Similar 37-year-olds


Some of them had 277+ hits after this season:

444 Conine
435 Murray
322 Brock
305 Gaetti
270 Dawson

The Bill James Handbook 2012 has Damon with an 86% chance for 3000 hits. No.

Damon’s batting average dropped 10 points from 2010 to 2011, but his on-base average fell a more dramatic 29 points to .326 from .355, his career average entering last year. His walk percentage fell to 7.9 per 100 plate appearances after he had averaged 10.7 over the previous five years, never falling below 10.0.

And the detailed data at Fangraphs.com shows in 2011 Damon was chasing a far greater amount of pitches out of the strike zone, and pitchers noticed because they responded by throwing fewer strikes.

Is this a matter of him focusing more on hits, or is this more a matter of him just getting older and his pitch recognition skills declining? I'd guess it's more of the latter than the former.

Is this a matter of him focusing more on hits, or is this more a matter of him just getting older and his pitch recognition skills declining? I'd guess it's more of the latter than the former.

I don't know. Damon seems pretty damn focused on 3,000 and what it will do for his Hall chances. While obviously no one but JD knows for certain, it wouldn't surprise me if he's not quite as willing to take Ball 4 if he sees a potential single there for the taking.

His OPS+ in 2011 as a 37-year-old was 110, vs. 105 career -- and he's never had a season above 118. Sure, you'd rather have it in OBP than SLG, but I'd say his hitting is holding up just fine. So far his loss of value is all defensive.

Maybe a focus on 3000 hits will keep him in shape and motivated. I'd think a few teams could use a guy like that.

Is this a matter of him focusing more on hits, or is this more a matter of him just getting older and his pitch recognition skills declining? I'd guess it's more of the latter than the former.

While it's certainly possible for pitch recognition skills to decline, traditionally ballplayers do not see a decrease as they age. Usually, it's a spike in walk rate that is a signal of skill decline, as a player lays off more pitches because he doesn't have the bat speed to drive or even hit pitches that he used to be able to.

A drop in walks does sometimes follow after pitchers realize a player can't hit pitches on the edges of the zone, but Damon's problems are caused by swinging more, not by laying off strikes or failing to make contact on pitchers' pitches. Knowing Damon, I'd bet he really was trying to get more hits so that he could get to 3000.

I can't believe that Damon's batting average could have gone down by 10 points in a single year. The only other time that ever happened to him was in 1996, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.

Boston could use him in LF while Crawford recovers. I'd rather have a crappy-gloved Damon platooning with Ross in LF than just Cody Ross.

The Bill James Handbook 2012 has Damon with an 86% chance for 3000 hits. No.

I think it's about right. If someone gives him playing time, he'll get there. As long as he can keep being an above-average hitter, he'll find playing time somewhere.

Boston could use him in LF while Crawford recovers. I'd rather have a crappy-gloved Damon platooning with Ross in LF than just Cody Ross.

If the Red Sox have the money lying around that it makes sense to pay Damon to be a platoon LF for a month or two, they should spend it on a pitcher, not on Damon.

The Twins could actually use him in LF. I'd rather start Johnny Damon and use Ben Revere as a pinch runner and late inning replacement. They have an opening at DH too.

While it's certainly possible for pitch recognition skills to decline, traditionally ballplayers do not see a decrease as they age. Usually, it's a spike in walk rate that is a signal of skill decline, as a player lays off more pitches because he doesn't have the bat speed to drive or even hit pitches that he used to be able to.

Interesting. So, he can still see them coming, he just can't do as much with them as he used to. I'm familiar with the spike in walk rate as being symptomatic of decline, and I think James said a real spike (think Willie Mays' penultimate season where iirc he took 100 walks when all he was capable of doing in most PAs was popping the ball up really really high) often means the player is done. Pitchers take note and simply stay in the strike zone.

I imagine with Lasik available pitch recognition is even less of a problem than it was 20 years ago. Too bad there's no Lasik that'll help you get around on a fastball.

More importantly, Damon's quest to obtain 3K hits means that he wants to start every day. The Yankees have little interest in making that commitment.

If the Red Sox have the money lying around that it makes sense to pay Damon to be a platoon LF for a month or two, they should spend it on a pitcher, not on Damon.

Well, agreed. Who is even left? Oswalt seems nay to give a #### about playing for Boston.

I think the more likely problem, as #12 says, is that he won't be a happy part-time player. If he's willing to play for short money (and I'll bet he would), there are plenty of roles where he would be helpful for a few more years. Aren't there some crappy teams, going nowhere in 2012, that could use a 110 OPS+ left-handed bat, a little bit of pop, remains durable into his late 30s, actually hit lefties very well last year, and did not fade towards the end of the season...would you pay him $3 million for a one-year deal, stick him in LF?

I think it's about right. If someone gives him playing time, he'll get there. As long as he can keep being an above-average hitter, he'll find playing time somewhere.

Shouldn't that be baked into the projection? I have no doubt that as long as JD can keep hitting well, he'll both a) keep getting chances, and b) keep hanging around.

I also think the likelihood of him not being good enough to keep getting chances before he reaches the 3,000-hit summit is well north of 14 percent. And considering it's a week before pitchers and catchers report and he's still unemployed, I'd say that percentage keeps climbing.

The Twins seem like the best landing spot for Damon. As far as I can tell, this offseason they've simply pretended that a team doesn't need a LF.

Considering that they pretended the same thing when Bonds was available, doing it for Damon is a breeze.

Well, agreed. Who is even left?

They could always trade for A.J. Burnett.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I badly want Damon to reach 3,000 for the entertainment value of the HoF discussion.

The 86% does feel too high, but he's at least 50-50.

The A's should sign him. He can probably duplicate his 2001 season for them. And then he can push Carter/Allen/Cowgill/Gomes/the mascot/the ball boy/Pepe Le Pew down another notch.

and he's never had a season above 118.

It's kind of crazy that an .877 was only good for an 118 OPS+ in 2000. The times, they have changed.

I kind of feel that the Yankees were included in the headline and article as a hook to get readers. With or without the 3,000 hit thing, Damon does not seem like the kind of DH the Yankees would be looking for.

Why not ? Damon would be a good fit for the Yankees if they weren't concerned that he'd be unhappy platooning and that he's trading walks for shots at singles. He has decent power, mainly manifested as hooked balls down the RF line. He could easily hit 15 HR as a platoon DH playing half his games in NYS, while getting on base at a .350ish clip. Pair that with Jones demolishing LHP, and you have a productive DH platoon for <10M and on a 1 year commitment to both guys. What's not to like about that?

What's not to like about that?

As noted above, the issue may not be whether the Yankees want Damon, but whether Damon wants the Yankees.

I also think the likelihood of him not being good enough to keep getting chances before he reaches the 3,000-hit summit is well north of 14 percent. And considering it's a week before pitchers and catchers report and he's still unemployed, I'd say that percentage keeps climbing.

Agreed. The chances that an old player will get injured, stop hitting, or simply not be used as a full time player always seems like they should be higher than 14%.

If I remember correctly, the Bill James Handbook gave Canseco, Belle, Juan Gone, Bagwell, Delgado, and McGriff all greater than 90% chances to reach 500 at one time or another. McGwire was given like a 99% chance for 600. When you get up there in mileage, the end doesn't always come gradually.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I badly want Damon to reach 3,000 for the entertainment value of the HoF discussion.

It would've made for more interesting discussion if it had happened 10 or even 5 years ago. Now the BBWAA is rejecting players much better than Damon just for fun (or out of spite). Biggio isn't even a first ballot lock despite 3000 hits AND an actual HOF caliber career.

The Twins seem like the best landing spot for Damon. As far as I can tell, this offseason they've simply pretended that a team doesn't need a LF.

Same with the Mets. They have an opening in LF, assuming no one casts a ressurection spell on Jason Bay. It might be in their interest to lowball Damon and see if he bites.

Biggio isn't even a first ballot lock despite 3000 hits AND an actual HOF caliber career.

But he is a lock for the Hall. We'll see about Damon.

But he is a lock for the Hall. We'll see about Damon.

No chance. I'm thinking 3000 hits might get him enough support to hang around on the ballot (say, Don Mattingly or Dale Murphy level support), but nowhere near enough to be an actual threat for election.

Has any other player hit such a major milestone while providing practically nothing else to his HOF argument? People question Brock's HOF worthiness, but with the stolen base records (and the WS heroics couldn't have hurt either), he was going in even if he had stalled at 2900 hits. Damon won't even see a second shot on the ballot without 3000.

There's no possibility of that. Harold Baines lasted five years, and was only 2 votes away from getting to a sixth. As-is Damon would beat that voting history, and 3000-hit Damon would crush it.

The caveat: it's possible that the ballot fustercluck will still be screwing up the voting in 5 to 8 years' time. That would make life miserable for the seventh-best players and likely snuff some of the #12's in erratic, non-deliberate fashion. I expect Damon would be in that danger zone.

No chance. I'm thinking 3000 hits might get him enough support to hang around on the ballot (say, Don Mattingly or Dale Murphy level support), but nowhere near enough to be an actual threat for election.

Has any other player hit such a major milestone while providing practically nothing else to his HOF argument? People question Brock's HOF worthiness, but with the stolen base records (and the WS heroics couldn't have hurt either), he was going in even if he had stalled at 2900 hits. Damon won't even see a second shot on the ballot without 3000.

Afraid I agree, though remember that if Damon gets to 3000 hits, among that "practically nothing else" he'll have 1800 runs. His numbers in addition to the hits put him in very elite company. Top 20 all-time, maybe even top 15 in runs scored, top 30 in games played, top 20 in doubles, top 60 in stolen bases...

He's going to have to stick around for something like 3300 hits and 2000 runs to really have a shot at the Hall. With a "mere" 3000 hits I'll bet 40% is his maximum. 2 All-Star games just isn't going to cut it.

Has any other player hit such a major milestone while providing practically nothing else to his HOF argument?

It depends on what you mean by "major." Wasn't 400 homers a pretty big deal when Dave Kingman retired?

He should get himself named manager somewhere.

How's his announcing voice?

I think the odds of Damon getting that 3000th hit are longer than 86%. He's probably going to decline enough to need to still be playing in 2014 to get there.

What are the realistic odds of him getting 600PA's this year with him not having a job just before spring training?

Damon still saw 4.00 pitches per PA which is above his career average and well above lg average. As for his chasing pitches, it looked to me the strike zone was pretty large for LHB'ers the past 2 years. I know JD and Ortiz complained about it.

Also, I think quality of lineup is big for guys like Damon. Lets face it, the Rays lineup had a lot of holes, and pitchers could afford to work around Damon.

Damon also got killed at home last year. The entire Rays team had trouble. I don't know if it was the lighting or the new turf which seemed to play slow, but it was an awful park for hitters last year.

Damon would be a real asset at DH in that lineup against RHP'ers in that stadium. He really should take a big cut just to pad his stats a bit and see if it pays off for next years contract.

There have been debates on BTF about peak v. career, where people bring up a theoretical player who players for 25 years and produces 2.5 WAR per season, never more than 3-4 in one year, gets over that "60 WAR" career threshold. What do you do with him if he's a Hall of Fame candidate? And folks would say, eh, that never happens, don't worry about it.

Johnny Damon is up to 52 WAR. He's right up there with marginal HoFers like Harry Hooper and Tony Perez, along with Fred McGriff, Jose Cruz, and Lance Berkman.

And yet, in the answer to that Keltner List question, no, a team with Johnny Damon as its best player almost certainly couldn't win the pennant. He had that one big seasons in 2000, when he was the best in the world on the bases and could hit .300 with doubles power, and maybe if you got the right guys around him you'd have a contending team, but that's it for his career. And he's been going for twelve years since, just producing solid complementary numbers. Damon looks like he's still in great shape, and he could probably hang on at this level for another couple seasons, which could easily get him up toward 60 WAR without ever being very good.

Damon is pretty close to being the real-life version of the all-career no-peak player.

There's no possibility of that. Harold Baines lasted five years, and was only 2 votes away from getting to a sixth. As-is Damon would beat that voting history, and 3000-hit Damon would crush it.

Yes, but Harold Baines also had 384 homers, was an AS six times, and was regarded as the best DH of all-time when he retired. If he wasn't a DH, he would have made the HOF for sure.

I'm with Something Other, Damon is going to have to stick around until he's 43 or 44 and get 3300 or so hits to have a chance of being elected. He's a complementary player, and he's only had one season (2000) with raw numbers that say "I'm a star". His career high in OBP is only .380, he's never slugged .500, only hit 20 homers three times and never 25. If he was a GG CF this discussion would be entirely reasonable, but he's been a middling LF/DH.

If he was a GG CF this discussion would be entirely reasonable, but he's been a middling LF/DH.

To be fair to Damon, while he's never been a gold glove defender, he was moved to CF once he left Kansas City, and he acquitted himself perfectly well for about six years before moving back to left in New York. And in both KC and NY, his defense in left field was solidly above average. Dude can run.

(I am very skeptical of the two -20 seasons TZ gives him in Boston. Fenway can mess with play by play data, and Damon never looked incompetent out there.)

Damon is pretty close to being the real-life version of the all-career no-peak player.

Not as close as Jake Beckley, though, and Beckley's in the Hall.

My take on his defense (in Boston) was that Damon was a true Gold Glove "fielder" but his arm was a major liability. It seemed that teams took extra bases with extreme frequency on him.

In a weird way I think Damon is better off getting to 3,000 hits and retiring than lingering for 3,200 hits. I think whether he's at 3,043 or 3,271 the general arguments will be the same but I think a less sabermetrically inclined electorate is going to be more positive toward 3,000 hits. I think when the time comes he will be one of those players who consistently outpaces Repoz' pre-announcement tabulations.

And yet, in the answer to that Keltner List question, no, a team with Johnny Damon as its best player almost certainly couldn't win the pennant. He had that one big seasons in 2000, when he was the best in the world on the bases and could hit .300 with doubles power, and maybe if you got the right guys around him you'd have a contending team, but that's it for his career. And he's been going for twelve years since, just producing solid complementary numbers. Damon looks like he's still in great shape, and he could probably hang on at this level for another couple seasons, which could easily get him up toward 60 WAR without ever being very good.

Damon is pretty close to being the real-life version of the all-career no-peak player.

And why do we not celebrate such players? I understand that most prefer a player who had a high, short peek, but I think there's a definition of greatness that can include both.

And why do we not celebrate such players? I understand that most prefer a player who had a high, short peek, but I think there's a definition of greatness that can include both.

I agree that sometimes we give these players the short shrift but for me "greatness" implies just that, "greatness." There is certainly something impressive about being a Damon or a Jamie Moyer or a guy like that, it's rare enough to be impressive but when I think "great" I think about a star player who can be the primary piece of a championship. Dwight Gooden was "great", Jamie Moyer is not.

I'd much rather live in a society that immortalizes what Jamie Moyer* did over what Dwight Gooden did. Not only would it be nice to celebrate the hard work and perseverance that it took Moyer to get where is, but I think it would be fairer.


(I don't think Moyer's a very good comp for Damon. Damon was a good player from very early and has kept it up into his mid-30s. Also, did you realize that Gooden and Moyer have practically the same WAR when you made that comparison. Pretty neat trick.)

I'd much rather live in a society that immortalizes what Jamie Moyer* did over what Dwight Gooden did.

Well neither should be "immortalized", if you're talking Baseball immortality, i.e. HoF.

Playing with some numbers:

Damon needs 277 hits to reach 3000. He had 152 hits in 2011.

If he limits his decline to 6% per year he can make it in 2 years:

age 37 - 152 hits
age 38 - 143 hits
age 39 - 134 hits

I see that as unlikely. Even if he gets full time play I think he'll be challenged to reach that.

If he limits his decline to 23% per year he can make it in 3 years:

age 37 - 152 hits
age 38 - 117 hits
age 39 - 90 hits
age 40 - 70 hits

That seems a more plausible scenario.

If he limits his decline to 29% per year he can make it in 4 years:

age 37 - 152 hits
age 38 - 108 hits
age 39 - 77 hits
age 40 - 54 hits
age 41 - 38 hits

Of course, life is never quite this neat. But time is running out for Damon. Thus far, he has retained his hitting skills remarkably well. But he was never a great player, so even a small slippage will relegate him to a part-time player.

I think he needs to play near full-time this year to reach 3000. If he gets that 143 I like his chances. If he doesn't top 100 hits this year forget about 3000.

I'd much rather live in a society that immortalizes what Jamie Moyer* did over what Dwight Gooden did. Not only would it be nice to celebrate the hard work and perseverance that it took Moyer to get where is, but I think it would be fairer.


(I don't think Moyer's a very good comp for Damon. Damon was a good player from very early and has kept it up into his mid-30s. Also, did you realize that Gooden and Moyer have practically the same WAR when you made that comparison. Pretty neat trick.)

I think it's great to celebrate Moyer's hard work and perseverance, but from an HoF standpoint I'm a peak man.

I knew Moyer/Gooden were in the ballpark, I didn't realize they were standing on the same base though. Damn.

I'm with #46. I think he needs to get halfway there this year. Then he can make it as a bat off the bench. His decline in production won't be linear, but instead geometric. More like 10%, 20%, 40% or 137, 109, 66 hits.

And why do we not celebrate such players? I understand that most prefer a player who had a high, short peek, but I think there's a definition of greatness that can include both.

Perhaps so, but the workmanlike compiler should, imo, be putting up numbers such as the ones Palmiero put up.

There's no possibility of that. Harold Baines lasted five years, and was only 2 votes away from getting to a sixth. As-is Damon would beat that voting history, and 3000-hit Damon would crush it.

Yes, but Harold Baines also had 384 homers, was an AS six times, and was regarded as the best DH of all-time when he retired. If he wasn't a DH, he would have made the HOF for sure.

And Damon has a national profile, 1600+ runs, 400+ steals, and had multiple memorable postseason moments. To even contend for election, Damon needs that 3,000th hit like Keith Hernandez needed his next cigarette. But Baines topped out at 6.1% of the vote, and Damon's beard would get that much. Harold Baines may or may not be the better player, but Damon is the more viable candidate.

Perhaps so, but the workmanlike compiler should, imo, be putting up numbers such as the ones Palmiero put up.

That's a pretty high standard, isn't it? I mean, his raw numbers are boosted some by his era, but Palmiero is 10th all-time in total bases, 12 in HRs, 16th in RBI.

@51: That's what I mean, though. You might argue I put too much emphasis on peak, and maybe I do.

Just curious--who of the compilers do you consider legitimate HOFers? A guy who's in, but just in. Or, how many seasons would you strip out of Palmiero's career and still leave him a HOFer?

But Baines topped out at 6.1% of the vote, and Damon's beard would get that much. Harold Baines may or may not be the better player, but Damon is the more viable candidate.

I'm not sure that's true. In the minds of voters, I think they'd see 384 homers > 400 steals and 1600 rbi's > 1600 runs scored.

That's a pretty high standard, isn't it? I mean, his raw numbers are boosted some by his era, but Palmiero is 10th all-time in total bases, 12 in HRs, 16th in RBI.

Agreed. Raffy averaged 41 homers and 120 rbi's for nine straight years (1995-2003) - and it would have been eleven if not for the strike (or really close to it). Silly ball era or not, that's pretty impressive and well above the "compiler" reputation some people give him. Murray and Winfield are better comps (offensively) than true compilers like Baines or Dawson.

Plus he hit a homerun palindrome from 1997-2003 (38,43,47,39,47,43,38). That alone deserves some coolness points. :)

Edit: Oh, and he never missed more than 10 games in a season for 17 straight years (1988-2004). Durability is a terribly underrated skill, IMO.

Just curious--who of the compilers do you consider legitimate HOFers? A guy who's in, but just in. Or, how many seasons would you strip out of Palmiero's career and still leave him a HOFer?

Are you talking about his good seasons, or just any seasons? His last two didn't add much other than counting stats and they could be taken away without altering his case much.

I'm okay with Dawson as a just over the line HOFer, but only cuz of his all around game (defense, steals). Based solely on his compiled hitting stats I think he would've been a pretty poor choice.

Don Sutton, maybe?

Are you talking about his good seasons, or just any seasons?

Well, whatever is involved, either good or any, that would give a more precise picture of what someone feels a "minimum compiler" would need to accomplish to be a legit Hall of Famer. Can you knock off the last three of Palmiero's seasons, get him down to 490 home runs, and still consider him definitely in?

That puts his career OPS+ at 136--around 100th on the all-time list--in 2400+ games. It puts him right around Fred McGriff. I can't recall offhand what you thought of McGriff's candidacy. I'm guessing you'd vote yes on Fred?

edit: "Don Sutton, maybe?" Not sure what you mean by this, but Sutton's got to be the pitching comp for Palmiero's full career.

That puts his career OPS+ at 136--around 100th on the all-time list--in 2400+ games. It puts him right around Fred McGriff. I can't recall offhand what you thought of McGriff's candidacy. I'm guessing you'd vote yes on Fred?

I've been very vocal in threads about my support for McGriff, so yes, Palmeiro without his last 3 seasons would still get my HOF vote. If you're more of a peak guy, though, McGriff might actually have a better case since Raffy never had an extended stretch like Crime Dawgs 1988-1994.

edit: "Don Sutton, maybe?" Not sure what you mean by this, but Sutton's got to be the pitching comp for Palmiero's full career.

This was in response to your question about who was a legit HOF compiler that I'd support for election.

If you're more of a peak guy, though, McGriff might actually have a better case since Raffy never had an extended stretch like Crime Dawgs 1988-1994.

Raffy had more 6-WAR seasons, three to McGriff's two.

Players with 100 G at 1B and 6 WAR, 1988-98

If you're more of a peak guy, though, McGriff might actually have a better case since Raffy never had an extended stretch like Crime Dawgs 1988-1994.

Raffy had more 6-WAR seasons, three to McGriff's two.

Yeah, but McGriff's 7 best years were all in a row, so it could be said that he had a higher established "peak." Raffy's were spaced out a bit and some of his best years were followed by some of his more mediocre ones (1992, 1997). Palmeiro had the better career, of course. Both had an impressive enough combination of peak and career to get my imaginary HOF vote.

#58 Yes but: Palmeiro is just barely across the line twice to McGriff's once and a difference of .2 is in the noise. War might be accurate to .7 of a win but I'm doubtful. More like .9 to 1.0

Also note that Palmeiro's got the two lowest batting wins totals in the list (and yes, McGriff is the third lowest) which makes for a less that compelling great season/HOF case.

I'm not disputing that Palmeiro was a good defensive 1B -- better than McGriff. He's the one who'd bring up defense at an arbitration hearing, but color me skeptical that it's at the level that matters to a HOF case. (not to mention that absurd gold glove means that any mention of Palmeiro's defense is giggle inducing)

I've been very vocal in threads about my support for McGriff, so yes, Palmeiro without his last 3 seasons would still get my HOF vote. If you're more of a peak guy, though, McGriff might actually have a better case since Raffy never had an extended stretch like Crime Dawgs 1988-1994.

That's what I thought. McGriff's a tough call for me. For 7 years he was having Willie Mays' or Joe DiMaggio's average season at the plate, then for the next 7 years he turned into Wes Covington. If I had a vote I'd figure it out, but since I don't I'll mull it over as it comes up over the next several years. At the moment I'm inclined to vote no. WAR's not the be all and end all, but even discounting dWAR (of which I'm very skeptical) for his career Freddie's stuck at 53. That's well below the line.

Too, for the more than the last half of his career, a full decade, he wasn't much better than an average 1Bman--I can't put my hands on the average for the position, but McGriff's OPS+ for a full decade was 119. Combine that with what my eyes told me was below average (not terrible, but definitely not average) defense, and I'm having a lot of trouble seeing a guy who was right around average for more than half his career as a Hall of Famer.

1995-2004:

oWAR = 17.4
oWAR + dWAR = 13.8

Ouch.

edit: "Don Sutton, maybe?"

Not sure what you mean by this, but Sutton's got to be the pitching comp for Palmiero's full career.

This was in response to your question about who was a legit HOF compiler that I'd support for election.

Fwiw, I think Sutton's clearly in, though at the lower end. If I didn't "vote" for Sutton, I don't see how I'd ever vote for a compiler. His 1972-76 was well thought of, too, at the time. He picked up all the Cy Young votes he ever would during those seasons.

For 7 years he was having Willie Mays' or Joe DiMaggio's average season at the plate, then for the next 7 years he turned into Wes Covington

True. But 7 years of a 155 OPS+ isn't really a short peak. He also put up 2 more seasons later on with an OPS+ over 140. I'm a little surprised he doesn't get more support from the peak crowd with half a career like that.

Too, for the more than the last half of his career, a full decade, he wasn't much better than an average 1Bman-

Yeah. But there have been other HOFers who did pretty much the same thing. George Sisler was average at best during the second half of his career (though I don't support his election), as was Ernie Banks (yes, he was a shortstop during his peak which makes him more valuable). Tim Raines - who I think should be in the HOF - played for a long time after he stopped being a star, and those who support him tend to focus more on his early peak than his long career compiled numbers.

The way I see it, McGriff had the peak of a HOFer, and the career numbers usually associated with a HOFer. That's good enough for me.

WAR's not the be all and end all, but even discounting dWAR (of which I'm very skeptical) for his career Freddie's stuck at 53.

I like WAR too, but occasionally it doesn't pass the smell test. Look at the list in post#58; do you really think Palmeiro in 1993 was better than McGwire in 1998? I know that Raffy was a pretty good first baseman back then and McGwire was basically a statue by 1998, but c'mon now. He almost doubled him in homers in the same amount of PA's, his OBP was 100 points higher and his slugging was 200 points higher. There's no way some extra defensive value from 1B should be able to overcome all that.

Palmeiro 1993: 686 PA's, 37 HR, 105 RBI, 124 runs, .295/.371/.554 - 150 OPS+
McGwire 1998: 681 PA's, 70 HR, 147 RBI, 130 runs, .299/.470/.752 - 216 OPS+

There's no way some extra defensive value from 1B should be able to overcome all that.

Well, that's not quite how the numbers work. Defense is a big part of it, which you can question, but it's also baserunning value that I think should be taken just as confidently as batting value. Further, another several runs come from a different replacement level calculation - 1998 was an expansion year, which means league quality was lower.

+83 Bat - 5 Run - 16 Def -10 Pos +18 Rep = +70 RAR (McGwire '98)
+44 Bat +4 Run +13 Def -10 Pos +23 Rep = +71 RAR (Palmeiro '93)

Palmeiro's +13 in 1993 is the second best defensive year of his career by TZ, while McGwire's -16 is the worst of his career. Just for the sake of argument, let's replace those one-year TZ numbers with a three-year average to smooth things out.

+83 Bat - 5 Run - 11 Def -10 Pos +18 Rep = +75 RAR (McGwire '98)
+44 Bat +4 Run +10 Def -10 Pos +23 Rep = +68 RAR (Palmeiro '93)

I guess my feeling is that like you I'm skeptical that Palmeiro's 1993 season was better than McGwire's 1998, but WAR is really useful for showing us that Mark McGwire really wasn't as great as we remember him being. He couldn't run (-5 runs), he couldn't field (-10 runs) and he was playing against expansion-diluted competition (-5 runs). And Palmeiro could run - in 1993, he stole 22 bases in 25 tries - and he could field, and baseball was on the verge of expansion, at a small peak of quality of competition.

I can't add anything to Matt's excellent post, so let me just pick up on something you wrote. By the way, I'd like to think McGriff is a HOFer. He seemed like a genuinely good guy.

For 7 years he was having Willie Mays' or Joe DiMaggio's average season at the plate, then for the next 7 years he turned into Wes Covington

True. But 7 years of a 155 OPS+ isn't really a short peak. He also put up 2 more seasons later on with an OPS+ over 140. I'm a little surprised he doesn't get more support from the peak crowd with half a career like that.

It doesn't seem like a short peak, but it's surely not a long one, either. Like so many things with McGriff, it's in a grey area. I guess the next question is, where does a 7 year peak at 155 stand for 1Bmen (and corner OFers) who were not particularly good defensively?

For the hell of it, I'm going to pick two guys at random who had weak defensive reputations and who are either in, or who have a good argument for being in, and look at their peaks.

Dick Allen
Willie Stargell

Okay, I stretched Allen's peak from seven years to nine because he doesn't fall off after seven. From 1966-1974 he puts up an OPS+ of 168, much better than McGriff's peak. As it turns out, Allen's entire career is Fred McGriff's peak, with an OPS+ of 156 in 7315 PAs. Allen, of course, is not in the HOF. All of that has to be a mark against McGriff.

Pops is a character guy, the opposite of Allen acc to the MSM. He rings up 57 WAR overall without being atrocious defensively. Stargell also has a nine year peak, with an OPS+ of 159 in 1966-74, before he starts to drop off. He still rings up McGriff's peak OPS+ of 155, but does it in twice as many years: 1966-1978.

Okay--that's just a quick look, but what it starts to suggest is that McGriff's seven year peak with an OPS+ of 155 is not only nothing special for a HOF talent, but might actually be short and not especially high.

edit: a follow up question might be, since both Allen and Stargell--who are comparable in career value to McGriff--have peaks that are a lot better than McGriff's, how many HOFers at 1B, RF, and LF have peaks close to McGriff's? That'll help us start to place McGriff's candidacy--if his peak is towards or at the low end of the spectrum, then arguments in his favor have to take on a different flavor.

1998 was an expansion year, which means league quality was lower.

As was 1993. But stats like OPS+ are supposed to adjust for that.

Can you run those same numbers with Sosa's 2001? I've never understood why Sosa's 2001 WAR is so much higher than Mac's 1998 despite similar numbers. Sosa had no speed left by then (0 SB's in 2 attempts) and he seemed too bulky to be a gold glove caliber fielder. I would've expected Mac's 1998 season to be up around 10 WAR at least.

Mac 1998: 681 PA's, 70 HR, 147 RBI, 130 runs, .299/.470/.752 - 216 OPS+, 7.2 WAR, 8.8 oWAR
Sosa 2001: 711 PA's, 64 HR, 160 RBI, 146 runs, .328/.437/.737 - 203 OPS+, 11.4 WAR, 10.8 oWAR

I can understand the difference in defensive value, but is Sosa's offense alone really 2 wins higher? The seasons look pretty equal at a glance.

Okay--that's just a quick look, but what it starts to suggest is that McGriff's seven year peak with an OPS+ of 155 is not only nothing special for a HOF talent, but might actually be short and not especially high.

It might not be high for a HOFer, but McGriff clearly wouldn't be an upper level guy anyway; if he's in, he's JUST in. But what about for a non HOFer? Right off the top of my head I can't think of a lot of guys (roiders aside) with a peak like that that aren't in. Allen, of course, but OPS+ overrates him a bit since he missed a lot of games throughout his career. And no one is doubting that he had a HOF caliber peak - he's not in because his career numbers are low by traditional standards (351 homers, 1119 rbi's, 1099 runs, and 1848 hits really are pretty low for a HOF 1B), and because he supposedly lived up to his first name.

I don't know. Crime Dawg was one of my first favorite players (I started following baseball after the 1987 season when I was 8 years old) so maybe my opinion is biased a little. But he seems so close and seemed like such a nice guy that I'd be willing to throw him a bone (no pun intended). :)

McGriff and Palmeiro are both brought down by the high replacement level of 1B in their era. There were 30HR guys everywhere during a large portion of their career.

I can understand the difference in defensive value, but is Sosa's offense alone really 2 wins higher? The seasons look pretty equal at a glance.

Even stranger, just based on hitting (especially with that 33 point edge in OBP), Mac's season looks clearly better, which makes the WAR difference even odder. I know dp avoidance can tilt things substantially. Could that be in there somewhere? There's also going to be park factors...

It might not be high for a HOFer, but McGriff clearly wouldn't be an upper level guy anyway; if he's in, he's JUST in. But what about for a non HOFer? Right off the top of my head I can't think of a lot of guys (roiders aside) with a peak like that that aren't in.

That's something I'll take a look at when I have time. I realize it's tough to factor in variables like "reporters didn't like x), and then there's the whole question of "should" versus "is". I'm assuming Allen would stroll into the Hall if BTF was the BBWAA, so I was thinking of his as a HOFer for the purposes of my comparison.

Off the top of your head, who are five guys you think are just on the outside (or could be)?
Of the players I'd look at to see what kind of peaks players on the outside have, I'd include

Will Clark
Carlos Delgado
Jason Giambi
Juan Gonzalez
Jose Canseco

though I might put Clark into my personal HOF, and he was good enough with the glove that he's not really an apt comparison.

By the way, since we've been using OPS+ and WAR, for the purposes of future discussion are we talking about whether McGriff should go into the Hall based on historical and current standards, or are we talking about whether he should be in a HOF with 220 of the best baseball players in it?

As was 1993.

D'oh. Somehow in my brain I always think it was '94. Then I don't understand the replacement level calculation difference between Raffy '93 and Mac '98. So there's another five runs I can't quite account for.

Can you run those same numbers with Sosa's 2001?

They're on every b-ref page - it's what I love about WAR. The numbers allow you to pull off the sort of component-run analyses that Bill James used to do of MVP races or in the Craig Biggio comment in the new historical abstract. Here it is for Mac and Sammy:

+83 Bat - 5 Run - 16 Def -10 Pos +18 Rep = +70 RAR (McGwire '98)
+91 Bat +6 Run + 6 Def - 8 Pos +18 Rep = +113 RAR (Sosa '01)

So what's going on here.

1) Sammy had a better hitting season, by CHONE linear weights. I'm confused as to how the numbers work out here - Sosa definitely had the better all-around game (more hits and doubles and such), but McGwire had the better OBP and SLG compared to league averages. A quickie linear weights (XR) calculation has McGwire and Sosa both producing 170 runs, and Sosa in the somewhat easier hitting environment, so I don't know how the numbers work there.

2) Sosa could still run acceptably well at this point in his career, while McGwire was truly immobile. +6 is Sosa's best year in this era, but he was about average as a baserunner over his hitting peak, while McGwire's -5 was his usual during that period.

3) Sosa could still field a little. Sosa was about league average defensively over his hitting peak, with +6 in 2001 his best year but not a huge spike.

Basically, Sammy Sosa was a one-time world-class athlete, a brilliant defensive player and a blazing fast runner (who never learned to steal bases). When he bulked up like crazy later in his career, he had a long way to fall, and he was still competent in the field and on the bases, just not good. You can say either that in 2001 he was in slightly better shape and played a bit better (that would at least be my bet with the baserunning numbers), or that the numbers are skewed by whatever small factor (a fair decision with the fielding).

Even if you give McGwire the benefit of the doubt on all these issues - equalize their offensive contributions based on XR and OPS+, drop Sosa's defense down to average, take a bite out of his baserunning, normalize McGwire's defense based on his performance in surrounding years, you still get a big Sosa advantage.

+83 Bat - 5 Run - 11 Def -10 Pos +18 Rep = +75 RAR (McGwire '98)
+83 Bat +3 Run + 0 Def - 8 Pos +18 Rep = +96 RAR (Sosa '01)

Being able to run and field without embarrassing yourself is worth a lot of runs.

Sammy Sosa was a one-time world-class athlete, a brilliant defensive player and a blazing fast runner

Sosa and Juan Gonzalez played in the same minor-league outfield for several years in the 1980s – I remember them as both being major-league CF prospects, though I can't really tell from B-Ref who played CF and who played RF on those teams. The Rangers were faced with one of those vanishingly rare situations where they could have kept two great stars, but the presence of both made it almost inevitable they would trade one. Not that Gonzalez was a failure, or anything, but with both of them in the same lineup by the mid-late '90s things would have been silly. {sigh}

Fangraphs has McGwire's 1998 batting worth 92 runs above average, and Sosa's 2001 batting 83 runs above average. That looks more likely, on the face of it, than the B-Ref WAR numbers.

Using the fangraphs batting runs, combined with giving McGwire the benefit of the doubt on all the other numbers as above, would still leave Sosa at least 10 runs better than McGwire. But it's a lot closer than b-ref WAR.

If McGwire's 1998 batting is being underrated by CHONE linear weights, then that also suggests that Palmeiro's 1993 was not quite as good as it looked compared to Mac's peak.

McGriff and Palmeiro are both brought down by the high replacement level of 1B in their era. There were 30HR guys everywhere during a large portion of their career.

But McGriff was doing it before everyone started to, as evidenced by his 2 homer titles and 7 straight years placing in his leagues top 4. 30 homer guys surely weren't everywhere from 1988-1992 (or in 1994, due to the strike).

And Raffy wasn't a 30 homer hitter; he was a 40 homer hitter. He averaged 41 over a 9 year span (1995-2003) and never had less than 38 during that stretch. Sillyball era or not, there weren't a lot of guys doing that for that long of a time.

Damon has had really lousy in-season durability. I wouldn't have known that without seeing the numbers. But he's only had 4 seasons in which he's played in over 150 games.

I mean, a better health/durability in those years, and he's up to ~2900 hits, and this isn't even a discussion.

Uh, Davo, c'mon. This ain't YahooSports.

In addition to playing 161, 159, 155, and 154 games, Damon twice played 150 games on the nose. After that he played 145, 146, 145, 145, 148, 149, 141, 143, 143, and 145 games. He played over 140 games every season since 1996. He's averaged 148.7 games per season over the last 16 seasons, To have 2900 hits at this point Damon would have had to have averaged 158.5 games played per season for the last 16 seasons.

Damon's durable.

By the way, speaking of cute stats, not counting either of their rookie seasons Damon's average of 148.7 games played is almost exactly the average games per season Cal Ripken played over his career.

If Damon makes 3,000 hits, and absent any late-breaking PED revelations, he *will* be voted into the Hall by the writers. It will take a while, but he'll get there.

As far as I'm concerned, 3,000 hits is still a magic number for enshrinement until there's even one exception that is not also burdened with an additional factor.

@76: I'm starting to see it. I won't like it, but they're not going to ask me, for some reason.

The legend will grow. He's played for winners. He's got a story. He doesn't have The Rumors.

And he'll have those 1800 runs.

And, if he plays 152 games a season over the next two seasons, gets 3,000 hits and retires, he should hire me as his HOF publicist:

JOHNNY DAMON--THE IDIOT MORE DURABLE THAN RIPKEN!!

Damon still saw 4.00 pitches per PA which is above his career average and well above lg average. As for his chasing pitches, it looked to me the strike zone was pretty large for LHB'ers the past 2 years. I know JD and Ortiz complained about it.

To bring the discussion back to Damon's patience and the erosion thereof in 2011, Fangraphs had a good article the other day. The contour plots really illustrate how much more aggressive Damon was at the plate, especially on outside pitches. It really supports the idea that he was trying harder to get on base via hits vs just trying to get on base. Now it could also be an issue with him not seeing the ball wall at Tropicana Field or something, but the data supports the premise of the article in the OP here.

Poz:

You probably noticed that for the last few weeks, I've had polls on the side of this page asking readers if they think certain milestones (300 wins, 500 homers, 3,000 hits) should make a player an automatic Hall of Famer. I've added up all the results -- voters on my personal blog proved to be quite a bit less impressed by those magic numbers than voters on the SI blog -- and... 76% said that 3,000 hits should get a hitter into the Hall of Fame...

if you give any player ever enough at-bats, they will get 3,000 hits.

I don't mean that as a knock -- quite the contrary. I call it the Hank Aaron Paradox. Look:

A. Hank Aaron got 12,364 at-bats.

B. If Aaron hit .243 for his entire career, he would have 3,000 hits.

C. Aaron hit .305 (and not .243)

D. If Aaron hit .243, he would not have had 12,364 at-bats.

See: The point is that 3,000 hits (Aaron actually had 3,771 hits) isn't the great achievement. The great achievement is being good enough and sturdy enough to get 12,364 at-bats. The achievement is in the overall greatness that lasted for so many years...

Nobody ever thought Johnny Damon was a Hall of Famer. Few think it now. If I told you Johnny Damon had 1,893 hits, well: (1) You would probably believe me because that sounds more right and (2) You would think of Johnny Damon as a perfectly good player who proudly called his autobiography, "Idiot."... He is more or less a case study of how a very good player can get 3,000 hits. He reached the big leagues at a young age, he had the sort of speed that spurred managers to put him at the top of the lineup, he was tough to strike out, he didn't walk an overwhelming amount (though he was no hacker) and he has been almost indestructible. Damon has gotten more than 600 plate appearances 14 years in a row.

He's also hitting .286 -- at that pace, he needs 10,489 at-bats to get 3,000 hits. Only 13 players since 1901 have gotten 10,489 at-bats -- Rose, Aaron, Yaz, Ripken, Cobb, Murray, Yount, Winfield, Musial, Henderson, Mays, Biggio, Molitor, Brooks Robinson. All are in in the Hall of Fame (except Biggio, who will be). I think Damon will get those at-bats too. And because of that, I think he will get 3,000 hits.

So, back to the question: Does getting 3,000 hits make him a Hall of Famer?

Or more to the point: Does being good enough to get 10,000-plus at-bats in the big leagues make him a Hall of Famer?

I don't know the answer. But the vast majority of you say: Yes.

The legend will grow. He's played for winners. He's got a story. He doesn't have The Rumors.

He was a "catalyst." Good basestealer. That extra base he took in the WS in 2009 will get a lot of play. And more than one writer will point out that he was more valuable than Brock.

He'd go in.

Off the top of your head, who are five guys you think are just on the outside (or could be)?
Of the players I'd look at to see what kind of peaks players on the outside have, I'd include

Will Clark
Carlos Delgado
Jason Giambi
Juan Gonzalez
Jose Canseco

Looking up the numbers, McGriff's peak AND career easily outdistance Canseco and Gonzalez. Hell, they missed so many games it was hard to even come up with enough full seasons for comparison. Delgado is the most similar player on that list, but Freddies career was longer with essentially equal hitting (and as far as I could tell, Carlos was just as useless in the field and on the basepaths as McGriff), so I'd give the slight edge to McGriff. McGriff/Delgado actually might be my 1B HOF in/out line. Freddie is barely in. Delgado is barely out.

Giambi and Clark both had clearly better peaks, but also shorter careers. So with them it really depends on your opinion of peak vs career.

By the way, since we've been using OPS+ and WAR, for the purposes of future discussion are we talking about whether McGriff should go into the Hall based on historical and current standards, or are we talking about whether he should be in a HOF with 220 of the best baseball players in it?

Either one, I guess. There are players (Clark, Allen, etc) who have better peaks than McGriff but without his career numbers, and there are players who may end up with his career numbers without the peak (Paul Konerko), but I see very few if any who can match both (without roid suspicions) that haven't been elected. And that's what bugs me; it's not so much that McGriff isn't in the HOF - I can understand that - it's that he's not even close. It seems most people agree that he's right on the borderline, either just over or just under. And borderline players should be getting around 50% of the vote. Crime Dawg is at 20%, and with the fustercluck of new candidates coming up over the next few seasons, he may drop off the ballot altogether. That just doesn't seem right to me.

Well, you've got me thinking now (always dangerous), so when I get back I'll check some of those comps and find some more.

That just doesn't seem right to me.

Absolutely agree. There's no way, short of getting in, that he shouldn't stay on the ballot, and in its upper reaches, too.

If Damon is the only "doesn't seem like a HoFer" that gets 3,000 hits, I think he'll be perceived as a better player than his other stats indicate, and he would probably be elected in due course if not for the uncertainty of the possible ballot glut.

Posted from the beach at Maui (life is good).

As far as I'm concerned, 3,000 hits is still a magic number for enshrinement until there's even one exception that is not also burdened with an additional factor.

I'm the opposite. Until a clearly Hall of Fame unworthy* player reaches 3,000 hits, I'm going to continue to believe that the power of the magic number is greatly exaggerated. Damon has never been considered Cooperstownian timber at any point in his career. I don't think dragging his ass across the 3K finish line is going to change that for 75 percent of the voters. It could happen, as we've seen inexplicable narrative cases built for inferior players to Damon (though in contrast to JD, guys like Rice and Morris were, at different points in their career, incorrectly viewed as future HoFers).

I'd be surprised if a 3,000-hit Damon gets 20 percent of the vote in his first trip, and from there it is a long way to induction. Not impossible, but not likely either.

* I don't consider Brock an unworthy. Moreover, I think he gets inducted into the Hall even if he hadn't reached 3,000 hits.

.
The following, haphazard construction has to do with trying to figure out where Fred McGriff's peak stands among Hall of Fame and near Hall of Fame first basemen and corner OFers. Most of those below also have average or below average defense.

There are a lot of ways to play with the data, but Booey and I got on the subject of seven year peaks, which represents McGriff's best seasons and also serves to divide his career (7 year peak w OPS+ of 155, decade following w OPS+ of 119). I value consistency, and since it fits the shape of McGriff's career (and therefore favors him) I'm going off consecutive peak. Peak length has its own subjective aspect, of course. In the case of Albert Belle you could go with 9 years instead of 7, giving him 1327 games with an OPS+ of 150.

The reason to look at peak is that if McGriff's isn't outstanding, his case falls apart. Something has to outweigh the last decade of his career, where he put up 17 oWAR. Formatting is... unwieldy. Peak first, then career totals following the slash mark. In parentheses is what the shorter career players would need to get to McGriff's career totals.

Freddie Mac 7 seasons, 1998-1994, 1037 games, 155 OPS+ / CAREER: 2460 games, 134 OPS+ 53 oWAR

Albert Belle, 7 seasons, 1993-1998, 1051 games, 155 OPS+ / CAREER: 1539 games, 143 OPS+ 44 oWAR /
(To catch McGriff: 921 games, 119 OPS+)

Dick Allen, 9 seasons, 1966-1974, 1158 games, 168 OPS+ / CAREER: 1749 games 156 OPS+ /
(To catch McGriff: 711 games 80 OPS+)

Eddie Murray, 7 seasons, 1980-1986 1019 games 149 OPS+ CAREER: 3026 games, 129 OPS+ 60 oWAR

Harmon Killebrew, 11 seasons, 1960-1970 1536 games 155 OPS+ / CAREER: 2435 games, 143 OPS+

Gary Sheffield, 12 seasons, 1992-2003, 1588 games, 155 OPS+ / CAREER: 2576 games, 140 OPS+ 82 oWAR

The Thrill, 6 seasons, 1987-1992, 917 games, 152 OPS+ / CAREER: 1976 games, 137 ops+ 57 oWAR
(To catch McGriff: 484 games, 121 OPS+)

Funky aside: Willie Mays, 12 year peak, from 1954-1965, 1850 games, 167 OPS+. I hear he could field, too.

A better method would be to look at similar numbers including something like 3, 5, and 7 year peaks for all the BBWAA electees at 1B and the corners, as well for all the borderline guys, and take defense into account.

guys like Rice and Morris were, at different points in their career, incorrectly viewed as future HoFers


I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "incorrectly"

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "incorrectly"

Umm, yeah, good point. Probably better stated as "incorrectly viewed as deserving future HoFers" or "viewed as future hall of famers despite performance record that didn't support such opinions."

Something Other #85 - Thanks for running the numbers. Sheffield was an interesting one since I always thought of him as sort of a better version of McGriff (and I remember following them on the '92 Padres when Sheff was fighting for the triple crown and wondering how pissed he'd be if he ended up losing it by one or two homers to his own teammate). Seeing Sheffield's offensive WAR also makes me wonder; was he really so historically gawd-awful in the field (-18.4 WAR)? Watching him I could tell he wasn't good, but he didn't seem completely terrible either. I mean Manny's "only" at -11.8 WAR, and Man-Ram would've been picking daisies and chasing butterflies in the Fenway outfield if there were any.

Back to McGriff, by traditional BBWAA standards, is there any other era where someone could hit 493 homers with 1550 rbi's and a good avg/obp/slg and not even come close to election? Considering that in the last dozen years the BBWAA has elected significantly inferior sluggers like Perez, Dawson, and Rice, it just kinda strikes me as bizarre. The only thing I can think of is that he's being compared to the likes of Palmeiro and McGwire. But if they're being rejected cuz of roids, then the voters are essentially saying that their numbers aren't valid, and if their numbers aren't valid, is it really fair to use them as a comparison for "clean" players?

I agree that the BBWAA seems awfully inconsistent on all this. Perez and not McGriff? Really?

Perez has almost no peak, by OPS+, and it doesn't come particularly close to Fred's, in any case. Perez's WAR peak, 1968-73, right around 5.5 wins every year, is a very nice one, and a little better than McGriff's, but certainly isn't anything that genuinely distances the two players. McGriff has Rice's OPS+ peak for twice as long. And so on.

I'm sure these aren't things you don't know and, yeah, if as the BBWAA you're going to punish the steroid users, McGriff's the kind of player who won't get much support on the ballot only if the standard is guys like Killebrew, who even with his 573 homers had to wait until his fourth year on the ballot. Otherwise, if you're letting Tony Perez in, McGriff should either be in or getting 50% and climbing.

When you've had his career it's so much about the story. Staying with one team would have been a huge help. What a shame he couldn't catch on with anyone after the Rays in '04. To not be able to will 7 more homers... I wonder how he feels about it?

As for Sheffield, I guess someone has to be the guy at the bottom, whose defense cost a win a season. Still, to be almost twice as bad as Manny, by the numbers? Ouch.

[89] To not be able to will 7 more homers... I wonder how he feels about it?

Well, he's not the first 1B with exactly 493 career homers...

Well, he's not the first 1B with exactly 493 career homers...

Yeah, and the other one not only didn't have to wait around on the ballot for years, but he was inducted BEFORE he was even supposed to be eligible. C'mon BBWAA, let's see a little consistency! :)