I don’t think anybody really puts much stock in these anymore, but just for the sake of completeness, Bill James created two Hall-related statistics many years ago; one, the Hall of Fame Monitor, was intended to measure a player’s likelihood of getting into the Hall, while the other, Hall of Fame Standards, attempted to measure a player’s worthiness for the Hall.

I don't know how much "stock" I ever put into them, but I find the Monitor to be a useful tool as a starting point for what the voters might do.

I never really used the Standards tool. To me it's interesting mostly as trivia.

Belle’s Hall of Fame Monitor score is 134; a “likely” Hall of Famer hits about 100.

Isn't the Monitor 20+ years old at this point, and doesn't it pre-date the offensive explosion (and expansion) in the 90s?

Given the number of active players who are over 100 in the Monitor, and the decreasing number of votes on the average BBWAA ballot, the Monitor (while useful as a tool to discuss previous voting patterns) is likely to become less predictive over the next decade.

Belle was a hell of a hitter, but I can't put him in with only 1539 games and just six elite seasons. His career was too short; not enough bulk outside of his peak.

Dunno Ryan, the next time BBWAA voters pay any attention to offensive context will be the first time.

I think the monitor will decline in usefulness at least until some kind of consensus is reached on the whole steroids issue.

Of course the real reason Belle won't come close to the hall was summed up in the old Truby joke.

Isn't a bit early to write off Lance Berkman as a HOF candidate? I don't think he's quite there yet, but he's only turning 34 this week and is coming off a 139 OPS+ season. If he ages well, I'm thinking he'd make a pretty respectable candidate.

Belle’s five most similar batters are Juan Gonzalez, Lance Berkman, Carlos Lee, Dick Allen, and Jim Edmonds. His four most similar will never make the Hall, while the fifth might

Berkman is still playing he *might* yet accumulate enough to get the HOF voters' attention.

Edit: DOH! It took me about 5 tries to post that and GF beat me to it

Agree with both. Berkman might make it to the Hall some day (I think the odds are pretty heavily against him, but who knows). I ignored that for my purposes because, by the time he's played long enough to merit serious consideration, he'll no longer be comparable to Belle.

Come to think of it, I suppose Allen might someday make the Hall though some future failed attempt at a reasonable vetcom...

Of course the real reason Belle won't come close to the hall was summed up in the old Truby joke.

Wait ... that was a joke?!

Dunno Ryan, the next time BBWAA voters pay any attention to offensive context will be the first time.

A lot of them still don't seem great on just how much the offensive context effects performance, but there have been more and more articles about how much easier it is now to hit for power or average or whatever. Granted, most of them have had the undertone of "Steroids!" but at least the writers seems to be recognizing that a 0.300 average in the 1990s/2000s isn't the same as it was in the preceeding decade.

Of course, as you note, it's not exactly as if they've done much with this recognition yet.

I looked over Berkman's career recently and was shocked to see just how good he's been for this long. If he keeps it up 4-5 years more, I think he's in. He's been very, very good.

But did he FEEL like a Hall of Famer?

Belle should not be in the Hall.

As for Berkman, I think he needs to do two things: keep it up for another four or five years (minimum), and have a real breakout season. I'm thinking of Billy Williams here. Through the 1960's Williams, like Berkman, was consistently a very good performer (although not quite the hitter Berkman has been). But in '70 and '72 he had great seasons, finishing 2nd in the MVP vote each year and getting a few first place votes even though the great Johnny Bench was having his two greatest seasons. That put Williams over the top. It seemingly moved him from a "top 10 in the league" player to "one of the best in the game."

Berkman runs the risk of being a Palmeiro if he doesn't have a season where he's considered the best or 2nd best player in the league (in a league with Pujols, 2nd best would be sufficient).

P.S. I'm aware Berkman has had two 3rd place finishes in the MVP voting (and might have had another in 2001 but for steroid cheats like Bonds and Sosa), and has more consistently received MVP consideration that Williams. I'm just saying that I recall distinctly that Williams' '70 and '72 seasons really elevated his standing in the game, and I think Berkman needs a season like that, too.

Granted, most of them have had the undertone of "Steroids!" but at least the writers seems to be recognizing that a 0.300 average in the 1990s/2000s isn't the same as it was in the preceeding decade.

Off the cuff, I didn't think there was a big difference in batting averages.

Belle was a Hall of Fame talent whose dysfunctional personality was rightly punished by the gods with a congenitive hip problem that made his career too short to deserve actual Hall of Fame enshrinement.

Or something.

Berkman's got a tough road. He got a pretty late start and, as a corner player, almost certainly has to play another 700 games or so without much decline. With 500 more games, he's basically identical to Edgar Martinez with maybe 2-3 more years to compile some counting stats.

But if you look at his b-r comps through age 33 (which, except for Carlos Lee, aren't too bad), it's like a who's who of the HoVG -- Allen, Ortiz, Belle, Delgado, Walker, Stargell, McGriff, Giambi. (there's also Chipper but he's only a good hitting comp.) And yes I know Stargell is deservedly in the HoF but he's the only one of these guys to have a great late career -- 871 games of a 144 OPS+. And yeah, if Berkman does something like that, he's got a good shot. But with a normal decline, he'll be tough to distinguish from McGriff, Giambi, Delgado, etc.

And let me take this opportunity to say once again: Larry Walker for the HoF!!

And yeah, if Berkman does something like that, he's got a good shot. But with a normal decline, he'll be tough to distinguish from McGriff, Giambi, Delgado, etc.

I think we'll eventually see McGriff go in, and I think Delgado will too if he can put together one more decent season. At the very least, McGriff is off to a decent (but not fantastic start) with 20% in his first year on the ballot.

And let me take this opportunity to say once again: Larry Walker for the HoF!!

I strongly support this position.

Granted, most of them have had the undertone of "Steroids!" but at least the writers seems to be recognizing that a 0.300 average in the 1990s/2000s isn't the same as it was in the preceeding decade.

Off the cuff, I didn't think there was a big difference in batting averages.

Doing a (very) quick scan of the seasonal numbers, the averages in the 90s seemed to be about 10 points higher than in the 80s. Assuming my eyes are right, it's not a huge change (unlike the jump in HR rates) but it's enough to make a big change in the number of .300 hitters.

Berkman's got a tough road.

Becaused he is not FEARED.

With 500 more games, he's basically identical to Edgar Martinez with maybe 2-3 more years to compile some counting stats.

I didn't see anyone run Edgar Martinez out in center for 122 games in a season!

he's basically identical to Edgar Martinez with maybe 2-3 more years to compile some counting stats

This is a touch of an exaggeration. Their OPS+ are the same, but Martinez led his league in OPS+ once, and finished sixth or above seven times, fourth or above five times. Berkman has finished has high as fourth just twice, and as high as sixth once more. He never led the league in OBP, which Edgar did three times, or batting average, which Edgar did twice.

Albert Pujols is probably the best 1B since Gehrig. I'd say that's a hall of famer.

Their OPS+ are the same, but Martinez led his league in OPS+ once, and finished sixth or above seven times, fourth or above five times. Berkman has finished has high as fourth just twice, and as high as sixth once more.

Edgar never had to compete against Pujols and Bonds. When compared against mortals, their numbers are closer.

There's more to it than that. Edgar's best OPS+ season was 182, significantly better than Berkman's best. He has four seasons in which his OPS+ was better than Berkman's best (though really, the others are right around Berkman's best), and his OBPs were much, much higher. (Edgar's two best OBP seasons, by the way, are better than any of Pujols'.) As hitters, there's no question that Edgar Martinez was comparable to, but better than, Lance Berkman. Taking defense into account gives Berkman some edge back, if only because he played in the field at all. But let's not smooth the hitting curve too much, there -- it simply isn't the case that Lance Berkman was as good a hitter as Edgar Martinez.

Edgar never had to compete against Pujols and Bonds. When compared against mortals, their numbers are closer.

Basically, I wouldn't count Barry for purposes of comparing Berkman to Edgar, Pujols, as great as he is, his numbers are reachable by others though.

That being said, Edgar is a touch better as a hitter:
185, 166, 165, 164, 160
versus
163, 160, 159, 159, 150

I didn't see anyone run Edgar Martinez out in center for 122 games in a season!

No, but he was run out to 3B 144, 143 and 103 games, and the median 3B hits about the same as the median CF

other than 150 games or so, all of Berkman's time has been at corner OF or 1B, and the average corner OFs and 1Bs hit about the same as the average DH

other than 150 games or so, all of Berkman's time has been at corner OF or 1B, and the average corner OFs and 1Bs hit about the same as the average DH

Is it your position, then, that Berkman gets no credit for playing corner OF or 1B instead of DH?

I think Berkman needs to age very, very well to be seriously considered. If he somehow puts up 5 seasons that are slightly lower than his career average (say .280/.390/.520 vs. .299/.412/.555) and stays relatively healthy, he'll be at around 2300-2400 hits and 425-450 HR and entering his age 39 season. I don't think that will look like a HOF career for a corner OF/1B.

I think 500 HR is going to be very close to a must-have HOF threshold for power hitters at those positions moving forward. That's going to give you Thome, Manny, Sheffield, probably Delgado (he needs 27 HR for 500, through age 37), and Pujols (barring career-ending injury... he's got 366 through age 29). Guerrero is definitely a HOF candidate if he has even one dead cat bounce left in him, and probably one even if he doesn't, due to a .321 career BA.

I see Berkman as slightly inferior to Giambi, and I don't see Giambi (even with no steroid discount) getting voted in.

Is it your position, then, that Berkman gets no credit for playing corner OF or 1B instead of DH?

No, but I am unsure of how to adjust for it.

What I was trying to point out was that ranking Berkman against Edgar by comparing how they did relative to the average for their positions does not "help" Berkman.

#28, best I can come up with is to treat a DH as a replacement level 1B defensively. Works pretty well for a quick'n'dirty.

I don't see how Belle can possibly be a HOF unless you give him credit for years he didn't play to make up for his hip. He has a pretty fantastic 7 year run, but outside of that, maybe 500 games in his career. If he had just 1 or 2 more years like 1993 or 1999, not his career best, but still excellent, I think he'd have a really strong case.

I'd like to visit the alternate universe where Belle doesn't have his hip go on him.

He's a better example of a peak-only candidate to champion than Mattingly, though.

#28, best I can come up with is to treat a DH as a replacement level 1B defensively. Works pretty well for a quick'n'dirty.

I really don't understand why so many people disagree with this general idea. CHONE seems to use 1b -5 runs as the adjustment, or -10 runs or so if you account for the DH hitting penalty (for which there is decent evidence). Thinking of a DH as a poor fielding 1b is first of all theoretically sound, as good hitters below replacement on defense at the easiest position should naturally be employed as DH to maximize their value. Also, the idea is empirically sound. -10 runs puts DH replacement at something like a league average hitter. There are not that many league average hitters freely available, and plenty of teams run out DHs much worse than league average, so it's not like we see in real life teams easily getting better value out of the DH slot than we're assuming.

I've heard arguments that employing a full time DH hurts roster flexibility (so you need to account for this cost in replacement level), but I can't see it being worth a lot. The 25th man on a team has almost no marginal value, and at least one bench guy is basically a pinch hitter anyway, which adds little flexibility above a DH.

I've also heard arguments about specific situations, like Oritz and Manny, where a DH forces another sub-replacement defensive player into the lineup, and therefore we should assign an additional negative to the player who is the DH. These situations are due to poor roster management and can hardly be blamed on the player. I blame the GM for being irrational or wrong (this specific situation had a number of other frictions of course), just as I do when a team uses a sub-replacement player, and don't change my theoretical construct. If the Red Sox couldn't get maximum value out of Manny or Ortiz, they should have traded one of them to another team that could get the full value out of Manny or Ortiz, and the Red Sox could then get back another player with more value to the Sox (which is somewhat what happened).

Berkman's got a tough road.

Becaused he is not FEARED.

Interestingly, Albert Belle was.

These situations are due to poor roster management and can hardly be blamed on the player. I blame the GM for being irrational or wrong

I guess the Red Sox should give back those two World Series banners, then.

On Edgar vs. Berkman ...

My point is simply that Edgar's career line was 312/418/515; Berkman's career line stands at 299/412/555. They have identical 147 OPS+s so the league/park context wasn't really that different. Edgar picks up a few points for the higher OBP+ but really we're quibbling over small differences at this point.

Fair enough, even if you adjust for playing time, Chone would still give Edgar about a 4-win edge on batting -- not huge over a career but noticeable. And Edgar's best hitting seasons beat Berkman's pretty handily -- but then Berkman's hasn't been below 130 OPS+ yet either.

Of course it's unlikely Berkman will compile another 2300 PA with an OPS+ of 147 so Edgar's probably safe.

Let Albert Belle in. Why the #### not? Jim Rice is already here. We can set up a little "fear" room in the back corner, with Bob Gibson and Pedro.

Granting that some might roll their eyes at Hall of Merit mentions of these guys, but I still think it's fun.

Many longtime HOMer voters plotted out stances on new cases, even not-done cases, like Berkman already (subject to change).
Others in the group never start until they're on the ballot.

I think various named players will do better and worse on each "Hall" voting.
Vive le difference and all...

Belle wouldn't be a terrible choice, but the 21st Century Logjam is causing Belle to be way down the priority list.

Not that it should need to be pointed out, but Belle's only hope is through the vet's committee. He's already been given the no-go from the BBWAA.

But gosh, Mr Belle was an awfully good hitter for a little while there.

Jason Grimsley should climb through the ceiling and stick an Albert Belle plaque on the wall.

Not that it should need to be pointed out, but Belle's only hope is through the vet's committee. He's already been given the no-go from the BBWAA.

Did the BBWAA use GPS tracking to deliver the no-go personally?

Joey Belle would be the first living inductee to refuse to make an induction speech.