|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, November 09, 2009
Running almost as long as the WAMPAS Baby Stars campaigns…it’s Poz and his zesty Hall of Fame column!
And perhaps more: The numbers have come to mean less to us. The offensive explosion — and everything you would like to blame for that offensive explosion — changed the meaning of 493 homers. Yes, McGriff hit as many home runs as Lou Gehrig and more than Musial, Stargell, Yaz, Billy Williams, Duke Snider, Al Kaline and so many of the other all-time greats. But who cares now? Gary Sheffield has 500 home runs. Sammy Sosa has 600. Barry Bonds has 762. Perspective is lost.
Baseball, more than any other American sports I think, leans on nostalgia. It is the sport that helps us cling to our childhood and feeds that human daydream that things used to be better. As baseball fans many of us want to believe — we like believing — that the game is fundamentally the same, and that great players from the distant past could be just as great (or greater) in today’s game. We cannot believe that about runners or swimmers whose times are so much slower than today’s players. We cannot believe that about football players who were so much smaller and slower or basketball players who rarely dribbled with their left hand.
But in baseball we can believe it, we do believe it. There is little doubt, I think, that Edgar Martinez was a better than the vast majority of hitters in in the Hall of Fame, that Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin were much better than most of the middle infielders in the Hall and that Fred McGriff, certainly as a hitter, probably belongs among the Top 5 or 6 first basemen in there.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (7 - 1:47am, May 26)Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)Newsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1832 - 1:32am, May 26)Last: baudibNewsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (119 - 1:28am, May 26)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (56 - 1:15am, May 26)Last: The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow)Newsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (8 - 12:40am, May 26)Last: The Gurus DO NOT BourbonSamuraiNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (12 - 12:25am, May 26)Last: TriponHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (15 - 12:13am, May 26)Last: DanGNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (86 - 11:59pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (4 - 11:26pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (18 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: Fielder's the first baseman, Felder is the fielderHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (28 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: lieiamSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (20 - 11:24pm, May 25)Last: DanNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (27 - 11:16pm, May 25)Last: baudibNewsblog: TBO: Nerdy Rays head north (17 - 10:07pm, May 25)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Dodgers want to host NHL's Winter Classic (22 - 9:38pm, May 25)Last: Cris E
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. tjm1 Posted: November 09, 2009 at 01:51 PM (#3382766)All probably true, but to dwell on that thought kind of defeats the whole purpose of establishing a Hall of Fame in the first place. It's one thing to acknowledge that (for example) the 1928 A's might be only a .400 or .500 team in the 21st century Amreican League, but it's another thing to say that Cobb, Cochrane, Eddie Collins, Foxx, Grove, Simmons, Speaker are somehow bogus Hall of Famers. If you're arguing who the "best" players and "best" teams are in some abstract sense, then of course you have to consider the level of competition, but if you're choosing a Hall of Fame, the only rational standard is how they stacked up against their contemporaries.
And besides, Larkin and Alomar will probably get in anyway, as they should.
Yes.
They should, but will they get into a Hall that Tim Raines and Alan Trammell can't get into? I dunno. The current breed of voters seems to enjoy say "no" so much.
They should, but will they get into a Hall that Tim Raines and Alan Trammell can't get into? I dunno. The current breed of voters seems to enjoy say "no" so much.
I know I'll get dumped on for saying this for the 1,001st time, but this sort of shortsightedness concerning the players on the margin is why I wish that the Hall of Merit tried to reach out and publicize its result to a greater audience. Just to ask what to me would be an obvious question: Does someone in the HoM even bother to send out an e-mail notice of its results to the BBWAA writers? And if not, is it in part because of a sense of futility, that the writers are so dense that they'll never listen to reason? I hope not.
Of course it's not as if I think that more than a handful of writers might be persuaded, and even there it might take awhile for reason to sink in. But for candidates on the margins, sometimes a handful of converts would be all you need. That's how lobbyists get bills passed around these parts, anyway.
It shouldn't be, but there will probably be some folks who use that as a reason not to vote for him.
I suspect that Alomar will have problems, not because he spit on an umpire, but because he declined so quickly and fell short of 3000 hits.
-- MWE
Raines: 7 ASG (last at age 27), no GG, 1 SS, 3 Top 10 finishes in MVP voting (highest as 5th), 0.294 BA
Trammell: 6 ASG (last at age 32), 4 GG, 3 SS, 3 Top 10 finishes in MVP voting (highest as 2nd), 0.285 BA
Larkin: 12 ASG (last at age 40), 3 GG (only because of Ozzie's stranglehold on the award), 9 SS, 1 MVP, 0.295 BA
Alomar: 12 ASG (last at age 33), 10 GG, 4 SS, 5 Top 10 finishes in MVP voting (highest as 3rd), 0.300 BA
There's a lot in terms of in-career recognitions (rightly or wrongly) to separate Larkin and Alomar from Raines and Trammell in the minds of the BBWAA.
Funny you should use that term, because that's what Teddy Ballgame himself was called in 1956. Here's why, from the MLB website:
However, the voters will embarrass themselves if Barry Larkin is passed over. Aside from being a wonderful player Larkin was also one of the smartest baseball players not just of his era but of the many I have seen on the field.
Yes, I am an intellectual bigot when it comes to baseball. Baseball "smart" players always win me over.
Guys like a Felipe Lopez who run into outs and do other dumb things annoy me to no end.......
I read an analysis somewhere that a vast majority of the difference between Jesse Owens and modern sprinters is shoes/tracks/starting blocks. Basically the guy analyzed the film to figure out how fast Owens was moving his legs at top speed, and it was very, very close to modern sprinters.
That's the common myopia you see everywhere though, and not just in baseball. In basketball you'll hear fans raised on Michael Jordan tell you with a straight face that Wilt Chamberlain, a 7'1 monster who ran track in college and actually lead the NBA in assists one year, couldn't compete in the modern era because giant centers were rare in that era - the fact that Bill Russell was the same height as Alonzo Mourning and Hakeem Olajuwon requires additional knowledge. In boxing we frequently hear that our modern sports-medicine supermen were simply too big and strong for the greats of the past, no matter how often you repeat the fact that Jack Dempsey's "tale of the tape" was almost identical to that of Evander Holyfield.
Yup. The best example to prove the point is horseracing. With animals literally bred for performance, no one has yet beaten Secretariat's records from almost 40 years ago.
I am 100% certain that if Jesse Owens, Babe Ruth and Jack Dempsey were alive today they'd be dominant figures in their sports.
I think there's a sense of futility though that's not the biggest obstacle. It's more that the HoM is a herd of cats. It's about us, not them.
But OTOH if we did, I'd expect to be fodder for a certain number of crotchety columns.
But a Jesse Owens born in 1980 would be running with the best of them, if not better. Or be a decent 3rd WR for the Titans.
Jesse Owens' sprinting records are frequently cited as "proof" of the superiority of the modern athlete, which in itself reveals the myopia of the modern revisionist; yes, high school students today have bettered Owens' Olympic records. However, high school students today do not run in spiked leather shoes, on a cinder track, where they have to literally dig a starting divot before taking their mark!
Yes. I'm assuming Owens gets today's training or the modern guys get 1930's training. Time machine scenarios are pretty uninteresting IMHO.
Oh, a lesson in history from mister I'm-my-own-grandpa!
But "training" isn't even the most significant part of the story. The rules have changed. The equipment has changed. Jack Dempsey trained in almost the exact same way a modern boxer trains - plenty of sparring, roadwork, working the heavy bag, the speed bag, and the double-end bag, even some weight training. But Dempsey fought wearing 6oz gloves stuffed with horsehair, not the bigger, better-padded models in use today. Modern fighters practice using the padding of their gloves to cover their faces and block blows; try doing that with the old horsehair gloves and you'll break your hands. That's why old-time fighters practiced dodging and deflecting blows to a far greater degree than contemporary boxers. That's a significant change in in-ring tactics based solely on one piece of equipment.
Then you consider longer fights, less referee intervention, no 3-knockdown limit, etc., and you can't help but come to one conclusion - if you think Dempsey would have trouble in the modern ring, surely our modern fighters would have even more difficulty coping with the accepted rules of boxing in the 1920s.
Then you consider longer fights, less referee intervention, no 3-knockdown limit, etc., and you can't help but come to one conclusion - if you think Dempsey would have trouble in the modern ring, surely our modern fighters would have even more difficulty coping with the accepted rules of boxing in the 1920s.
Agree completely.
Let's see modern sluggers compete with Ruth in wool uniforms (all day games in summer heat including double headers) with 44 oz. bats, chest high strikezones, pitchers unafraid to come high and tight and no batting helmets, 450-500 ft CF fences in every park, all-night train rides, exhibition games on nearly every "off" day, plus no weight training, no aerobic training, no antibiotics, no surgery to repair bad joints, etc., etc.
Many people here disagree; they are saying he will be in within 3-4 years or so. I am skeptical.
You're a trained cynic. Of course, so am I. I think all 4 guys in Poz's piece will have trouble.
Don't forget the spitballs, scuff balls, and the generally crappy status of even undoctored baseballs after a few innings.
Edgar is definitely boned (BBWAA: "DH? BOOOOOOO!!!!!"). McGriff is almost certainly boned (Slugging 1B in the same era as Bagwell, McGwire, Thome, Palmeiro, Thomas, and so on). Alomar will be in within 3 years, and Larkin will be in within 5. I expect both Alomar and Larkin to start off on at least 50% of ballots.
No more than Marichal's by the Roseboro incident. In both cases, the victim forgave and befriended his attacker – not that the level of Alomar's attack begins to compare with Marichal's. In both cases, there was some sort of severe verbal provocation, though it's never been exactly revealed what, IIRC. Hence the reconciliation was made easier (apologies all round).
Unless the spit tested positive for steroids, I don't think it makes much difference.
As to whether these guys get into the HOF or not, I think it's a very interesting "class." I doubt Martinez or McGriff get in any time soon, but Alomar and Larkin were so celebrated during their playing years – much more so than Whitaker or Trammel or Bobby Grich – that it would be very odd for the writers to turn around now and figure them for also-rans.
I remember the story breaking and immediate denial and haven't heard a peep about it since.
So will I. He'd be the first Hall of Famer to come up to the majors as a Blue Jay.
The suit was apparently settled with no further details disclosed. As far as I know Alomar has not addressed the HIV rumors since then. Alomar got married in June 2009.
The only ones who would give a damn, would be the ones who already think about the game in a similar way to HOM voters. "Preaching to the converted".
I don't know that it's true. If it were just a list, you're probably right. If it were a list and a short essay about each of the guys who have made the HOM and not the HOF, it might carry some weight. There are guys like Gammons and, to a lesser extent, Jason Stark, who have sort of a traditionalist's approach, but if confronted with enough modern statistics in a way they understand, will take the numbers seriously. Those guys are highly influential.
Dick Allen will never gain traction because of what the HOM says, but there's a good reason for that - his attitude quite possible hurt his teams enough that even with his numbers, he may not deserve the HOF. But a Bobby Grich - someone who always had a dirty uniform, and who was just a great player who went under-appreciated because he had a diverse range of skills, none of which was hitting for average - he might gain some traction if people hear the statheads think he was one of the all time greats. The perception among writers is probably that Grich was better than his numbers, not that he was worse than his numbers.
I don't know that it's true. If it were just a list, you're probably right. If it were a list and a short essay about each of the guys who have made the HOM and not the HOF, it might carry some weight. There are guys like Gammons and, to a lesser extent, Jason Stark, who have sort of a traditionalist's approach, but if confronted with enough modern statistics in a way they understand, will take the numbers seriously. Those guys are highly influential.
Two points:
If you don't try, you'll never know.
For a candidate on the margin, it often comes down to a mere handful of votes.
Well, the Roseboro incident is most likely the reason it took Marichal three tries to get in. If we're drawing from that episode to Alomar's, then the answer may be that, yes, Alomar's chances will be affected, but not to the degree that he never gets in.
I may need this explained to me. Not sure how a lower BA is a good thing.
I think the unstated portion of the statement is "all other things being equal". Specifically, if the OBP and SLG are the same, then that means that the lower-BA guy has more walks and more extra-base hits while the higher-BA guy has more singles. I think it's not universally true that the former is more valuable than the latter - it depends on the run-scoring environment - but, in general, I think that, for example, a double plus a walk is worth more than two singles, so, in general, I think the lower-BA guy will produce more runs using something like linear weights or base runs or something like that.
Well, McGwire and Palmeiro are dirty, cheating 'roid monkeys (ditto for Giambi in the "so on"). I've heard whispers about Bagwell, too. I could see McGriff picking up some "last clean slugger" votes. How many and whether it'll be close to enough, I don't know.
Yes. I'm assuming Owens gets today's training or the modern guys get 1930's training. Time machine scenarios are pretty uninteresting IMHO.
It's already been established that Owens would lose to Radioactive Man.
Oh, thanks. I guess I prefer my portions stated.
Go back and look at his late 80s/early 90s numbers. For a while, he was a great player.
Obviously these are my anecdotal experiences, but I would assume that Alomar would go in very quickly, while the others would have to wait. I don't remember Larkin getting more hype than Trammell, so I don't see where he will get anywhere. Edgar, well, I assume the DH penalty will go far beyond what he deserves (I hate the DH, but not enough to overcome my love for Edgar). Not sure if Edgar should get inducted, but he certainly should get strong consideration. I wonder if the 1-team career thing helps, or maybe since that team was way out west and way up north, maybe that actually hurts him.
EDIT: Here is the thread: http://www.tangotiger.net/archives/artOPS2.shtml#1005
This. He had crappy timing - his best years were '88-'94, a 6-year trough in scoring levels followed by a strike season.
My gut feeling is Alomar makes it in on hissecond or third, Larkin later, maybe seventh. McGriff and Martinez don't. But if McGriff does, both he and Tony Perez will be Hall of Famers traded for Dale Murray.
The DH rule was proposed back in the 1920s - John Heydler, the NL president, tried to get it adopted, but couldn't get the votes. Imagine that the DH had been adopted by MLB in, say, 1939. Ted Williams, with both his fielding ability, and his attitude towards fielding, would probably have played most of his career as a DH. Let's say that Williams, in this scenario, never played a game in the field after WW2, but put up the exact same offensive numbers that he did in his career. Do people honestly feel that, under those conditions, Williams wouldn't have been a Hall of Famer?
Not exactly answering your question, but if the NL alone had adopted it in the 1920s, most of today's hardcore anti-DH people would be squarely in the DH for Life camp.
I agree with you, if a hitter is great enough, they belong in.
But, I think you still have to give them serious negative credit for not playing defense. IMHO, they should be treated as a really poor fielding 1B (say -15 Rs per season).
Even if the voters did exactly that, would it impact the results in the slightest? Is there a 1B/3B who has been kept out of the Hall of Fame because of their terrible fielding, but who would otherwise have gotten in?
Who's the worst fielder at those positions in the HOF? The true butchers generally don't have long careers. If we evaluate Bobby Bonilla by the standards of average fielding 3B's, he might be on the edge of credibility. He was a very good hitter for a long time. If McGriff were considered an above average fielder, he'd have a much better chance. It's probably true that fielding quality only matters at the margins at the hitters' positions, though.
Are pitchers given debits for not hitting, or if they do hit, for hitting so badly in the HOF selection? I don't see that it's ever a consideration. Why not?
It seems to me you can easily distort the (intangible) value of the DH (negatively) if you forget what the sole reason fro the DH's existence is? To replace the pitcher as batter. The DH represents a total positive or pretty close to it without much of a downside on this score. Moreover, I don't see how having a DH otherwise inhibits a team from putting a better team out there than it would be if the pitcher batted. Even a better defensive team, if a pitcher is a defensive player, as he most certainly is. DH-ing always allows you to place the premium on selecting a defensive player for defensive reasons only--the pitcher? Now, granted a pitcher is never selected to pitch because of his hitting, but he most certainly is, or was, taken off the mound because of his hitting. Does the DH get credit for this? For the pitcher not doing (or undoing) what he would in the batter's box and on the basepaths, I mean? Just some fleeting thoughts on the subject.
Yes, and Frank Thomas is a good enough hitter to overcome the negative defensive value. He was a better hitter than Edgar, for longer.
Pitchers are compared to other pitchers when their hitting is evaluated - just like how shortstops don't have to be as good offensively as left fielders to make the Hall of Fame. There are some guys whose hitting probably boosted their case - Bob Lemon comes to mind as probably the best-hitting borderline pitcher.
As for giving them debits for not hitting, again, they're being compared to the other team's pitcher, who also doesn't hit, so it's just a net zero effect for everybody.
Likewise, having a DH is a "total positive" only if you get to use one and your opponent doesn't. Except that major-league baseball has never worked that way. Your opponent gets the same "advantages" as you do, so, again, there's no net value to simply having a DH, because everybody in your league gets one too.
But those same people wouldn't call Edgar Martinez "the greatest designated hitter in the history of baseball," because well, that would sound foolish given that the position has only been around for 36 years.
Bob Lemon? That's it. How serious was that a factor? Was that even remotely a systematic consideration? I don't think it mattered much at all.
That's the problem, though. The writers will lump McGriff in with all of them as being of the same "era," but, really, McGriff played through the low offense of 1988-1992 while Bagwell, Thome, and Thomas did so only partially. That was McGriff's peak -- he had great, great years during that time -- and he gets completely shafted by it.
But those same people wouldn't call Edgar Martinez "the greatest designated hitter in the history of baseball," because well, that would sound foolish given that the position has only been around for 36 years.
This is brilliant and an excellent position. Could you take the argument even further and say that the greatest DH has had more impact then the greatest closer?
And if we're talking about a pitcher who pitched all or most of his career in the NL, then shouldn't there be some emphasis on his hitting if it is a serious component of his value?
I thought we already talked about that. Marichal vs. Roseboro.
agree, maybe not with the exact numbers, but that is the way I look at a DH, and I just don't see Edgar as worthy. Heck just assume fielding isn't important at all, and compare him to the top 10-15 first baseman, and 10-15 best offensive corner outfielders, and if he doesn't fare well based upon offense only, then it's hard for me to put him in. Add in relatively short career (less than 9000 plate appearances--for a bat first player) and I just don't see him as anyones definition of a lock.
Yep. Edgar has an interesting HOF case, worthy of serious consideration, but at the end of the day it falls squarely within the "well, I don't know" area.
You can find guys like Jim Rice who DH'ed as young players who made the HOF, but 1) Rice aged badly - early in his career, he looked like a surefire first ballot HOFer and instead just barely made it on his last ballot 2) Rice was actually about average defensively and just happened to come up to the majors on a team that had a whole bunch of really good defensive outfielders and first basemen at the same time. Edgar was a really special case. He actually played 3B for most of his 20's, anyways, but got a late start so most of his major league career was after he turned 30. The Reggie Jefferson/ Bob Hamelin types, though are mostly out of baseball by their early 30's.
I bet that of the 20 best DHs in terms of career value at the position at least 15 had more career value at another position, even if you just account for offensive career value.
It mattered a little to the HOM :-)
I don't think it's a great comparison. Most people agree that nearly any great starter would be an excellent closer. But the only data points for that are John Smoltz and to a lesser degree, Dennis Eckersley. I believe Randy Johnson would have been a better closer than Mariano Rivera, but I don't really have any basis for that other than it just seems to make sense. Maybe nobody could have been better than Rivera. Who knows?
DHs are different. I can say with great certainty that Barry Bonds would have been a better DH than Edgar Martinez. Albert Pujols would be a much better DH than Martinez was. There are a lot of players on this list.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main