I'm not seeing the difference between Jim Thome and Harmon Killebrew.

HI I'M JI

JIM. AND I BELONG IN THE HALL OF FAME.

It doesn't help that Cleveland doesn't like him, and his teams in Philly and Chicago have disappointed.

He may be a fragile 37, but he is still putting up a 137 OPS+, paced by .400+ OBP.

He could play for a while yet.

I'm not seeing the difference between Jim Thome and Harmon Killebrew.

Jim Thome, through age 36:

8303 PA, .281/.409/.562, 493 HR, 149 OPS+
56% of career games at 1B, 25% at 3B, 18% at DH

Harmon Killebrew, through age 36 (he was pretty much worthless after that age):

8790 PA, .261/.382/.527, 541 HR, 149 OPS+
41% at 1B, 37% at 3B, 22% in LF

Not too bad a comparison.

HI I'M JI

JIM. AND I BELONG IN THE HALL OF FAME.

That will never get old for me.

He’s been even less durable than Thome, and obviously has other issues, but most people wouldn’t even begin to think of him as a Hall of Fame candidate,

Is this true? I mean, Jason Giambi is not a Hall of Famer, but I certainly think of him as a candidate. If he puts up a couple more good seasons (obviously not likely, let alone guaranteed), I would think he would merit some consideration.

I also have always thought of Thome as a potential HoFer; I think he's certainly close.

Jason Giambi is not a Hall of Famer, but I certainly think of him as a candidate.

If Steroids Boy gets in, the only time I'll go back to the Hall of Fame will be to throw a brick through the front window.

As long as the writers are allowed to vote for HOF membership, we will continue to see glaring inconsistancies. For example, "Sports Weekly" recently ran a piece in which a panel of 5 writers votes for or against HOF membership. A majority voted for Frank Thomas (I think it was 4-1). A majority also voted against Gary Sheffield, Manny Ramirez, and Jim Thome (like Thomas, who just surpassed 500 HRs, all 3 are closing in on 500 HRs). With Sheffield, the taint of steroid usage comes into play, but this issue aside, how do you get such different results with players who have very similar similarity scores? And how do you vote for the player who has been a DH almost exclusively for the last 10 years, but not for players who have at least played a position (again discounting Thome and Sheffield's current stints as DHs), albeit badly?

As for Thome not winning an MVP, I tend to discount the value of any award voted on by the writers; the flaws in the process seem obvious to me; consider last year's MVP voting (Howard over Pujois; Morneau over Jeter, Santana, and Mauer).

On the lighter side, he mentions the woebegone state of the Chicago White Sox, and if they do in fact lose 90 games, I think PECOTA deserves some props.

Thome would be an interesting subject for a Shannon Stewart list. Among first basemen roughly in Thome's time, off the top of my head without studying it, I would have to guess Thome ranks behind Thomas, Bagwell, McGwire, and that may be about it. Among more modern first basemen, of course there's Pujols. Helton? Thome's probably ahead after you adjust for Coors. Delgado? Thome has to have him. Giambi? Not enough really good years. Olerud? Good player, but not really part of that group. Am I forgetting anyone important?

Will Clark is interesting. He's a badly underrated player in history, but clearly behind the Bagwell/Thomas/McGwire/Pujols group.

Quick WARP3 comparison between Clark and Thome: Thome leads in career WARP3 109.2-107.7 (and, assuming he plays behind this year, will pull away before he's done). Thome's best three seasons are 10.4, 9.5, 9.4, and he has four other seasons over 8. Clark's top three are 13.4(!), 11.6, 10.6, but he has only two other seasons above 8. What Will Clark is selling is a very high peak, and because it was obfuscated by the juice era that overlapped his decline phase, the Hall of Fame didn't see it and isn't buying. If Thome's career ends today, I'd be inclined to rate Clark a slight edge, but one more good year from Thome probably puts him over the top.

Thome isn't going to go into the Hall of Fame unless he gets up near 700 home runs, and my initial reaction is that's okay with me.

HI I'M JI

JIM. AND I BELONG IN THE HALL OF FAME.


If that's not on his HOF Plaque, the HOF shoudl be burned to the ground.

I think the difference between Thome and Killebrew is that Killer was the dominant home run hitter of his time -- at least in the AL. Killer led the AL in homers six times, Thome led his league just once. Killer won an MVP and has a much better HOF monitor.

I think Thome belongs.

I'm not seeing the difference between Jim Thome and Harmon Killebrew.

Well, this is basically the question Marchman raises. To put some numbers to it, Thome's problem is ink. For a guy who hit like crazy his whole career, he was rarely the best in his league.

13/104 black ink/grey ink, as opposed to 48/193 for Killebrew.

Killebrew won an MVP and finished in the top 5 six times. Thome finished in the top five in the voting once, placing 4th in 2003.

Thome has numbers that have warranted inclusion in the past, but he never led his league while putting up those numbers. No one thought he was even particularly close to being the best in his league while he did it. That's what gives people pause, and what contributes to the general notion that Thome "doesn't feel like a HoFer". I'm not really sure how best to quantify it, but power sure seemed easy to come by in the years around Thome's peak.

There are some strange points grouped together. Is Thome really behind Palmeiro? Is Thomas really a first baseman? Can you really make a reasonable case that Olerud, Helton, Edgar Martinez, and Fred McGriff are comparable to Thome? The writer makes these points very quickly, and some of them may be defensible, but none of them are slam dunks; all of them demand a little more explanation. Is his generation so wide that it truly includes Will Clark and Albert Pujols?

At this point, without knowing whether he's got a couple more years of stat-stuffing in the tank, I wouldn't want to venture a guess about Thome's HOF candidacy. Three-four years of good play and passing F-Robinson and getting close to 600 HRs would make him look different than retirement this year, even if it wouldn't change our perceptions of his value.

Pujols is not comparable on several accounts, but I think Thome can make a case against most of the rest except Bagwell and Thomas, if you count him as a 1B. (Thomas has 1200 games as a DH, Thome 359.)

Thome is the most similar player to McGwire on BB-Ref. McGwire's better--163 OPS+ to 149, but Thome probably has some defensive advantage here, and is also building up some career length advantage--700 PA lead now and more coming. I'd still take McGwire, but it's conceivable with a good back that Thome could look like a better career pick in a couple of years.

Will he get "extra credit" from voters for the "big family" advantage writers use to "prove" he's not on steroids?

"A majority voted for Frank Thomas (I think it was 4-1). A majority also voted against Gary Sheffield, Manny Ramirez, and Jim Thome (like Thomas, who just surpassed 500 HRs, all 3 are closing in on 500 HRs)."

Well, Thomas is the class of that group, isn't he? Manny's outslugged him, and is still in the field (though he wouldn't be on most teams, clearly), but his rate stats will likely decline over the next few years, and his OBP is already notably less than Thomas's. He will likely outhomer Thomas, and out-RBI him, but... I don't know, it seems close.

Sheffield's offensive numbers are not as good as either of those guys, though he has been worth notably more in the field, I assume. And I don't know what the park factors are (and I'm sure the writers don't either). Anyway, even putting aside the personality issues many writers see with Sheffield and Manny-- and ignoring, for the moment, the idiocy of voting against Thomas, Ramirez, and probably Sheffield-- they actually might not be wrong about the _relative_ merits of each player (relative to each other, that is).

"wouldn't be on most _AL_ teams," that is

Thome's problem is ink. For a guy who hit like crazy his whole career, he was rarely the best in his league

And this points to an oft-noted problem brought about by expansion: there are lots more games, player-seasons, and indeed careers now than there used to be, but there are still only two RBI champs, two MVPs, and in most years two Hall of Famers inducted.

But more major-league baseball means more chances for Killebrew-like careers than there used to be -- and perhaps the 90s/00s emphasis on take-and-rake tactics contributes, too, so that Thome gets lost in a big haze of similar guys, while Killebrew stood out more.

Even if your opinion about the expansion era is that it's watered down talent insidiously and that Jim Thome couldn't carry Killebrew's spikes, the fact is that Thome has succeeded at a very high level in the game as it's played -- most probably at a percentile that would have gotten someone into the Hall in the 16- or 20-team era. But now there are 30 teams, and there's a more severe bottleneck limiting the de facto number of promising Hall candidates.

I count 7 first basemen in the Hall who, like Killer, spent a good amount of their careers in the 60's & 70's (8 if you count Banks), when there were 18-24 teams. So why would 7 be excessive for this era (90's/00's), with 30 ML teams? I mean criminy the BBWAA not the VC elected Perez and Thome blows him out of the water.

If we still had only 4 divisions you could very well end up with awards for each. But that was in an alternate universe not this one.

I think Thome's problem is that in his era he gets lost in the crowd whereas Killebrew, with similar numbers, stood out in his era.

Moreover, in talking with the few writers I know, they are beginning to re-think the notion that a specific career total number in any category warrants automatic admission to the HOF. When they see players like Biggio struggle to reach a milestone and see teams like the Astros and the Giants forgo the competitive aspect of the season to hype and market the individual achievement of a single player strictly for financial reasons (not that it hasn't been done before), the thought of an automatic admission has to be reconsidered in light of the achievement of the time.

Even considering the advantages and disadvantages of specialized pitching roles in this day and age, I am more impressed with Tom Glavine reaching 300 wins this season in an age of hyper-offense rather than Bonds or Rodriguez reaching home run goals.

I am more impressed with Tom Glavine reaching 300 wins this season in an age of hyper-offense

<nitpick>
Every season, no matter how many or how few runs are scored, there is exactly the same number of wins to go around. Offensive levels cannot have any direct effect on the availability of wins; there are 2430 wins available each season, give or take a few for rainouts, playoffs, etc.

More accurate would be to suggest you're impressed with Glavine winning 300 in the five-man-rotation era or the crazy-bullpen-usage era.
</nitpick>

Offensive levels cannot have any direct effect on the availability of wins

They sure have some affect on who gets credit.

crazy-bullpen-usage era

Tom Glavine reaching 300 wins this season in an age of hyper-offense

Those two things are related, though.

It's just a question of precision.

HI I'M JI

JIM. AND I BELONG IN THE HALL OF FAME.


--If that's not on his HOF Plaque, the HOF shoudl be burned to the ground.

Am I missing something here?

Moreover, in talking with the few writers I know, they are beginning to re-think the notion that a specific career total number in any category warrants automatic admission to the HOF.

The thing is, if you look back at history, the notion that 500HR/3000H/300W <u>literally</u> "warrants automatic admission to the HOF" is a quite recent phenomenon.

Harmon Killebrew, for example, wasn't elected until his 4th year of eligibility. Eddie Mathews, who has 500+ homers, and was probably the best third baseman in major-league history when he retired, wasn't elected until his 5th ballot (he finished NINTH in voting his first year on the ballot, 1974, with 32.3% of the vote behind Gil Hodges and Pee Wee Reese, among others).

I think that it's much more true to say that every player with 3000 hits, 500 homers, and/or 300 wins is in the Hall of Fame because they were Hall-of-Fame level players, not because they happened to reach the milestone.

Am I missing something here?

The Dugout

St. Vin - you are missing out on The Dugout, the funniest baseball humor site of all time. (If that link doesn't work because your workplace hates fun, Google "progressive boink the dugout".)

Or just click on Randy's link.

(I have stained etc.)

Moreover, in talking with the few writers I know, they are beginning to re-think the notion that a specific career total number in any category warrants automatic admission to the HOF. When they see players like Biggio struggle to reach a milestone and see teams like the Astros and the Giants forgo the competitive aspect of the season to hype and market the individual achievement of a single player strictly for financial reasons (not that it hasn't been done before), the thought of an automatic admission has to be reconsidered in light of the achievement of the time.

But that's the penalty for the media's inability to recognize bona fide Hall of Fame talent. For example, IMHO the following are/should be Hall of Fame locks: Alan Trammel, Lou Whitaker, Roberto Alomar, Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven, (obviously there are others, but these are listed to make the point) but you still read articles from BBWAA members that seem to have witnessed the tail end of their careers or very little of their careers wondering if they are/were worthy or simply didn't make the cut on the ballot.

Hanging on to reach milestone numbers is to ensure (in their minds) that the BBWAA pays attention when time to vote comes up because if you don't--there is a real risk of being overlooked. Blyleven missed 300 wins, Raines missed 3000 hits, 1600 runs scored and 900 stolen bases, Alomar didn't make it to 3000 hits, and I have no idea what the deal is with Trammel/Whitaker.

I saw the entirety of their careers and feel I witnessed HOF careers. With the exception of Blyleven of whom I was still somewhat young during his best years; I felt and (still do) that "I'm watching a future HOFer here." However Tram/Whit got shafted, Raines is going to have a tough time, and we've read articles debating the merits of Alomar and Thomas' HOF credentials.

On the flip side, I honestly feel that if Early Wynn won just 290 games that he wouldn't be in. However he got the magic 300 and that was that. Had Harold Baines had garnered 134 more hits, 12 additional HR with 72 extra RBI (which he more that likely would have except he lost time to the 1981 and 1994-95 strikes) he would've finished with 3000 hits, 400 HR and 1700 RBI and a plaque. Give Fred McGriff seven more longballs and he'd be considered a lock.

Sadly, players feel that a Hall of Fame career simply will be overlooked if they don't have the magic number(s). So yeah, it's sad to see guys like Biggio, Robin Yount, George Brett, or Dave Winfield limp across the 3000 hit line a mere shadow of their former glory. Or for that matter, watching Eddie Murray (successful), and McGriff (unsuccessful) make sad attempts at 500 HR. However, the BBWAA created the seeming necessity of doing so.

Had the BBWAA shown enough consistency in recognizing talent absent milestone numbers, some guys wouldn't have felt the need to hang in so long. Heck, think of some players who are right on the bubble but never got much attention. Lance Parrish: a catcher with 300 HR (catchers with 300 HR careers and solid defensive reps are a scarce item) and multiple Gold Gloves. Check out Bill Freehan's BB-Ref page sometime. Played in the sixties, hit 200 HR, won five Gold Gloves, an 11-time All Star, career OPS+ of 112. What about Ted Simmons terrific career?

Best Regards

John

St. Vin - you are missing out on The Dugout, the funniest baseball humor site of all time. (If that link doesn't work because your workplace hates fun, Google "progressive boink the dugout".)

Thanks. I must be spending too much time in the Lounge.

St. Vin - you are missing out on The Dugout, the funniest baseball humor site of all time. (If that link doesn't work because your workplace hates fun, Google "progressive boink the dugout".)

I think that progressive boink's okay, but I might've enjoyed it more where I younger. It's good to a big league HOVG guy types like me, although I don't go the ALLCAPS route.

Offensive levels cannot have any direct effect on the availability of wins.

They can on the availability of wins for a starting pitcher, in that a higher run environment --> quicker hooks --> more no-decisions by starters --> fewer wins by starters. This effect is probably overstated a little: a quick comp with Carlton reveals that Carlton had a decision in about 80% of his starts, while for Glavine it is 75%. Seaver also 80%, Clemens 76%, but Maddux at 79%, which surprises me actually, so it looks like this effect is overrated both in stat circles and elsewhere. Then again Maddux, Clemens, and Glavine are all old guys and the no-decision % was steadily going up during the course of their careers. So checking a few younger active primo hurlers, Pedro is at 76%, Tim Hudson 73%, Zito 74%, Santana 76% (last 4 years only). So some of these guys have a shot at 300 it seems.

Naturally this has little to do with Jim Thome, so carry on.

Speaking of milestones: Ken Griffey Jr. need 9 HR for 600. Is it just me, or is there a decided lack of interest in this in the media?

Is it milestone burn out?
Barry Bonds burn out?

I mean, two major HR barriers have been breached by Bonds and Sammy Sosa--both of which had the spectre of steroids around it. Now Junior is within reach of joining the 600 club absent any kind of taint or question. Why aren't we reading more about it? (Or am I just reading the wrong news sites?)

Thoughts?

I mean Junior has a pretty good reputation and his petulant phase seems to be a thing of the past and not held against him (as Mariners fans indicated) and 600 HR is awfully rare (my grasp of the obvious is awe-inspiring n'est-ce pas?).

Why the seeming silence? He's got a shot at a 30 HR 100 RBI season (first since 2000) and a .900+ OPS.

Best Regards

John

Speaking of milestones: Ken Griffey Jr. need 9 HR for 600. Is it just me, or is there a decided lack of interest in this in the media?

Is it milestone burn out?
Barry Bonds burn out?

Been there, done that, I think. I know it's of little interest to me, other than in a general sense. Though I'm not one on milestones. I only did a "Bonds watch" because of the uniqueness of it. If I happen to be watching when Junior hits 600, so be it.

John, till you noted the fact, I wasn't really clued in that Griffey was sitting at 591 -- so I'm not getting the news either ...

Milestone burnout is surely part of it. Also, the very fact that Sosa just got there makes 600 less interesting. And unlike Sosa, Griffey did not come back to his original club after however-many-hundred-days' layoff. Like Sosa and Bonds, he is hundreds of miles from any pennant race, but that can't help, all things considered. And I think, too, that Griffey fell off a lot of people's radar over the past five years, with the constant injuries ... he's now got 90 HR over the past three (all partial) seasons, but for all the coverage he gets you'd think he was retired ...

And this points to an oft-noted problem brought about by expansion: there are lots more games, player-seasons, and indeed careers now than there used to be, but there are still only two RBI champs, two MVPs, and in most years two Hall of Famers inducted.

But more major-league baseball means more chances for Killebrew-like careers than there used to be

It ain't just expansion though. There's more homers per at bat than ever before. Even if there were just 16 teams 500 homers would be easier to achieve.

Marchman:
and reasonable cases could be made for Will Clark, John Olerud, Todd Helton, and perhaps Fred McGriff and Edgar Martinez as well.

Brattain:
Had Harold Baines had garnered 134 more hits, 12 additional HR with 72 extra RBI (which he more that likely would have except he lost time to the 1981 and 1994-95 strikes) he would've finished with 3000 hits, 400 HR and 1700 RBI and a plaque. Give Fred McGriff seven more longballs and he'd be considered a lock.


You guys are killing me. Fred McGriff might be the most underrated player of the last quarter-century. Christ, even Biggio has his backers standing up for him. McGriff? Marchman rates him below Olerud and Todd Helton, and Brattain lumps him with Harold Baines . . . and no here minds.

McGriff: was an offensive monster from 1988-94. He was in the Top 5 in OPS+ every year then except 1993, when he was a measly 7th. His sin was that he was the last first rate slugger to peak before the Silly Ball Era. Nowadays we're so used to 45-50 homer campaigns, one forgets how impressive hitting 40 was in the 1980s. He was second in the league with 34 homers in his coming out campaign in 1988. Next year he led the league with 36. He was fourth in the league for the next two years. Then in 1992, just before the ball started hopping out all over baseball, he led the league in homers again. In 1993, he set a personal high with 37 homers, but in the emerging (though not yet fully blossomed) Silly Ball Era, that was only good enough for fourth, tied for his worst rank in the last half-dozen years. Then, in 1994 he hit 34 homers in the strike-shortened year. That's on pace for 48. Sure it was only ranked fourth, but given his track record he was a good pace to stay among the league leaders.

Forty homer campaigns became standard in 1995, just in time for his decline. All he did was remain a productive, solid if unspectacular player for 8 more years, after his 7 year long fantastic prime.

Oh yeah, his trade to Atlanta also cued one of the greatest comebacks ever.

Baines? Helton? Puh-leeze!

Hannah Storm is almost as funny as JIM THOME.

You guys are killing me. Fred McGriff might be the most underrated player of the last quarter-century. Christ, even Biggio has his backers standing up for him. McGriff? Marchman rates him below Olerud and Todd Helton, and Brattain lumps him with Harold Baines . . . and no here minds.

Not quite.

I wrote that from the "media" point of view. I think McGriff is a no-brainer. He didn't get included in my original list because I think he's right off the media radar screen.

Suffice it to say: I totally agree with your points. Watching him spark the Braves in 1993 was very enjoyable. I cheered for the Crime Dog right through the NLCS and was relieved I didn't have to cheer against him in the World Series.

Best Regards

John

P.S.

Even if I had lumped him in with Harold Baines it wouldn't have been an insult. Before his knees went he was damned fine ball player. After his knees went, he was still a damned fine hitter.

To be lumped in with Harold Baines hardly qualifies as a slur about someone's baseball talents. :-)

He was a helluva player.

Best Regards

John

Baines Career: .289/.356/.465 OPS+ 120
McGriff Career: .284/.377/.509 OPS+ 134

Baines best 5 by OPS+
143, 143, 142, 139, 138

McGriff best 5 by OPS+
165, 161, 157, 157, 157

Closer than I thought actually, but still there's significant separation between the two...

OK, explain to me why it's an insult to compare Fred McGriff with Todd Helton. McGriff's career OPS+ is 134, Helton's is 142, with further declines expected. Here are their top ten OPS+ seasons, in descending order (this is Helton's tenth full season):

McGriff: 165, 161, 157, 157, 157, 147, 142, 142, 142, 130
Helton: 168, 160, 159, 158, 144, 143, 123, 121, 120, 119

McGriff gets the nod for longevity, but for peak, it would be hard to find two closer matches. Helton also has a big edge on defense, Tom Emanske notwithstanding.

To follow on something John said, I think people should stop talking about career milestones as if they mean something to Hall of Fame voters, other than the small handful that really are significant: 500 homers, 300 wins, 3000 hits, maybe one or two others. Harold Baines reaching 400 homers wouldn't have made any difference at all, nor would Tim Raines reaching 1600 (!) runs scored. I doubt if half the Hall of Fame voters could tell you Willie Mays' career run total within 500.

Also, doesn't it seem like the Tigers have more near misses/snubs than any other team? Already in this thread people have mentioned Trammell and Whitaker, Lance Parrish and Bill Freehan, and I'll throw in Jack Morris and Kirk Gibson as well.

OK, explain to me why it's an insult to compare Fred McGriff with Todd Helton. McGriff's career OPS+ is 134, Helton's is 142, with further declines expected. Here are their top ten OPS+ seasons, in descending order (this is Helton's tenth full season):

McGriff: 165, 161, 157, 157, 157, 147, 142, 142, 142, 130
Helton: 168, 160, 159, 158, 144, 143, 123, 121, 120, 119

McGriff gets the nod for longevity, but for peak, it would be hard to find two closer matches. Helton also has a big edge on defense, Tom Emanske notwithstanding.

I've seen this argument advanced and it makes some intuitive sense, but I'm not convinced of it one way or the other, but the argument is that McGriff's OPS+'s are more impressive because OPS+'s in general were lower at the high end during his peak than during Helton's (I hope that sentence makes sense).

That is, McGriff has 7 (consecutive) top 10 finishes in OPS+, including 6 top 5's and a #1 (1989 AL at 161). Helton, on the other hand, has only 5 top 10 finishes in OPS+ in his career with only 1 top 5 finish (3rd in 2003 at 168).

If it's easier to put up a higher OPS+ more recently for whatever reason (expansion?), then the rank within the league could be a better measure of each player's relative dominance, which would more clearly favor McGriff (although not necessarily to the point where a comparison to Helton is "an insult").

Also, doesn't it seem like the Tigers have more near misses/snubs than any other team? Already in this thread people have mentioned Trammell and Whitaker, Lance Parrish and Bill Freehan, and I'll throw in Jack Morris and Kirk Gibson as well.

The 1984 Tigers are easily the best team in major-league history with no Hall-of-Famers, aren't they?

Let's compare Thome to McGriff by OPS+, excluding this season:

McGriff: 165, 161, 157, 157, 157, 147, 142, 142, 142, 130
Thome: 191, 169, 166, 158, 156, 155, 153, 151, 142, 132

If Thome ends this year with his current OPS+ of 136, then his best 10 seasons look even better. But he basically looks like a tiny-bit-better McGriff + one outstanding season (OPS+ 191).

Career OPS+
Thome: 149
McGriff: 134

It'll be interesting to see what Thome ends up at once he has more decline phase. If you consider 492 games at 3B to partly offset McGriff's greater time in the field, Thome seems to have roughly equal career value to Crime Dog at this point.

For example, IMHO the following are/should be Hall of Fame locks: Alan Trammel, Lou Whitaker, Roberto Alomar, Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven,

Ron F'in Santo

If it's easier to put up a higher OPS+ more recently for whatever reason (expansion?), then the rank within the league could be a better measure of each player's relative dominance,

The other side of this is that we know expansion brings more players into the league, making it harder to rank higher within the league. Helton's best seasons came in a 16-team league, while McGriff's were in a 14-team league and even a 12-team league for a while.

The other side of this is that we know expansion brings more players into the league, making it harder to rank higher within the league. Helton's best seasons came in a 16-team league, while McGriff's were in a 14-team league and even a 12-team league for a while.

That's true. Percentile rankings would be more accurate or looking at standard deviations above average (Dan Rosenheck has done some really excellent work in this area over at the Hall of Merit).

And, as I think I said, I agree with your general point that saying McGriff is comparable to Helton is not an insult to McGriff - Helton's a really good hitter.

Ron F'in Santo

Quite true, but I never had the privilege of watching Mr. Santo's prime. My list was culled from players I've seen from promising rookie to respected veteran and when it happens--retirement.

Of course what I did see was pretty danged good.

Best Regards

John

Even if I had lumped him in with Harold Baines it wouldn't have been an insult. Before his knees went he was damned fine ball player. After his knees went, he was still a damned fine hitter.

Oh, I know. He was my favorite player growing up.

To be lumped in with Harold Baines hardly qualifies as a slur about someone's baseball talents.

It does when the player was far better than Baines.

/McGriff: 165, 161, 157, 157, 157, 147, 142, 142, 142, 130
Helton: 168, 160, 159, 158, 144, 143, 123, 121, 120, 119

McGriff gets the nod for longevity, but for peak, it would be hard to find two closer matches. Helton also has a big edge on defense, Tom Emanske notwithstanding.

They are close but:
- the most prominent differences (years 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10) clearly favor McGriff
- OPS+ weighs OBP & SLG equally and Helton was far more SLG-heavy (429/583) than McGriff (377/509).
- Post-season doesn't get too much attention on this sight, but McGriff played in 50 postseason games and hit 303/385/532 in them. No fault of Helton's that his teams haven't gotten there, but McGriff really was at his best when it mattered most.
- Minor nit but McGriff stole more bases.

The only downside to McGriff is that he hit into more DPs, but the above (especially the part about weighting OBP & SLG) puts McGriff ahead of Helton.

Harold Baines reaching 400 homers wouldn't have made any difference at all

Not in isolation obviously, but along with 1700 RBI and 3000 hits it certainly would. The 3000/400 club is pretty prestigious.

Tim Raines reaching 1600 (!) runs scored. I doubt if half the Hall of Fame voters could tell you Willie Mays' career run total within 500.

It would if you were evaluating leadoff hitters. Nobody could tell you Rickey's RBI totals either. They focus on runs scored, OBP, and stolen bases. Of course Mays didn't bat leadoff. Most folks could tell you Mays HR total since he was a middle-of-the-order hitter.

Best Regards

John

Harold Baines reaching 400 homers wouldn't have made any difference at all


Not in isolation obviously, but along with 1700 RBI and 3000 hits it certainly would. The 3000/400 club is pretty prestigious.

I think it's only the third of these that would have made a difference - the 3,000 hits. For whatever reason, there is no "magic number" of RBI (or runs scored) in the minds of BBWAA voters, and 400 homers has never been a "magic number" (prior to Dave Kingman, it was the case that everybody who hit 400 homers in his career was, coincidentally, a Hall-of-Fame caliber player).

If the 1981, 1994, and 1995 seasons had been played in full, Harold Baines almost certainly would have gotten 3,000 hits. His failure to play games that weren't played doesn't really affect his value in those seasons, so in that case, he'd have had the exact same career value and career shape really, except that he would have hit the magic 3,000-hit barrier. I think that could have been a very interesting debate by the BBWAA about whether he was a Hall-of-Famer.

I think that could have been a very interesting debate by the BBWAA about whether he was a Hall-of-Famer.

I know. It would've been an awesome topic on forums. Full discloure: I'm a huge Harold Baines fan.

Having said that, even had he gotten 3000 hits/400 HR/1700 RBI (I chose that number since (1) it's the closest round number among the top 20 all time in RBI and (2) Baines was closest to that number) I still wouldn't have thought of him as a HOFer.

Of course, I'd argue either side as long as I found a willing foil to discuss the point.

Hours of potentially great fun--gone.

Best Regards

John

Speaking of milestones: Ken Griffey Jr. need 9 HR for 600. Is it just me, or is there a decided lack of interest in this in the media?

It's just not the story du jour. Wait until he gets closer 4 or 5 homers. If they are still ignoring it, then you can start saying something is up.

- OPS+ weighs OBP & SLG equally and Helton was far more SLG-heavy (429/583) than McGriff (377/509).

No, Helton's SLG is 36% higher than his OBP, McGriff's slugging is 35% higher than his OBP.

Helton EQA .314, Warp3 85.1
McGriff EQA .307, Warp3 104.6

Helton hasn't completed his decline phase of course.

The 1984 Tigers are easily the best team in major-league history with no Hall-of-Famers, aren't they?

Despite that magical season I get the impression that the voters feel like that team was a disappointment, only getting in the playoffs one other year (and then running into the Metrodome Factor). Each of those guys are clearly better than the worst HOFers at their respective positions, but aren't near the top either (includes Darrell Evans too).

Is it just me, or is there a decided lack of interest in this in the media?

They are following Michael Vick right now, they'll get to Jr. eventually.

1984 (and earlier) Tigers - Each of those guys are clearly better than the worst HOFers at their respective positions, but aren't near the top either (includes Darrell Evans too).

The Hall of Merit has elected Whitaker, Trammell, Evans, and Freehan. We have looked and and (mostly) rejected Morris, Gibson, and Parrish.

The collection of 1B/DH driving this article are not yet eligible for the HoM as of 2004, but the candidacy of Will Clark isn't that far away. I think we probably will elect Clark, as a peak candidate.

Why the seeming silence? He's got a shot at a 30 HR 100 RBI season (first since 2000) and a .900+ OPS.

Nobody wants to jinx him. The day you read a "Don't look now, but Ken Griffey, Jr is having a healthy and productive season" article is the day the hammy explodes.

I don't usually love the Dugout, but I think this one is so funny.

http://dugout.progressiveboink.com/archive/dugout10-12-04.htm

Moreover, in talking with the few writers I know, they are beginning to re-think the notion that a specific career total number in any category warrants automatic admission to the HOF. When they see players like Biggio struggle to reach a milestone and see teams like the Astros and the Giants forgo the competitive aspect of the season to hype and market the individual achievement of a single player strictly for financial reasons (not that it hasn't been done before), the thought of an automatic admission has to be reconsidered in light of the achievement of the time.

There has never been "automatic admission," so there's nothing to reconsider. Not only is the recent notion that there were "automatic admission" levels a myth (*), but it has spawned a further myth that these numbers are floors for the HOF; I've seen mediots argue that players can't make it until they reach these numbers.

I have no idea what on earth it means to claim that the Giants "for[went] the competitive aspect of the season" to hype a milestone. Unlike Biggio dragging himself across the finish line, Bonds is the best player in the league.


(*) There are really only two players I can think of in the Hall who might have benefited from those milestones -- Early Wynn and Lou Brock.

The 1984 Tigers are easily the best team in major-league history with no Hall-of-Famers, aren't they?

Hi, I'm Sparky Anderson. You may remember me from such films as "I am a HOF manager" and "Yes, I am in the HOF." (Yes, I know you meant players.) Whitaker and Trammel belong; thank god no sportswriters really take seriously that line about Morris having the most wins in the 1980s. In the past, Whitaker and Trammel would have been clear veteran's committee picks, but the HOF has basically put the VC out of business. But as for "best team in major league history with no HOFers," it had a great year, but it was a single season fluke, which is probably why its players don't get more credit.

Will any 2001 Mariners be elected? I can see Ichiro in the hall.

But as for "best team in major league history with no HOFers," it had a great year, but it was a single season fluke, which is probably why its players don't get more credit.

Sorry, forgot about Sparky (it's been so long since any non-players got in, I'd forgotten if Sparky had made it under the wire).

The 1984 season was flukishly good in the sense that they never won 104 games again, but, as noted above, the 1987 team was probably the best team in the American League and won 98 games. Under the current playoff format (and the AL had the same # of teams then as it has now), the Tigers would have had 2-3 other playoff appearances as well.

But if you go back through history, it's actually pretty hard to find even decent teams that have literally no Hall-of-Famers.

Will any 2001 Mariners be elected? I can see Ichiro in the hall.

I think Ichiro will be elected to the HOF as long as he gets his 10 seasons in here in the States. Edgar Martinez is probably just on the wrong side of the borderline. Unless Jaime Moyer pitches until he's 50 and backs into 300 wins, I think that's it for the Mariners.

(*) There are really only two players I can think of in the Hall who might have benefited from those milestones -- Early Wynn and Lou Brock.

Wynn, sure. But Brock's 938 steals gets him in. Plus post-season play.

thank god no sportswriters really take seriously that line about Morris having the most wins in the 1980s.

Nitpick: Well, not enough to get him in anyway.

In the past, Whitaker and Trammel would have been clear veteran's committee picks, but the HOF has basically put the VC out of business.

DIdn't they announce plans to remodel the VC? They have tremendous financial incentive to keep the VC around and reconstruct it in such a way that someone gets in every year either through the BBWAA or VC. In the late 1970s, the record for best attendance ever at an induction ceremony was a few/couple thousand. Now it's 10-fold that. Far more will show up for a BBWAA-less ceremony than a no-inductee ceremony by far.

it had a great year, but it was a single season fluke,

That's a bit harsh.

They came in second the year before with 92 wins in a very tough division. In 1981, they were about as good as any team in the division but didn't get hot in either half (5 teams within 2.5 for the full-year record. Tough crowd). In '87 they won the division again. In '88 they missed by 1 game. They had a solid core of Trammell-Whitaker-Morris there the entire time. Gibson missed one year at the end and Lemon missed one year at the front. Lance Parrish was there nearly the entier time as well.

In 8 years they had 1 pennant, 1 division title, two second place finishes (one a very near miss), and a bizarro strike-shortened season where they normally would've been right in the thick of it.

What hurts them is how farknig strong the AL East was in the 1980s. In 1983, five of the six best teams in the AL were in the East.

There are really only two players I can think of in the Hall who might have benefited from those milestones -- Early Wynn and Lou Brock.

That may be true in the case of Brock, although it's complicated. The BBWAA guys wanted to elect Brock because of the stolen bases and the World Series heroics; the 3,000 hits gave them a reason to feel justified.

Wynn's case is something like Biggio's might wind up being: a lot of playing in post-prime decline, but the milestone kept his name recognized and kept his record of actually being good once upon a time available to be considered. Much of the pessimism around here concerning Raines comes from the fact that he had the long post-prime decline without any highly publicized milestones.

The Hall of Merit did elect Wynn. (Both Early Wynn and Jimmy Wynn.) In fact, we elected Early Wynn as quickly as we could have - he became eligible in 1969, an elect-2 year which also featured Musial and Berra, and we elected him in 1970. We haven't elected Brock and probably won't, although he is in our middle backlog getting some support. (In HoM terms, I'm one of Brock's stronger supporters - but I'm not flogging his case like kalmagnus with Jake Beckley.)

Far more will show up for a BBWAA-less ceremony than a no-inductee ceremony by far.

Well, it wouldn't be much of an induction ceremony if there weren't any inductees.

In 1983, five of the six best teams in the AL were in the East.

And if George Steinbrenner was really so smart, he'd have bought a team in the AL West.

Well, it wouldn't be much of an induction ceremony if there weren't any inductees.

They always have an announcer and sportswriter.

It's interesting that this is tagged as a White Sox thread.

If Thome manages to get into the Hall, ain't no way he's wearing a White Sox cap.

But as for "best team in major league history with no HOFers," it had a great year, but it was a single season fluke, which is probably why its players don't get more credit.

Not exactly. The Tigers won the division in '87 (97 wins) before flaming out in the Twinky Dome in the playoffs and were a contender/borderline contender every year from 1980-1988. I'd bet they were top 3 in wins in MLB from 1979-1988 -- the heart of the Trammell/Whitaker years.

Alan Trammell is a Hall of Famer.

The Tigers, in fact, led MLB in wins in the 1980s. (Of course, so did Jack Morris...)

Since we're sorta in the subject, what the hell happened to the Tigers in '89?

Not quite the '84 Tigers, but the 1984-1990 Mets averaged 95 wins a season and had just one HOFer in Gary Carter (from 85-89). Although they did have Billy Beane the first two seasons...

Getting back to Griffey: I fully expect that when he is only 3 or 4 home runs from 600, there will be a lot of coverage.

Partly because this will be an opportunity to celebrate his career (and his fine year if he does it in 2007).

But even more so because it will be an opportunity to contrast Mr. Griffey with one or maybe two other sluggers in the 600+ club, and to write paeans about how Griffey did it "the right way", and is a fitting comrade to Willie, the Babe and Hank in that exalted territory, etc., etc.

In fact, those columns are probably already written by the usual suspects, and they are just waiting for the write moment to publish them.

The Sparky Anderson Tigers of the mid-80s were definitely a force to be reckoned with. But the 1984 club, with its 35-5 start to the season, and its 7-1 post season, were astounding. At the dawn of the closer era, Willie Hernandez went 9-3 with 32 saves; Trammell and Whitaker were in their primes; they led the league in scoring and in pitching.

After 1984, almost everything was going to seem like a let down, unless they won some more titles (like the 1998 Yankees). Everything else in that era is colored by the way the Tigers failed to "live up" to the astonishing 1984 team. When they came in 3rd the next two year, it made 1984 seem even more of a fluke.

All that said, Alan Trammel was a gold-glove caliber short stop with a career 110 OPS+, and some truly outstanding years, at a time when Short Stops simply did not produce that kind of offense. He deserved, at a minimum, more consideration from the BBWAA.

It would if you were evaluating leadoff hitters. Nobody could tell you Rickey's RBI totals either. They focus on runs scored, OBP, and stolen bases. Of course Mays didn't bat leadoff. Most folks could tell you Mays HR total since he was a middle-of-the-order hitter.

Actually, John most folks can tell you Mays' homer total (660) because he was number three on the all time list for the last 30 some years.

In fact, those columns are probably already written by the usual suspects, and they are just waiting for the write moment to publish them.

Pay the man!

Actually, John most folks can tell you Mays' homer total (660) because he was number three on the all time list for the last 30 some years.

Well there's that too :-)

As a Blue Jays fan I take great solace in the knowledge that some folks do remember who finished third.

Best Regards

John

If Steroids Boy gets in, the only time I'll go back to the Hall of Fame will be to throw a brick through the front window.

Steroids Boy? Is there a superhero wing of the HOF that I wasn't aware of?

1988 Dodgers & 2002 Angels (K-Rod?) may not get any HoFers either.

The only downside to McGriff is that he hit into more DPs, but the above (especially the part about weighting OBP & SLG) puts McGriff ahead of Helton.

What JPWF13 said.

Also, defense.

People really seem to forget just how good Helton was/is. We'll have to see how he ages of course.

Thome now a little nearer 500.

1988 Dodgers & 2002 Angels (K-Rod?) may not get any HoFers either.

Don Sutton was an '88 Dodger.

#80- 1988 Dodgers had Lasorda. If you're only talking about players, wasn't Don Sutton on that team?

The '81 Dodgers, '84 Tigers and '02 Angels are the only World Series winning teams I can think of with no HOF players (or likely HOF players in the case of recent winners).

Come to think of it, Barry Larkin may have a tougher time getting elected than he deserves, which would put the 1990 Reds on this list. Also, if the writers decide to take a stand against steroids (or a$$holes) and reject Sheffield, then the 1997 Marlins may not get representation either. Kevin Brown sure ain't gonna garner 75%...

Aw, Flynn. You beat me...

The '81 Dodgers, '84 Tigers and '02 Angels are the only World Series winning teams I can think of with no HOF players (or likely HOF players in the case of recent winners).

Come to think of it, Barry Larkin may have a tougher time getting elected than he deserves, which would put the 1990 Reds on this list. Also, if the writers decide to take a stand against steroids (or a$$holes) and reject Sheffield, then the 1997 Marlins may not get representation either. Kevin Brown sure ain't gonna garner 75%...

Also, very few WS losers are not (nor likely to be) represented. 1944 Browns, 1945 Cubs, and 1989 Giants.

Some of the '02 Angels are still young -- John Lackey, for one, could very well win a whole lot of games before he's done, and some Cy Young Awards too if he keeps throwing shutouts in the middle of pennant races.

It is nearly certain that some future veterans' committee will elect both Trammell and Larkin. Their records will look too good, once memories of any underachievements by their teams have faded. One hopes they don't have to wait as long as Ernie Lombardi, who was the only 1940 Red elected -- 46 years later and several years deceased.

Speaking of which, two starting infielders on the 1940 Reds are still alive: Lonnie Frey and Bill Werber. They probably prefer this to being in the Hall of Fame, given a choice :)

Every WS champ from 1903-79 has at least one HoFer. Those without (for recent ones, those without an obvious guy):

1980 Dodgers
1984 Tigers
1990 Reds
1997 Marlins
2002 Angels
2005 White Sox

Actually, from 1903-79, every team has at least one clearly deserving HoFers. The only exceptions:
1914 Braves (Maranville, Evers)
1919 Reds (Rousch)
1925 Pirates (Traynor, Carey, Cuyler)
1940 Reds (Lombardi - took 46 years for this team to get a guy in, the longest wait of any Series champ)

That's it. Those four teams all have something in common: great managers. 1914 had George Stallings, with the possible exception of Gene Mauch he's the best manager ever to have a W/L record under .500. 1919 had Pat Moran - from the down of time until 1939 the Reds only won it once. He was their champ. From the beginning of earth until 1949 the Phillies only one it once. Pat Moran was their manager. The 1925 and 1940 had, incredibly, the same manager - the wildly underrated Bill McKechnie. He and Dick Williams are the only men to take 2 teams to the World Series.

(looks up above at the 1980-onward teams) The managers there are Tommy Lasorda, Sparky Anderson, Lou Piniella, Jim Leyland, Mike Scioscia, and Ozzie Guillen. Two are HoFers, another tied an all-time record for single seasons wins (with a squad that didn't have overwhelmingly talent either), one if currently one of the best regarded managers in the game after going to the Series last year. Another has best one of teh ame's best regarded managers for several years. The last one was very well thought of prior to this year.

Wynn, sure. But Brock's 938 steals gets him in. Plus post-season play.

I don't know how to account for postseason play, but I just don't see the steals doing it for him. Obviously he's more than just another basestealer; at the time he retired, he had stolen far more than anybody else in a very long time, and was the all-time leader. But still, when have SBs really been significant in HOF voting? If you look at the all-time SB list, none of the players who are just basestealers are serious candidates.

That's a bit harsh.

A little harsh; I'm certainly not saying that they were a bad team outside of 1984. But as a great team, they didn't last. One WS, and one division title three years later as a good-but-not-great team. In between, they won just 84 and 87 games. Regardless of whether it's fair, as a factual matter, I think it hurt Whitaker/Trammel significantly.

But still, when have SBs really been significant in HOF voting? If you look at the all-time SB list, none of the players who are just basestealers are serious candidates.

I think Brock's SBs are like Ryan's Ks. There's only one guy in the Hall of Fame because of how many guys he struck out - Nolan Ryan. Likewise, there's really only one guy who's in the Hall of Fame because of his SBs - Lou Brock. Rickey Henderson would be the 2nd, but he really doesn't need the steals to make his HOF case.

Every WS champ from 1903-79 has at least one HoFer. Those without (for recent ones, those without an obvious guy):

1980 Dodgers
1984 Tigers
1990 Reds
1997 Marlins
2002 Angels
2005 White Sox


It's the 1981 Dodgers - the 1980 Phillies had Schmidt and Carlton. I think Larkin's going to get in for the Reds and I think Frank Thomas is going to make it for the '05 White Sox.

Actually, from 1903-79, every team has at least one clearly deserving HoFers. The only exceptions:
1914 Braves (Maranville, Evers)
1919 Reds (Rousch)
1925 Pirates (Traynor, Carey, Cuyler)
1940 Reds (Lombardi - took 46 years for this team to get a guy in, the longest wait of any Series champ)

So who's the best team not to have at least one HOMer?

Since we're sorta in the subject, what the hell happened to the Tigers in '89?

Guess.

The Tigers, in fact, led MLB in wins in the 1980s.

The Yankees scoff at these "facts" of yours.

#27, #28 - Thank you for the link to The Dugout. Not all of those IM Chats work, but the Jim Thome ones are usually pretty great. He's sorta their mascot, isn't he? A big good-natured lug, slow and goofy but not altogether stupid.

He and Dick Williams are the only men to take 2 teams to the World Series.

I'm confused: Why doesn't Sparky Anderson count? Or is it implicitly limited to pre-1980.

There's only one guy in the Hall of Fame because of how many guys he struck out - Nolan Ryan.

I think the 7 no-hitters and 300+ wins helped a little, too. Although I really think it was the beat down of Robin Ventura that accounts for the high vote total. I still don't understand why they don't mention that on the plaque.

Why doesn't Sparky Anderson count? Or is it implicitly limited to pre-1980.

It must be; otherwise, you've got Leyland and LaRussa just OTTOMH. However, Yogi did it in '64 and '73.

Why doesn't Sparky Anderson count? Or is it implicitly limited to pre-1980.

Becauase I meant to type "three" instead of 2.

McKechnie: Pirates, Reds, Cards.
Williams: Red Sox, Mustaches, Padres.

Also with two: Alvin Dark, Leo Durocher, Bucky Harris, Pat Moran (mentioned in that same post in fact), um, others I'm sure.

Other managers with two pennant winning teams:
Al Lopez, Joe Cronin, Billy Southworth, Joe McCarthy.

I think Larkin's going to get in for the Reds and I think Frank Thomas is going to make it for the '05 White Sox.

Good catch on Frank Thomas. I dunno about Larkin, though. If Trammell has trouble getting 15% then Larkin has to hope whatever format the VC is in 20 years from now looks kindly on him.

World Series losers without any HoFers (manager in parathesis):
1917 Giants (McGraw)
1918 Cubs (Mitchell)
1944 Browns (Sewell)
1945 Cubs (Grimm)
1989 Giants (Craig)

World Series losers without any obvious HoFrs (HoFs in parathesis, in second set the manager):
1939 Reds (Lombardi) (McKechnie)
1976 Yanks (Hunter) (Martin)

Strangely, the World Series losers in recent years are more likely to have an obvious HoF than the winners.

I guess you could put the 1959 White Sox on the second list, but between Wynn, Aparicio, and Fox but even if Wynn's the worst 300 game winner of the century, he's still a 300 game winner. And I think the bloody sock assures Schilling's induction, hence why there's no 1993 Phillies anywhere.

Sheffield (1997 Marlins) is almost as interesting (good) a case as Thome. Depending on how quickly he gets off the DL this year, he has a good shot at 500 next year. Will he too be lost in the shuffle of sluggers from this era? Will his rep as a clubhouse cancer dog him?