I agree with his stance on PED's. And in his support of Bagwell, McGwire, and Palmeiro. Almost everything else he wrote was idiotic.

Almost everything else he wrote was idiotic.

That's only fair, since he's an idiot.

Rickey Henderson is not the standard to get into the HOF.

I agree with his stance on PED's. And in his support of Bagwell, McGwire, and Palmeiro. Almost everything else he wrote was idiotic.

Me too.

Rickey Henderson is not the standard to get into the HOF.

Does that necessarily mean he *should* not be in the future?

I don't think we should fault any voter for setting a higher in/out line for the HoF than currently exists, as long as it it applied consistently (which I don't necessarily expect Smizik to do, FWIW). I have less of a problem with keeping Raines out than I do with letting a marginal guy in.

-- MWE

Does that necessarily mean he *should* not be in the future?

Rickey Henderson is among the 20 or so greatest players ever. I don't think a convincing argument can possibly be made for a 20- or 30-man Hall of Fame.

Anyway, this is irrelevant, since he's also supporting Rafael Palmeiro. I'd take Raines, Larkin, and Trammell over Palmeiro pretty easily.

Smizik digs the long ball.

I have less of a problem with keeping Raines out than I do with letting a marginal guy in.

I would rather deserving players were honored if it means letting a few marginal guys in. And I don't see Raines as marginal at all--he was a beautiful baseball player.

So any player of the Henderson/Raines/speed type who is not as good as Rickey should not get into the Hall of Fame? I guess we're going to say no to Craig Biggio based on that standard.

If a player of the impact of Henderson is now the standard, then we might as well reduce membership in the Hall of Fame from its current number of 295 to about 75 or so, perhaps fewer. I don't see where that has ever been the vision, goal, or mission of the Hall of Fame.

Bagwell, McGwire and Palmeiro are a strange ballot, and I doubt we'll get another one just like that.

So any player of the Henderson/Raines/speed type who is not as good as Rickey should not get into the Hall of Fame? I guess we're going to say no to Craig Biggio based on that standard.

.. and that wouldn't bother me, either.

If a player of the impact of Henderson is now the standard, then we might as well reduce membership in the Hall of Fame from its current number of 295 to about 75 or so, perhaps fewer. I don't see where that has ever been the vision, goal, or mission of the Hall of Fame.

My question (and it's a serious one) is this - why shouldn't it be? Why should it be more important to hold the HoF to what it has been, rather than trying to remake it going forward? Just because it's always been that way?

-- MWE

If Henderson is around the in/out line, then so are Jimmie Foxx and Cal Ripken and Lefty Grove. Henderson as in/out line produces an unrecognizable Hall with new members elected maybe twice in a decade.

You can say what you want about a 100-man hall, but a 20- or 30-man hall is no longer the Hall of Fame in any recognizable sense. Smizik was talking crazy.

Further, Smizik isn't actually advocating for a smaller Hall, as he's voting for a classic low-end compiler in Rafael Palmeiro. All Smizik appears to be doing is counting ribbies.

Smizik always has a small ballot. Given his interest in the long ball and lack of interest in moralizing you'd think he would be the one who was keeping Dave Parker on the ballot all those years, but he prefers the "small Hall" attitude.

Here he is 5 years ago. His ballot is Gwynn, Ripken, and McGwire.

Why should McGwire be penalized because he happened to appear before a Congressional committee, when others, who did not have such a spotlight on their behavior, might be just as guilty. Why should there be one set of standards for the likes of Mc-Gwire, Bonds and Sammy Sosa -- men who have been publicly linked to steroids -- and another for men who might just as easily used steroids but were not caught?

Does anyone seriously think Roger Clemens, who if he were on the ballot this year would have been a certain enshrinee, has not used performance-enhancing drugs? The man was 44 at the end of last season and had an earned run average of 2.30. The year before his ERA was 1.87. His career ERA is 3.10. Did he suddenly achieve his peak after passing 40?

Rafael Palmiero, who is one of the few players in baseball history with more than 3,000 hits and 500 home runs, was probably headed for the Hall of Fame before failing a drug test in 2005. That failed test will probably keep him out of Cooperstown.

But what about all the players before him who didn't have to take drug tests? For all we know, Palmiero, dragging at the end of his career, might have resorted to steroids only in the 2005 season in hopes of ending his career at a decent level. Should that wipe out his previous accomplishments?

I don't think so.

Because it leads to eras geting over and underrepresented. I don't want a hall that is much tougher on 90's players than on 20's players. A hall where the top 1% of the 70's in, but only the top .1% of the modern era, or something. I support tougher standards only if they are retro-active.

IOW, We can leave Raines out only if we kick out Rice too.

What kind of DH penalty does one need for Edgar to not even approach Hall of Fame standards? Double his position penalty and, if I'm doing this right, he'd still have over 50 WAR.

My question (and it's a serious one) is this - why shouldn't it be?

The Cooperstown HOF would court irrelevance if they inducted only the inner-inner circle guys. You'd see an induction every two-three years. You'd also leave the impression to posterity that Lloyd Waner was better than Chipper Jones.

There's nothing stopping one's personal HOF from being limited to ten guys, kicking guys out, or whatever.

#15 – good question. I use a -15 runs per 150 games as my DH adjustment. To get Edgar down to 49.9 WAR, I’d have to use a penalty of -34 runs. If you think the DH penalty should be that great, then a replacement level season from a DH is +14 batting runs in 150 games. Some seasons that result in +14 batting runs are:

Carlos Delgado 1997 (262/350/528)
Fred McGriff 2002 (273/353/505)
Derrek Lee 2008 (291/361/462)

You’d have a long uphill climb trying to convince me those seasons were replacement level quality, even if the player provided no defensive value.

If you used -25 runs per 150 as a DH penalty, Edgar would be down to 58 WAR. That would still be enough that he’d be a reasonable candidate, but he’d be in the company of a lot of other players who are not in the hall – guys like Jimmy Wynn, Bobby Bonds, Willie Davis, Ken Boyer – who don’t usually come up in HOF discussions. But also in range with HOFers like Dawson, Winfield, Billy Williams, and Willie Stargell.

What kind of DH penalty does one need for Edgar to not even approach Hall of Fame standards? Double his position penalty and, if I'm doing this right, he'd still have over 50 WAR.

The whole idea of 'postion penalty' is the flaw here, IMO. You can't have a position penalty if a player doesn't play a position. What is the batting WAR of an AL pitcher? The question itself doesn't make any sense.

The way I look at it is take a poor fielding outfielder like Manny Ramirez. Ramirez made about 2 putouts per game on average. Just looking at those, if Ramirez weren't in the field, and the centerfielder had to run over, each of those putouts would be, on average say, a double. Just ballparking, that's at least one run per game. So over a zero baseline (i.e. nobody at all standing there), Manny Ramirez saved around 130-140 runs a season. That's 13-14 wins just by showing up. Edgar doesn't get any of that credit, since he didn't do any of that. So he's 13 wins per season behind Manny Ramirez before taking any batting prowess into consideration.

Now could he have done as good, or better, as Manny, had he played the field? Probably. But I don't see how you give him credit for hypothetical plays he didn't make. You don't give Ruth credit for hypothetical pitching WAR that he missed out on by playing the field (not that he needs it, but you get my drift). Nor I think would you give hypothetical batting WAR to an AL pitcher who batted well in the National League. Only DHs, for some reason, get this credit.

Now, it's possible to vote for Edgar if you are voting on pure talent, divorced from performance on the field. But that's not how most voters vote.

I'll change Mike's question slightly -- is it the responsibility of an HoF voter to maintain the "historical standard" of the HoF (including the VC selections?) or should each voter apply his/her own standard?

And just out of curiosity, what percentage of HoF voters (or BBWAA membership) is female?

Anyhoo, if we're applying the Rickey standard AND the "clean" standard, ain't nobody getting in for another 10 years but Maddux, Johnson and maybe Griffey.

Lee Smith: A dominant closer of his era and third all time in saves. Maybe I saw the Pirates light him up one too many times.

Dumb reasoning but turns out he's accurate -- career 286/353/428, 349 BABIP, 141 tOPS+ vs. the Pirates.

Larry Walker: A five-tool guy, who oozed talent. But 383 HRs and 1,311 RBIs don’t cut it.
Juan Gonzalez (5 percent): He hit 434 home runs, drove in 1,404 runs and had an OPS of 1.004. That’s good. It’s not great. No to Gonzalez.

Now, fair enough, he votes against both but Walker is an easy dismissal while Gonzalez is a tough call for him. So we're talking 51 HR and 93 RBI outweighing the "five tools". And us saber-types used to get grief for not valuing defense and baserunning. Not that Smizik would care but Walker beats Gonzalez in PA (by nearly 1000) and OPS+. The WAR difference is a mere 67 to 33 in Walker's favor.

And of course Juan Gone's OPS was 904 not 1004.

But really, you need look no further than the Larkin bit to wonder what this guy is thinking. His own words: "An outstanding offensive shortstop with three Gold Gloves." You'd think there'd be a sentence or two before "no." Fortunately for Smizik, Jeter is an outstanding offensive SS with 5 GG (that still cracks me up) so we can assume that is the minimum standard.

The way I look at it is take a poor fielding outfielder like Manny Ramirez. Ramirez made about 2 putouts per game on average. Just looking at those, if Ramirez weren't in the field, and the centerfielder had to run over, each of those putouts would be, on average say, a double. Just ballparking, that's at least one run per game. So over a zero baseline (i.e. nobody at all standing there), Manny Ramirez saved around 130-140 runs a season. That's 13-14 wins just by showing up. Edgar doesn't get any of that credit, since he didn't do any of that. So he's 13 wins per season behind Manny Ramirez before taking any batting prowess into consideration.

That's absurd. By that method, no DH has ever had, or even come close to a replacement level season. Meaning that every team which has ever deployed a DH would have been better off with a pitcher batting instead. How many fewer games would the 1995 Mariners have won had they, and only they, opted to forgo the DH and have their pitchers bat? 5, 6, 8?

The whole idea of 'postion penalty' is the flaw here, IMO. You can't have a position penalty if a player doesn't play a position.

No, it’s not a flaw. It’s a requirement. A general manager has to make a decision on how much a DH is worth, compared to a bad fielding 1B or LF. The idea of not having anyone at all in left field as the baseline for Manny Ramirez doesn’t work. Bring that method to its logical conclusion and you’d say that a 220/250/300 hitter who catches an average number of flyballs would be worth more than a decent hitting DH who never plays an inning in the field. Nobody will believe that.

The way I look at it is take a poor fielding outfielder like Manny Ramirez. Ramirez made about 2 putouts per game on average. Just looking at those, if Ramirez weren't in the field, and the centerfielder had to run over, each of those putouts would be, on average say, a double. Just ballparking, that's at least one run per game. So over a zero baseline (i.e. nobody at all standing there), Manny Ramirez saved around 130-140 runs a season. That's 13-14 wins just by showing up. Edgar doesn't get any of that credit, since he didn't do any of that. So he's 13 wins per season behind Manny Ramirez before taking any batting prowess into consideration.

By the logic, you would have to compare him to not having a batter also. How many runs per season do the M's lose if they simply have no batter 1/9th of the time, resulting in an automatic out?

The M's are currently spending $9 million a year to answer just that question.

I mean, if you have a super super super super super Small HOF in mind, Bagwell-Palmeiro-McGwire is a not-horrendous ballot.

I mean, if you have a super super super super super Small HOF in mind, Bagwell-Palmeiro-McGwire is a not-horrendous ballot.

Yes, it is. If you're a pure career voter, Palmeiro barely makes it into the top half of HoFers. If you account for peak, he's a bottom-thirder at best. And if you're a pure career voter, McGwire's not really all that impressive - he's a great peak candidate, but if you're accounting for peak and a small Hall voter, Palmeiro shouldn't be particularly close to your ballot.

The only way to explain a Bagwell-Palmeiro-McGwire ballot is that the voter looked at HRs and RBIs and nothing else.

My question (and it's a serious one) is this - why shouldn't it be? Why should it be more important to hold the HoF to what it has been, rather than trying to remake it going forward? Just because it's always been that way?

If you are willing to assume that the HoF "wants" to remain relevant then there is value in some degree of consistency in the rules around entry.

Also from a theoretical perspective there is an ideal hall size. The ideal would include enough players such that it was not obvious great players were being excluded (because of percieved fairness) while not including so many to devalue the honor of being enrolled. The Hall of Very Good is not important.

Basically you want to maximize the amount of "Fame Points" you are inducting. Induct too few and there are too few "Fame Points" because too few inductions, induct too many and you devalue the "Fame Points" of each inductee.

Obviously all of the above could give a large range of possible hall sizes, but in the absense of some perfect knowledge why not go with what has been established, especially since everyones expectation is set by the past and expectations is what drive the whole "Fame Points" discussion.

Too abstract? Well then ... because.

Yeah, if you penalize the DH for not playing the field (to the tune of 13-14 wins per season), then you should also use pitcher hitting stats to determine their WAR as a batter.

I mean, if you have a super super super super super Small HOF in mind, Bagwell-Palmeiro-McGwire is a not-horrendous ballot.

If your HOF is that small, the ballot should be just Bagwell. Larkin, Walker, Raines and Trammell are all right with Palmeiro and McGwire.

Induct too few and there are too few "Fame Points" because too few inductions, induct too many and you devalue the "Fame Points" of each inductee.

Is "average Fame Points" the way to go?
For example, you want to induct players that maintain an average Fame Points rating for each player of 5.
So for the 2012 induction, if you put 3 guys into the HOF, their total Fame Points should be at least 15.
If you induct a run of players whose average Fame Points is more than 5 (say, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Griffey), does that mean you can then bring along some sub-5 FP players (say, Ichiro, Raines, Walker)?

Would you want to judge FP per induction? Or for every 3 inductions?

I like the idea (with the nebulous FP calculation). I'm just trying to work through how you maintain the FP balance.

The 27 names have been reduced to 13. The next step isn’t much harder because many of these players have been on the ballot before. But they require some thought before elimination.

I found this kind of funny because rather than "many" it's actually "all." He eliminated the entire list of new candidates off the bat.

If your HOF is that small, the ballot should be just Bagwell

Bagwell may not even make the Rickey! Hall; Gehrig, Foxx, Mize with war credit. With Pujols in mind, he can't be higher than 5th all-time (i.e lower than Rickey in LF) and that's without considering Anson/Brouthers/Connor.

But really, you need look no further than the Larkin bit to wonder what this guy is thinking. His own words: "An outstanding offensive shortstop with three Gold Gloves." You'd think there'd be a sentence or two before "no." Fortunately for Smizik, Jeter is an outstanding offensive SS with 5 GG (that still cracks me up) so we can assume that is the minimum standard.

That's what struck me as so bizarre. By mentioning the gold gloves with no qualifier it implies that he is accepting them as fact and Larkin really deserved to win; any sort of logical thought progression would take that to mean that for most of his career he was a good defender. So if he's an outstanding offensive shortstop who also played the position at a high level why the #### shouldn't he be in the Hall of Fame?

Every year there is at least one ballot/column explaining a ballot that makes me wonder how that guy has a ballot and my dog doesn't. This guy is this years winner.

Barry Larkin (62 percent): My Cincinnati friends swear by him. An outstanding offensive shortstop with three Gold Gloves. No to Larkin.

Beyond my doubting he has friends in Cincinnati or elsewhere, what is the relevance of people swearing by him? Then, he admits Larkin was great on offense and also cites Gold Gloves which should signify defensive excellence but follows with no explanation for not voting for him. Why do some of these guys have such an aversion to actually reviewing the statistical record and verifying whether their memory of a player is accurate? I know my memory is not perfect so I click on bb-ref and double check. This is not the 1950's prior to the publication of the first baseball encyclopedia.

Now could he have done as good, or better, as Manny, had he played the field? Probably.

I'm not sure that this was true. Edgar was made of the finest spun glass. If he had to play in the field every day, I think he might've broken or torn something important and un-fixable, and been out of baseball by his early 30s. At a minimum, his cavalcade of nagging injuries would've dragged his rate stats down significantly.

This

* I will not vote for a players because he’s better than someone in the Hall. I may think, for example, Jack Morris is better than Bert Blyleven, who was voted in last year. But I didn’t vote for Blyleven and I don’t think he belongs. I will not allow him to be a barometer.

is a good argument if you tweak it:

* I will not vote for a players because he’s better than someone in the Hall. I may think, for example, Dale Murphy is better than Jim Rice, who was voted recently. But I didn’t vote for Rice and I don’t think he belongs. I will not allow him to be a barometer.

I agree with his stance on PED's.

I know the discussion has moved on a bit, but I just wanted to voice my disagreement with this.

For one, MLB has not banned Rose or anyone else from the Hall. The HoF made that ban. But giving him the benefit of the doubt there, saying the HoF should make a decision on whether they are eligible is just weak. The HoF has clearly made a decision, namely, that they are eligible, AND that it is the responsibility of the voters to judge whether or not the use of PED's makes them unworthy. It's right there in the voting guidelines.

If you want to just wave known users into the hall, that's perfectly fine. But stand up for what you believe one way or another. Passing the buck back to the hall on that matter is just incredibly pathetic. Grow a spine*.

*consider trying HGH for that if you want

(swallow hard) Barry Bloom, on not voting for Bagwell.

And just a note on Jeff Bagwell: Rumors about possible steroid use don’t bother me. I just think he’s a very good player, but not of Hall of Fame caliber. His numbers are very similar to Steve Garvey — Bags .297 batting average to .294 for the Garv, 2,314 hits to 2,599, 449 homers to 272, 1,529 RBIs to 1,308 . But Garvey had two NL Championship Series MVPs, an NL MVP, an All-Star MVP, the longest consecutive game playing streak in NL history (1,207), one of the highest fielding percentages as a first baseman (.996) and an errorless season (1984). Garvey also played on five NL pennant winners and a World Series winner in ’81 with the Dodgers. Bagwell did almost none of this with the Astros. And Garvey didn’t get a sniff from the writers for the HOF.

That’s why I didn’t vote for Bagwell.

449 homers to 272

Yeah, that looks very similar to me.

His numbers are very similar to Steve Garvey — Bags .297 batting average to .294 for the Garv, 2,314 hits to 2,599, 449 homers to 272

449 is similar to 272? In what universe?

Also, most of the rest was stupid. Evidently Garvey was better because his teams were better overall. Or something.

EDIT: Coke to JJ1986.

Edgar was made of the finest spun glass. If he had to play in the field every day, I think he might've broken or torn something important and un-fixable, and been out of baseball by his early 30s. At a minimum, his cavalcade of nagging injuries would've dragged his rate stats down significantly.

I'm not so sure that this was true. I know it's a familiar trope, and one I've accepted heretofore, but what is the basis in fact? He played full seasons at 27 and 28, once given a full time job, and he missed minimal time at 29. He definitely had a significant injury in his age 30 season and he missed some time the following season, but not as much as it appears since he played in 89 of 112 games in the strike shortened 1994 season. Nonetheless, in 1995 and forward he's essentially a full time DH.

Beginning in 1995 he has over 600 PA's in every season through age 37, six straight seasons, 581 the following year and then a short season at age 39. He then follows up with 603 and 549 at 40 and 41. If he were truly that fragile, wouldn't he have had more short seasons through his 30's? It's not as if hitting is easy on the body. It's a tremendously explosive movement, repeated thousands of times per year when you include practice reps, which you certainly must as they take their toll on the body as well. There's a risk for explosive injuries (pulled muscles, tears in connective tissue, broken bones) as well as repetitive use injuries (worn out cartilage, persistent soreness, disc trauma). I'm not so sure someone who was "made of the finest spun glass" could have sustained the level of workload he did even as a DH.

"Bagwell did almost none of this with the Astros, except win an MVP, which is about the only one of the things I just listed that has anything to do with how good they were as players."

His numbers are very similar to Steve Garvey — Bags .297 batting average to .294 for the Garv, 2,314 hits to 2,599, 449 homers to 272

Sheesh. And like 1400 walks to 470. Going by OPS+, the gap between Garvey and Bagwell as hitters is bigger than the gap between Garvey and Ozzie Smith.

he's voting for a classic low-end compiler in Rafael Palmeiro. All Smizik appears to be doing is counting ribbies.

And homers, and hits, and total bases, etc. Palmeiro wasn't one of the upper level greats of his era year in and year out, but to call him a low-end compiler is too harsh. Harold Baines was a compiler. Raffy averaged over 40 homers and probably close to 120 rbi's a season for 9 straight years (1995-2003). Sillyball era or not, that's way more impressive than the career totals a true compiler like Dawson put up (I'm talking about hitting only) with a bunch of 25 homer, 90 rbi seasons (except for 1987).

His 132 OPS+ for a first baseman may not scream HOFer, but in a long and durable career, it doesn't speak against it either. He's probably the hitting equivilant of say, Tom Glavine, whereas a true compiler like Baines would be Jack Morris.

My Cincinnati friends swear by him. An outstanding offensive shortstop with three Gold Gloves. No to Larkin.

Perfect reasoning.

Jesus, the people they let vote on these things...it's a wonder they even manage to vote for baseball players

Mike asks the question, "Why shouldn't we [use Henderson as the standard]?" If we do that, then it is likely that there will only be inductions once every four, five or six years here in Cooperstown. And in years when no one is being inducted, that is going to have a huge effect on Hall of Fame attendance. It might be a devastating effect, not just on Cooperstown but all of Otsego County, which is currently not a hotbed of economic prosperity. Do we really want to run the risk of financial devastation to an institution like the Hall of Fame? I'm biased, of course, because I live and work in Cooperstown, but that's the last thing I want to see.

Furthermore, the HOF already has the toughest standards of all the sporting halls of fame. Fewer inductees enter the Hall per year than any of the other Halls. A typical football class can have six or seven inductees; in baseball, it is usually two or three. As far as I know, the Baseball HOF is also the only one that has a 75 per cent standard. The standards are already extraordinarily high, higher than football or basketball. I just don't see the need, or the benefit, of making the standard any more stringent.

For one, MLB has not banned Rose or anyone else from the Hall. The HoF made that ban.

I see stuff like this brought up a lot and it's splitting hairs so finely as to be irrelevant. The HOF's entire existence is based on it being MLB's sanctioned museum and enshrinement entity, the fact that it isn't actually owned by MLB doesn't change the fact that it's so far in bed with them that it will never make decisions against MLB's wishes. If MLB says a player is banned from baseball then they're banned from the hall, if MLB says a player is eligible then the hall will never make him not so.

Bloom, on not voting for Bagwell.

That's some crazy rational right there. But, the rest of his ballot is pretty good. At least he didn't just vote for 2-3 players. He's got all the sabr favorites on there.

edit: Repoz, how's Larkin looking on the full ballot count?

If you want to just wave known users into the hall, that's perfectly fine. But stand up for what you believe one way or another. Passing the buck back to the hall on that matter is just incredibly pathetic. Grow a spine*.

Leaving everything entirely up to the writers to make up their own interpretations of the character clause or to vote based on "fear" and gut feelings rather than statistical value is exactly why Jim Rice is a HOfer and Jeff Bagwell isn't. It's why Jack Morris still has a decent shot at getting elected and Kevin Brown dropped from the ballot after a single shot. Unless you're okay with this kind of thing happening, it makes sense to apply some level of pre-existing standard rather than allowing the writers to make it up as they go.

What kind of DH penalty does one need for Edgar to not even approach Hall of Fame standards? Double his position penalty and, if I'm doing this right, he'd still have over 50 WAR.

I think you should treat a DH like the worst defensive 1B. Maybe that's around -25 runs of defensive adjustment?

The real issue I have with Edgar is qualitative. He did practically nothing but hit, and he had a fairly short career. That means that in order for him to be a HOFer, he has to be one of the very best hitters in the history of the sport, and while he's an excellent hitter, I don't think he satisfies that standard. (His peak needs to be better for a career of that length with near-zero defense and baserunning value.)

Going by OPS+, the gap between Garvey and Bagwell as hitters is bigger than the gap between Garvey and Ozzie Smith.

I knew it was close, but I had to check and... you are right.

and both Ozzie and Bags scored more runs than Garvey

Thing with Steve Garvey is that he was very similar to Joe Judge — Judge .298 batting average to .294 for the Garv, 2,352 hits to 2,599, 71 homers to 272, 1,034 RBIs to 1,308

Leaving everything entirely up to the writers to make up their own interpretations of the character clause or to vote based on "fear" and gut feelings rather than statistical value is exactly why Jim Rice is a HOfer and Jeff Bagwell isn't. It's why Jack Morris still has a decent shot at getting elected and Kevin Brown dropped from the ballot after a single shot. Unless you're okay with this kind of thing happening, it makes sense to apply some level of pre-existing standard rather than allowing the writers to make it up as they go.

All of these examples basically boil down to BBWAA members not understanding statistical analysis, and what makes a player valuable. Bagwell's first year voting totals are pretty much in line with what you would expect based on his traditional stats. And at a level that virtually ensures induction, to presume that he won't make it is foolish.

And I don't see how pre-screening fixes your problem, if they don't want to induct the Brown's and the Bagwell's. And if you remove the Morris's and Rice's from the ballot, and somehow make them elect the Bagwell's and the Brown's, in what sense of the word do you still have an "election". Voting would be bout as meaningful as in Nazi Germany*. If you want to take the writers' voting privileges away, I am not entirely unsympathetic towards that stance. But again, man up, and say so. Don't try and do it via the back door.

And I am okay with the things you cite happening, as long as writers do have the vote. The price of an election, is that the electorate gets to elect who they want to. And I have infinitely more respect for somebody who does the best they can with the task presented to them, even if they end up being wrong, than I do for somebody who shirks away from the responsibility, and refuses to make a decision.

Of course, I reserve the right to call them idiots, when they do get it wrong.

*Godwined

The real issue I have with Edgar is qualitative.

Wha huh what? Really? 44th Career OPS+, 27th Batting Runs, 95th BA, 22nd OBP and 66th SLG. You have an issue with the quality of those numbers?

He did practically nothing but hit, and he had a fairly short career.

Except for the 4 full seasons worth of games in the field and the fact he didn't have a fairly short career, yes. Parts of 18 seasons despite starting late, not a short career. 8,672 PA's when the HOF average is 9,047, once you remove pitchers, not a short career. 592 games in the field in 2,055 career games; no, not by any means a two way player, but over 25% of games played were in the field, which seems like more than practically nothing.

That means that in order for him to be a HOFer, he has to be one of the very best hitters in the history of the sport, and while he's an excellent hitter, I don't think he satisfies that standard.

Top 50 All Time in OPS+, Top 30 All Time Batting Runs, Top 25 All Time OBP, Top 75 All Time SLG and Top 100 All Time BA. Pretty much makes him one of the Top 100 Hitters All Time. How are you evaluating him so as to exclude him?

All of these examples basically boil down to BBWAA members not understanding statistical analysis, and what makes a player valuable.

In some cases, yes (Raines vs Brock, for example). But in others the voters are basically saying, "Look, I know the numbers prove he's not worthy, but they FELT like a HOFer, dammit! Rice was 'feared' and Morris was a 'gamer' and I'm voting for them cuz I want to, statistics be damned!"

And if you remove the Morris's and Rice's from the ballot, and somehow make them elect the Bagwell's and the Brown's, in what sense of the word do you still have an "election". Voting would be bout as meaningful as in Nazi Germany*. If you want to take the writers' voting privileges away, I am not entirely unsympathetic towards that stance. But again, man up, and say so. Don't try and do it via the back door.

I don't think we should take away the voting priveledges of all the writers (just the really stupid ones that prove they don't know what they're doing), and I certainly don't think we should ever "make" someone elect anybody. I just think sometimes we should be able to remove some of the lamest excuses they use by putting in place a few reasonable standards.

The real issue I have with Edgar is qualitative.

Wha huh what? Really? 44th Career OPS+, 27th Batting Runs, 95th BA, 22nd OBP and 66th SLG. You have an issue with the quality of those numbers?

This is not what the word "qualitative" means.

There are plenty of people out there who don't think that DHes are "real" baseball players, that they're akin to pinch-runners. It seems perfectly logically consistent to not vote for even very valuable DHes on the grounds that they are an abomination to the sport, just like it seems perfectly logically consistent to not vote for non-Christians under the character clause if you think that only Christians can be good people. I certainly disagree with both of those opinions but they are not internally inconsistent. I like the fact that Hall of Fame voting is idiosyncratic -- it'd be really boring if everyone started just voting based on WAR.

I'd vote for Edgar in a heartbeat, because Edgar mattered and he was awesome, but I respect the opinions of others, that's what democracy means.

This is not what the word "qualitative" means.

Then how are you defining it?

There are plenty of people out there who don't think that DHes are "real" baseball players, that they're akin to pinch-runners

Which does not appear to be at all the way CrosbyBird feels.

but I respect the opinions of others

And never offer a dissenting one in hopes of changing theirs?

It's obvious why he isn't voting for Morris, Larkin, or Raines. They may have been better than existing Hall of Famers, or great hitting and fielding shortstops, or terrific leadoff hitters, but none of them were first basemen.

What kind of DH penalty does one need for Edgar to not even approach Hall of Fame standards? Double his position penalty and, if I'm doing this right, he'd still have over 50 WAR.

I think you should treat a DH like the worst defensive 1B. Maybe that's around -25 runs of defensive adjustment?

The real issue I have with Edgar is qualitative. He did practically nothing but hit, and he had a fairly short career. That means that in order for him to be a HOFer, he has to be one of the very best hitters in the history of the sport, and while he's an excellent hitter, I don't think he satisfies that standard. (His peak needs to be better for a career of that length with near-zero defense and baserunning value.)

I tend to agree on this, but if this standard is translated to relievers, then only Riviera gets in, and maybe not even him.

Wha huh what? Really? 44th Career OPS+, 27th Batting Runs, 95th BA, 22nd OBP and 66th SLG. You have an issue with the quality of those numbers?

I'll start by reminding everyone that I'm a relatively small-hall guy.

That's not precisely what I meant by qualitative, but I do have an issue with those numbers if you are primarily a DH for your career. If you're getting in as a DH, you have to be on a fairly short list of all-time best offensive players. I'd vote for a DH that's clearly in the top 25 hitters of all time considering both peak and career. The most charitable evaluation of Martinez puts him outside of the top 25 in peak, and his career length is below-average for a HOFer.

I consider Jim Thome to be primarily a DH (which is probably quite a bit less fair than it is for Martinez) and I'd vote for him. That's the standard for a DH, though. You need an above-average peak AND above-average career in comparison to other primarily offensive HOFers.

Edgar Martinez doesn't have a weak peak offense for a HOFer, but it doesn't stand out as remarkable in comparison to other HOF 1B/corner OF (which should be the standard for comparison).

Except for the 4 full seasons worth of games in the field and the fact he didn't have a fairly short career, yes. Parts of 18 seasons despite starting late, not a short career. 8,672 PA's when the HOF average is 9,047, once you remove pitchers, not a short career. 592 games in the field in 2,055 career games; no, not by any means a two way player, but over 25% of games played were in the field, which seems like more than practically nothing.

This is a pretty short career for a HOFer. Edgar played in the 162 game era in a DH league with a very high level of offense, which skews his career numbers a bit. Normalize his career and his PA are likely bottom third among non-pitcher HOF players (and if you take out the low-end HOFers that I wouldn't induct, probably closer to bottom quarter).

His career length is a negative. It's not a disaster, but it's clearly below-average and that matters. Similarly, Edgar did play some 3B, but in 18 seasons, three were over 100 games at the position, and one of those barely over 100 games. His strongest, most durable seasons are highly correlated with the seasons in which he did not play in the field. Around 80% of his career's offensive value comes from seasons in which he was primarily a DH. This is why I characterize Edgar Martinez as a DH that played some 3B early in his career. His 3B fielding is a very, very minor part of the story.

Top 50 All Time in OPS+, Top 30 All Time Batting Runs, Top 25 All Time OBP, Top 75 All Time SLG and Top 100 All Time BA. Pretty much makes him one of the Top 100 Hitters All Time. How are you evaluating him so as to exclude him?

Being in the top 100 or top 75 is a lot less impressive when we're only considering the top 150-200 players in the sport. Edgar Martinez is slightly above-average for HOF offense (and in the second quarter of peak offense), and he adds little other than offense to his case. He played 3B, but not remarkably well enough or for long enough to significantly enhance his case. He wasn't a good baserunner. He wasn't particularly durable. His career was below-average in length.

Despite all of this, he's still a candidate that demands a significant discussion. I think that's a high sign of respect. I'm a small-hall guy and I consider Martinez to be a borderline candidate that I wouldn't vote for. I'm not saying he wasn't a great player, or even that he wasn't one of the best players in the sport, but someone has to be the best guy not inducted, and this seems like a pretty reasonable line.

There are plenty of people out there who don't think that DHes are "real" baseball players, that they're akin to pinch-runners

This is not the case for me. Although I do consider the DH to be a blight on baseball, that doesn't mean that I'm applying much of a DH penalty. I am considering Edgar Martinez the same way I'd consider a crappy defensive 1B. Jim Thome played about 60% of his career in the field (~20% 3B, ~40% 1B, ~40% DH) and he'll get a tiny bit more defensive credit than zero for being a mediocre (but not terrible) 1B. (These players played close enough time at 3B to be pretty much a wash, but I don't think defense is going to help either of these guys very much even with the most charitable evaluation.)

I tend to agree on this, but if this standard is translated to relievers, then only Riviera gets in, and maybe not even him.

I'm fine with that. There are really only two relief pitchers that I think merit any HOF discussion: Rivera and Wilhelm. I'm not sure that I'd vote for either of them.

(Basically, my position on relievers is that if you let any in, these two should be in and pretty much the standard.)

Edgar Martinez doesn't have a weak peak offense for a HOFer, but it doesn't stand out as remarkable in comparison to other HOF 1B/corner OF (which should be the standard for comparison).

I think his peak case is stronger than you credit him. My arbitrary cut-off for a great season from a 1B/DH is 150 OPS+. Edgar did that seven times. Only Gehrig, Mize, Foxx and Pujols have more. Just about everybody else with at least 5 is or will be inducted, the exceptions being Fred McGriff and the PED-tainted candidates (Bagwell, McGwire). Thome had six seasons and should cruise in.

When you consider Martinez's peak, then throw on four very good (~5 WAR) seasons as a 3B, and tack on another two decent DH years at the end, I think he's deserving.

Mike Puma (NY Post) is submitting a blank ballot. Roar.

I'll start by reminding everyone that I'm a relatively small-hall guy.

Ah, I didn't know this. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Then how are you defining it?

Quantitative pertains to numbers. Qualitative pertains to subjective judgement.

I consider Jim Thome to be primarily a DH (which is probably quite a bit less fair than it is for Martinez) and I'd vote for him. That's the standard for a DH, though. You need an above-average peak AND above-average career in comparison to other primarily offensive HOFers.

I figure this was an off the cuff remark with no real thought put into it. That said:

Jim Thome 613 batting runs. Peak years of 75, 59, 59

Edgar Martinez 559 batting runs. Peak years of 78, 63, 62.

That's a mighty fine line you are drawing. So, prior to 2009, Thome wasn't a HOFer?

@66: That wasn't addreseed to me, but it's the internet, so... I'm not so sure it's "mighty fine", though it's pretty fine.

I'd also put the line more at the All-Star break of 2007 (which puts Thome's and Martinez's OPS+ and PAs almost dead even) than the end of 2008, as far as cutting off Thome's career goes. If you're a peak guy, of course, then the last four and a half years of Thome's career aren't meaningful, but if you're a combination peak and career voter, then the 6.5 WAR Thome put up in about 1350 PAs aren't meaningless at all. It's a nice contribution at the tail end of a career. It isn't putting up some otherwise worthless counting stats by a player who's barely above replacement level, and sometimes the equivalent of two seasons of better than average production from a regular is exactly what separates a HOFer from a non-HOFer.

I can see the last portion of Thome's career making the difference for a voter, moving a player from one side of the line to the other.

Quantitative pertains to numbers. Qualitative pertains to subjective judgement.

OK, thanks!

Well, the reason I drew the line at 2008, is that after 2008, Thome and Edgar had exactly the same number of batting runs ( and by total WAR, just 1 more, all of that and more being positional penalty). Yes, He had a very nice 2010, and that certainly should count in his favor. But 2009 and 2011 were pretty meaningless. But His 2010 is balanced out by Edgar's slightly better peak. He has a 9 run edge in top 3 seasons, and extending it to top 5, 28 runs. Edgar's the better peak candidate, with career value only slightly lower.

Anyway, this is irrelevant, since he's also supporting Rafael Palmeiro. I'd take Raines, Larkin, and Trammell over Palmeiro pretty easily.

? They're all solid, middle tier players. If one belongs, they all do.

@69: I haven't spent much time at all on batting runs--can you steer me towards the most lucid article on them, or clue me in on their likely range of error? Also, why batting runs instead of WAR? Genuinely curious.

@69: I haven't spent much time at all on batting runs--can you steer me towards the most lucid article on them, or clue me in on their likely range of error? Also, why batting runs instead of WAR? Genuinely curious.

I'm using the BBREF version of batting runs, found on the player value chart. It's the column headed rbat.

The reason I'm using batting runs instead of WAR is because I was responding the CB's statement that a DH would have to have a career like Jim Thome to be eligible in his mind. So I used batting runs as a comparison to eliminate the fielding aspects (fielding runs and position adjustment) of WAR. To be most accurate, I should have also included the baserunning components, but these are 1) dwarfed by the batting runs, and 2) both Thome and Edgar are identical in these, both at -32. Simply as offensive players, they are pretty darned similar, Edgar with a slightly better peak, Thome with slightly more career value, almost all of it in 2010.

MCoA's characterization of Palmeiro as a "compiler" is bizarre. A "compiler" is someone who was mediocre or above average, but hung around for 20 years collecting a lot of things in one category. Like how Buckner collected a lot of hits.

I suspect MCoA's distaste for steroids is clouding a frank evaluation of Palmeiro's performance record. This is evident also in MCoA's characterization of McGwire's career as "not all that impressive to a pure career voter." First, _is_ there such a thing as a "pure career voter"? MCoA appears to have set up a fictional construct to diminish McGwire's career. And Palmeiro's. "If you're a pure career voter, Palmeiro barely makes it into the top half of HoFers." But what's wrong with top half?

Second, yes, I think 583 home runs IS impressive to a career voter. It's not the way I cast my hypothetical votes -- I look at things like games played and OPS+/EqA and peak, and not specific numbers like hits or home runs -- but to most voters, career numbers like 583 home runs are very impressive.

? They're all solid, middle tier players. If one belongs, they all do.

Raines, Larkin, and Trammell all have a good step more peak than Palmeiro. Palmeiro only has a small handful of HoF quality seasons (5+ WAR kind of seasons), and they're dependent on some excellent defensive numbers from ages 28-33 that are a bit questionable for a guy who got shifted over to DH at 34. Larkin, Raines, and Trammell all have more HoF peak seasons and don't get major bumps from questionable defensive numbers. (I think it's likely that if anything, TZ underrates Raines' and Larkin's gloves.)

Further, reading over at the Hall of Merit has made me interested in the question of whether MLB is easier or more difficult to dominate in certain periods. There were about twice as many great seasons (say, WAR 7-8 or more) in MLB from 1997-2006 compared to 1977-1986. This may have just been the arrangement of talent, but I'm inclined to discount the performances of players from the sillyball era whose WAR might stand out in another decade, but not the one in which they actually played.

That's not enough for me to make Palmeiro undeserving - I don't weigh career as heavily as you, but Palmeiro's career remains impressive - but the two factors, especially the first, make Larkin, Raines, and Trammell easy picks for me over Palmeiro.

EDIT: since I posted this before you imputed steroid bias to me, I should say that I don't think there were no steroids in the game in the 80s and early 90s - and certainly the game was loaded with amps - but the league was harder to dominate then for whatever reasons. And I'd discount good-not-great players from the deadball era and the 1920s-1930s for similar reasons.

This is evident also in MCoA's characterization of McGwire's career as "not all that impressive to a pure career voter."

I was talking about intelligent voters, not people who put weight on uncontextualized counting stats. McGwire's 63 career WAR are in a pack with mostly Hall of Famers, but also some overlooked guys like Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, and Dick Allen. McGwire's peak is not inner-circle impressive unless you're blinded by the counting numbers. He struggled with in-season durability and was practically immobile in the field. McGwire's a Hall of Famer, but he's not ahead of Raines or Trammell or Larkin.

I'd put McGwire in the same pack with Raines and Trammell and Larkin, with Palmeiro trailing one or two steps behind.

#74 If you take the exact same group of players and expand the offensive context (in any way -- introduce a lively ball, whatever) you'll produce more separation -- and more top seasons. Players have unequal ability to take advantage of the new conditions.

Conceptually it ought to be easy to design a sim to demonstrate this.

Further, reading over at the Hall of Merit has made me interested in the question of whether MLB is easier or more difficult to dominate in certain periods. There were about twice as many great seasons (say, WAR 7-8 or more) in MLB from 1997-2006 compared to 1977-1986. This may have just been the arrangement of talent, but I'm inclined to discount the performances of players from the sillyball era whose WAR might stand out in another decade, but not the one in which they actually played.

The above paragraph tells me that I'm correct that your distaste for steroids (or, to be less antagonistic, let's just say the steroids issue) is clouding a frank evaluation of Palmeiro's performance record.

There were about twice as many great seasons (say, WAR 7-8 or more) in MLB from 1997-2006 compared to 1977-1986. This may have just been the arrangement of talent, but I'm inclined to discount the performances of players from the sillyball era whose WAR might stand out in another decade, but not the one in which they actually played.

Do you also discount the performances of every earlier decade that had many more great WAR seasons than the 70's and 80's? I've always thought that those two decades had perhaps the weakest overall collection of talent since the deadball era (not counting the war years). If you're going to discredit the 90's/2000's by comparing them to a historically soft era, then you need to do the same with the 20's and 30's and 50's and 60's, etc as well. Or conclude that the 70's and 80's were just weaker.

The above paragraph tells me that I'm correct that your distaste for steroids (or, to be less antagonistic, let's just say the steroids issue) is clouding a frank evaluation of Palmeiro's performance record.

Were the 1990s-2000s produced by steroids? I doubt it. The huge spike in offense after the strike is mostly like a function of changes to the baseball, as were seen in 1986-1988. I think it's most likely that the extreme environment of the 90s and 00s made it easier to dominate the game, and it just happened that there was more steroid use in the game at the time, too.

I certainly don't think that steroids were unknown in the 80s or early 90s, when the standard deviations of performance were much smaller. Do you think that steroids were introduced to baseball in 1995? I thought only tenured columnists thought things like that.

I'd put McGwire in the same pack with Raines and Trammell and Larkin, with Palmeiro trailing one or two steps behind.

I can broadly agree with the first part of this statement. Though I do think you're underrating McGwire's peak -- not that I would necessarily call his peak inner circle. His OPS+ numbers during his peak (I'm not looking at home runs per se) *are* inner circle, but he gets dinged for durability. He also appears to get dinged for defense, which I'm not sure is accurate.

If you're going to discredit the 90's/2000's by comparing them to a historically soft era, then you need to do the same with the 20's and 30's and 50's and 60's, etc as well. Or conclude that the 70's and 80's were just weaker.

Of course I'd do that. Dan Rosenheck incorporates a standard deviation measure that accounts for relative ease of dominance in different leagues, and I'd follow him on this front.

Do you think that steroids were introduced to baseball in 1995? I thought only tenured columnists thought things like that.

Offense went up in 1993 or 1994, and, no, I don't think that, since I don't think steroids explain the higher offense levels.

I was talking about intelligent voters, not people who put weight on uncontextualized counting stats.

McGwire's peak is not inner-circle impressive unless you're blinded by the counting numbers

OBP, SLG, and OPS+ are not counting stats. And since Mac's peak came before roid Barry, his combination of those 3 from 1995-2000 was something MLB hadn't seen since what, Mantle and Williams? For anyone who's not in love with WAR as being the end-all-be-all statistic that renders all others meaningless, then McGwire's peak was very impressive and definitely inner circle. Hell, his .588 career SLG and 162 OPS+ (again, NOT counting stats) are still amongst the best of all time.

Offense went up in 1993 or 1994, and, no, I don't think that, since I don't think steroids explain the higher offense levels.

Exactly, so I'm not motivated by steroid bias.

I don't think steroids were introduced to baseball in 1995, and I don't think they caused the offensive explosion of sillyball, but it's only the sillyball years of the late 90s and early aughts that I think should be discounted somewhat given the relative ease of dominance in those years.

For anyone who's not in love with WAR as being the end-all-be-all statistic that renders all others meaningless...

Fair enough. My rhetoric was unnecessary.

I watched a lot of baseball during those years, and I remember McGwire as close to immobile in the field and on the bases. His CHONE numbers suggest he was costing his teams about 15 runs a year in the field on the bases, and I think that's a pretty reasonable estimate. If you account for defense, baserunning, and in-season durability, McGwire's peak is not terribly impressive.

I certainly don't think we should rate players by OPS+ without consideration of playing time, defense, and baserunning. I certainly think we should do our best to quantify those aspects of baseball performance, though with defense I'd use a mix of contemporary observation and opinion along with the numbers. For McGwire, all those numbers line up against him, as does my recollection and the contemporary discussion, so I think WAR has it just about right. McGwire was an inner-circle hitter, but not an inner-circle baseball player.

I've always thought that those two decades had perhaps the weakest overall collection of talent since the deadball era (not counting the war years).

Based on what? I'm genuinely curious.

Do you really mean "talent," or do you mean "talent nurtured and shaped by environment"?(**) If all you mean is the latter, then the improved environment has to be accounted for to make any cross-era comparisons meaningful.

(**) Which would include nutrition, weight training, increased emphasis on sports, philosophies of how the game should be played, and other things. The primary difference in baseball and other sports between now and even the late 1980s is the secular change in player mass.

For anyone who's not in love with WAR as being the end-all-be-all statistic that renders all others meaningless,

I really think this is a big problem with a lot of the arguments made on this site.

There were about twice as many great seasons (say, WAR 7-8 or more) in MLB from 1997-2006 compared to 1977-1986.

Well, there were more teams and thus more player seasons. Not twice as many mind you. breaking it down by decades starting with the 50's when there were 16 teams every year, and then adjusting every decade based on the factor of average number of teams per decade, (multiply the total number of WAR seasons of 7+ by a factor of 30/average number of teams per season in the decade):

50's, 16 teams 49 actual 7+ WAR seasons, 92 adjusted seasons
60's, 19.8 teams (16 in 1960, 18 in 1961, 20 1962-68, 24 in 1969) 69 actual, 104 adjusted
70's 24.6 teams 49 actual 60 adjusted
80's 26 teams 51 actual 59 adjusted
90's 27.8 teams 60 actual 65 adjusted
00' 30 teams 67 actual and adjusted

The 50's and 60's had way more 7+ WAR seasons per capita, and the 70's-00's have been pretty stable.

Now, specific 10 year chunks obviously deviate from this, as the quoted passage suggests, but that's really just cherry picking. And the 80's and 90's both have a lost season due to strikes. Adjusting for that, the 80's pick up 5 more, players with WAR between 4.7 and 6.9 (which extrapolates to 7+) in 1981 and the 90's get 6 more. So, to sum up, adjusted to a 30 team league and strike credit:

Adjusted 7+ WAR seasons by decade:

50's - 92
60's - 104
70's - 60
80's - 65
90's - 71
00's - 67

edit: These are just batting seasons. I forgot that pitchers have their own PI I'll add them in in a later post.

[Offense went up in 1993 or 1994, and, no, I don't think that, since I don't think steroids explain the higher offense levels.


I think they do. The most plausible narrative is that steroids became mainstreamed around that time. Gradually from the mid-80s, when a handful of people in two or three locker rooms used them, usage built up until enough players were doing them and were showing improvement from doing them, and word of mouth became loud enough, that a critical mass -- a New Normality -- was hit and from that point forward more players used than didn't.

Klapisch just now on Twitter:

BobKlap Bob Klapisch
My HOF ballot: Raines, Larkin,Trammell, Bagwell

McGwire was an inner-circle hitter, but not an inner-circle baseball player

Agreed. And like you mentioned, obviously his lack of durability hurt his overall value even in his peak years. But I always thought of his peak as being similar to Pedro's - their lower IP and PA's may have made their peaks less valuable than some of the inner circle greats, but when they were healthy, man, they were dominating on a level I'd just never seen before. And that's the kind of thing the HOF voters have always given extra credit for.

For anyone who's not in love with WAR as being the end-all-be-all statistic that renders all others meaningless,

I really think this is a big problem with a lot of the arguments made on this site.

I think WAR is neat and all, but I'm confused as to how so many people here can basically swear by it even though they'll all admit that the defensive numbers are questionable, and those can make a huge difference in a players overall total. A few years ago Win Shares were huge. Now it's WAR. And in a few more years it's gonna be something else. I have a hard time justifying all my opinions by using a stat that's going to be rendered obsolete in a few years.

Personally, I'll always favor using STATS - with an "s" at the end - rather than one big, all encompassing number to determine player rankings. MVP and HOF debates have become a bit boring on this site lately when people just copy and paste lists of WAR. Seems kinda lazy to me, actually.

But I always thought of his peak as being similar to Pedro's - their lower IP and PA's may have made their peaks less valuable than some of the inner circle greats, but when they were healthy, man, they were dominating on a level I'd just never seen before.

The difference, though, is that Pedro was brilliantly great at 100% of his job, while McGwire was only brilliantly great at maybe 75% of his job. And he was simply bad at the other 25%, which drags down the total package. Pedro really was inner circle great as a baseball player, unlike McGwire.

I'm open to the idea that players that do stupendous things should get an added bonus to their Hall of Fame case, and certainly to watch McGwire hit in St Louis was to watch a stupendous thing.

EDIT: I guess maybe Pedro's pitching was like 90% of his job, and he wasn't a brilliantly great fielder - though he was pretty damn good - but neither was he giving runs back with his glove like McGwire did.

Personally, I'll always favor using STATS - with an "s" at the end - rather than one big, all encompassing number to determine player rankings.

I do too. My problem is when people use their distaste for an "all-encompassing number" as an excuse to ignore defense and baserunning when considering historical player comparison. The good thing about using WAR as a starting point is that you start off with a number that incorporates defense and baserunning. The great thing about b-ref WAR is that it's given in components, so you can reframe the numbers with different defensive numbers if you're skeptical of total zone for some reason, and you can adjust positional value or replacement level if you have reason to and combine them back into a number that enables comparison.

@72: thanks for the info, Misirlou. Much appreciated.

Adding in the pitchers.

Adjusted 7+ WAR seasons by decade:

50's - 122
60's - 153
70's - 113
80's - 89
90's - 107
00's - 81

I've always thought that those two decades had perhaps the weakest overall collection of talent since the deadball era (not counting the war years).

Based on what? I'm genuinely curious.

Just the overall lack of stand-out outlying seasons, as well as how few players from this era crack the list of inner circle greats. Not only the obvious numbers that a casual fan would think of as a "big season" like say, 50 homers or 150 rbi's, but how many seasons of a .700 SLG did we see, or a 200 OPS+? I know the sillyball era didn't have any Triple Crown winners either, but at least they had lots of contenders, including 6 players who led the league in all 3 categories at different times - Bonds, A-Rod, Manny, Pujols, Miggy Cabrera, and the immortal Andres Galarraga, plus a bunch more who seemed cabable of it - Thomas, Griffey, Piazza, Sheffield, Chipper, Belle, Bagwell, Helton, Walker, etc. The 70's and 80's pretty much had power guys, and high average guys. Very few players did both, at least for more than a season or two. Which is probably why so many people thought Jim Rice's peak was so much greater than it really was.

How many of the top 10 players of all time peaked in the 70's or 80's? None. How many of the top 20? Schmidt. Top 30? Maybe Morgan, Bench, and Henderson. Top 40? Seaver, maybe Brett. It just doesn't seem to be on par with say, the early 20's that had the likes of Ruth, Cobb, Speaker, Hornsby, Johnson, Collins, Alexander, etc, all going strong at the same time, or the 50's with Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Williams, Musial, etc.

My problem is when people use their distaste for an "all-encompassing number" as an excuse to ignore defense and baserunning when considering historical player comparison

I don't think I ignore defense or baserunning (though I do discount it quite a bit - maybe too much? - for positions like 1B). I just find the stats people use to measure it to be wildly inconsistent at times. How does Roberto Alomar have negative defensive WAR? Why is Kenny Lofton so high on the WAR list, ahead of several no brainer HOFers? How can WAR rank him as the best player in the AL in 1994, ahead of Thomas, Griffey, or Belle?

Who was the better player, Gary Sheffield or Andruw Jones? I'd say Sheff with no hesitation. But WAR ranks Jones defense as so high and Sheff's as so low that they're basically equal, despite the massive offensive difference between them. I know Andruw was a great fielder in his prime and Sheff never was, but still, do you buy this? I'm a bit skeptical...

Who was the better player, Gary Sheffield or Andruw Jones? I'd say Sheff with no hesitation. But WAR ranks Jones defense as so high and Sheff's as so low that they're basically equal, despite the massive offensive difference between them. I know Andruw was a great fielder in his prime and Sheff never was, but still, do you buy this? I'm a bit skeptical...

I believe that it's possible, certainly. A player who is so good--historically good--on defense at a key position that he saves his team a win and a half per year? That seems reasonable, in fact it's very, very likely to happen eventually, given all the players who have played. As for a great hitter who also costs his team a win a season on defense? That also seems not only reasonable, but practically inevitable.

I can write the above too without believing that the actual numbers for each player are necessarily accurate.

I can write the above too without believing that the actual numbers for each player are necessarily accurate.

True, but that was basically my argument. While I fully believe your hypothetical that it is possible for a player to be that good or that bad defensively, I just have a hard time believing that either of these particular players really did hit those extremes. Sheffield in particular never struck me as being historically awful, merely below average.