I haven't slept yet, and at first glance I thought this was an article discussing Frank Catalanotto's HOF chances.

Catalanotto has been a nice player for a while now, but I need to see something more from him before I can advocate his Hall of Fame induction. A nice post-prime push, especially if he returns to his IF-OF utility goodness, could push him over the hump.

Catalanotto is still among the league leaders in, "Looking like a 12 year old," despite growing a goofy, My Name is Earl-style fu-manchu.

No one thinks the 500 hrs are a "shoo in" for the hall any more, talk about a complete was of space arguing against that straw dummy about 4 years too late.

Despite what the MSM wants you to think, 500 HR's never made you a "shoo-in."

Exhibit A: Jimmie Foxx.
Exhibit B: Eddie Mathews.
Exhibit C: Harmon Killebrew.

I don't know if Sheffield merits the HOF based on his baseball achievements or not. But I'm not impressed with this writer's references to Sheffield's "sportsmanship," mostly based on innuendo, I might add, as a basis for keeping him out. Are controversial statements enough to preclude HOF induction? Or is a "pain in the arse" pesonality sufficient to keep someone out of the HOF? If that is held against Sheffield, then maybe the HOF should re-visit whether Ty Cobb deserved his place.

Well he did admit to intentionally making errors while with the Brewers in an effort to get traded. That's not good sportsmanship. That was a long time ago and he's had a long and productive career since then, so I wouldn't use that to disqualify him out of hand, but it's not a point in his favor.

Well he did admit to intentionally making errors while with the Brewers in an effort to get traded. That's not good sportsmanship.

He didn't actually. The quote got stretched out of context because of the mutual dislike between Sheffield and the organization at the time.

''The Brewers brought out the hate in me. I was a crazy man. I hated Dalton so much that I wanted to
hurt the man. I hated everything about the place. I didn't even want to come to the ballpark. If I missed a ball or something, so what? If the official scorer gave me an error that I didn't think was an error I'd say 'OK, here's a real error,' and I'd throw the next ball into
the stands on purpose.''

He was clearly angry, but there's no evidence that it actually happened - there were no cases of him actually doing that and he committed just as many errors in the minors and in San Diego as he did in Milwaukee. It was simply bitterness of the "Well, I wasn't trying to win anyway" of some teenage kid playing a game which, while hardly praiseworthy, is a big step from actually trying to lose.

He's right and wrong at the same time. Using 500 HR or any other number is stupid. Of course, Sheff if an easy HOFer.

I've mentioned this before, but I determined that if I was MLB player I'd want to be Catalanotto. Decent player, no one really knows or cares about you, make a lot of money.

He was clearly angry, but there's no evidence that it actually happened

And he later said that he didn't actually do that. He was just mad.

I didn't know that. I mean, "I'd throw the next ball into the stands on purpose" is pretty damning, but he was certainly young, stupid, and bitter enough to spout off trying to say inflammatory things just for effect.

Funny. This spring I realized I hated my job, so I found another one. Sheffield with the Brewers was not allowed to do that, and there was no alternative market for his skills outside MLB. I sympathize if that made him hate.

Despite what the MSM wants you to think, 500 HR's never made you a "shoo-in."

I think that over time 500 home runs DID evolve into an automatic qualifier for the Hall. Back in the 60s and 70s and into the early '80s, they were still trying to figure out what made somebody a HOFer, which is why guys like Mathews and Killebrew had to wait a few ballots before getting in. But eventually, I think the mainstream consensus that emerged was clearly that 500 home runs did qualify as an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. The last four guys to show up on HOF ballots with 500+ home runs and no steroid taint all went in first ballot - McCovey, Jackson, Schmidt, and Murray. On the one hand, it's easy to look at those guys and say, "Well, those are obvious Hall-of-Famers. Of course, they all went in first ballot." But then you look at the history of BBWAA voting and I have to think that McCovey and Jackson in particular and to a lesser extent even Schmidt and Murray (who also has the 3,000-hit benchmark), are the kinds of players that wouldn't have been slam-dunk first-ballot guys not so long ago, a'la Harmon Killebrew and Eddie Mathews.

I think there was a similar consensus reached with respect to 300 pitching wins. When Don Sutton made it in, that showed that they'd reached consensus: 300 wins gets you into the Hall of Fame, no matter how you got there (perhaps short of using steroids, depending on what they do with Clemens).

I think the BBWAA has gotten lazier over time in this respect and they have come to rely more heavily on these automatic qualifiers than they used to - while simultaneously trying to claim that it's not just about the numbers. Sheffield won't get elected to the Hall of Fame any time soon, not because 500 HRs isn't an automatic qualifier, but because steroids are an automatic disqualifier for enough voters that they won't have to actually think about it. Barring steroid revelations, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, and Frank Thomas are going to get elected to the Hall of Fame, almost certainly on the first ballot, and for all that will be written at the time, it'll be because they hit 500 home runs without using steroids.

Kiko,

I disagree with you. There have always been standards; its just that those standards have changed over time. It used to be that every single pitcher who won 250 or more games made it to the hall - that changed around the 80's. Just because 500 home runs was a crucial milestone 25 years ago doesn't mean its going to be a crucial milestone today. I don't think Thome is going to make it on the first ballot, and partly because 500 home runs is not the milestone that it used to be.

It should also be noted that the notion of making it on the first ballot is different now than it used to be. It doesn't mean that the voters have gotten any lazier.

Sheffield may not make it, and if so, it won't just be the steroids. It will be the changing standards related to home runs, and the fact that despite great offensive stats for many years, I don't think many people have thought of him as a Hall of Famer while he has been active (a mistake in my opinion).

Just because 500 home runs was a crucial milestone 25 years ago doesn't mean its going to be a crucial milestone today.

But Shock's point in #5 that I was responding to (and this is quite correct) is that 500 home runs wasn't a crucial milestone 25 years ago. Harmon Killebrew wasn't in the Hall of Fame 25 years ago despite having 500 home runs. It used to be that every single pitcher who won 250 or more games made it to the Hall because Hall-of-Fame voters decided, on a case-by-case basis, that each of those specific pitchers deserved to be in the Hall of Fame and the fact that everybody with over 250 wins was on the "In" side of the line was, in some sense, just a coincidence (not completely, of course, because Wins by a pitcher do reflect some level of the quality of the pitcher).

This is also true of 500 home runs and, in fact, was true of 400 home runs before Dave Kingman. But I think that at some point in the mid-80s or so (Killebrew was finally elected in 1984, McCovey went in 1st-ballot in 1986; that's the breakpoint I see, you can argue whether Killebrew's election or McCovey's was the trigger), voters switched over from coincidentally thinking that every 500-homer guy deserved to be in the Hall to viewing 500 home runs as an automatic qualification for the Hall of Fame.

In fact, the very talk of how "milestones [are] not [a] proper measure of Hall-worth" is an implicit recognition that this is exactly how Hall-worth is currently measured by the voters. I'll be convinced that BBWAA voters aren't blindly using 500 home runs as the standard for measuring HOF-worthiness if Fred McGriff gets serious consideration in two years when he appears on the ballot. I don't think he will; people will talk about how home runs aren't worth as much as they used to, but what they'll mean in that case is that Fred McGriff finished his career 7 home runs shy of Cooperstown.

I don't think he will; people will talk about how home runs aren't worth as much as they used to, but what they'll mean in that case is that Fred McGriff finished his career 7 home runs shy of Cooperstown.

No, what they'll mean is that home runs aren't worth as much as they used to. If Fred McGriff had seven more home runs, I still don't think he'd make it in, because 500 homeruns isn't impressive anymore. Fred McGriff won't prove anything, regardless of whether he makes it in or not.

IMO, Palmeiro killed it, and it had nothing to do with the steroids. Palmeiro just didn't seem that impressive a home run hitter - he was never the best home run hitter in the game, or anything close - yet he surpassed 500 with ease. Well, if someone like Palmeiro can hit 569, how impressive is it when someone else hits 500? McCovey got in during a different era, when virtually everyone hitting 500 home runs was a great baseball player at some point in their careers.

because 500 homeruns isn't impressive anymore.

I disagree.

I'm also shocked that Sheff only has 229 DH games. Still has twice as many 3B (468) games as DH.

2.48 MVP shares. 48th all time in runs, 74th in OBP, 24th in walks, 61 in OPS+, 25th(!) in runs created.

The key is 11th all time in power/speed.

Well, if someone like Palmeiro can hit 569, how impressive is it when someone else hits 500?

From Raffy's age 23 through age 39 seasons, inclusive, the most games he missed in a season was 10. Over those 17 seasons, by my probably slightly incorrect count, he missed 63 games. Durability isn't something to be ignored. He is 17th in games, 15th in AB, 10th in total bases, etc. etc. Not on the OPS+ career board. He is 74th all time in ABs per HR. 15th in career outs.

From Raffy's age 23 through age 39 seasons, inclusive, the most games he missed in a season was 10. Over those 17 seasons, by my probably slightly incorrect count, he missed 63 games. Durability isn't something to be ignored. He is 17th in games, 15th in AB, 10th in total bases, etc. etc. Not on the OPS+ career board. He is 74th all time in ABs per HR. 15th in career outs.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

Decent player, no one really knows or cares about you

Not quite. Red Sox fans know Catalanotto all too well. We hate him because he always destroys the Sox.

Palmeiro was closer to being a "great" player than many people give him credit for. It's often mentioned that he only cracked the top ten in MVP voting three times (1993,1996,1999), but that's partly because he played for some bad teams. There were several seasons where he put up numbers that would have warranted a little more consideration on a contender (1991,1994,1995,1998,2001). He made the top twenty (equivalant to the top ten before expansion) ten times in a 12 year span (1991-2002).

He'd have been an easy first ballot guy if the BBWAA ignored steroids as blatantly as 1990's MLB did.