I'm pretty sure McGriff was the first player to have at least one season as the league leader in home runs in each league. I don't think that's a real qualifier, but it's an interesting little tidbit.

There is little doubt, I think, that Edgar Martinez was a better than the vast majority of hitters in in the Hall of Fame, that Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin were much better than most of the middle infielders in the Hall and that Fred McGriff, certainly as a hitter, probably belongs among the Top 5 or 6 first basemen in there.

All probably true, but to dwell on that thought kind of defeats the whole purpose of establishing a Hall of Fame in the first place. It's one thing to acknowledge that (for example) the 1928 A's might be only a .400 or .500 team in the 21st century Amreican League, but it's another thing to say that Cobb, Cochrane, Eddie Collins, Foxx, Grove, Simmons, Speaker are somehow bogus Hall of Famers. If you're arguing who the "best" players and "best" teams are in some abstract sense, then of course you have to consider the level of competition, but if you're choosing a Hall of Fame, the only rational standard is how they stacked up against their contemporaries.

And besides, Larkin and Alomar will probably get in anyway, as they should.

if you're choosing a Hall of Fame, the only rational standard is how they stacked up against their contemporaries.

Yes.

And besides, Larkin and Alomar will probably get in anyway, as they should.

They should, but will they get into a Hall that Tim Raines and Alan Trammell can't get into? I dunno. The current breed of voters seems to enjoy say "no" so much.

And besides, Larkin and Alomar will probably get in anyway, as they should.

They should, but will they get into a Hall that Tim Raines and Alan Trammell can't get into? I dunno. The current breed of voters seems to enjoy say "no" so much.

I know I'll get dumped on for saying this for the 1,001st time, but this sort of shortsightedness concerning the players on the margin is why I wish that the Hall of Merit tried to reach out and publicize its result to a greater audience. Just to ask what to me would be an obvious question: Does someone in the HoM even bother to send out an e-mail notice of its results to the BBWAA writers? And if not, is it in part because of a sense of futility, that the writers are so dense that they'll never listen to reason? I hope not.

Of course it's not as if I think that more than a handful of writers might be persuaded, and even there it might take awhile for reason to sink in. But for candidates on the margins, sometimes a handful of converts would be all you need. That's how lobbyists get bills passed around these parts, anyway.

When I read Posnanski I realize what a good writer, writing about baseball, with knowledge, can do. He really writes circles around most baseball writers to the point of making most of them seem illiterate, both with his eloquence and his knowledge. It's the difference between reading The New Yorker and US Weakly.

Does anyone think that Alomar's HoF candidacy is tainted by his spitting on an umpire? This isn't an ambiguous issue like steroids, after all. He spat on an umpire. Umpires aren't perfect, but should the Splendid Spitter make it in?

Does anyone think that Alomar's HoF candidacy is tainted by his spitting on an umpire?

It shouldn't be, but there will probably be some folks who use that as a reason not to vote for him.

I suspect that Alomar will have problems, not because he spit on an umpire, but because he declined so quickly and fell short of 3000 hits.

-- MWE

And besides, Larkin and Alomar will probably get in anyway, as they should.

They should, but will they get into a Hall that Tim Raines and Alan Trammell can't get into? I dunno. The current breed of voters seems to enjoy say "no" so much.

Raines: 7 ASG (last at age 27), no GG, 1 SS, 3 Top 10 finishes in MVP voting (highest as 5th), 0.294 BA
Trammell: 6 ASG (last at age 32), 4 GG, 3 SS, 3 Top 10 finishes in MVP voting (highest as 2nd), 0.285 BA
Larkin: 12 ASG (last at age 40), 3 GG (only because of Ozzie's stranglehold on the award), 9 SS, 1 MVP, 0.295 BA
Alomar: 12 ASG (last at age 33), 10 GG, 4 SS, 5 Top 10 finishes in MVP voting (highest as 3rd), 0.300 BA

There's a lot in terms of in-career recognitions (rightly or wrongly) to separate Larkin and Alomar from Raines and Trammell in the minds of the BBWAA.

Does anyone think that Alomar's HoF candidacy is tainted by his spitting on an umpire? This isn't an ambiguous issue like steroids, after all. He spat on an umpire. Umpires aren't perfect, but should the Splendid Spitter make it in?

Funny you should use that term, because that's what Teddy Ballgame himself was called in 1956. Here's why, from the MLB website:

August 7, 1956: The Red Sox fine Ted Williams $5,000 for spitting at Boston fans, as the Red Sox edge the Yanks in 11 innings on Williams's bases-loaded walk. It is Williams's third spitting incident in three weeks. The spitting started after the record Fenway Park crowd of 36,350 started booing the star for misplaying Mickey Mantle's windblown fly in the 11th.

September 25, 1956: In response to the Ted Williams spitting incident, the Massachusetts State Legislature passes a bill to fine fans for profanity during a game. The bill is later struck down on the floor.

I don't agree with the decision, but can understand the reasoning of an Alan Trammell not being inducted into the Baseball HOF.

However, the voters will embarrass themselves if Barry Larkin is passed over. Aside from being a wonderful player Larkin was also one of the smartest baseball players not just of his era but of the many I have seen on the field.

Yes, I am an intellectual bigot when it comes to baseball. Baseball "smart" players always win me over.

Guys like a Felipe Lopez who run into outs and do other dumb things annoy me to no end.......

We cannot believe that about runners or swimmers whose times are so much slower than today’s players.

I read an analysis somewhere that a vast majority of the difference between Jesse Owens and modern sprinters is shoes/tracks/starting blocks. Basically the guy analyzed the film to figure out how fast Owens was moving his legs at top speed, and it was very, very close to modern sprinters.

Harvey, I can't see that Larkin wouldn't make it, especially now that he gets so much exposure as a commentator on the Baseball Channel. A lot of American League based writers probably have seen more of him in that role than they saw of him during his entire career, and it can only raise his profile.

All probably true, but to dwell on that thought kind of defeats the whole purpose of establishing a Hall of Fame in the first place. It's one thing to acknowledge that (for example) the 1928 A's might be only a .400 or .500 team in the 21st century Amreican League, but it's another thing to say that Cobb, Cochrane, Eddie Collins, Foxx, Grove, Simmons, Speaker are somehow bogus Hall of Famers.

That's the common myopia you see everywhere though, and not just in baseball. In basketball you'll hear fans raised on Michael Jordan tell you with a straight face that Wilt Chamberlain, a 7'1 monster who ran track in college and actually lead the NBA in assists one year, couldn't compete in the modern era because giant centers were rare in that era - the fact that Bill Russell was the same height as Alonzo Mourning and Hakeem Olajuwon requires additional knowledge. In boxing we frequently hear that our modern sports-medicine supermen were simply too big and strong for the greats of the past, no matter how often you repeat the fact that Jack Dempsey's "tale of the tape" was almost identical to that of Evander Holyfield.

That's the common myopia you see everywhere though, and not just in baseball. In basketball you'll hear fans raised on Michael Jordan tell you with a straight face that Wilt Chamberlain, a 7'1 monster who ran track in college and actually lead the NBA in assists one year, couldn't compete in the modern era because giant centers were rare in that era - the fact that Bill Russell was the same height as Alonzo Mourning and Hakeem Olajuwon requires additional knowledge. In boxing we frequently hear that our modern sports-medicine supermen were simply too big and strong for the greats of the past, no matter how often you repeat the fact that Jack Dempsey's "tale of the tape" was almost identical to that of Evander Holyfield.

Yup. The best example to prove the point is horseracing. With animals literally bred for performance, no one has yet beaten Secretariat's records from almost 40 years ago.

I am 100% certain that if Jesse Owens, Babe Ruth and Jack Dempsey were alive today they'd be dominant figures in their sports.

Larkin shined as a commentator on MLB Network this post season. He spoke as intelligently as he played.

I understand why Pos did it, but consistently referring to Molitor as "predominantly a DH" is kind of weak. Molitor played more games in the field than he DHed. Edgar played many more games at DH than he played in the field.

I wish that the Hall of Merit tried to reach out and publicize its result to a greater audience. Just to ask what to me would be an obvious question: Does someone in the HoM even bother to send out an e-mail notice of its results to the BBWAA writers? And if not, is it in part because of a sense of futility, that the writers are so dense that they'll never listen to reason? I hope not.

I think there's a sense of futility though that's not the biggest obstacle. It's more that the HoM is a herd of cats. It's about us, not them.

But OTOH if we did, I'd expect to be fodder for a certain number of crotchety columns.

Today's sprinters may be better than Jesse Owens if he was plucked out of 1936 and placed in the 2008 Olympics.

But a Jesse Owens born in 1980 would be running with the best of them, if not better. Or be a decent 3rd WR for the Titans.

I am 100% certain that if Jesse Owens, Babe Ruth and Jack Dempsey were alive today they'd be dominant figures in their sports.

Jesse Owens' sprinting records are frequently cited as "proof" of the superiority of the modern athlete, which in itself reveals the myopia of the modern revisionist; yes, high school students today have bettered Owens' Olympic records. However, high school students today do not run in spiked leather shoes, on a cinder track, where they have to literally dig a starting divot before taking their mark!

Today's sprinters may be better than Jesse Owens if he was plucked out of 1936 and placed in the 2008 Olympics.

Yes. I'm assuming Owens gets today's training or the modern guys get 1930's training. Time machine scenarios are pretty uninteresting IMHO.

Yes. I'm assuming Owens gets today's training or the modern guys get 1930's training. Time machine scenarios are pretty uninteresting IMHO.

That's funny, because I just killed my own grandfather.

That's funny, because I just killed my own grandfather.

Oh, a lesson in history from mister I'm-my-own-grandpa!

Yes. I'm assuming Owens gets today's training or the modern guys get 1930's training.

But "training" isn't even the most significant part of the story. The rules have changed. The equipment has changed. Jack Dempsey trained in almost the exact same way a modern boxer trains - plenty of sparring, roadwork, working the heavy bag, the speed bag, and the double-end bag, even some weight training. But Dempsey fought wearing 6oz gloves stuffed with horsehair, not the bigger, better-padded models in use today. Modern fighters practice using the padding of their gloves to cover their faces and block blows; try doing that with the old horsehair gloves and you'll break your hands. That's why old-time fighters practiced dodging and deflecting blows to a far greater degree than contemporary boxers. That's a significant change in in-ring tactics based solely on one piece of equipment.

Then you consider longer fights, less referee intervention, no 3-knockdown limit, etc., and you can't help but come to one conclusion - if you think Dempsey would have trouble in the modern ring, surely our modern fighters would have even more difficulty coping with the accepted rules of boxing in the 1920s.

But "training" isn't even the most significant part of the story. The rules have changed. The equipment has changed. Jack Dempsey trained in almost the exact same way a modern boxer trains - plenty of sparring, roadwork, working the heavy bag, the speed bag, and the double-end bag, even some weight training. But Dempsey fought wearing 6oz gloves stuffed with horsehair, not the bigger, better-padded models in use today. Modern fighters practice using the padding of their gloves to cover their faces and block blows; try doing that with the old horsehair gloves and you'll break your hands. That's why old-time fighters practiced dodging and deflecting blows to a far greater degree than contemporary boxers. That's a significant change in in-ring tactics based solely on one piece of equipment.

Then you consider longer fights, less referee intervention, no 3-knockdown limit, etc., and you can't help but come to one conclusion - if you think Dempsey would have trouble in the modern ring, surely our modern fighters would have even more difficulty coping with the accepted rules of boxing in the 1920s.

Agree completely.

Let's see modern sluggers compete with Ruth in wool uniforms (all day games in summer heat including double headers) with 44 oz. bats, chest high strikezones, pitchers unafraid to come high and tight and no batting helmets, 450-500 ft CF fences in every park, all-night train rides, exhibition games on nearly every "off" day, plus no weight training, no aerobic training, no antibiotics, no surgery to repair bad joints, etc., etc.

Larkin, as I noted last time, is my favorite player ever. But I think he is going to have a hard time getting in. I think we will see a lot of "Great guy, heck of a ballplayer but not a true 'impact' guy" types of arguments.

Many people here disagree; they are saying he will be in within 3-4 years or so. I am skeptical.

Many people here disagree; they are saying he will be in within 3-4 years or so. I am skeptical.

You're a trained cynic. Of course, so am I. I think all 4 guys in Poz's piece will have trouble.

Let's see modern sluggers compete with Ruth in wool uniforms (all day games in summer heat including double headers) with 44 oz. bats, chest high strikezones, pitchers unafraid to come high and tight and no batting helmets, 450-500 ft CF fences in every park, all-night train rides, exhibition games on nearly every "off" day, plus no weight training, no aerobic training, no antibiotics, no surgery to repair bad joints, etc., etc.

Don't forget the spitballs, scuff balls, and the generally crappy status of even undoctored baseballs after a few innings.

I think all 4 guys in Poz's piece will have trouble.

Edgar is definitely boned (BBWAA: "DH? BOOOOOOO!!!!!"). McGriff is almost certainly boned (Slugging 1B in the same era as Bagwell, McGwire, Thome, Palmeiro, Thomas, and so on). Alomar will be in within 3 years, and Larkin will be in within 5. I expect both Alomar and Larkin to start off on at least 50% of ballots.

Of the 4 in Poz's article, Alomar was the only one that I remember being frequently referred to as a "future Hall of Famer" as he was playing in his prime, which bodes well. I think he'll receive the most early support.

Does anyone think that Alomar's HoF candidacy is tainted by his spitting on an umpire?

No more than Marichal's by the Roseboro incident. In both cases, the victim forgave and befriended his attacker – not that the level of Alomar's attack begins to compare with Marichal's. In both cases, there was some sort of severe verbal provocation, though it's never been exactly revealed what, IIRC. Hence the reconciliation was made easier (apologies all round).

Unless the spit tested positive for steroids, I don't think it makes much difference.

As to whether these guys get into the HOF or not, I think it's a very interesting "class." I doubt Martinez or McGriff get in any time soon, but Alomar and Larkin were so celebrated during their playing years – much more so than Whitaker or Trammel or Bobby Grich – that it would be very odd for the writers to turn around now and figure them for also-rans.

Speaking of Alomar's bodily fluids testing positive, remember this story?

I remember the story breaking and immediate denial and haven't heard a peep about it since.

I highly expect him to fall short, but I'll still be very disappointed if/when Fred McGriff doesn't make the Hall of Fame.

I highly expect him to fall short, but I'll still be very disappointed if/when Fred McGriff doesn't make the Hall of Fame.

So will I. He'd be the first Hall of Famer to come up to the majors as a Blue Jay.

Speaking of Alomar's bodily fluids testing positive, remember this story?

I remember the story breaking and immediate denial and haven't heard a peep about it since.

The suit was apparently settled with no further details disclosed. As far as I know Alomar has not addressed the HIV rumors since then. Alomar got married in June 2009.

This is a minor point, but I am a little annoyed that Poz gave any credence to the idea that McGwire's low batting average disqualifies him from the title of best hitter outside the hall. It's pretty clear that Joe is talking about who is actually the best hitter, not "who is the best hitter who conforms to an idiosyncratic aesthetic ideal of what a hitter is supposed to look like", in which case his batting average is almost entirely irrelevant; indeed, a lower batting average may be a positive.

Of course it's not as if I think that more than a handful of writers might be persuaded

The only ones who would give a damn, would be the ones who already think about the game in a similar way to HOM voters. "Preaching to the converted".

The only ones who would give a damn, would be the ones who already think about the game in a similar way to HOM voters. "Preaching to the converted".

I don't know that it's true. If it were just a list, you're probably right. If it were a list and a short essay about each of the guys who have made the HOM and not the HOF, it might carry some weight. There are guys like Gammons and, to a lesser extent, Jason Stark, who have sort of a traditionalist's approach, but if confronted with enough modern statistics in a way they understand, will take the numbers seriously. Those guys are highly influential.

Dick Allen will never gain traction because of what the HOM says, but there's a good reason for that - his attitude quite possible hurt his teams enough that even with his numbers, he may not deserve the HOF. But a Bobby Grich - someone who always had a dirty uniform, and who was just a great player who went under-appreciated because he had a diverse range of skills, none of which was hitting for average - he might gain some traction if people hear the statheads think he was one of the all time greats. The perception among writers is probably that Grich was better than his numbers, not that he was worse than his numbers.

The only ones who would give a damn, would be the ones who already think about the game in a similar way to HOM voters. "Preaching to the converted".

I don't know that it's true. If it were just a list, you're probably right. If it were a list and a short essay about each of the guys who have made the HOM and not the HOF, it might carry some weight. There are guys like Gammons and, to a lesser extent, Jason Stark, who have sort of a traditionalist's approach, but if confronted with enough modern statistics in a way they understand, will take the numbers seriously. Those guys are highly influential.

Two points:

If you don't try, you'll never know.

For a candidate on the margin, it often comes down to a mere handful of votes.

Does anyone think that Alomar's HoF candidacy is tainted by his spitting on an umpire?
No more than Marichal's by the Roseboro incident.

Well, the Roseboro incident is most likely the reason it took Marichal three tries to get in. If we're drawing from that episode to Alomar's, then the answer may be that, yes, Alomar's chances will be affected, but not to the degree that he never gets in.

It's pretty clear that Joe is talking about who is actually the best hitter, not "who is the best hitter who conforms to an idiosyncratic aesthetic ideal of what a hitter is supposed to look like", in which case his batting average is almost entirely irrelevant; indeed, a lower batting average may be a positive.

I may need this explained to me. Not sure how a lower BA is a good thing.

I may need this explained to me. Not sure how a lower BA is a good thing.

I think the unstated portion of the statement is "all other things being equal". Specifically, if the OBP and SLG are the same, then that means that the lower-BA guy has more walks and more extra-base hits while the higher-BA guy has more singles. I think it's not universally true that the former is more valuable than the latter - it depends on the run-scoring environment - but, in general, I think that, for example, a double plus a walk is worth more than two singles, so, in general, I think the lower-BA guy will produce more runs using something like linear weights or base runs or something like that.

McGriff is almost certainly boned (Slugging 1B in the same era as Bagwell, McGwire, Thome, Palmeiro, Thomas, and so on)

Well, McGwire and Palmeiro are dirty, cheating 'roid monkeys (ditto for Giambi in the "so on"). I've heard whispers about Bagwell, too. I could see McGriff picking up some "last clean slugger" votes. How many and whether it'll be close to enough, I don't know.

Today's sprinters may be better than Jesse Owens if he was plucked out of 1936 and placed in the 2008 Olympics.

Yes. I'm assuming Owens gets today's training or the modern guys get 1930's training. Time machine scenarios are pretty uninteresting IMHO.

It's already been established that Owens would lose to Radioactive Man.

I think the unstated portion of the statement is "all other things being equal".

Oh, thanks. I guess I prefer my portions stated.

Fred McGriff needs to get in so I can share my birthday with a Hall of Famer.

Larkin was the best shortstop in NL for at least a decade. I say he gets in. I hope McGriff doesn't as I always veiewed him as an above average player, not a great one. I wouldn't vote for Martinez either-I just don't think DH's belong in the Hall of Fame.

I hope McGriff doesn't as I always veiewed him as an above average player, not a great one.

Go back and look at his late 80s/early 90s numbers. For a while, he was a great player.

I agree with #29 - during their playing days, Alomar was the only one I recall being clearly thought of as a future HOFer. In particular, I read about his Gaylord Perry-like issue of what hat to wear, since he never stayed on one team for more than 5 years. I don't remember Larkin hyped as a HOFer, McGriff was discussed at the end of his career, but mostly in talking about whether he could be the first 500-HR guy to NOT be a HOFer. I grew up in Seattle, so my memories of Edgar are distorted, but certainly we all thought he was the God of Hitting, and obviously we were correct. Prettiest swing a right-handed batter ever had.

Obviously these are my anecdotal experiences, but I would assume that Alomar would go in very quickly, while the others would have to wait. I don't remember Larkin getting more hype than Trammell, so I don't see where he will get anywhere. Edgar, well, I assume the DH penalty will go far beyond what he deserves (I hate the DH, but not enough to overcome my love for Edgar). Not sure if Edgar should get inducted, but he certainly should get strong consideration. I wonder if the 1-team career thing helps, or maybe since that team was way out west and way up north, maybe that actually hurts him.

Yeah, sorry, I meant after taking into account his OBP and SLG; I assumed no one would think that I was saying that player who had a lower BA without a compensating change in other stats was a better hitter. I'm too lazy to look for it now, but Tango did a little study a few years ago on whether a higher BA was correlated with more run scoring, for a fixed OBP and SLG. His results were that it was always a small effect, but the direction depended on the run environment: I *think* that in a higher run environment, the correlation with BA is positive, and for lower environments it is negative. The cutoff point is higher than any run environment that has ever existed, but lower than a team of nine Mark McGwires. So if you do something like a better version of RC/27 for McGwire you would get that a higher BA would be better, whereas his LWTS or other things that assume something like the run environment he actually played in would give him a slight advantage with a lower BA.

EDIT: Here is the thread: http://www.tangotiger.net/archives/artOPS2.shtml#1005

Go back and look at his late 80s/early 90s numbers. For a while, he was a great player.

This. He had crappy timing - his best years were '88-'94, a 6-year trough in scoring levels followed by a strike season.

Besides the "Roseboro incident", Marichal was also in an era where HOF writers didn't elect a lot of guys in their first attempt. Early Wynn, universally regarded as "the last man who will ever win 300 games", didn't get in until his fourth attempt. Both Yogi Berra and Whitey Ford had to wait for their second attempt. Robin Roberts was on his fourth election.

My gut feeling is Alomar makes it in on hissecond or third, Larkin later, maybe seventh. McGriff and Martinez don't. But if McGriff does, both he and Tony Perez will be Hall of Famers traded for Dale Murray.

I really don't understand the blanket statement that "I just don't think DH's belong in the Hall of Fame". The AL has used the DH rule since 1973. It's a position - a role on the line-up card that has to be filled by someone. If a player is the very best at that, then I think he should merit consideration.

The DH rule was proposed back in the 1920s - John Heydler, the NL president, tried to get it adopted, but couldn't get the votes. Imagine that the DH had been adopted by MLB in, say, 1939. Ted Williams, with both his fielding ability, and his attitude towards fielding, would probably have played most of his career as a DH. Let's say that Williams, in this scenario, never played a game in the field after WW2, but put up the exact same offensive numbers that he did in his career. Do people honestly feel that, under those conditions, Williams wouldn't have been a Hall of Famer?

The DH rule was proposed back in the 1920s - John Heydler, the NL president, tried to get it adopted, but couldn't get the votes. Imagine that the DH had been adopted by MLB in, say, 1939. Ted Williams, with both his fielding ability, and his attitude towards fielding, would probably have played most of his career as a DH. Let's say that Williams, in this scenario, never played a game in the field after WW2, but put up the exact same offensive numbers that he did in his career. Do people honestly feel that, under those conditions, Williams wouldn't have been a Hall of Famer?

Not exactly answering your question, but if the NL alone had adopted it in the 1920s, most of today's hardcore anti-DH people would be squarely in the DH for Life camp.

I really don't understand the blanket statement that "I just don't think DH's belong in the Hall of Fame".

I agree with you, if a hitter is great enough, they belong in.

But, I think you still have to give them serious negative credit for not playing defense. IMHO, they should be treated as a really poor fielding 1B (say -15 Rs per season).

Frank Thomas has played more games at DH than in the field. He will almost certainly be elected. He might get as low as 80% of the vote on those grounds, but he'll get in.

IMHO, they should be treated as a really poor fielding 1B (say -15 Rs per season).

Even if the voters did exactly that, would it impact the results in the slightest? Is there a 1B/3B who has been kept out of the Hall of Fame because of their terrible fielding, but who would otherwise have gotten in?

As far as I can tell, fielding can only help your HOF resume, not hurt it.

Even if the voters did exactly that, would it impact the results in the slightest? Is there a 1B/3B who has been kept out of the Hall of Fame because of their terrible fielding, but who would otherwise have gotten in?

Who's the worst fielder at those positions in the HOF? The true butchers generally don't have long careers. If we evaluate Bobby Bonilla by the standards of average fielding 3B's, he might be on the edge of credibility. He was a very good hitter for a long time. If McGriff were considered an above average fielder, he'd have a much better chance. It's probably true that fielding quality only matters at the margins at the hitters' positions, though.

But, I think you still have to give them serious negative credit for not playing defense. IMHO, they should be treated as a really poor fielding 1B (say -15 Rs per season).

Are pitchers given debits for not hitting, or if they do hit, for hitting so badly in the HOF selection? I don't see that it's ever a consideration. Why not?

It seems to me you can easily distort the (intangible) value of the DH (negatively) if you forget what the sole reason fro the DH's existence is? To replace the pitcher as batter. The DH represents a total positive or pretty close to it without much of a downside on this score. Moreover, I don't see how having a DH otherwise inhibits a team from putting a better team out there than it would be if the pitcher batted. Even a better defensive team, if a pitcher is a defensive player, as he most certainly is. DH-ing always allows you to place the premium on selecting a defensive player for defensive reasons only--the pitcher? Now, granted a pitcher is never selected to pitch because of his hitting, but he most certainly is, or was, taken off the mound because of his hitting. Does the DH get credit for this? For the pitcher not doing (or undoing) what he would in the batter's box and on the basepaths, I mean? Just some fleeting thoughts on the subject.

Frank Thomas has played more games at DH than in the field. He will almost certainly be elected. He might get as low as 80% of the vote on those grounds, but he'll get in.

Yes, and Frank Thomas is a good enough hitter to overcome the negative defensive value. He was a better hitter than Edgar, for longer.

Are pitchers given debits for not hitting, or if they do hit, for hitting so badly in the HOF selection? ... The DH represents a total positive or pretty close to it without much of a downside on this score.

Pitchers are compared to other pitchers when their hitting is evaluated - just like how shortstops don't have to be as good offensively as left fielders to make the Hall of Fame. There are some guys whose hitting probably boosted their case - Bob Lemon comes to mind as probably the best-hitting borderline pitcher.

As for giving them debits for not hitting, again, they're being compared to the other team's pitcher, who also doesn't hit, so it's just a net zero effect for everybody.

Likewise, having a DH is a "total positive" only if you get to use one and your opponent doesn't. Except that major-league baseball has never worked that way. Your opponent gets the same "advantages" as you do, so, again, there's no net value to simply having a DH, because everybody in your league gets one too.

Mariano Rivera endlessly is described as the "best closer in the history of baseball," even though with a few exceptions the "position" as we know it today is only around 30 to 40 years old.

But those same people wouldn't call Edgar Martinez "the greatest designated hitter in the history of baseball," because well, that would sound foolish given that the position has only been around for 36 years.

Yes, it's funny how so many people are willing to give a reliever a pass where they won't a DH?

Point to me where a pitcher's hitting is factored in when discussing his HOF credentials seriously.

Bob Lemon? That's it. How serious was that a factor? Was that even remotely a systematic consideration? I don't think it mattered much at all.

Edgar is definitely boned (BBWAA: "DH? BOOOOOOO!!!!!"). McGriff is almost certainly boned (Slugging 1B in the same era as Bagwell, McGwire, Thome, Palmeiro, Thomas, and so on).

That's the problem, though. The writers will lump McGriff in with all of them as being of the same "era," but, really, McGriff played through the low offense of 1988-1992 while Bagwell, Thome, and Thomas did so only partially. That was McGriff's peak -- he had great, great years during that time -- and he gets completely shafted by it.

I don't know if it was ever actually talked about in HOF discussion, but one point where pitcher hitting would be relevant is Juan Marichal vs Sandy Koufax frim 1963-1966.

Mariano Rivera endlessly is described as the "best closer in the history of baseball," even though with a few exceptions the "position" as we know it today is only around 30 to 40 years old.

But those same people wouldn't call Edgar Martinez "the greatest designated hitter in the history of baseball," because well, that would sound foolish given that the position has only been around for 36 years.

This is brilliant and an excellent position. Could you take the argument even further and say that the greatest DH has had more impact then the greatest closer?

Shouldn't the general objections raised about the DH's qualifications for the HOF, and the qualifications of those qualifications, apply to pitchers as a class, too?

And if we're talking about a pitcher who pitched all or most of his career in the NL, then shouldn't there be some emphasis on his hitting if it is a serious component of his value?

Point to me where a pitcher's hitting is factored in when discussing his HOF credentials seriously.

I thought we already talked about that. Marichal vs. Roseboro.

Insert smileycon of your choice.

But, I think you still have to give them serious negative credit for not playing defense. IMHO, they should be treated as a really poor fielding 1B (say -15 Rs per season).

agree, maybe not with the exact numbers, but that is the way I look at a DH, and I just don't see Edgar as worthy. Heck just assume fielding isn't important at all, and compare him to the top 10-15 first baseman, and 10-15 best offensive corner outfielders, and if he doesn't fare well based upon offense only, then it's hard for me to put him in. Add in relatively short career (less than 9000 plate appearances--for a bat first player) and I just don't see him as anyones definition of a lock.

agree, maybe not with the exact numbers, but that is the way I look at a DH, and I just don't see Edgar as worthy. Heck just assume fielding isn't important at all, and compare him to the top 10-15 first baseman, and 10-15 best offensive corner outfielders, and if he doesn't fare well based upon offense only, then it's hard for me to put him in. Add in relatively short career (less than 9000 plate appearances--for a bat first player) and I just don't see him as anyones definition of a lock.

Yep. Edgar has an interesting HOF case, worthy of serious consideration, but at the end of the day it falls squarely within the "well, I don't know" area.

There are very few players who are true DHs in their 20's who have enough overall athletic ability to age well. If you have no defensive ability at all, you need to pile up numbers to get into the HOF. Most of the best DHs are guys who at least fielded early in their careers.

You can find guys like Jim Rice who DH'ed as young players who made the HOF, but 1) Rice aged badly - early in his career, he looked like a surefire first ballot HOFer and instead just barely made it on his last ballot 2) Rice was actually about average defensively and just happened to come up to the majors on a team that had a whole bunch of really good defensive outfielders and first basemen at the same time. Edgar was a really special case. He actually played 3B for most of his 20's, anyways, but got a late start so most of his major league career was after he turned 30. The Reggie Jefferson/ Bob Hamelin types, though are mostly out of baseball by their early 30's.

I bet that of the 20 best DHs in terms of career value at the position at least 15 had more career value at another position, even if you just account for offensive career value.

Bob Lemon? That's it. How serious was that a factor? Was that even remotely a systematic consideration? I don't think it mattered much at all.

It mattered a little to the HOM :-)

Mariano Rivera endlessly is described as the "best closer in the history of baseball," even though with a few exceptions the "position" as we know it today is only around 30 to 40 years old.

But those same people wouldn't call Edgar Martinez "the greatest designated hitter in the history of baseball," because well, that would sound foolish given that the position has only been around for 36 years.

I don't think it's a great comparison. Most people agree that nearly any great starter would be an excellent closer. But the only data points for that are John Smoltz and to a lesser degree, Dennis Eckersley. I believe Randy Johnson would have been a better closer than Mariano Rivera, but I don't really have any basis for that other than it just seems to make sense. Maybe nobody could have been better than Rivera. Who knows?

DHs are different. I can say with great certainty that Barry Bonds would have been a better DH than Edgar Martinez. Albert Pujols would be a much better DH than Martinez was. There are a lot of players on this list.