is NOT the Hall of Merit or the Hall of Sabermetric Goodness. It is about honoring those players who made the sport the great game that it is and has been. That includes those whose skill with the glove surpassed all others at their position; otherwise, why not just take all the fielders off, and run 162 games of Home Run Derby.

One of the big problems, of course, is recognizing true greatness with the leather, as opposed to the myth of greatness. But in Ozzie and Maz, they got it right, in that what was being honored, was not simply the best of their time, but two of the best of all time.

Just for reference, Bill James' ratings in the NBJHBA:

1. Honus Wagner
2. Arky Vaughan
3. Cal Ripken, Jr
4. Robin Yount
5. Ernie Banks
6. Barry Larkin
7. Ozzie Smith
8. Joe Cronin
9, Alan Trammell
10. Pee Wee Reese

Davis was #14, Dahlen #21.

1. Honus Wagner
2. Arky Vaughan
3. Cal Ripken, Jr
4. Robin Yount
5. Ernie Banks
6. Barry Larkin
7. Ozzie Smith
8. Joe Cronin
9, Alan Trammell
10. Pee Wee Reese

Davis was #14, Dahlen #21.

Where was Appling?

Appling was #11.

Here's my list.

1. Wagner
2. Ripken
3. Lloyd
[ARod]
4. Vaughan
5. Yount
6. Banks
7. Davis
8. Dahlen
9. Appling
10. Cronin
11. Larkin
12. Smith
13. Trammell
14. Wells
15. Boudreau
16. Wallace
17. Johnson
18. Reese
19. Sewell
20. Beckwith
21. Glasscock
[Jeter]

Appling was #11.

Hm. Was Reese that much better at fielding than Appling?

Wasn't Beckwith more of a third baseman than a shortstop? (Although he was the last person in the world you'd want to say that to his face...)

Wasn't Beckwith more of a third baseman than a shortstop?

Hmm, looking at it again I think you might be right.

21. Glasscock
[Jeter]

What, are you serious? Jeter has a huge offensive advantage, already has more ABs and plays more then a 100 years later. Jeter vs. Reese was done out on this board about a year ago and Jeter wins there too. I'm not gonna bother with the others, but I'm pretty sure you have Jeter way too low.

The Hall of Fame is NOT the Hall of Merit or the Hall of Sabermetric Goodness.

Sometimes it is. How else to explain George Davis getting in a few years back, when almost nobody had any idea who he was? He's in largely because Bill James gave him some attention and informed people that he was pretty good once upon a time.

Ozzie is and should be in HOF, HOM, and the HOSG because he was just that good. All evidence shows that he was so good with the glove, and decent enough with the bat, to rank right there in the top 10. I'm not so sure Mazeroski was quite that good, but he might have been.

I think James has it about right...I'd just flip Ripken and Vaughn, add ARod as #4, and add Jeter as #10.

I don't do active players.

1. Wagner
2. Lloyd--NgLer
3. Ripken
4. Vaughan
5. Banks--counting his entire career
6. Cronin
7. Yount--counting his entire career
8. O. Smith
9. Davis
10. Dahlen

11. Larkin--way, way over the in/out line
12. Wells--NgLer
13. Jennings
14. Boudreau
15. Trammell
16. Appling
17. G. Wright
18. Dobie Moore--NgLer
19. Reese
20. Rizzuto--when you credit him for missed WWII years

21. Glasscock
22. Stephens
23. Pesky--when you credit him for missed WWII years
24. Sewell--overrated, he played a lot of 3B
25. Lundy--NgLer
26. Ward--when you count his pitching and 2B play
27. Wallace
28. Aparicio
29. Bancroft
30.Tony Fernandez--agreed, he would make an OK in/out line

If forced, I would put ARod at #4 and Jeter maybe around #14 or so. Vizquel would be below the top 30. The in/out line? Around #20, I'd say. Rizzuto in, Glasscock out.

Oh, forgot Home Run Johnson. Another easy in, somewhere around #12-13-14. That makes 21 HoFers including Larkin, 23 including ARod and Jeter someday.

The Hall of Fame is NOT the Hall of Merit or the Hall of Sabermetric Goodness. It is about honoring those players who made the sport the great game that it is and has been. That includes those whose skill with the glove surpassed all others at their position; otherwise, why not just take all the fielders off, and run 162 games of Home Run Derby.

One of the big problems, of course, is recognizing true greatness with the leather, as opposed to the myth of greatness. But in Ozzie and Maz, they got it right, in that what was being honored, was not simply the best of their time, but two of the best of all time.

I don't disagree at all, my point is that many casual fans have misinterpreted the inductions of Ozzie and Maz to mean that anyone with a great glove should be in the Hall, when that should not be the case in my opinion. Ozzie and Maz and Brooks were probably the three greatest defensive players ever. Saying Frank White or Keith Hernandez or Omar Vizquel belongs in that same category is erroneous.

Unfortunately, some people look at Vizquel's wall of Gold Glove awards and assume he was good or nearly as good as Ozzie defensively. Vizquel was an excellent glove, but he was not near Ozzie's league.

Is it just me or did Yount have a similiar, if not better career than Ripken?

Is it just me or did Yount have a similiar, if not better career than Ripken?

Ripken played a lot more games at SS and was better defensively. They were pretty similar, but I think Ripken was slightly better. hence their respective positions on the above lists.

Jeter has a huge offensive advantage, already has more ABs and plays more then a 100 years later.

The reason Jeter has more ABs is because he played 100 years later. Adjust for the short seasons and he's way behind.

Also, that doesn't include this year, once I add that in he's probably ahead anyway. By the time he's done I figure he'll be top 12 at worst.

Jay Bell as the very top of the Hall of Very Good? Granted this makes my Ray Lankford fandom much easier, but really?

That's what I thought, then I looked at his BBREF page
career SS (1515 at short 406 at 2b), 8525 PA ops+ of 101.

Start naming non HOF SSs with better careers: [retired players]
Trammel and Larkin and Concepcion? 9640 PAs, OPS+ of 88...
Tony Fernandez 8793 PAs and OPS+ of 101 {we may have a winner]
Dick Bartell? Toby Harrah if he played more SS than 3rd...

I think Bell is comfortably in the Hall of Very Good, just not at the top- if he was as good defensively as Vizqul he'd probably be a legit HOFer

which reminds me- why doesn't Fernandez get more support?

why doesn't Fernandez get more support?

I support him! When he first showed up on the ballot, there were a couple of people, mostly playing devil's advocate, arguing that he had a pretty damn good five year run with Toronto, if his D was all it was cracked up to be (FRAA loves him (I know, useless) and ZR liked him too IIRC), and enough career around it to be worth. Most people didn't buy it.

I have Fernandez about 25th, about even with Concepcion. Bell is top 40.

which reminds me- why doesn't Fernandez get more support?

He bounced around from team to team in the later part of his career, had to go to Japan when he couldn't find a job here, and just doesn't have impressive numbers if you go by conventional sportswriter stats - AVG/HR/RBI. Plus he played the bulk of his career in Toronto, which might as well be Siberia to most American sportswriters.

I don't really think he's deserving, but he definitely deserves more support than he's gotten.

had to go to Japan when he couldn't find a job here

That I've always found curious. Before this exile, he had the two highest OPS+es of his career. What made him move? I don't remember right now.

I don't really think he's deserving, but he definitely deserves more support than he's gotten.

I understand what you're saying (and agree with it - Fernandez is probably a pretty reasonable guy for the "out" side of the in/out line), but if you don't think he's a HOFer, can you really hold it against voters for not voting for him? The problem with a straight in/out vote like the HOF has is that it doesn't work really well for judging how the voters really feel about a borderline guy. The HOM voting system would give you a much better feel - and I'd guess that Fernandez will show up in the bottom half of a fair number of ballots.

This is the problem with the 5% rule. "No" votes for the HOF have no context, no texture, so they tell you nothing about what HOF voters think of these guys. For 77% of the electorate, we can't tell from their HOF vote whether they like Mark McGwire or Bobby Witt better. So what sense does it make to have that be the decider of who gets to stay on the ballot?

but if you don't think he's a HOFer, can you really hold it against voters for not voting for him?

Right. You can't on one hand claim that Fernandez deserves more support, and then on the other, ridicule writers who think Tony Fernandez belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Barry is a HOFamer. If he isn't selected in short order the voters standards have gone whacko. Excellent offense, excellent defense, outstanding baserunner, leader, highly respected by his peers, and key player on many winning teams.

This is EXACTLY the type of player the Hall was intended to recognize. NOT the one-dimensional sluggers who wander around with a glove half the time to look busy.

SS borderliners:

Vern Stephens
Dick Lundy
Dave Concepcion
Dick Bartell
Tony Fernandez
Jim Fregosi
Bert Campaneris
Jay Bell

They didn't pick Trammell, so that ship has sailed, HW.

I always thought of Larkin as a no-brainer, but I'm a terrible judge of such things.

One time I mentioned to some non-sabrmetric fans that unless Todd Helton has a horrible decline phase, he should be a Hall of Famer. I was roundly mocked, and Helton was compared to Bill Buckner.

I don't disagree at all, my point is that many casual fans have misinterpreted the inductions of Ozzie and Maz to mean that anyone with a great glove should be in the Hall, when that should not be the case in my opinion. Ozzie and Maz and Brooks were probably the three greatest defensive players ever. Saying Frank White or Keith Hernandez or Omar Vizquel belongs in that same category is erroneous.[i/]

Understood, and agreed.

Sorry

Larkin is probably my all-time favorite player. I saw him come up, I am only a couple of years younger than he is, saw him get the ring, and always liked his on-field game and his off-field public persona. One reason, I think, among many, that I have shifted into being more of a "baseball fan" than a rooter is Larkin's retirement.

So, obviously, I am happy to see that some Primates think Barry should make the HoF and deserves to. But, in terms of "will he" I agree with my old pal Joey B:

My prediction for Larkin is that he gets a good amount of support, but falls a little short.

This statement, also by Joey:

He was definitely a good player, but I just don't recall ever thinking "Hall of Famer" to myself while watching him play.

Will be how a lot of writers will see it. Larkin at his peak did everything well, but nothing spectacularly. I think the old Bill James line about players who do many things well being underrated will affect Larkin. Also, he was never really famous, like Puckett, and is not at all visible now. You add these factors to the Ripken/ARod/Jeter SS paradigm shift, and I think Larkin will have a tough time getting in.

Smith was not a terrible hitter, esp. compared to other shortstops of his era. He drew a decent number of walks and stole a lot of bases at a good rate.

Smith was, by the standards of the NL in the 1980s, a good-hitting SS. I am guessing that poster in #5 is a young guy, and I can see how someone who came to know baseball in this era watching Rodriguez and Jeter would think Smith was worthless with the stick.

Smith was the most enjoyable player to watch live use the leather I have ever seen. I am a little too young to have seen Mays; my dad said Mays was his favorite guy to watch on D with Smith #2.

Larkin = Ryne Sandberg

It'll take a couple years, but he'll make it in pretty easily.

I hope you're right. But I think to the BBWAA

Larkin = Trammell.

Larkin at his peak did everything well, but nothing spectacularly.

Was Larkin's 96 the first 30/30 season for a SS?

..</i> Part of Larkin's problem is Ozzie Smith. Now, Ozzie really was that good. The various top-shorstop lists above have Ozzie ranked 7, 10, 7, 12, 8, and I'm inclined to agree with the better of them. He's a career case, and he belongs to a different generation to Larkin. Ozzie was the best shortstop - including the best-hitting shortstop - in the NL for a 4 or 5 year stretch in the mid 1980's, and including his defense, he might have been the best SS in the NL for 8 or 9 years, dating back to 1980 or earlier. But somewhere around 1988 or 1989, that torch got passed - from then on, the best SS in the NL was Larkin. But because of Ozzie's general popularity and general inertia, he kept getting elected - overwhelmingly - to All-Star teams when by rights the position should have been Larkin's. That quote about not ever thinking "Hall of Famer" while watching him - that may well be subtly influenced either by those All-Star votes or by the same tendencies that fueled those votes.

Was Larkin's 96 the first 30/30 season for a SS?

I'm not sure--probably. Larkin's career line illustrates what I was saying:

Career avg: .295 (not .300)
Career HRs: 198 (not 200)
Career SB/CS: 379-77. (great PCT; not an eye-popping total)
Career hits: 2340 (not 2500)

Only 3 GGs and of course the the one MVP.

I'm more optimistic. The older voters will include those who gave him the '95 MVP, and the younger ones may be more influenced by sabermetric analysis. And, there's also all those All-Star games to make a case for his perception.

Is it just me or do some of you also almost never think of a player as an "HOFer" until maybe they're 35 and suddenly you realize they've put together a heck of a career.

Sure, some superstars -- AROD, Griffey, Carew, Pedro, Maddux, Clemens, Seaver ... though also Gooden, Cedeno and a few others -- but I'm pretty sure it never occurred to me that Sutton, Niekro, Kaline, Puckett, Eckersley or lots of other guys were HOFers in waiting until it was at the point where somebody said "did you know Don Sutton has 275 wins?"

Thinking about players under 30 today, the only two who spring to mind are Pujols and Santana and obviously lots could go wrong for those two guys between now and the HOF. I'm sure I'm missing a couple but surely I'm not the only one to have enough sense not to think of Justin Morneau as an HOFer just yet.

I hope you're right. But I think to the BBWAA

Larkin = Trammell.

Larkin:Smith::Trammell:Ripken (and Yount to a lesser extent)

Both Larkin and Trammell suffer from the same problem -- they played second fiddle to better and far more famous SSs. Perhaps more importantly, Smith and Ripken became even more famous as they got older, at Trammell's and Larkin's expense. By the time they retired, Smith and Ripken were legends, while Trammell and Larkin were just good SSs. At least that's how I see it. I hope I'm wrong.

do some of you also almost never think of a player as an "HOFer" until maybe they're 35 and suddenly you realize they've put together a heck of a career

Good point, Walt. I think that's been true for me in many cases. Gary Sheffield, Chipper Jones, Jim Edmonds -- even someone like Tom Glavine -- these guys have reasonable-to-airtight HOF cases, yet I never used to watch Glavine pitch and think "immortal" ...

I think style and circumstance have a lot to do with one's anointing of younger guys. Vlad Guerrero is a spectacular-looking player, for instance, and destroys the Rangers. I have had him pegged for Cooperstown ever since he got to the American League. But premature aging still might shunt him into the HOVG range for his career ... it's very hard to establish a busproof case before you are 35 or so.

Thinking about players under 30 today, the only two who spring to mind are Pujols and Santana and obviously lots could go wrong for those two guys between now and the HOF.

I like parlor games. Here's the seven guys I'm ready to put money on who are under 30. I'd bet my kids* on them, in fact. This is just gut feeling, combined with a quick scan of the verrrry general trends of the under-30 MLB crowd. YMWV.

Oswalt
Sabathia
Sizemore
Wright
M Cabrera
C Zambrano
Webb

And it says here that Carl Crawford gets 3K hits and gets in by the skin of Lou Brock's teeth.

File under weird under-30 facts: Adrian Beltre is under 30. I dunno where I've been, but this shocked me.

*OK, in full disclosure, I don't have any kids (human or goat), nor do I wish to have any, so I don't mind having my kids taken away.

> M Cabrera

I think you're wrong on Melky Cabrera.

M Cabrera

Miguel or Melky? :)

Eric Chalek: Four of those guys are pitchers. I'll bet you $10000 right now that no more than one of those four reaches the Hall of Fame.

Migly

RE 74: Eric, there's this guy in St. Louis whose name is Pujols. I know it's a funny sounding name, but he's actually a pretty good ball player. :-) The Baron has a point about the pitchers. Tougher to project young pitchers than position players, but I'd add Peavy's name to the list. I think of all those pitchers he's the least likely to have the longevity to make a good Hall case, but he's definitely got the stuff.

alilisd

he and santana were mentioned in the post i referenced, so i was looking at others.