This is nothing but a long and rambling "he just doesn't feel like a HoFer" article.

"I can’t say why
I’ve dabbled in rhyme
But I can say this:
Give me more time"

I think you've dabbled in more than just rhyme, Marty.

I don't need literally every voting writer to think Thome is a Hall of Famer, but this kind of "it'll be really difficult, but don't worry because I'm on the case" reassurance was pretty obnoxious. He makes it sound like the moment Thome retires, he'll begin a half-decade conducting field research with a gaggle of old, cranky interns.

Well, at least based on TFE (there is no way I am reading that article), it sounds like Noble is saying he's on the fence. Of course, you would think someone who has devoted his life to following baseball would have considered the subject enough to have an opinion. But, let's not crucify him just yet. He is right when he points out he doesn't need to figure it out until it's time to vote.

What I want to know is, is he seriously implying that Jim Thome and Jason Isringhausen are comparable Hall of Fame candidates? I don't know what "he suffers from lack" means. (Probably because it doesn't mean anything.)

What I want to know is, is he seriously implying that Jim Thome and Jason Isringhausen are comparable Hall of Fame candidates?

Hard to make sense of this. I don't think he's saying 300 saves is equivalent to 600 homers. But he's saying that despite his familiarity watching Izzy from the beginning of his career, he's objective enough to not vote Izzy for the Hall. He seems to be implying that the Cleveland writers might be putting their familiarity with Thome ahead of objectivity. That's bizzare and insulting.

I think people have begun to fetishize the Hall of Fame "smell test." It seems like any player who was not CONSTANTLY referred to as "future Hall of Famer ________" has a significant uphill climb.

This is a reason why I'm not scared of, say, Johnny Damon getting 3,000 hits. I think the smell test has replaced the automatic number.

I don't know what "he suffers from lack" means. (Probably because it doesn't mean anything.)

I figured that it referred to the discrepancy of 300 between Thome's and Izzy's counting numbers.

Also, I'm kind of amazed that he thought a poem was a good idea and actually published it.

I think the smell test has replaced the automatic number.

The smell test has always superceded the automatic number.

It's why Killer and Mathews (two players of Thome's type) had to wait a handful of years for Cooperstown admittance despite obvious numerical qualification. I wouldn't be surprised if Jim took a similar path as those two sluggers.

If you just know if a guy is a Hall of Famer, does that mean there is still a contingent out there who don't want Snider, Mize, Greenberg, Vaughan inshrined?

If you just know if a guy is a Hall of Famer, does that mean there is still a contingent out there who don't want Snider, Mize, Greenberg, Vaughan inshrined?

The funny thing is that about a decade after those guys get enshrined, them being hofers becomes part of the lexicon arguing against others who don't feel like Hofers. I know in the past I've read articles saying that someone didn't belong to the hof along with the immortals like Mize, Snider and Greenberg(heck until just this minute, I didn't know that Greenberg took years to get into the hof, he's always been spoken of reverentially from my memory)

Well the good news is that there is at least five years before Marty has a vote. Which brings to mind the story of King Louis's horse.

A thief was brought before King Louis of France, waiting to be judged and sentenced. The thief shouted, “Your majesty, if you spare my life, in a year, I can teach your horse to speak!”

King Louis, being intrigued by this unique proposal, granted the request.

His friends came up to him after and said “Have you lost your mind? That’s impossible!”

“Relax” replied the thief. “A year is a long time. In a year, anything can happen.
I might die,
King Louis might die,
the horse might die.

Or the horse might speak."

The smell test has always superceded the automatic number.

This.

I think the consensus has always been that achieving a milestone in one counting stat, by itself, wouldn't get you into the HoF. The classic example was Dave Kingman - there was quite a discussion about whether he'd make the HoF if he hit 500 HRs (which obviously he didn't) and the general belief was that even with 500 HRs he wouldn't go.

Clearly, 300 saves isn't a magic number for HoF entry. Whether 600 HRs in this era will be is an open question - even though Thome has never been tainted by the steroid brush, I think there's still an undercurrent of feeling that HRs have become almost too easy, and I would not be at all surprised to see Thome wait a few years.

-- MWE

and Greenberg(heck until just this minute, I didn't know that Greenberg took years to get into the hof, he's always been spoken of reverentially from my memory)

I didn't know that Greenberg took years until Bill James wrote that there was an outcry by the anti- camp after he was finally selected.
His career was short for a HOFer, and 331 homers from a "slugger" were a bit light... of course he lost 4 years to WW2 (he was drafted in 1940- before Pearl Harbor- he was released mid way through 1941- but 1941 was a wipe out, only 20 games or so, of course after Pearl Harbor he went back in and missed 1942/42 & 44 and half of 45, he likely lost 125+ homers, 700+ hits

This.

I think the consensus has always been that achieving a milestone in one counting stat, by itself, wouldn't get you into the HoF. The classic example was Dave Kingman

But Kingman was such an extreme outlier. The real test will be Damon if Damion reaches 3000- and even so, Damon has been a much more valuable overall player than Kingman was.

WRT pitchers- Sutton got hit with a ton of "doesn't feel like a HOFer" articles- which were met by an even larger number of, "but he won 300" articles, and he went in.

I think the truth is that there are some writers who would have voted for Kong if he reached 500, just as there is some indeterminate number who will vote for Johnny Damon 3036 hits who will not vote for him if he wraps up at 2936

His career was short for a HOFer, and 331 homers from a "slugger" were a bit light...

Are a bit light, considering that the homerun has been a bigger part of baseball than it had in the past, and that even in Greenberg's time, lineups typically had 1 or 2 guys hitting homers and the rest just trying to get on base. Unlike today where 5-7 guys per lineup can take you deep. Greenberg currently ranks 98th in career homers. Without WWII he would be in the top 50.

At the time Greenberg retired, he was #5 on the alltime homerun list, behind just Ruth, Foxx, Ott, and Gehrig.

WRT pitchers- Sutton got hit with a ton of "doesn't feel like a HOFer" articles- which were met by an even larger number of, "but he won 300" articles, and he went in.

I think the truth is that there are some writers who would have voted for Kong if he reached 500, just as there is some indeterminate number who will vote for Johnny Damon 3036 hits who will not vote for him if he wraps up at 2936

But the number is well, well short of 75 percent of the electorate, probably below 10 percent. Sutton took several years to get in, as did Mathews and Killebrew. They were not ushered immediately into Cooperstown as soon as they became eligible, milestone numbers be damned. If there were such a substantial number of "automatic number" voters, then it shouldn't have taken these guys, deserving Hall of Famers all, 4-5 years to reach Cooperstown.

300 saves is a nice accomplishment, but it's no where close to being similar to even 500 homeruns, forget comparing it to 600 homeruns. Yes there is currently only one pitcher above 600, and one above 500, and only 3 others above 400, but it's a relatively new stat and to think that it's comparable to even 500 homeruns is laughable. I think the Save homerun comparison is something like 300 saves = 400 homeruns, 400 saves = 500 homeruns, 600 saves = 700 homeruns is a rough comparison. Although single season wise 40 saves = 35 homeruns, no matter the era saves should now be a pretty constant stat, while homeruns will fluctuate depending on the offensive environment.

There are 22 pitchers with 300 or more saves, pretty much all of them doing it post 1970. There are 90 players with 300+ homers since 1970. Looking at the top 22 of them puts 300 saves to be about as rare as having 438 homers.

I also looked at 40+ saves seasons since 1983 (when Quis first reached that level.) There are 127 such seasons, while during the same stretch there are 171 40+ homer seasons. This gets you to the same level of relative rarity.

But rarity is not value. Without crunching the numbers I'd be shocked if the average 300+ homer guy is not well more valuable than the average 300+ save guy, and that a 40 homer season is much more valuable than a 40 save season.

Now for the check:

The median WAR for those 40+ homer guys is 5.8 -think Griffey or Sosa in 2000, or Ryan Howard 2006.

The median WAR for the 40+ save guys is 2.5 - Gagne in 2004, or Rafael Soriano last year.

I know which group I'd rather have.

Looking at the top 22 of them puts 300 saves to be about as rare as having 438 homers.

Except that teams have (generally) only one closer at a time as opposed to 8-9 players trying to hit HRs. A better comparison (for "rarity" claims) would be 300 saves vs. the top 22 HR-hitting 3B or something like that.

Taking a very liberal definition and requiring only 30% of games at any of 2B, 3B, CF,* since 1970, I get #22 as Fred Lynn with 306. Or if you limited it to guys with, say, 40% of games at 1B, #22 is Hrbek at 293 ... #21 is Sexson at (get this) 306. So I opine that 300 saves is really about as rare as 300 HR.

Similarly for 40 HR seasons. With at least 50% of games at 1B, there have been 59 40 HR seasons, about half the rate of closer 40-save seasons. 59 is a bigger number than I was expecting but still rarer.

Going on, since 1970, there have been 204 20-win seasons but again you're comparing 4-5 starters to one closer. If you look from 1990, there have been 71 20-win seasons and 118 40-save seasons. That's nearly 6 40-save pitchers per year, 20% of all closers -- common as dirt.

*Chosen because just as closers aren't (generally) as good as starters but better than other relievers, these positions are sort of middle of the offensive spectrum.

I wrote a poem about Luke Hochevar the other day...jury's still out on whether he's a Hall of Famer though*.

Hopes were high (though God knows why)
As Hochevar took the mound on Opening Day
That the label “ace” may stick to the first overall pick
But the Royals lost in the regular way, with shoddy baseball play
And the fans doth barely restrain their sick

*Me entering the poets Hall of Fame however is a foregone conclusion.

The thing is, Thome hasn't just hit a lot of homers. He's gotten on base a lot (he's the active walk leader), and scored a lot of runs as a consequence (over 1500). He's also driven in over 1600 runs (and could make 1700 if he plays next year), something the writers like. Yes, he struck out a lot, too, but he only lead the league 3 times, and his career total is as much a result of his long career as it is free swinging. He was not a one dimensional hitter. I remember hearing similar talk when Frank Thomas was nearing 500 homers, as if his qualifications were in serious doubt (and he has a better claim than Thome). Writers have to write about something, I guess.

601.

The man is a MACHINE!

The thing is, Thome hasn't just hit a lot of homers. He's gotten on base a lot (he's the active walk leader), and scored a lot of runs as a consequence (over 1500). He's also driven in over 1600 runs (and could make 1700 if he plays next year), something the writers like. Yes, he struck out a lot, too, but he only lead the league 3 times, and his career total is as much a result of his long career as it is free swinging. He was not a one dimensional hitter. I remember hearing similar talk when Frank Thomas was nearing 500 homers, as if his qualifications were in serious doubt (and he has a better claim than Thome). Writers have to write about something, I guess.

I think it's funny that his career strikeout total is a product of his playing time, but you seem to be implying that his walk total and RBI is a product of his value/skill. His strikeout total is high, because he strikes out a lot, he averages a strikeout a game for his career. That is a higher rate than all but Canseco in the top 13 all time, and Canseco and Dunn in the top 20/30/40/50/60/70 of all time(Deer joins the party at 71) Not that it matters, but yes he was a strikeout machine throughout his career.

601.

The man is a MACHINE!

If Thome just hits 40 HRs every year until he turns 45, Bonds' record falls to a clean player.

Well the good news is that there is at least five years before Marty has a vote. Which brings to mind the story of King Louis's horse.

A thief was brought before King Louis of France, waiting to be judged and sentenced. The thief shouted, “Your majesty, if you spare my life, in a year, I can teach your horse to speak!”

King Louis, being intrigued by this unique proposal, granted the request.

His friends came up to him after and said “Have you lost your mind? That’s impossible!”

“Relax” replied the thief. “A year is a long time. In a year, anything can happen.
I might die,
King Louis might die,
the horse might die.

Or the horse might speak."

This is why Srul is my favorite poster here (respectful nod to Keefe).

#15 And that list of 5 partially describes why he had problems making the hall. It's kind of the Rickey!/Raines situation.

Greenberg could be directly compared to both Foxx and Gehrig and he comes up short. For that matter, Foxx also had his own problems getting in.

Now, "Not as good as Lou Gehrig" isn't the worst thing you can say about a player.

But remember that HOF cases (pro and con) had a stronger narrative aspect back then (since nobody could really say with any certainty what the numbers truly were)

And "Third best first baseman in the league for much of a short career" carried a fair amount of weight as an argument against him. A really weird talent overlap.

I hadn't thought of this before -- and one of our HoF experts can chime in -- but regarding Greenberg it occurs to me that he was the first legit candidate to hit the ballot whose career was interrupted by WW2. The writers may have simply not yet figured out how they were going to handle that situation. As near as I can tell, the first one elected was DiMaggio in 55 which was also the year Greenberg saw a huge jump in his vote total and he was elected the next year.

I don't know if it was the case but I can imagine that writers had been saying "it's a shame but Greenberg's career just wasn't long enough." Then, when Joe D came up (seriously) there was enough talk about how much more he'd have compiled if he'd played those years and that set the argument/precedent for Greenberg's war credit?

#28 Could be. Johnny Mize's lack of support is easier to explain if there's nothing in the way of war credit (though like Greenberg I don't see that he needs was credit)

I think Greenberg was somewhat underrated because he hit a ton of doubles and nobody would have known it (other than a general sense that he got his share)

He's also a little to well rounded as an offensive player (same with Mize) to make for an easy story. I don't think there's a single, simple explanation for their relative lack of support and I think proximity to Gehrig (same type of player, obviously inferior) was the major issue though.

I remember hearing similar talk when Frank Thomas was nearing 500 homers, as if his qualifications were in serious doubt (and he has a better claim than Thome).

When Thomas was widing down his career with the Jays Toronto sports radio personality Bob McGowan claimed Thomas wasn't a Hall of Famer because he was one dimensional and never hit for average.

#30 That's unusual for McCown. Oh he's staked out odd positions plenty of times, but he's generally not simply wrong on the facts. Career .300 hitters with a batting crown on their resume have hit for average.

He only hit .262 from 2001 on, and that was obviously a long enough stretch to make some people forget just how good he was in his prime . Not that his decline phase wasn't impressive in its own way -- a 130 OPS+ in a fairly long decline phase is none too shabby.

.330/.452/.600 (OPS+ of 182, and that underrates him an an offensive player) through the first 1076 games of his career. Two unexpectedly poor years, a bounceback year and then the player McCown remembers him as.

Incidentally it would be kind of strange to fail to give war credit for Mize and Greenberg in light of the way the voters give "if only" credit to Sisler.

Though again I think an important difference is that Sisler was a different type of offensive player and can't be compared to Gehrig so readily.

I remember hearing similar talk when Frank Thomas was nearing 500 homers, as if his qualifications were in serious doubt (and he has a better claim than Thome). Writers have to write about something, I guess.

Lest we forget, writers are not chosen for their analytical ability, they are chosen for their writing ability. That's why someone like Poz, and excellent writer who CAN think his way out of a paper bag, is a treat.

The real test will be Damon if Damion reaches 3000- and even so, Damon has been a much more valuable overall player than Kingman was.

Palmeiro reached 3000 with 550+ HR. Steroids and blah-blah, but I think that Palmeiro is the gateway excuse for denying 3000 hit guys the HOF.