User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.3527 seconds
47 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Wednesday, January 09, 2013BBWAA.com: No Players Elected for First Time Since 1996Nobody. Not one. Ugh. Click the link to see the results.
Jim Furtado
Posted: January 09, 2013 at 02:00 PM | 453 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: hall of fame, idiocy |
Login to submit news.
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: OTP 2018 Apr 16: Beto strikes out but is a hit at baseball fundraiser
(1150 - 1:21pm, Apr 21) Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Newsblog: OT: Winter Soccer Thread (1529 - 1:11pm, Apr 21) Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Newsblog: Why the drop in home runs in 2018? Major League Baseball had better hope it’s the weather. (6 - 12:27pm, Apr 21) Last: Where have you gone Brady Anderson? Newsblog: OT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition) (2269 - 12:12pm, Apr 21) Last: f_cking sick and tired of being 57i66135 Gonfalon Cubs: Home Sweet Home (62 - 12:12pm, Apr 21) Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Newsblog: Look at the size of this WEEKEND OMNICHATTER!, for April 21-22, 2018 (1 - 11:49am, Apr 21) Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim Hall of Merit: 2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (105 - 11:10am, Apr 21) Last: Jaack Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-20-2018 (30 - 10:59am, Apr 21) Last: Nasty Nate Newsblog: Bryan Price dismissed as Reds manager | MLB.com (96 - 10:13am, Apr 21) Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Newsblog: Frankly, my dear, I don't give an OMNICHATTER, for April 20, 2018. (83 - 8:10am, Apr 21) Last: cardsfanboy Newsblog: BBTF ANNUAL CENTRAL PARK SOFTBALL GAME 2018 (62 - 6:46am, Apr 21) Last: Lassus Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-19-2018 (23 - 6:56pm, Apr 20) Last: Morty Causa Newsblog: It’s not just ownership that’s keeping Jose Reyes a Met (30 - 6:45pm, Apr 20) Last: Howie Menckel Newsblog: Update: Cubs' Anthony Rizzo calls his shorter-season, pay-cut comments 'my opinion' (128 - 4:01pm, Apr 20) Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Newsblog: Braves sign Jose Bautista to a minor-league contract, will play third base (34 - 1:59pm, Apr 20) Last: Rally |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.3527 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
We are obviously remembering two different guys. Griffey was the biggest name in the game for a decade, his Cincy years never happened. I don't think anyone cares about his Cincy years for his hof. He was called a future hofer from the day he stepped onto the major league diamond, and for his first 12 years, he cemented his case. Cincy never happened, I don't know of anyone who follows baseball who thinks Griffey's Cincy years has anything to do with his candidacy(other than allowing him to get a few career milestones)
Griffey was bigger than Clemens, Thomas, Maddux, Bo Jackson and Bonds combined. I think it was a requirement that writers had to preface his name with future hofer, starting his second year in the bigs. It's impossible to overstate how big Griffey was, and then you look at the voters, who are guys who, generally speaking are going to be 50-80 years old when he comes on the ballot. They aren't going to pay attention to his Cincy years. It's the player of the 90's Griffey they are going to remember.
Then you are going to have the young whippersnappers with their fancy numbers and they'll point out how much of a lock he is (note...we aren't talking about the retarded young whippersnappers that are going to look at his career war...those people are too stupid to be listen to, but the rational ones, who will point out 73 war in 12 seasons...Everything after that is unimportant)
Add in the narrative of the clean player(which whether it's true or not, doesn't matter, it's going to go that way) of the two way elite on both sides player who broke his wrist catching a flyball.. who's love of the game was obvious.... Seriously if Griffey doesn't sail in with over 90% then the system is beyond broken.
I did include his Cincy year in my 12 year 73 war comment, he posted a 5.2 war his first year in Cincy. Of course his career takes a couple of hits in his early going, a strike shortened year, and a broken wrist year. Still if you take his first 10 full seasons, he has 60 war(and again that is with 111 game strike shortened year, and a 72 game broken wrist year).. the names of players who put together 10 year stretches with 60 war are going to be all hofers. (or held out because of suspicion)
List of players who put up 60 war in their first ten years.
Rk Player WAR/pos OPS+ G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO GDP SB BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Ted Williams 81.7 190 1421 6436 5086 1273 1763 366 61 323 1261 1327 442 121 20 .347 .484 .633 1.117
2 Albert Pujols 78.8 172 1558 6782 5733 1186 1900 426 15 408 1230 914 646 203 75 .331 .426 .624 1.050
3 Rogers Hornsby 74.2 180 1262 5410 4767 851 1713 286 128 141 815 504 396 109 .359 .424 .562 .986
4 Willie Mays 74.1 158 1372 5960 5241 1013 1657 265 94 319 935 647 582 118 222 .316 .390 .585 .975
5 Stan Musial 71.9 172 1370 6076 5266 1044 1829 373 127 206 923 750 275 99 53 .347 .431 .584 1.015
6 Barry Bonds 71.6 159 1425 6038 5020 999 1436 306 48 292 864 931 795 71 340 .286 .398 .541 .938
7 Mickey Mantle 71.5 172 1399 6051 5005 1113 1537 225 60 320 935 1003 1024 55 112 .307 .422 .568 .990
8 Hank Aaron 70.6 158 1511 6582 5940 1077 1898 321 77 342 1121 541 609 156 103 .320 .375 .572 .947
9 Wade Boggs 68.5 146 1482 6725 5699 1005 1965 400 43 78 637 930 439 153 15 .345 .435 .471 .906
10 Ty Cobb 66.2 182 1241 5254 4690 877 1727 270 136 49 808 401 376 488 .368 .423 .515 .938
11 Eddie Mathews 65.5 154 1482 6481 5466 1032 1548 223 55 370 992 930 886 72 55 .283 .387 .547 .934
12 Mike Schmidt 65.0 149 1336 5592 4615 856 1216 227 41 314 878 851 1148 68 141 .263 .380 .535 .914
13 Babe Ruth 64.7 218 947 3832 3036 782 1051 231 76 238 768 739 518 63 .346 .477 .708 1.184
14 Ken Griffey 63.3 150 1375 5982 5226 940 1569 294 27 350 1018 656 876 101 143 .300 .379 .568 .947
15 Joe DiMaggio 63.0 157 1405 6256 5609 1146 1853 320 111 303 1277 594 282 89 30 .330 .398 .589 .987
16 Lou Gehrig 63.0 182 1232 5472 4542 1075 1558 321 113 267 1146 806 508 63 .343 .444 .640 1.084
17 Johnny Mize 62.4 168 1402 5954 5185 960 1679 313 82 297 1096 714 423 76 26 .324 .409 .588 .997
18 Eddie Collins 62.1 160 1168 4974 4137 820 1394 179 94 19 551 591 277 413 .337 .426 .439 .865
19 Arky Vaughan 61.7 141 1411 6182 5268 936 1709 291 116 84 764 778 227 51 86 .324 .415 .472 .887
20 Alex Rodriguez 61.6 144 1275 5687 4989 1009 1535 285 22 345 990 559 995 110 177 .308 .382 .581 .963
21 Tris Speaker 61.5 168 1216 5198 4481 806 1538 282 114 41 621 541 256 302 .343 .421 .484 .905
22 Frank Robinson 60.5 150 1502 6408 5527 1043 1673 318 50 324 1009 698 789 136 161 .303 .389 .554 .943
23 Rickey Henderson 60.2 134 1322 5930 4983 1058 1455 235 44 126 504 870 668 76 794 .292 .398 .433 .831
24 Jeff Bagwell 60.1 159 1476 6519 5349 1073 1630 351 22 310 1093 992 1022 146 167 .305 .417 .552 .970
Agree, but the question is how many of the writers (and there were several) who say they won't vote for "steroids-era" players mean that literally? That would apply to Maddux, Griffey, Jeter et al. To me, this will be the biggest case for change--if guys like this squeak in and don't get near the voting levels of the Seavers, Ripkens, Bretts, and Ryans of the past.
That would require 60 voters like that.... don't see it happening.
Maybe not 90% but he's a lock to go in first ballot.
Uh, Shooty? He posted 6 WAR after age 30.
I don't see any argument that his career _wasn't_ a disappointment. I mean, sure, at 19, you sign for it. But at 30? It was virtually worst case scenario.
His career isn't defined only by what happened after he turned 30. He's probably, what, the 6th best CFer in MLB history? I will own that failure proudly if I'm Griffey.
Yeah, but that's perfectly normal (or at least not disappointing in any way). Elongated primes are primarily a product of the Steroid Era, and HOF-caliber careers often faded as players hit 30. See, among many others, Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy.
The difference of course is that Junior could have been hit by a bus the day he got traded to Cincy and he's an HOFer. The list in 403 doesn't lie.
With inner circle greats, there is a reasonable expectation that they will do much better than that.
This was an extreme disappointment. And was considered so at the time, when year after year Griffey would come up lame with this injury or that.
Perhaps you didn't get the memo in 1990, SugarBear, but Don Mattingly hurt his back.
And Griffey played during the steroids era, so I don't know what your argument is, exactly. Shouldn't steroids have helped him to a long, successful second half of his career? Instead, he was Darryl Strawberry without the coke and whores.
(Also, plenty of inner circle greats performed until 40 without steroids.)
I knew Mays and Aaron were users.
If steroids are a non-issue do McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa make it on the first ballot?
Baseball Prospectus comment on Griffey before 2003:
Before 2005:
But we are not at the time, we are after the time when we can peacefully reflect on the totality of Griffey's career. The narrative didn't go the way we had hoped but it would be nuts to say that, in reflection, he was a disappointment. For the Reds he was a disappointment, but who cares about the Reds...
I do think he was a disappointment. The first thing I think about when I think of his career is that he couldn't stay healthy in his 30s. How great he was in his 20s plays into that.
He was great, obviously, even if silly people thought he was better than Bonds in the '90s. But his legacy is intertwined with a longing for what might have been.
If Griffey was a disappointment, it just goes to show the ill-advisedness of projecting any ballplayer to excessive heights. He hit 630 home runs. That's disappointing for people who projected him to hit 800, agreed, but seriously.
By the same token, AROD is a disappointment; Albert Pujols might well be a disappointment. These guys all have achieved amazing things; they just didn't achieve unrealistic things.
Hey now!
Actually, from 2001-2009, not even many Reds fans cared about the Reds.
2004 is when Griffey tore his hamstring completely off the bone. He worked his ass off to come back from that, and, after looking rusty during April 2005, hit .313 with a .619 slg% the rest of the way (34hr in 409ab), at age 35. The dude could still really hit.
Depends what you mean by "excessive," I guess, and that can be debated, but I'm certain that line starts much higher than 6 WAR post age 30 for an all-time great player.
Uh yeah the fact that he was a top 5 player of all time is something to celebrate. What the hell are you even talking about?
To be clear, I think Griffey's maybe 40/60 or 33/67 to make it first ballot. Wouldn't shock me, but I don't think it's the most likely outcome. I think you're really overestimating the impact of an MVP peak that doesn't involve milestone numbers, and underestimating the impact of a decade of a blah decline and injury. We'll see - obviously I'm rooting for Griffey. I loved that guy, saved his Fleer rookie card in a special very ugly plastic case, and he's a complete no-brainer for the Hall. But I think we're going to have to wait an extra year or two before he gets in.
I think this is where I am. You're right that it's unrealistic expectations on my part but emotions are what they are.
Reading this I thought of Carl Lewis at the 1984 olympics. As great as he was with 4 gold medals and all the failure to break Beamon's long jump record was a big deal at the time. I remember there being a smattering of boos (amidst mostly cheers) when he came up short. That's what everyone was waiting to see and it was probably unfair of all of us to ask such great feats but it didn't feel unreasonable at the time.
630 home runs!
If you could go back and do it over again, he should stay in Seattle and DH. And not run at all on ground balls. That wasn't him - he really seemed to love playing CF - but he probably stays much healthier that way.
Ray and Shooty are both right, of course. His injury riddled 30s were terribly disappointing. Just not all that unusual (see Mantle, for instance). One really can't assume consistent production over two decades.
Don't know who card #2 was, but Griffey sealed his First Ballot status with that first Upper Deck set.
To account for your uncertainty vs. my unimpeachable faith, I'm OK with $25 sponsorship if you win, $15 if I do.
Assume it, no, but the issue is whether he was a disappointment. It's not unreasonable to hope for more.
But when Ken Griffey Jr was 29, he'd already had a Hall of Fame lock career. If he had just quit baseball instead of signing with Cincinnati, his career would have been no less great than it turned out to be. From the perspective of 1999, Griffey was a good bet to surpass DiMaggio and you could squint and see a guy heading for the inner concentric circle of the inner circle and trying to bump Speaker or Cobb out in the metaphorical game of curling that is the ranking of all-time greats. There is a perspective from within his career by which Griffey clearly disappointed.
I'm not disparaging his Hall of Fame case, which should in fact be blindingly obvious. But I'm saying that there's just enough non-obvious greatness there to stick in the craw of our worse HoF voters.
If you use the "Neutralized Batting" tool at BBRef and adjust Bonds' career to the 1968 Dodgers, he hits 259/395/525 with 634 home runs. That's one of my favorite statistical absurdities.
A Griffey-Bonds comparison is interesting in several ways. One narrative about Griffey was that he didn't work hard enough to take care of himself and that some of his breakdown in his 30s was because of that. I have no idea if it's true or not, but that was a narrative. Bonds of course had a legendary work ethic, and one can view his PED usage as an instance of being the anti-Griffy, someone excessively devoted to self-improvement. They both had a space of over a decade when they were great players, and if each had been hit by a bus at the end of that period they would have been obvious Hall of Famers. Then Griffey broke down and Bonds bulked up. It'd make an easy morality play about the value of the moderation, a story in which both principals make the wrong choice. Craig Biggio can be the hero.
That his career, taken in its entirety, isn't worthy of celebration -- any more than Lance Armstrong's or Ben Johnson's are. Was that unclear?
No, "unclear" is not a word I'd use. I doubt you'd like the word I'd use, though :-)
Alomar 90%; Larkin 86%
On Griffey:
630 HR, 1800 RBI, 1600 R
10 GG
MVP votes in 10 seasons
1 MVP, 4 other top 5
13 AS games
3 #1 WARpos, 2 2nds and a 5th
MLB All-Century Team
Voted player of the 90s ... by the players!
Career voters will love Griffey
Peak voters will love Griffey
Anti-roid voters will love Griffey*
Saber-friendly voters will love Griffey
Cincy are voters may not love Griffey
Unless 10% of the BBWAA is in Cincy ...
*They will note that Griffey's injury-riddled 30s are proof that he didn't do roids.
Griffey's "only 6 WAR after 30" is being overstated. Griffey had a perfectly respectable 14 oWAR after 30. He loses 8 wins to defense. That's probably accurate but that was not the public perception. Nobody outside saber circles was talking about how bad he was in CF until the very end, at least not that I recall. He was an "injured star" not worthless.
Crowded ballot, blah, blah, blah but, c'mon, Puckett got 82%. Alomar debuted at 74 then got 90. The oft-injured Larkin eventually got 86.
So, basically, the equivalent of three or four good years with the bat, spread over a decade. And if not spread out that still leaves him done at 35.
After age 30 his best seasons by oWAR are 4.7, 2.8, and then everything under 2. I'm not sure what you're arguing, Walt. That wasn't a bitter disappointment? He had nine seasons better than 4.7 oWAR before that point. Including seven seasons at 6 or above.
It's kind of like talking about how slow somebody is on crutches. Griffey wasn't physically capable of playing the position once the injuries piled up. It's on the Reds for letting him stay out there and not trying to find a better solution.
Then again, they were playing Adam Dunn. Perhaps they were judging Griffey by comparison.
I can see that perspective. For quite a while, Juan Gonzalez was tracking Griffey's career in notable ways, and I'm still waiting for him to hit even his 450th home run. On his own scale, Gonzalez was a disappointment too, though there's another scale where almost anybody who ever played the game would trade career lines with Gonzalez, let alone Griffey.
WAR/pos
Jim Bottomley 4.8
Lou Boudreau 4.9
Elmer Flick 5.8
Chick Hafey 4.0
Travis Jackson 0.9
Hughie Jennings 2.5
George Kell 5.5
Joe Kelley 4.9
High Pockets Kelly 2.7
King Kelly 6.0
Ralph Kiner 2.7
Chuck Klein 3.7
Bill Mazeroski 3.1
Tommy McCarthy -0.7
Joe Medwick 5.5
Ray Schalk 1.6
George Sisler 4.7
Lloyd Waner 3.9
And some pitchers:
WAR
Chief Bender 0.3
John Clarkson 3.9
Don Drysdale 4.0
Lefty Gomez -0.9
Catfish Hunter 0.1
Hal Newhouser 2.0
Bruce Sutter 3.9
Mickey Welch -2.5
Joss, Dean, and Koufax don't even show up in the latter list, not pitching enough after 30 for various reasons.
Kinda meaningless, but does show that a lot of guys make nearly all their impact before age 31.
Joe Kelley 4.9
High Pockets Kelly 2.7
King Kelly 6.0
Looks like Casey Kelly only has 7 years left to build his Hall of Fame case.
What kind of features would attract? Let "visitors" cast their own HOM ballot based on either the historical HOF or the HOM version?
WAR/pos
Hack Wilson 6.4
Monte Ward 9.3
Arky Vaughan 6.6
Duke Snider 7.5
Joe Sewell 8.7
Ron Santo 7.8
Jim Rice 8.9
Rabbit Maranville 8.1
Heinie Manush 9.5
Tony Lazzeri 8.2
Rick Ferrell 9.9
Hugh Duffy 6.1
Frank Chance 8.8
Orlando Cepeda 7.8
The percentage of "mistakes" is lower here than in the <6 list. Santo, Vaughn, and Snider are perhaps not "inner-circle," but they are top-ten careers at their positions (as is Griffey).
What kind of features would attract? Let "visitors" cast their own HOM ballot based on either the historical HOF or the HOM version?
That's always been the answer to the beefs around here. Just organize your own vote for MVP and the other awards, and your own Hall of Fame, rather like the Shadow Fed and the Shadow SEC (or for that matter the ESPN Top 25 college football poll, after decades of just the AP and UPI). Give them an name and lay out the criteria and the bona fides of the selectors. If it gains public acceptance, it does; if it doesn't, it doesn't.
Frankly, I'm surprised someone hasn't run with this by now.
Less than two years later, he's this guy: Weird.
Opportunistic self-serving blowhard. They are both the same guy. You're mistake is assuming he believes anything he writes.
I dont think your position here is as simple as you put it here. Admittedly, the steroid issue is not simple for many of us. But are you saying that Bonds is merely dishonorable, or did he really cheat?
Most of the people against Bonds/steroid users say that they cheated. Is that your position? That Bonds and anyone who took steroids cheated? Or that Bonds and/or steroid users are merely "dishonorable" e.g. a racist or someone who beats spectators?
There is a difference no?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main