Adrian Gonzalez: He has the talent. But does he understand the moment?
Jon Lester: There are only two pitchers in Major League history who were born after 1930 and have a better career winning percentage than Jon Lester. The first is Don Gullett who went 109-50 (.686) over nine years with the Red and Yankees, before retiring with shoulder problems at the age of 27. The other is a guy named Pedro Martinez, who went 219-100 over 18 seasons with the Dodgers, Expos, Red Sox, Mets and Phillies. Now obviously things aren’t trending in a great direction for Lester. Even if he’s still a solid pitcher, he’s clearly lost his rank among baseball’s elite.
You know he has the stuff, and would like to think he has the mental make up to fight through this and pick up where he left of before *everything* hit the fan, but for now, his already unlikely Hall of Fame chances are barely visible.
David Ortiz: He’s had a few unbelievable seasons, and a handful of historic playoff moments, but the overall numbers aren’t up to par, and steroid rumors will haunt him moving forward.
Josh Beckett: When you win a World Series MVP at 23, and serve as the undisputed ace on another champ four years later, you’re certainly on the road to Cooperstown. Then again, when you win 20 games only once in your career, have a sub-3.00 ERA only once, pitch more than 200 innings only three times and also happen to be almost universally perceived as an enormous a-hole, the road gets a little cloudy and you eventually drive off a cliff.
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.
I think this is more HoM than HOF type thinking. I doubt HOF voters give much consideration at all to defense and baserunning for a first baseman. Past BBWAA history shows that even 400 homers is a near lock as long as the player didn't have a dismal batting average (Kingman, Evans). And McGriff didn't just have 400 homers, he would've had 500 if not for the strike. Nor was he a "compiler" type who reached his total with a bunch of 25 homer seasons; Crime Dawg led the league twice and ranked in the top 4 seven straight seasons (1988-1994). Going off BBWAA voting history, it looks to me like he had a HOF peak (again, 1988-1994, OPS+ of 155), and HOF career type counting stats. Not many other players have both of those without steroid or gambling connections that haven't been elected.
The paragraph you quoted there was about how I don't think McGriff has been unjustly overlooked. He hasn't been overlooked for all the right reasons, but I don't think the Hall is a particularly lesser institution without him.
EDIT: Your use of OPS+ is also HoM type thinking. McGriff was a great hitter from 1988-1994, but he only hit .300 once, walked 90-100 times a season, and only hit 31-37 HRs per season, and only drove in 100 runs three times (never more than 106). His excellent OBP is the sort of thing that often gets overlooked, and most people have forgotten that 1988-1992 was a lower-offense era even than the mid-1980s. McGriff gets compared to sillyball sluggers, and so his peak looks unimpressive even though his best seasons were in a distinctly non-silly league.
EDIT: Nvm, I'm slow. I think MCoA's answers in #97 and #102 are good.
Partly, but this cuts both ways. Without Coors he's got virtually no black ink (doubles, once) and doesn't hit anywhere close to .300 career (road BA was .278 overall). In that parallel universe he ends up as a Grich/Whitaker all-around type who "doesn't feel like" a hall-of-famer.
Nor do I (though I'd vote for him). As I said before, I mainly just think he at least deserves some consideration. 20% is way too low.
Yeah, but the rest of the points weren't. Even dimwitted voters have to be able to recognize that 35 homers a year in his peak were a lot considering that it was often enough to challenge for the league lead, right (hell, it WAS enough for him to lead the league twice)? The mini deadball era of his peak surpressed his numbers, sure, but it's not too much to ask for voters to notice that he cracked the top 10 in MVP voting 6 straight years, is it? Doesn't that show he was considered one of the best of his era for at least a while? I understand that voters may not notice WAR or WAA or even OPS+. But HR titles and MVP votes? That's about as basic as it gets.
Agreed. And most of those sillyball sluggers with better numbers are roiders. Take them away and his numbers look pretty impressive again, even if you don't adjust them upwards to take his non-sillyball peak into account.
I don't know. I actually think Coors helps his case quite a bit. A .313/.400/.565 line is pretty eye catching. His BB-Ref neutralized line is .294/.378/.530. His homers and rbi's also go down from 383 and 1311 to 357 and 1177. He probably loses a couple batting titles and possibly his MVP (Piazza shoulda won anyway) as well.
He'd still DESERVE to be elected, of course. But I think the actual voters might be giving him Dwight Evans treatment without the Coors inflation.
And any one of those guys would be elected if they finished with 493 homers. Again, I'm not arguing McGriff's case for the HOF (though I have several times before); I'm just saying that according to past BBWAA voting history, he should be in or at least close. Like you said, they're likely rejecting him for the wrong reasons. If he was being ignored because his WAR isn't high enough or his defense was bad, etc, I'd be okay with that.
But he's not. He's likely being overlooked because his power numbers - both single season and career - aren't as high as a bunch of his contemporaries, most of whom will be snubbed themselves for being roiders. That type of mindset just doesn't seem fair to me. If you want to say you're okay with that cuz Crime Dawg doesn't belong anyway so who cares why the voters aren't selecting him, fine. But I'm worried that eventually this same mindset will prevent players who clearly are worthy from being selected.
"Clean" players should be compared to other "clean" players. That's all I'm sayin'.
The other issue is that a lot of the "dirty" players were much better power hitters than McGriff in their "clean" years. (This is all by the BBWAA narrative, regardless of its truth.) Bonds, ARod, Manny, and Sheffield were blowing past McGriff's numbers before they were reportedly affiliated with Balco or whoever.
If the Hall sticks with a blanket ban on roiders, they're going to be excluding a bunch of guys who were deserving HoFers even without the roids (by the narrative). Should the BBWAA then elect more sub-borderline guys to make up the shortfall? I don't think they should. Your "clean players should be compared to clean players" implies that borderline guys should be elected off the waiting list. I don't think that necessarily follows logically, and I don't think the BBWAA is going to do things that way.
Maybe, but not necessarily. That type of discrepancy could very well be the difference between someday getting elected (or at least returning on the ballot for the duration) and dropping off entirely. Is McGriff at 20% even going to survive the upcoming backlog over the next several seasons? I'm not so sure he won't dip below the 5% cutoff and be gone altogether. Would he survive it at 40%? It's gotta be more likely, at least. I'd worry about Edgar and Walker falling off the ballot too if they were in the 20% range.
This really isn't just about McGriff. I think all borderline players are going to be victims of the backlog.
Yeah, but the number of power hitters from McGriff's era who were better than him cuts in half if you take away the roiders. Rather than being top 15 or so for example, maybe he's top 6 or 7 instead and his case starts to look a little better.
True, but I doubt the BBWAA will consider things like this much though, otherwise Bonds and Clemens would still be elected first ballot. And I'd bet lots of money that they won't.
Well, they did with Rice and probably Morris. But no, I strongly disagree with that approach. What I mean is that some of these borderline guys might not BE borderline if you only compare them to other "clean" players. Maybe not McGriff (though I'd say yes), but Walker and Edgar and Edmonds and Rolen and maybe Beltran and probably a few others we could think of. Don't these guys careers suddenly look more impressive when you're not comparing their power numbers to the likes of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Manny, A-Rod, etc?
I think that steroids played only a very small part in the "sillyball" era offensive explosion - it was mostly the ball - and so I think comparing "clean" players to the real league average / replacement level is the best method.
Sure, in an otherwise identical universe where Walker played in a neutral ballpark they would probably underappreciate him for different reasons.
But in this universe that's not the data point we have.
Unless you're saying that the BBWAA voters are correctly park adjusting his stats but then underrating them, which seems unlikely to me. It doesn't fit with the articles I've read, where it looks like a chunk of the voters are not so much park-adjusting as treating Coors as a disqualifier.
Justin Upton maybe someday.....his 11 WAR through age 23 compares well to a lot of HOF outfielders and corner infielders through age 23. LINKY Better get it back in gear though.
Cardinals
Larry Fitzgerald....LOCK
Suns
Steve Nash.....Lock
Coyotes
Nobody...but I have to say that Shane Doan always reminds me of Keanu Reeves.
Stephenson's sponsor on baseball reference similarly claims that Riggs is the greatest baseball player who is NOT in the Hall of Fame. Which is pretty ridiculous.
Yankees
Locks: Mariano, ARod, Jeter
Looking good but not quite there: Sabathia
Possible but I wouldn't bet on it: Teixeira, Pettite, Cano
Mets:
Possible but not sure I'd bet on it: Wright
Yes, if they elected people on general coolness: R.A. Dickey
Knicks:
Good Lord I hope not but I guess it's likely: Carmelo
If someone could do a Steve Austin style body transplant: Amare
If the Daily News got the sole vote: Jeremy Lin
Nets:
In a different uniform, possibly: Deron Williams
Giants:
I find the NFL so hard to predict. Eli will get votes, esp if he wins again. Chris Snee?
Jets:
Revis? Before or after Tebow?
Hockey:
I could not have less of an idea
Sure, but what about Bagwell? He's a high average slugger with an MVP and lots of RBI's in his peak; he's also a one team superstar playing for a near perennial contender - in other words, he's EXACTLY the type of player the BBWAA usually DOES elect. Why isn't he in already? I'd guess it's a combination of two things: A) He LOOKED like a roider so some voters are assuming he was, and B) His 450 homers and 1500 something ribbies are being compared to contemporaries - most of whom actually were juicers - and are coming up a bit short.
I agree, but it's hard not to notice that a disproportionate amount of the top sluggers of the era WERE roiders - seven of the ten 500 guys, for example (yes, I'm including Sosa cuz the voters "KNOW" he was juicing and will treat him as such, even though they don't have any of that pesky evidence nonsense). That may be setting an unrealistic standard for those who weren't.
McGriff sure felt like a HOFer to me during his 1988-1994 peak. And just like the homers, his RBI's need to be taken into context. His 104 in 1992, for example, was a lot considering that Daulton led the league with 109. Freddie had a 3rd and two 4th place finishes, and he was on pace for around 130 in 1994.
But again, I'm not really trying to promote McGriff's HOF case right now. I was just using him as an example of why I think the BBWAA may have raised their standards to ridiculous heights and why I'm much less confident than everyone else that Vlad really is a no-brainer lock.
I would add an "if only" to this one...
Two things here. First, he's the kind of guy that generally takes a few elections. And, second, he will be inducted.
Some guys have withheld votes based on rumors, which is rephrehensible. But the overall vote total is fairly consistent with past candidates with a resume like his.
Walker is a weird case. I DO suspect the voters are underrating his all around game (not giving enough credit for the defense, steals, etc). And it's not that they're overrating his hitting based on the pretty Coors inflated percentages, it's that I think they'd likely underrate that too in a more normal park. As MCoA mentioned earlier, all around talents are often overlooked. Dewey Evans, for example - a fairly similar player to Walker - never even got half the support Larry has. Would a corner outfielder with "only" 350 homers 1200 ribbies and a .294/.378/.530 line even get the 22% that Walker is getting now? I don't know. Coors or not, a .313 average, 3 batting titles and an MVP probably looks a lot better to voters than .294, maybe 1 batting title, and no MVP's.
And this is another reason why I'd consider Vlad a probable electee rather than a no-brainer, first ballot one. His resume is similar to Bags (and significantly worse if even a few voters pay attention to SABR stats).
I loved Vlad. I want to see him elected, and I actually think he will be eventually (which I said from the beginning). But I'd bet money it won't be on the first ballot. I'd actually be pretty surprised if he even came particularly close on the first ballot.
It's very difficult to gauge how this goes. Cris Carter sure felt like a HOFer when he played, he was the guy who was basically No. 2 in the league to Rice for many years. He had a long career and retired at No. 2-3 in most important categories. It's bizarre to me that he's not in.
That said, WR has always been a rough position. Hines Ward is going to need help, like someone like Ray Didinger personally campaigning for him. I think there's a legit case that he's better than many HOF receivers, but his numbers are pedestrian due to primarily being in a run-first system (even when they had Plax + Ward) and a ton of his value comes from his blocking, which is basically LOLignored for skill position players. He'll get into the South Korea Sports Hall of Fame.
Big Ben and Eli are near locks IMO.
Ben: Personally I think he's a fine player but has benefited from playing for a winning organization. In 10 years, no one will remember the personal problems (assuming he stays out of trouble) and the narrative about him is he's a big winner. He has a career record of 80-33 as a starter and 2 rings, he should pass 30,000 yards passing for his career. He'd have to basically do nothing and become a problem child to not make it.
Eli: Probably even more of a lock than Roethlisberger. Winning 2 rings in NY didn't help Phil Simms but he didn't get enough credit for those titles, especially the one they won when he got hurt. Eli, on the other hand, participated in two of the greatest upsets and two of the most memorable plays in Super Bowl history. He's just 1 year removed from people mocking him for saying he's elite but he's firmly entrenched. He is starting to put up impressive numbers now with nearly 5,000 yards passing last year and 27,000 for his career.
The Giants definitely have other candidates. From the first title team, Michael Strahan is getting in. Tuck and Osi had seasons where they played like Hall of Famers but haven't been consistent. The guy to watch is JPP. Nicks and Cruz are a long ways from consideration but they've done nothing wrong so far.
To me the most fascinating cases will be guys who are hugely controversial, like Vick or Romo, if they happen to win a SB in the next few years.
He's basically John Stallworth with two less fewer Super Bowls, but a Super Bowl MVP trophy and a reputation as being one of the best (if not the best) blocking wide receiver in the game (whether it's well-deserved or not). Not to mention that he got a ton of exposure while being on Dancing with the Stars and that can't possibly hurt his chances.
The main problem with the football Hall of Fame is that they were too restrictive for a long period of time (and probably still are). They could literally inductive 15 people a year for 5 straight years and not come close to clearing out their backlog. This is why I find it silly to campaign for a particular player to get into the football HOF: you should campaign for them to induct as many people as possible each year, and eventually they'll have room to induct some wide receivers.
This. The HoF voters seem unusually stringent with some positions (WR, safety, TE, center in general, guards from the 50s/60s, outside LBs from the 50s/60s/70s). And in Carter's case, he's caught in a logjam with Andre Reed and Tim Brown, all of whom are siphoning support from each other -- plus they all pale next to their contemporary Jerry Rice (as does every receiver in NFL history with the possible exception of Don Hutson). Michael Irvin retired earlier because of injury and beat the pack in, or he'd be in the same boat. I think there's no question Cris Carter gets into the HoF, but logjams like this happen sometimes and they can be hard to break. Given that the PFHoF voting process is not a straight tally of votes but a winnowing process of voted cutdowns resulting in a final five who get a "yes" or "no," crazy things can happen and apparently do -- some supposed "no brainers" wind up waiting a while when you wouldn't expect it.
Winning 2 rings in NY didn't help Phil Simms but he didn't get enough credit for those titles, especially the one they won when he got hurt.
He didn't actually QB one of those Super Bowl wins (Jeff Hostetler did), though he did play a good bit of the regular season. Same thing happened with Bobby Layne, who was the QB much of the year the last time the Detroit Lions won an NFL championship (1957), but the last few games of the season and all postseason wins were QB-ed by Tobin Rote. Myself, I credit the QB who actually played the game with the "win," for what it's worth.
Re NY Giants who are HoF-bound: Michael Strahan retired a couple years ago, but he's a lock, arguably the most accomplished d-lineman of the 2000s. For me, it's just too early to say on anyone else yet. Osi Umenyiora and Justin Tuck only have a single first team all pro selection and 2 pro bowls each, and that's nowhere near enough. And that goes for Chris Snee, who has almost the same postseason honors (3 pro bowls, though).
I also don't see a HoF case for Michael Vick or Tony Romo at this point even if they win a Super Bowl or two. Their regular season numbers aren't as good as Roethlisberger's or Eli's, who have two Super Bowl wins -- and as I said above, it's too early to say on them as well. The next five or so years of Ben's and Eli's career will tell us more.
Re the Jets, Darrelle Revis has a terrific start: 5 years played, 4 pro bowls, 3 first team all pro selections, a reputation as the best cover cornerback of his time, and plenty of good years left. Barring an early career-ending injury, he's got a very good chance. The only other player who might have a chance here is center Nick Mangold, but only if he is seen as the top center of his era after Kevin Mawae's retirement -- and he has a leg up so far on that with 2 first team all pro selections and 4 pro bowls in a 6-year career -- but it's still way too early yet to know.
Also think #127 is spot-on. The PFHoF has historically been very restrictive and continues to be, which often forces deserving players to wait years or be denied entirely.
Not quite. As baudib said, WRs are handled really weirdly by the HOF committee. Fitzgerald certainly looks like he'll be deserving, but deserving to get in and actually getting in are very different.
Eli Manning is a lock, by the way. Two Super Bowls, defeating one of the very best QBs of all time in both (and an undefeated team in one), and playing for a marquee franchise. No way does he not get in.
I don't think he's a lock just yet, though he has been a top WR of his time and has a good chance thus far. Where he ends up in career counting stats will matter a lot -- it's just too early to say. There are several excellent WRs who looked like strong contenders after their 8th year and now probably won't be elected, including Harold Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Henry Ellard, and Stanley Morgan.
RANGERS
Lundqvist and Callahan have shots, but both need more time.
DEVILS
Brodeur obviously. Elias or Kovalchuk maybe. Parise needs more time.
ISLANDERS
nobody.
Agreed, with the small nitpick that I don't think the identity of his team matters as much as the number of teams (one). One thing about Plunkett is he bounced around to three different teams. If Manning had an identical career with the Browns or Bucs I think he'd still be a lock.
Altuve!
TEXANS
Andre Johnson is on track for a borderline call given his injuries and age, but if he overcomes them and puts up 2-3 more Pro Bowl level seasons, he'll probably make it as the 4th best receiver of his generation.
ROCKETS
Kyle Lowry is great and is definitely way underrated, but he's no HOFer.
Well we clearly disagree on Ben/Eli, who I think have accomplished 95% of a HOF career already. Griese, Plunkett and Simms aren't exactly Tom Brady but at that level you have a chance to get in; Ben/Eli are clearly above that level.
That goes for:
Winning 2 Super Bowls is really close to getting you into the Hall of Fame on its own. Romo got a late start and had a big injury year but otherwise his numbers are solid. To be sure, he needs to play well into his mid-30s.
As for Vick, I am pretty sure if Canton had a baseball-style VC he would get in. The extent to which he is already a legendary figure to his contemporaries would ensure it.
Good point. I'd agree one team is a bigger factor than which team that is, though I do think a lifelong Giants QB has a slightly better shot than a lifelong Browns QB (though only slightly).
Here's what I'm thinking on the QB HoF situation. Historically, it's pretty unusual to see more than ca. 6 HoF QBs from a particular time period, even given how lavish the voters seem to be with the position. For the 00s, there's no question Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Brett Favre are going in. Drew Brees not only has won a Super Bowl, he's an elite-level stats guy, and I'd be very surprised if he also doesn't get in. Then figure that Kurt Warner will also likely make it in with a Super Bowl win, two Super Bowl losses, a small number of very high-level seasons, and arguably more narrative cachet than any QB since Joe Namath. That's now five.
If we induct Ben and Eli, we're up to seven HoF QBs from this period, which is the outer limit here if not beyond. If both Eli and Ben flame out for the rest of their careers at this point, it's going to be a long wait at best for the HoF for them and at worst, they'll fall short, even with 2 Super Bowl wins. Of course, they may not -- which is why I said, "it's too early to say on them as well. The next five or so years of Ben's and Eli's career will tell us more." My guess is that the upside for Eli is greater, but one never knows, especially if one or both is unlucky enough to suffer a career-ending injury in the near future. Moreover, the argument that Ben/Eli already have careers above that of Simms/Griese/Plunkett at their retirement with regular season stats adjusted to era is one I'd be interested to see.
Given all this, I don't see how Romo or Vick, at best #8 and #9 on the QB depth chart, have a prayer unless something really unusual happens and they move ahead of Eli/Ben. And despite the explicitly stated lack of a "character clause" for PFHoF consideration, Vick's incarceration on dog-fight charges won't help his case any. The voters couldn't deny a no-brainer like Lawrence Taylor despite his legal woes, but for a borderline-at-best QB, it's likely a different story.
It depends on how you define time periods. For one thing, if Eli gets in, he's not getting in as a quarterback of the "00s." The heart of his career is going to be more like 2005-2015, same for Roethlisberger. If you stretch it to 15-year periods (2000-2015), then putting in 6 QBs from that era is not unusual at all:
1985-2000
Montana
Marino
Kelly
Moon
Elway
Aikman
Young
(Favre)
1970-1985
Bradshaw
Staubach
Tarkenton
Griese
Fouts
if you make it 1965-1980 you get this group:
Starr
Namath
Unitas
Dawson
Jorgensen
Bradshaw
Staubach
Tarkenton
Griese
(that's not counting Blanda)
Also, as teams move away from balanced attacks and pass the ball more, it would seem that more quarterbacks get in than running backs. Usually you have 3-5 running backs per decade get in. Among active players at RB, Tomlinson is a shoo-in but is at the end. Among active, still-in-prime running backs, only Peterson seems like an obvious candidate. Someone out of Foster, Johnson, Jones-Drew, Rice MAY make it, but none are likely. We will probably see more QBs and fewer running backs inducted in the future.
That said, I do think the writers who have viewed him as a HOFer for years now will look at his final career line and think "huh, that's actually not as good as I thought." Lack of milestones will prevent him from getting in on the first ballot. But he should be elected by the BBWAA (unless the ballot is literally paralyzed by the PED pile-up for that long, which I can't totally rule out.)
It is of course true that those who believe PED-aided numbers are completely illegitimate should then not compare non-PED users to those "illegitimate" numbers. But it would be a lot of work for those people to then re-calculate all of the stats, leaderboards and awards to come up with the "legit leaders." So that's not going to happen.
Vick would presumably get significant "pioneer" credit if the QB position evolves into more of an athletic/running position, as I believe will happen. He'd have to start playing football a lot better, though.
¹ Which he often used to put the ball in the stands behind the third baseman.
² I understand the DiMaggio "quiet and schtupped Marilyn Monroe" mystique much better than the Vlad "quiet and lived with his mom" mystique.
I don't even follow football, but don't you think the whole animal cruelty thing will be a huge obstacle in his way? I suspect there'd be a massive PETA protest outside Canton if he was ever elected.
(and I've only been skimming the football posts, so I apologize if this has already been covered)
(Naturally, I realize Vick is not the first athletic/running QB ever, but I think he would get credit for it. Probably the best baseball analogy would be Dennis Eckersley, of whom it was often mentioned that he was "the first modern closer", even though that of course has also been a very gradual evolution.)
(This is all, of course, based on the unlikely proposition that Vick ends up with a basic résumé that is not HOF-laughable.)
I get the sense that sportswriters feel Vick has already paid for his dog fighting crimes by losing two years of his career to prison (and another year to getting back in shape as a backup to McNabb.)
That said, Vick would be the baseball equivalent of Lou Brock if he got into the Hall of Fame given the current status of his career.
Unfortunately for Vick, Randall Cunningham exists.
Of course Vick's passing numbers are pedestrian by HOF standards, but he is already the league's all-time leading rusher among quarterbacks.
Vick has 5,219 yards rushing at 7.2 YPC clip, 33 rushing touchdowns. Gale Sayers has 4,956 yards rushing and 39 rushing TDs (15 TDs from other plays).
Obviously Vick has a lot of work ahead of him but it's not an impossible path. Steve Young and Warren Moon had less-impressive HOF resumes at age 31 than Vick. Key thing for Vick is to stay healthy and work on his postseason resume. He's one of two QBs to ever win a playoff game in Green Bay (Eli's the other) and he killed off the last remnants of the St. Louis Rams' little mini-dynasty. It's not a ton but it's a start.
He's now in a system where, if he stays healthy, he should be able to put up 4,000-yard, 30 TD seasons with ease. He hasn't done that yet because he hasn't been healthy.
Randall has all the nuts and bolts of a HOF career but he was the one guy for whom getting the ring would have made all the difference in the world as far as getting into Canton, and he didn't get one.
Given all this, I don't see how Romo or Vick, at best #8 and #9 on the QB depth chart, have a prayer unless something really unusual happens and they move ahead of Eli/Ben.
Rodgers is also in the mix. He could wind up with significantly better numbers than Eli/Ben, and is "only" one ring behind them.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main