Also, isn't it generally accepted that NPB is somewhere around AAA in terms of talent level? Shouldn't all the stats from NPB be MLE'd?

Broadly speaking, yup. This does raise the problem of the uncertainty involved in MLE translations. For a player like Ichiro, who needs very little NPB credit to be a plausible HoFer, the translations aren't much of an issue because no matter how you translate the numbers, clearly he was worth 10-20 translated wins over his seven superstar seasons. For Matsui, whose case would be mostly NPB credit, you need to be very confident in the quality of your translations.

Hey, another Ichiro! for the Hall thread!

Hey, another Ichiro! for the Hall thread!

And Ray being Ray. Weird huh?

"So... again, you want to incorporate Japanese stats, but only in a way that makes them meaningful for Ichiro alone. Point proven? I'm not sure I see the rationale."

Total BS.

Ichiro was better than Matsui in the US. The WAR gap is 53-18, and 43-18 if you restrict the comparison to 2003-12, when both were in the US. If you make the case that Matsui was better in Japan than the US, while Ichiro was the same, that's not good enough. Matsui has to be much, much better in Japan than Ichiro to pull even overall as a HOF case.

As to Matsui winning gold gloves in Japan, so did Kaz. So did Nishioka. It doesn't mean he was a great, or even decent fielder. The only reason I believe Ichiro was a great fielder in Japan is because he proved it over here.

If you make the case that Matsui was better in Japan than the US, while Ichiro was the same, that's not good enough. Matsui has to be much, much better in Japan than Ichiro to pull even overall as a HOF case.

(a) Que? Who is saying Ichiro was the same as what now? Not enough for what? Huh? I don't follow you at all.

(b) No one is claiming they are even. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite.

As to Matsui winning gold gloves in Japan, so did Kaz. So did Nishioka. It doesn't mean he was a great, or even decent fielder. The only reason I believe Ichiro was a great fielder in Japan is because he proved it over here.

While Matsui was kind of hilarious out there.

Just something to consider in analysis, but during Ichiro's and Matsui's time in NPB, the Pacific League was considered the stronger league. Certainly, Central League's stadiums were tiny, which inflates Matsui's power numbers.

Basically, Matsui's raw hitting stats in Japan, playing in smaller ballparks in a weaker league, were a bit better than Ichiro's (995 OPS vs 943). That doesn't even include Ichiro's better defense. Ichiro's had the better career in MLB, and if he's a HOFer, he's barely on the inside. Doesn't seem that great a stretch to dismiss Matsui's case.

Yeah if US gold gloves are any indication, I'm guessing Matsui's hitting had a lot more to do his gold gloves than his fielding.

I've never understood the argument that it's unfair that pro-Ichiro people are treating him as some sort of special case. The HOF issues arises only if a player has been in the US for 10 years, and that only applies to, what, three Japanese players? And, of those players, Ichiro is the only one with a credible HOF case based on his performance in the US, so it makes sense to try to figure out whether and how to account for his time in Japan. IOW, it's obvious that Ichiro IS a special case. Like many others, I wouldn't give him one-to-one credit, but I would give him a sort of war credit for those years on the assumption that he would have been an above average player in the US had he been playing here. In any event, Ichiro has a compelling case for the HOF even if you completely ignore his time in Japan.

Basically, Matsui's raw hitting stats in Japan, playing in smaller ballparks in a weaker league, were a bit better than Ichiro's (995 OPS vs 943).

That raw OPS is 5.5% higher for Matsui

In the US, Matsui was 4.8% higher (822 to 784). Even with tiny adjustments for the park/league issue (which I'm taking your word on, I don't have the data) it looks like they translated over here about the same. The most likely case, in my opinion, is that Ichiro was a much better overall player in Japan than Matsui was, just like Ichiro was better in the US.

The most optimistic case for Matsui would be that he was actually a plus fielder over there (though not quite Ichiro), and his slight offensive advnantage cancels out Ichiro's slight defensive advantage. If that's the case then Ichiro is still by far the better HOF candidate since he was much better over here.

If that was the decline phase of a durable star, it would look great; give Dale Murphy Raul Ibanez's 30s, and he's in the HOF right now.

Dale Murphy was still great up to age 31, so I'll take that a step further, Murphy through 31 + Ibanez 32-40. The frankenoutfielder Daul Murbanez would have these stats:

278/353/487
2920 hits (and counting as Ibanez has a 2013 contract)
512 homers
1738 RBI

Only 53 WAR, but I think that player would have had no problem getting into the Hall, especially if he did it in Murphy's timeline, retiring in the late 90's and going on 2002 or 2003 ballot.

Que? Who is saying Ichiro was the same as what now? Not enough for what? Huh? I don't follow you at all.

You posted this:

I think Ray is right; a number of people like to talk as if the Japanese league has stats that matter only in terms of Ichiro.

I call BS. I'm willing to consider Matsui's Japanese stats exactly to the extent I consider Ichiro's. I reject Matsui's HOF case and support Ichiro's for the same reason I support Piazza while rejecting Javier Lopez. Ichiro was better.

Ray should just start his own HoF and leave the real one alone.

Obviously Ichiro's going to Cooperstown and obviously Matsui isn't, both for reasons that seem obvious to nearly everyone on the planet but Ray. AFAIC Ray's failure to grasp (or accept) those reasons is Ray's problem, not anyone else's.

Also, isn't it generally accepted that NPB is somewhere around AAA in terms of talent level? Shouldn't all the stats from NPB be MLE'd?

Couldn't the same be said about the Negro Leagues? Yes Josh Gibson hit 800 home runs but a lot of his homers were against inferior pitching. He didn't face Satchel Paige every day. I can't believe a group of individuals (African Americans) who comprised 10 to 15% of the national population could form baseball leagues with the caliber and depth of the 16 major league franchises and the top level teams in the National Association of Minor Leagues.

The one thing I like about the hockey hall of fame is that it isn't "nationalistic" and look solely at NHL related people. Allowing Tretiak into the hall shows that it is all-inclusive. If Cooperstown is going to be continue (it has with accepting Negro Leaguers) it should consider Japanese stats. In my opinion, Ichiro, yes. But Matsui, probably not (but I don't know enough of his Japanese career to be firm in that decision.)

Obviously Ichiro's going to Cooperstown and obviously Matsui isn't, both for reasons that seem obvious to nearly everyone on the planet but Ray. AFAIC Ray's failure to grasp (or accept) those reasons is Ray's problem, not anyone else's.

Ray understands perfectly well why Ichiro is going into the Hall (hits! fame!). This isn't the conversation that anyone is having.

The issue is that, putting aside the bad arguments, Ichiro has a strong Hall of Fame case on the merits. Ray then argued that if we apply the same methods that make Ichiro a worthy HoFer to Hideki Matsui, that he would also be a deserving electee. He did zero leg work and offered no argument or data, and he said that people who found Matsui lacking were being hypocrites. The argument we're having is that he's wrong about all of those things.

Couldn't the same be said about the Negro Leagues? Yes Josh Gibson hit 800 home runs but a lot of his homers were against inferior pitching. He didn't face Satchel Paige every day. I can't believe a group of individuals (African Americans) who comprised 10 to 15% of the national population could form baseball leagues with the caliber and depth of the 16 major league franchises and the top level teams in the National Association of Minor Leagues.

Of course. And the ratio of Negro Leaguers to MLB players in the Hall of Fame reflects this well enough.

It is at the same time highly unlikely that there were hardly any Hall of Fame quality African-American ballplsyers from the Jim Crow era - we know that a bunch of Hall of Fame players were active in the Negro Leagues before coming to MLB as the leagues integrated. So you have to do the hard work of sifting through the data and figure out which Negro League stars most likely had that level of talent and production.

The most optimistic case for Matsui would be that he was actually a plus fielder over there (though not quite Ichiro), and his slight offensive advnantage cancels out Ichiro's slight defensive advantage. If that's the case then Ichiro is still by far the better HOF candidate since he was much better over here.

Isn't Matsui vs Ichiro a rehash(but in a different vein) of Cabrera vs Trout. With the bat they were basically equal, but Ichiro pulls ahead with the glove and baserunning.

Isn't Matsui vs Ichiro a rehash(but in a different vein) of Cabrera vs Trout. With the bat they were basically equal, but Ichiro pulls ahead with the glove and baserunning.

Pretty much. Someone even said above that Matsui played in a hitters park (park factors were another issue in the mvp debate).

Except this time, no one in their right mind is going to argue that Matsui was better than Ichiro. Except maybe Sugar Bear Blanks.

Relevant BBHOF rules:

3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:

A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).

Excludes Oh. The rules for the Veterans Committee categories similarly require 10 "Major League" seasons for players, though the term is undefined.

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Does not explicitly exclude non-Major Leagues performance, as I read it.

Excludes Oh.

Also excludes Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige.

The HOF has explicitly made an exception for Gibson and Paige (and others). Feel free to start a petition if you think a similar exception to that rule should be applied for Japanese players.

So you have to do the hard work of sifting through the data and figure out which Negro League stars most likely had that level of talent and production.

Hard work, but fun. And thanks to BBref and Seamheads, the data are there to work with. Not complete of course, but enough to get a pretty good idea of the talents.

To be certain, a ballot *not* turned in does not count against the eligible candidates, right?

Obviously Ichiro's going to Cooperstown and obviously Matsui isn't, both for reasons that seem obvious to nearly everyone on the planet but Ray. AFAIC Ray's failure to grasp (or accept) those reasons is Ray's problem, not anyone else's.

Ray understands perfectly well why Ichiro is going into the Hall (hits! fame!)

I'm sure he does, which is why I said "(or accept)". And if he wants to keep banging his head against a stone wall, that's fine with me, with or without the aid of a government-approved crash helmet.

The issue is that, putting aside the bad arguments, Ichiro has a strong Hall of Fame case on the merits. Ray then argued that if we apply the same methods that make Ichiro a worthy HoFer to Hideki Matsui, that he would also be a deserving electee. He did zero leg work and offered no argument or data, and he said that people who found Matsui lacking were being hypocrites. The argument we're having is that he's wrong about all of those things.

To quote myself: Obviously. To which I'll add the thought that you're a much more patient and forbearing man in this case than I am.

To be certain, a ballot *not* turned in does not count against the eligible candidates, right?

Yes, an unreturned ballot does nothing to the count. I believe Lisa Olson is an eligible voter who chooses not to vote.

A blank ballot returned is a no vote against every candidate, and must, in essence, be counteracted by three positive votes to overcome it.

Sadaharu Oh would probably get my vote, and so would two or three other NPB players. Isao Harimoto, Masaichi Kaneda, maybe Victor Starffin, and so on.

You'd take Harimoto over Nagashima? I'd definitely take all of Oh, Kaneda and Starffin.

The frankenoutfielder Daul Murbanez would have these stats:

Rale Ibarphy is a much better name.

I'm sure he does, which is why I said "(or accept)". And if he wants to keep banging his head against a stone wall, that's fine with me, with or without the aid of a government-approved crash helmet.

But I don't accept that the Hell of Fame will always and forever have the same flawed electorate and voting process. The wall has actually begun to break. Getting Blyleven elected was a massive victory. Felix Hernandez won a Cy Young in a season he went 13-12. Baseball writers are gradually coming around to our way of thinking. It's a good thing. It's people who don't accept that great players will be overlooked and mediocre players honored who have made that change.

To be certain, a ballot *not* turned in does not count against the eligible candidates, right?

And what about Mike Piazza? He never failed a test (which means nothing) and his name was never linked to federal investigations the way other players' were. But numerous writers have long suspected that drugs aided his career.

Oh my fucking God.

I'm sure he does, which is why I said "(or accept)". And if he wants to keep banging his head against a stone wall, that's fine with me, with or without the aid of a government-approved crash helmet.

But I don't accept that the Hell of Fame will always and forever have the same flawed electorate and voting process.

My point of reference here was Ichiro and Matsui, not Blyleven or King Felix or BBWAA's state of statistical consciousness in general.

Daul Murbanez/Rale Ibarphy is a super-fun exercise. I was doing one the other day with Jimmie Lynn/Freddie Edmonds, and basically if you add them one way you've got the 7th best centerfielder in history, and if you add them the other you've got Ray Lankford.

To be certain, a ballot *not* turned in does not count against the eligible candidates, right?

I hope everyone goes and reads the link Jason put in #72, it's an excellent piece filled with intelligent reasoning and integrity.

That raw OPS is 5.5% higher for Matsui

In the US, Matsui was 4.8% higher (822 to 784). Even with tiny adjustments for the park/league issue (which I'm taking your word on, I don't have the data) it looks like they translated over here about the same. The most likely case, in my opinion, is that Ichiro was a much better overall player in Japan than Matsui was, just like Ichiro was better in the US.

Matsui played in a hitter's park favorable to lefty power hitters over here while Ichiro! played in Safeco, though the damage done to his numbers is limited by the fact that Safeco appears to be neutral to just slightly favorable for singles by lefty hitters. OPS+ gives them a 4.4% difference but the difference in raw OPS is almost entirely in SLG and it doesn't account for the disproportionate advantage of being a lefty at Yankee Stadium. If CFiJ's statement about park and league differences in Japan is correct (if I recall correctly he lives there so I assume he's correct) then I think Ichiro definitely translated to the US better than Matsui did. Logically that's what you would expect since singles-hitting is a pretty universal skill while Matsui's power was undoubtedly inflated by playing in Japan.

Daul Murbanez/Rale Ibarphy is a super-fun exercise. I was doing one the other day with Jimmie Lynn/Freddie Edmonds, and basically if you add them one way you've got the 7th best centerfielder in history, and if you add them the other you've got Ray Lankford.

7th best isn't too far off from Edmonds by himself. I think he was #8 in the MLB Prime 9 series. The top 6 have to be these guys, not necessarily in this order:

Cobb, Speaker, DiMaggio, Mantle, Mays, Griffey. Duke Snider was #7, though he and Jim are pretty close in all the stats as well as physical resemblance. They had Puckett #9.

I see Edmonds is now #13 in bbref WAR. He lost a lot with the switch from my defensive ratings to John Dewan's. Lofton and Beltran are now in the top 9, but the difference between #7 Lofton and #14 Willie Davis is pretty small.

One could reasonably argue for anyone in that range at any spot. There is a pretty clear divide between #6 (DiMaggio) and the next tier though.

#6 (DiMaggio)

With war credit, DiMaggio passes Griffey by a good margin. Griffey's clearly #6 unless you apply some heavy timelining.

This is of course quibbling, the basic point that there have been six truly great CF in MLB, and then a very large gap before you get to the next guy, is surely correct. But to quibble again, MLB isn't the only American baseball league which has had great center fielders. Oscar Charleston surely slots in somewhere in the middle of the Big Six, and Turkey Stearns could fit in that gap between (now) 7th and 8th.

You posted this:

Ok, this is a completely separate thing than you quoted before. Thus my confusion.

Of course. And the ratio of Negro Leaguers to MLB players in the Hall of Fame reflects this well enough.

What is the ratio of deserving NPB players to MLBers? Bearing in mind there are about 3 times as many people in Japan as there are African-Americans in the US.

And what about Mike Piazza? He never failed a test (which means nothing)

As I said once before, in the modern world you're considered guilty until proven guiltier. I remember an (otherwise) reasonable friend of mine who was sure, beyond any doubt, that the Duke lacrosse players were guilty. After they were exonerated, she said, "I don't care. What about all the crimes they probably committed before and not gotten caught?"

(b) No one is claiming they are even.

Except for post #6. (And possibly post #9.)

Well, I believe I was the first person to raise the issue of Matsui/Ichiro/NPB here years ago so I think I'm qualified to comment on the history here.

First, let's recognize that this debate goes back a LONG way. The "Ichiro for the HoF" discussions must go back to at least 2007-8.

Second, let's recognize that the debate has never been about whether Ichiro will be elected to the HoF -- although not a "lock" back in 07-08, it was pretty clear that barring total collapse he'd get voted in once he reached the 10-year qualifier. But that's because writers love BA and hits and considered him 2nd only to Clemente as an RF. The debate was always about whether he "deserved" to go into the HoF.

Third, I don't think WAR was on b-r in those early days, not even sure fangraphs was around. (somebody here might be able to confirm). Certainly it was relatively early days in the "are defensive stats worth anything" debate. (Note Ichiro has only 3.7 dWAR, he's not an historically great defensive player. The "unbelievable" part of Ichiro's numbers is that he's supposedly been worth about 5 wins in avoiding DPs.)

In short, the debate was "does a short career corner OF with a 119 OPS+ deserve to go into the HoF, even with good baserunning* and defense?" WAR did change that debate a lot because Ichiro's peak MLB value must be at least twice that of any other 119 OPS+ corner OF in history and one can now make a "deserves HoF" case for him based on his MLB-only performance. In the beginning, his MLB-only HoF case was "trust me, he's adding dozens of wins with his glove and speed."

It was into that earlier debate that people started with the "yeah, but his career was only short because he was stuck in Japan and he was great in Japan and deserves credit for that." And it was in response to that argument that I first asked "well, what about Matsui?" It was pretty damn clear to me that no more than one or two people here had ever considered Matsui's NPB stats. There were one or two who seemed to have -- they were the ones making the same arguments here that Matsui's NPB career would not add enough. And there were some who said "of course I will" ... but I'm not sure I believed them.

I will also note that this argument is raised with Edgar and how he "should" have been in MLB long before he was so we should consider his AAA performance/MLEs as a "bonus." People also refer to Boggs but of course he didn't need them so it was moot. I think I even saw a poster here recently argue that Lofton** getting a late start due to basketball deserved some consideration as an extra factor to push him over the line.

Leaving aside the question of whether NPB/minors/NCAA performance should be considered at all, the basic point is a simple one that seems to need to be made time and time again -- if you are going to use variable X to assess the performance of player A then you also need to use it to assess the performance of player B. If pre-MLB NPB/minors play counts for Edgar/Ichiro (even as a bonus) then it counts for everybody. If pre-MLB NPB/minors play counts, then post-MLB NPB/minors play counts too. The argument "Matsui wasn't great in MLB so he deserves no HoF consideration period" is NOT a justifiable response if we are going to consider NPB stats any more than "Dale Murphy was no good in his 30s so I'm not even going to look at his 20s" is a justifiable response.

Now, many in this thread have accepted this challenge for at least Matsui and have come to the conclusion that he does not meet HoF standards after consideration of his NPB numbers. I'm not sure how carefully they've done this but it's the internet so it's not that big of a deal. That's fine. And if you add on anything that Andruw might do in Japan (probably very little) then fine. If you're going to give Edgar an extra boost then you need to give Utley an extra boost and who knows how many players may have "delayed" their MLB careers playing in NCAA.

On a related note, I raised this a very, very long time ago (like 2003-2004) when I noticed that ESPN had Ichiro's NPB stats on his page but none of the other Japanese players. When H Matsui came in, his were also added but not the others, not even Dice K when he came over. I don't know if that's still true but it was true not that long ago. That is a quite clear indication that NPB stats were only "important" for selected Japanese players. Yu Darvish's pre-MLB stats are not on his ESPN stats page. I will also note that there was some media attention paid to Ichiro's 3000th professional hit and some talk of whether he could break Rose's record but I don't recall seeing any coverage of Matsui's 500th HR.**

*Note also that Ichiro averages less than 40 steals a year -- good by today's standards but hardly an historic, eye-catching level.

**
Ichiro: 8700 PA, 137 Rbat, 107 b+dp, 4 dWAR, 55 WAR
Lofton: 9200 PA, 140 Rbat, 101 b+dp, 15 dWAR, 65 WAR

Lofton >= Ichiro

Now, who had Lofton ahead of Ichiro in their personal HoF? Who wants to question Lofton's worthiness based on "uncertain" defensive and baserunning components? Who wants to count Ichiro's NPB stats?


*** Note, Matsui's NPB-boosted HoF case is being dismissed a little too easily. If you combine his NPB and MLB stats, he's got 500 HR, 1550 runs, 1650 RBI, 2500 games. He has an equal number of games here as there so even if you simply double his decline phase MLB numbers, he'd have 350 HR, 1300 runs, 1500 RBI and 2500 games and he's looking like McGriff (with a lot fewer HR) or very much like Perez. That's all decline phase. If you take the McGriff comp seriously, McGriff had 36 WAR in his first 1291 games -- add that to Matsui's 19 MLB war and he's at 55 (about where AROM suggested he might go). Perez had 35 so if you prefer that comp, you end up about the same place. McGriff also had 289 HR in those games and that would put Matsui up to 464 HR ... then add some on for playing more in the sillyball era and Matsui just might make it to 500 HR. Did Matsui start as a CF in Japan? Note, for the McGriff comp to be legit, you have to assume Matsui would have started in MLB at age 20 which is probably not likely but can't be ruled out (he did damn well at 20 in Japan).

McGriff, 86-95: 1291 games, 289 HR, 788 R, 803 RBI, 285/386/535, 149 OPS+, 36 WAR, -8 dWAR
McGriff, 96-04: 1169 games, 204 HR, 561 R, 747 RBI, 284/367/482, 119 OPS+, 12 WAR, -10 dWAR
Mastui, MLB: 1236 games, 175 HR, 656 R, 760 RBI, 282/360/462, 118 OPS+, 19 WAR, -10 dWAR

The decline phases are pretty much identical so it's not unreasonable to think the first halfs would have been pretty similar too. If you're concerned that slightly more than half of McGriff's career is in the non-decline part, that 1995 season was the first of his decline -- 280/361/490/119 -- so 2nd "half" will look the same whether you cut off the first half in 94 or 95.

The question to me, re NPB stats, is if we should count them in full or give Ichi/Hideki partial credit. I lean towards partial credit, and I think the stats should be MLE'd to some degree. Obviously it's all going to be subjective, but I think it's better than just giving them full credit for their raw stats.

If you give full credit, Ichiro is a top 25 player of all time and Matsui is probably a HOF. If you give partial credit, Ichiro is a 2nd ballot guy and Matsui doesn't make it.

I agree that Lofton is getting criminally boned in the HOF debates.

I will also note that this argument is raised with Edgar and how he "should" have been in MLB long before he was so we should consider his AAA performance/MLEs as a "bonus."... I think I even saw a poster here recently argue that Lofton** getting a late start due to basketball deserved some consideration as an extra factor to push him over the line.

These are different cases.

In Lofton's case, you cannot give credit for a guy who could easily have been playing baseball but simply chose not to. That is clearly unworkable.

I can give Edgar/Utley credit for what they did at the highest level that they were allowed to attain, if what they were doing at that level proved that they had the talent to be an MLB regular. In so many words, that amounts to "playing really damn well in the minors." 850 OPS seasons in the minors are in all likelihood not going to amount to anything worth mentioning in a HOF context. As I recall, Utley didn't even play all that great in the minors. Maybe Edgar had one big season, I dunno. It's make-or-break if you're trying to evaluate Buzz Arlett. It's hard to imagine the situation where it's make-or-break for a modern MLB veteran. But yes, throw it in there -- if it's justified.

if you are going to use variable X to assess the performance of player A then you also need to use it to assess the performance of player B.

The response you're probably going to get to this is that the rules don't let you vote for players who don't have 10 years of MLB experience, so we're not allowed to use NPB performance to consider Sadaharu Oh; we can only use it to consider Ichiro and Matsui.

My objections to that, however, are:

A. I don't think the rules intend for you to do that. (Yeah, I realize they don't explicitly say "only consider MLB". But in the context of rules stating that eligibility is based on one's MLB career, doesn't it make sense that the "contributions to the team(s)" mentioned are contributions to the teams that make you eligible for the honor? If there were a McDonald's Employee of the Month awarded for "contributions to the company" to employees who worked at McDonald's in December 2012, don't you think that means contributions to McDonald's and not contributions to Burger King? FWIW, we also have a rep of the Hall of Fame stating in this thread that he understands the rules to mean only consider MLB.)

B. Simply put, if you think one's performance in NPB can establish that one had MLB star level talent, then you should think that the greatest Japanese players should be in the HOF. And if you don't think that, then you shouldn't care that Ichiro wouldn't get credit for NPB performance.

I think that it's ultimately more productive to lobby for a more coherent approach to non-MLB players, than it is to lobby for the resume of 10-year MLB players to include Japan. I certainly understand why people figure the latter is a "tweak" that is easier to pull off than an "overhaul" would be. But I think it only ends up further muddying the issues involved.

HoF or reasonable eligible with similar WAR to Matsui ages 29-38, corner players (by that point but skipping Ernie Banks)

Cepeda 16
Rice 17
Murphy 18
McGriff 22
Brock 23
Bernie 23
Dawson 23
Murray 25
Winfield 26
Perez 27 (a mini-peak for Tony)

Matsui fits in the bottom of that pile -- which, as we all know, means unlikely HoF. Cepeda seems like another pretty good comp, again more likely an upside comp, given he was full-time at age 20. But then Cepeda's biggest WAR (and MVP) year was his age 29 season which is included here in his "decline" phase.

A legit "alternate universe HoF" case for Matsui almost certainly has to assume he still breaks in at 20, 21 at the latest, and he's got to be at least a 4-WAR player in those first 8 years. That's not unreasonable -- he was a 4 WAR player in his age 30, 31 and 33 seasons. Winning an MVP or two would help, starting out in CF would help. Putting him on the 90s Yanks as part of the core and winning as many rings as Jeter would help.

Yes, if not for Rice (and kinda Perez), it would be unprecedented for anybody with this 29-38 production to be voted into the HoF. He would have to be pretty awesome from 20-28 to make it. Most likely he ends up in the McGriff, Cash, Jack Clark pile at the top of the HoVG because he either doesn't break in until 23-24 or he breaks in early but doesn't produce until age 23.

Here are some selected players with about the same WAR from 29-38:

Wynn, both Clarks, Gibson, Justice, Derrek Lee, Sanders, Foster, Lemon, Torre, Oglivie, Dick Allen, C Pena, Konerko, Carty, Joyner, Baker, Murphy, Bobby Bonds, Galarraga, Oliva.

It's clear from that list that he's not an HoFer in too many alternate universes. Allen is in the HoM but that was one of the best career starts ever. Wynn is too I think which requires Matsui to be in CF. Carty (with the bat), Oliva and Bonds had HoM talent but couldn't stay healthy. Torre was looking awfully good there for a while. Somebody like Derrek Lee might have made the HoF as a career compiler. A lot of these guys would fit right in with other VC inductions.

Anyway, I think McGriff merits "serious consideration" for the HoF -- for me, it's to the point where I'm not all that confident that he doesn't belong. "Alternate universe" Matsui probably doesn't quite reach Fred's heights because he probably doesn't break in at 20-21. As to the real HoF, Matsui is an easy call for me since I don't think NPB (or AAA or whatever) stats should count in any way whatsoever.

The response you're probably going to get to this is that the rules don't let you vote for players who don't have 10 years of MLB experience, so we're not allowed to use NPB performance to consider Sadaharu Oh; we can only use it to consider Ichiro and Matsui.

Not really a response to my point. Oh is not eligible for the HoF under the rules so nobody would be assessing Oh in that context. I said "if you use X to assess player A, you need to use X to assess player B". So, if not assessing player A (Oh), it's rather a moot point. Now, if you're trying to compile a "greatest players in the world no matter where/when they played" list, you need to assess Oh.

My point there isn't specific to this debate, it's as much a reaction to the "Jack Morris made X opening day starts" or "Jim Rice was feared." In an ideal world, any such proposed criterion would actually be shown to be useful in HoF in/out decisions but, even in the real world, at least we should insist those people apply that criterion to everyone under consideration.

So, whether NPB stats should be considered or not, if they form part of your assessment of Ichiro, they must form part of your assessment of Matsui. If you do that and find Ichiro worthy and Matsui unworthy, at least you're being consistent. And a lot of folks in this thread have done just that (and one or two seem to know enough about NPB that their assessment might be worthwhile :-).

My only objection would be to "I don't need to look at Matsui's NPB stats because his MLB stats aren't good enough." Either NPB stats add to the case or they don't. They don't have to be weighted the same obviously and maybe you'd even come to the conclusion that, with Matsui's MLB performance, he'd have to have been Babe Ruth in NPB to meet your standards, but at least you'd be applying your standard fairly.

For fun, I looked at HoFers with fewer than 150 Rbat from ages 27 to 38. Mostly C and SS of course. Brooks, Joe Gordon (might have made it if not for the war), Maz, Fox, Frisch, Carey, Sandberg, Ashburn, etc. It's a surprisingly long list. Most relevant for Ichiro are probably the corners of Jim Rice, Brock and Cepeda which is not an inspiring set of comps. He's much better than those guys due to defense and (Brock aside) baserunning.

Brock 27-38: 298/349/412/113, 113 Rbat, 82 b+dp, 32 WAR, -15 dWAR
Ichiro: 322/365/419/113, 137 Rbat, 107 b+dp, 55 WAR, 4 dWAR

Most of the Brock-Ichiro gap is defense but he does beat him across the board. Brock did add 10 WAR outside of this time period though so the difference between Brock and Ichiro comes down entirely to defense. And fair enough, Brock was not a good defender, Ichiro is. I don't think WAR is overstating things here but even if it was, you'd still rather have Ichiro.

But it is another test of your faith in the defensive stats -- Brock is generally considered one of the worst HoF selections around here and he's not in the HoM. If Brock (42 total WAR) is 10-15 wins shy of serious HoF worthiness, you have to have complete faith in Ichiro's numbers to get him to that level.

Gwynn was rightly mentioned above so:

343/393/469/136, but only 7000 PA, a big gap.
297 Rbat, 24 b+dp, 43 WAR, -9 dWAR

Ichiro is also picking up about 7 wins in replacement value. So Ichiro out-wars Gwynn at the same ages which is very impressive. This one is all defense even with the big playing time and baserunning advantages for Ichiro. Again, a believable defensive gap although I don't remember at what age Tony got fat fat.

Gwynn added 22 WAR outside of that time frame. His 65 final WAR are essentially completely a function of his bat and his playing time.

I don't mean to question WAR's defensive and baserunning value measures -- I assume they're pretty good and as good as any we've got. I do however want to create cognitive dissonance for anybody who (a) supports Ichiro but (b) generally dismisses "defensive outliers" ... and, in particular, anybody who supports Ichiro but doesn't support Walker. Y'all got some explaining to do.

EDIT: the Ichiro yes, Walker no group will probably include 70% of the BBWAA.

So... again, you want to incorporate Japanese stats, but only in a way that makes them meaningful for Ichiro alone. Point proven? I'm not sure I see the rationale.

Exactly.

----

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I think giving partial credit to Japanese stats is fairer than the alternatives (no credit or full credit), does anyone really disagree with that? Pick a number between 0% and 100% and conduct your analysis. I have no pro-Ichiro agenda here.

Fine. 0%. And suddenly - even MCOA agrees - Ichiro is not HOF quality.

Even if you don't discount the Japanese league stats (which would be fairly dumb) he still might not get in.

The Baseball Cube has Japanese stats so his combined is 293/388/523 911 OPS, 2643 hits, 507 HR, 1649 RBI. A decade ago? Sure, no problem. Now? That is close to Palmeiro 288/371/515 885 OPS but with 400 fewer hits, 60 fewer HR, 200 fewer RBI. Now, his 3 MVP's would push him ahead of Palmeiro and with his consecutive game streak (over 1000) and the like he might convince writers to put him in. But that is without ANY discount for his Japanese stats. If we give him 95% credit (a bit generous I think) he'd have 490 HR. 90% pushes it down to 474 with a 278/370/493 863 OPS line - excellent but given how voters are going that'd be a HOVG situation. Plus, of course, I doubt he'd have reached the majors at 19.

In truth, I am surprised how good his case was even with a 10% discount on his overseas stats. Still, no matter how you cut it I don't see it as a clear HOF case even without a discount given how writers were debating Palmeiro pre-steroids.

"So... again, you want to incorporate Japanese stats, but only in a way that makes them meaningful for Ichiro alone. Point proven? I'm not sure I see the rationale."

Total BS.

Ichiro was better than Matsui in the US. The WAR gap is 53-18, and 43-18 if you restrict the comparison to 2003-12, when both were in the US. If you make the case that Matsui was better in Japan than the US, while Ichiro was the same, that's not good enough. Matsui has to be much, much better in Japan than Ichiro to pull even overall as a HOF case.

Why? If, as people here say, Ichiro doesn't need much of his NPB career to make the HOF - if it is more like a tiebreaker - then that in no way precludes Matsui from taking full advantage of his NPB career. Unless, that is, people are using inconsistent standards.

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Does not explicitly exclude non-Major Leagues performance, as I read it.

It doesn't explicitly exclude high school or college or minor league or wiffle ball peformance, either, but why would we consider those things? The rules speak about 10 "Major League championship seasons," minimum. Why speak of Major League Championship seasons if we're going to consider NPB? What is the argument for treating MLB just like NPB - regardless of whether MLEs are used - when the rules explicitly speak of MLB and not of NPB?

The argument is that we want to. We don't work for the Hall of Fame, or MLB. We're just trying to figure out who the greatest baseball players in the world are, wherever they might have played, and honor them accordingly. Or I do, anyway. I'm not going to speak to what other people are trying to do.

By the way, thanks to all the posters who crunched the numbers and gave a serious assessment to Matsui. Seems like the consensus supports my off-the-cuff comparison with Clark.

Walt, I think I was the one who first spoke of giving Lofton a bonus. I don't really mean to give him extra credit for not playing more baseball, I was just trying to say that he shouldn't be dinged as some kind of late bloomer. His development was normal once it began.

As for this:

You'd take Harimoto over Nagashima? I'd definitely take all of Oh, Kaneda and Starffin.

I haven't really dug into this, I was just grabbing names. I should have put my "maybe" at the beginning of the list.

The argument is that we want to.

Which is what I've been saying.