User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6269 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
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. JJ1986 Posted: September 27, 2010 at 05:11 PM (#3649558)The Sox are Konerko's third team.
I suppose it's possible (BTW, did you notice that despite playing like utter crap, Juan Pierre has picked up 170 hits this year... up to 1,833 now!), but to act like you think it's got a good chance to happen is just weird. Unless you're just acting like you are in order to fill a segment, of course. That'd be fine ESPN journalism.
No.
That's it, not even a discussion of why the author thinks 500 HR is still enough of a magic number. There's an implication that maybe "clean" 500 HR guys will still be valued, but if this is a late-career peak and not a fluke year (i.e., if he actually gets to 500 HR), Konerko could well lose the "clean" presumption.
Before clicking on the link in the sidebar, I was trying to guess what the article was about... was rooting for "Is Konerko a HOFer? No, but you'd be surprised how well he matches up with (Rice/Perez/Cepeda/Hodges/etc.)!" Even that would be a hard case to make.
It strikes me that seven of these eight hitters were much, much, much better than Paul Konerko.
It strikes me that ALL of them were better
Konerko career OPS+: 119, top 3, 158, 136, 134
Palmeiro: career: 132, top 3: 159, 155, 150
Galarraga: career: 118, top 3: 157, 150, 149
I guess Galarraga is the comp- career OPS+ is close, Konerko's 158 in 2010 kind of sticks out (so far)
If Konerko were to put up 2010 numbers again 3-4 times, then yeah I'd say 500 was in reach- but we'd still be talking about a 40-50 WAR player (not close to HOF caliber)- and that's career path that sends the sanctimonious prig portion of the MSM howling
Konerko's HOF chances are between 0 and 1%
Pierre's having a strange season. He has the lowest batting average and lowest slugging percentage of his career. His walk rate is right in line with his career averages. And yet he has his best OBP for a full season since 2004. What happened? Well, the answer is that he's been hit by 21 pitches, more than twice as many as in any other season in his career.
Player OPS+ PADwight Evans 125 7722
Roy White 123 7499
Derrek Lee 122 7459
Steve Garvey 122 7449
Jimmy Sheckard 121 7657
Paul Konerko 119 7505
Gary Matthews 118 7576
Joe Judge 116 7338
Johnny Callison 115 7248
Carlos Lee 114 7495
Well, that list is perfectly devoid of Hall of Famers. If anything, it shows him as having surprisingly moved into solid HOVG membership with his big year in 2010, though. Those are all good ballplayers, and I would have thought of Konerko as a cut below them. Actually I imagine he's still a cut below them overall, since he's probably the least valuable defensive player on the list, and the slowest baserunner by an order of magnitude. But he's been a good, solid RBI man for over a decade.
Those are career highs in all categories.
Helluva a year, but is there any reason to think this is some new level of talent he has achieved, such that he can ride it out to 500 HRs?
And where are all the brain-dead Jose Bautista-like articles questioning Konerko's bona fides? I guess having a career year at 34 doesn't catch any one's attention unless it is accompanied by 45+ HRs.
Now there's something you don't see discussed too often - the HOVG in/out line. Has Eric Chavez done enough to make the HOVG? How about Mike Lowell or Melvin Mora?
Nope. Just a massive, massive slump.
2008 was an injury-affected year, as he suffered a bone bruise in his thumb in late April that took a couple months to get into playable shape, although it lingered into 2009. This is the first year since then that it hasn't been an issue.
Chavez: A pure peak voter might like him (26.7 WAR from 2001-05) but injuries cut him down by the age of 29 leaving him with a paltry 5400 PAs. Of the HVG candidates, that's ahead of only the 19th century candidates (Joyce, Lyons, Meyerle and Williamson) and the even-peakier peak candidate Al Rosen (30.4 of his 33.0 WAR in the 5 seasons 1950-54). I think he's just short.
Lowell: His career line is currently 108 OPS+/6484 plate attempts. Considering schedule length, that's similar to Bill Bradley (108/6046) and Freddie Lindstrom (109/6104). He's also similar defensively in that he's a little above average but not elite. Another likely no.
Mora: A better peak than Lowell which helps him get a higher career WAR (27.2 to 22.6) but a worse career OPS+ in fewer career plate attempts and some brutal defensive seasons that leave him barely even for his career. That makes him the least likely candidate of this trio.
Konerko: It depends on his decline phase. The top of the list in #13 includes a couple of Hall of Merit players (Evans and Sheckard) as well as several surefire Hall of Very Good guys (Garvey, White) but the bottom of the list includes several guys who wouldn't even make a HVG (Callison, Lee). Right now, he's around the in/out line. If he can maintain his rate stats for a couple of more years, he might push himself in. But if his next few years are more like his 2007-09, then he probably falls short.
Fangraphs has him with 29 WAR, also not in the top 500, including this year.
He entered this year with 178 Win Shares. Way too low.
His career batting + fielding wins (Pete Palmer's stat) is listed at -2.3 through 2009. Not a good sign.
His career OPS at home is .920. On the road it is .791.
Well, as you saw in the article, it isn't the eight above 135 that convinced me Konerko has a HOF shot, it is the guys who finished just short of 135. Yes, the implication that 500 HR while presumed clean is enough to get you in is implied because, well, no one presumed cleat with 500 HR has failed to get in.
The list of those at 120 and up, 35-39: Fred McGriff (133), Steve Finley (132), Darrell Evans (131), Ken Griffey Jr. (129), Edgar Martinez (128), Mark McGwire (126), Cy Williams (126), Mike Schmidt (126), Willie Mays (123), Carlton Fisk (121), Gary Sheffield (120).
Konerko fits comfortably in the middle of those guys in terms of offense, and is near the top in terms of his age-34 season.
So do I think the odds are against him getting there? Sure. But they're well above zero, and I think he's getting the HOF call if he gets to 500 HR.
There's a different discussion to be had, on whether he should be HOF or not. I'd have a hard time putting him on my ballot. But the people voting on HOF right now aren't looking at Win Shares, by and large, and are looking at 500 HR as sacrosanct. I guess it is possible that will have changed in the ten years between now and Konerko's five seasons plus five years of retirement.
It took Mathews and Killebrew several ballots each to get inducted, and they were certified, undeniable deserving Hall of Famers (hell, Mathews was the best ever at his position at the time of his retirement). Konerko has no chance of getting in regardless where he finishes up, and could easily scrape by 500 homers and still fail to see a second ballot, cleanliness be damned. He's the equivalent of Renteria reaching 3,000 hits, but with an even less momentous milestone.
Your argument for Konerko reaching 500 HR but failing to get in is that others reached 500 HR, and got in, but it took several ballots? You do realize I'm not saying he'll be a first-ballot HOF if he reaches 500 HR, right?
We may have to agree to disagree on this, since I believe Renteria will get in if he reaches 3,000 hits. I've heard too many actual HOF voters talk about these numbers like they are sacrosanct. Now, should they be? That's a very different discussion, like I said.
Really? He's comfortably in the middle? There’s 11 guys listed there. I’ll give you Steve Finley. Evans is close, I guess, but he was also a third baseman. Fisk is probably a bit behind but was a CATCHER. Williams is probably in the same territory, though not at all clearly behind him.
The other seven guys seem to be pretty clearly ahead, some by rather a lot.
And remember, this is the 20 best home run hitters in baseball history for ages 35-39. There are many many many people who were as good or better than Konerko who didn't come close to this.
Basically, even conceding your entire argument, he's going to have to hit like an inner-circle HOFer for his entire decline period to even be close to getting a viable argument for induction.
Konerko is having a very nice season. Good for him. He's not going to the Hall of Fame. He'll be extremely lucky to last more than a year on the ballot.
No, the argument was that 500 HR didn't exactly grease the wheels for those guys who were ACTUALLY extremely qualified. Which means that we've never seen a barely-to-500-and-absolutely-nothing-else-to-offer candidate before, but the actions of voters don't seem to suggest that 500 is really such a magic number.
Combined with the fact that, yes, if Konerko goes on a Bonds-esque rampage for the next 5 years, he's going to get the same funny glances that lots of other unconfirmed roiders of the 500 club are getting.
Put it this way: Fred McGriff is the very-rich-man's version of Konerko. And he actually *managed* the five year decline period that Konerko will be extremely lucky to achieve. And the voters aren't exactly beating down the door for him.
You have heard Hall of Fame voters say they will vote for Renteria if he reaches 3,000 hits? I'd really love to see even one such comment in print.
Considering the kind of performance he'd likely have to put up to get to 3,000 hits, Renteria might very well have a HOF case at that point.
But position has nothing to do with this- we're evaluating offense only in this case.
FWIW, by OPS+ through age-34:
Mays 163, McGwire 162, Schmidt 151, Martinez 150 (and an average of 14.5 HR per year), Sheffield 147, Griffey 144, McGriff 138, Fisk 123, Konerko 119, Evans 117, Williams 116, Finley 106
So he's ahead of three of the 11, with a better age-34 season than several of the guys ahead of him. Doesn't make HOF likely, but makes it a far better chance than zero, which is what I expected to find when I started looking into the matter.
Konerko is having a career year at 34 but it's a huge leap to assume that his age 35-39 seasons will be better than his age 31-33 seasons based on one really good season.
Frankly, since the number of candidates who have reached 500 home runs (without a steroid taint) and yet been denied the HOF is zero, I'd say we've seen a very clear measure of the power of 500 home runs in voter minds.
Combined with the fact that, yes, if Konerko goes on a Bonds-esque rampage for the next 5 years, he's going to get the same funny glances that lots of other unconfirmed roiders of the 500 club are getting.
Konerko needs to average 27 home runs per year for the next five years. That's not Bonds-esque. That's Ellis Burks-esque.
You have heard Hall of Fame voters say they will vote for Renteria if he reaches 3,000 hits? I'd really love to see even one such comment in print.
Ach. You got me. I haven't heard actual HOF voters say they'll vote for Yuniesky Betancourt if he reaches 3,000 hits, either. I've heard plenty talk about 3,000 hits as a ticket to the Hall of Fame, and I suspect you have as well.
This is absolutely true! Thing is, he hit 81 home runs in his age 31-33 seasons. Or put another way, he averaged the 27 per year he'd need over the next five seasons to reach 500. That's taking his age-34 season out of the equation completely, which seems unfair to him.
In order for Konerko to get to 500 HRs, he either has to remain productive until he's 40 (he's at least 5 seasons away at his current career averages) or he has to peak in his mid-30s. How much would either of those undermine the "presumed clean" part of your premise?
I'm sorry, but that's not the middle, nor is it comfortable. McGriff through age 34 is worth two Konerkos with room left for dessert.
And all of this is required just to get him to a milestone of questionable value.
Konerko has a marginally better shot of making the hall of fame than, say, Aubrey Huff. You can call that 'better than zero' but only because 0.3 is, in fact, higher than 0.0.
Of that list of 11, there wasn't an assumption of steroids. Same went for many of the eight above 135 in age 35-39 seasons. Add in that we are that much further away from the absurd home run totals, and I think he'd be pretty safe.
Of course I have. That's not the same thing.
People have long made the connection 3,000 hits (or 500 homers or 300 wins) = induction. But that's only because everyone with 3,000 hits (or 500 homers or 300 wins) has been a deserving Hall of Famer (Brock being the only possible exception, though his resume was boosted as much by the SB records as the hits). As a result, there's this notion that 3,000 hits is an automatic ticket, a notion perpetuated by the writers themselves. It's based on the assumption of what the other voters would do, not necessarily a promise that they would vote for an otherwise unworthy milestone reacher.
When Kingman reached 400 homers (at the time, everyone with 400 homers was in the Hall of Fame) he got no support. Why? Because he didn't deserve it. And the writers knew that.
So until I see a substantial enough number of comments from Hall of Fame voters suggesting that reaching a specific milestone is enough to get them to vote for a previous non-candidate (a Konerko like substance), I will continue to call BS on this long-held assumption.
I will grant that reaching one of these milestones can grease the skids of the qualified player. I've seen no evidence that it can turn an empty compiler into Cooperstownian timber.
But Konerko would be a perfect test of that. He hits homeruns but not all that many doubles and no triples. He has no speed. He's not much on defense. He grounds into a lot of double plays. He walks a decent amount but not all that much. He's never led the league in anything, or been particularly close. He doesn't even drive in all that many runs.
If he manages a surprising late-career surge, just crosses the threshold he will provide you the clear example that you're looking for of a guy with 500 homeruns not making the hall of fame.
Edit: Coke to SoSH.
He's a decent 1B who won't kill you and turns in a nice season every now and again. That's not a hall of famer; it's Derrek Lee with a lesser peak.
This line was 442 until a year ago. Fred McGriff was a hell of a ballplayer, but he alone cannot be proof of where the line is drawn. Everyone else eligible (and "clean") with around that many homers is in, whether he cleared the line or not.
Especially after just one year on the ballot. He got 21.5% of the vote. Duke Snider got just 17% on his first try. Bert Blyleven debuted at 17.5% and is banging on the door pretty hard right now. The impending glut of candidates will keep the Crime Dog on the outside looking in for a while, but he's got 14 more cracks at it.
Yeah, I took a look to see what his first-year vote total, and there's absolutely no way to draw any firm conclusions from it. That's seems like the kind of first-year total that could lead to a slow path to induction or a drop from the ballot in almost equal numbers. I'm sure Dag could tell where the breakeven point is.
I remember reading the all-time leaderboards growing up, and wondering why Kingman didn't stick around for those extra 58 HR so he'd get into the Hall of Fame. Knowing what I know now, of course, he obviously wouldn't have gotten in at 500- he'd have been the first.
Now, Konerko would clearly be the least-qualified 1B, but he's a much better player than Kingman. He's clean.
This idea that you can "call BS" on an idea that has never been tested, one way or the other, seems pretty silly. This is not to say we couldn't create a candidate who wouldn't get the 75% (Kingman, for instance, plus 58 HR, we both agree probably wouldn't). But we don't know, even about Kingman, and it certainly hasn't happened yet.
Let me put it another way: perceptions about players change throughout their careers in many cases. I don't remember a lot of people saying Craig Biggio was a Hall of Famer before Bill James did in his updated abstract. By the time he got to 3,000 hits (ironically, with a lot of non-HOF seasons), it was a foregone conclusion.
A guy with a reasonable shot at 500 HR just coming off of a career year- I'm not convinced the ink is dry there yet.
So true. If he didn't get the seven HR, does he get 5-6, and come back for another season to hit 500?
Another player I keep wondering about: Bobby Abreu. His OPS+ of 131 fits nicely right between Tony Gwynn's 132 and Roberto Clemente's 130. Naturally, Abreu was a slightly worse fielder than Clemente, but is he a HOF RF? The offensive numbers are really impressive.
Amusingly enough, he has the opposite problem with 3,000 hits- too many damn walks, so he's only around 2,200 hits, if I remember right.
The fact that's its never been tested has always been my point. You and many others work under an assumption that magic number = induction, a notion I will continue to challenge until there's an otherwise unqualified player who reaches it. I'd love for Konerko to be the first, because like everyone else in this thread, I have no doubt he'd prove my contention (at least when it comes to 500 homers).
The case that's going to concretely disprove these is Palmeiro. He's probably HOM qualified but pretty HOF borderline, and the failed steroids test will keep him out. Palmeiro will set the precedent that both 3000 hits and 500 HR are not auto-induction, which will give the writers the ammo to keep out Johnny Damon and Gary Sheffield (as well as McGriff.)
How are you defining unqualified? Was Don Sutton otherwise unqualified as HOF other than his 300 wins? Eddie Murray had 504 HR, 3255 hits, and a lower career OPS+ than John Kruk, Danny Tartabull and Mo Vaughn.
If "an otherwise unqualified player" means "a player you deem to be unqualified, based on your subjective determination", it's a pretty worthless statement. Meanwhile, what I've noticed is that every player without the steroids taint who reaches these three numbers is in the Hall of Fame. And until I see one fail to make it, I'll assume that will continue. Even when one does fail, I'll assume it's a pretty good bet that 500 HR = the Hall of Fame, since all but one such player has made it.
How about unqualified based on value contributed towards winning baseball games, according to the HoF's generally established standards?
Well, I just wonder how you'd go about determining that. In other words, a first baseman who reaches 3,000 hits but with a lower OPS+ than George Kelly? 300 wins but a sub-100 ERA+? It's that generally established standards part. I think you can make a case that Sutton for instance, other than wins, qualifies as unqualified. And he's in.
Well, we do have a mirror body that considers these individuals and doesn't (as far as I can tell) give a whit about magic numbers. And of those players who achieved any of the big three milestones, only one (Lou Brock) has been inducted by the Baseball Hall of Fame and not inducted by the Hall of Merit. And, as I noted earlier, Brock's candidacy had other obvious things going for it (both stolen base records at the time of his retirement and outstanding postseason stats in three World Series) that it's hard to believe he was inducted solely on the basis of 3,000 hits. In fact, chances are pretty damn good he gets inducted to the Hall of Fame if he had stopped short of 3K.
An otherwise unqualified player would be someone who, absent the milestone in question, would get virtually no support for Cooperstown. Someone like Paul Konerko.
AFAICT, at no point in Konerko's career, until today, had he been even mentioned as a potential Hall of Fame player. He is not deemed that way by the men who cover him or the fans at large. If he continues to put up typical Paul Konerko numbers for the balance of his career and he ends up with, say 490 homers, he will likely fall off the ballot after the first year (hard to see him coming anywhere near the 21 percent of the vote that fellow perceived clean slugger and vastly better ballplayer Fred McGriff received). If he manages to eke out another 10 homers, I find it unfathomable that 75 percent of those voters who would otherwise reject him almost unanimously will suddenly revise their opinion about his Cooperstown worthiness. But if you can produce scores of quotes from Hall of Fame ballot owners that suggest they feel so beholden to vote for such milestone reachers, I'll be willing to revise my opinion. Heck, I'm curious if you could find just one.
You could start with a value-based stat and ask whether players who produced that amount of value have typically made the HoF. You could ask whether he is the best--or even one of the best--players at his position not in the Hall. I don't think Konerko is on track to pass either one of those tests or come particularly close. If he does, he will have been quite a different player over the next 5 years than he has been to date, and will merit consideration.
I think you can make a case that Sutton for instance, other than wins, qualifies as unqualified. And he's in.
Not to use WAR as the definitive stat, but Sutton produced about 3 times as many over the course of his career as Konerko. Sutton is 7th all time in IP; if Konerko maintains his level of production and reaches 7th all-time in plate appearances, he'll have practically doubled his career length, and we can revisit this conversation.
This is a really good measurement, actually. I like this quite a bit.
What was the HOM discussion/vote like on Sutton, for instance?
But sure, I could see this as the reasonable standard.
You could start with a value-based stat and ask whether players who produced that amount of value have typically made the HoF. You could ask whether he is the best--or even one of the best--players at his position not in the Hall.
But isn't that a different question? Of course Konerko-types, as presently constructed, don't make the HOF- he needs another five years to get to 500 HR, and that will involve a lot of additional value, though it won't, in fact, require him to be a different player- just the same player for another five years.
Not to use WAR as the definitive stat, but Sutton produced about 3 times as many over the course of his career as Konerko. Sutton is 7th all time in IP; if Konerko maintains his level of production and reaches 7th all-time in plate appearances, he'll have practically doubled his career length, and we can revisit this conversation.
But that's an overlapping argument, really- Sutton got to 300+ wins because of the longevity he's also getting credit for with WAR.
Konerko currently has 22 WAR for his career. Another 5 seasons at his CHW career average will give him roughly 32. Other 1B/DH types in that range include:
Steve Garvey 35.9
Harry Davis 35.5
Kent Hrbek 35.3
Cecil Cooper 34.5
Lu Blue 34.3
Joe Adcock 34.2
Wally Joyner 34.2
Phil Cavarretta 33.9
Mickey Vernon 33.2
Bill White 33.1
Jim Bottomley 32.4
Frank McCormick 32.3
Earl Torgeson 31.5
George Scott 30.9
Elbie Fletcher 30.9
Ted Kluszewski 30.8
Bob Watson 30.5
Wally Pipp 30.1
Mike Hargrove 30.0
Stuffy McInnis 29.8
Of those guys, only Bottomley is in the HOF.
Among eligible 1B/DH types ahead of "hypothetical Konerko" who are not yet in the HOF, we have:
Keith Hernandez 61.0
Will Clark 57.6
John Olerud 56.8
Norm Cash 52.9
Fred McGriff 50.5
Mark Grace 47.1
Gil Hodges 44.6
So basically, players similar in value to hypothetical Konerko don't typically make the HOF, and there are a number of better players at his position who aren't in yet. For him even to insert himself in the discussion among guys like McGriff, he's got to have another 5 years like 2010 - in which case he'll be a completely different player than he is now.
The problem, of course, is that none of those players hit 500 home runs, which is what I think would get him in.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not assigning any credt to Sutton for the 300 win milestone--that's you. In terms of actual value produced on the baseball field (based on WAR, at least) Sutton laps Konerko. He produced at a higher level for a longer period of time. If Konerko achieves Sutton's longevity by continuing to play at his career rate, he won't match Sutton's value. If he matches Sutton's value, he'll have improved his performance to the point where the conversation will be worth revisiting.
Matt, I'm assuming they've already processed Palmeiro and Giambi and they're out until the electorate changes or minds start changing.
Thomas, Bagwell and Helton should all go in very quickly. So that really only leaves Thome afterward from that group.
Helton in very quickly? Quicker than Thome?
Based on what, though? This conversation was spawned by SoSHially's post:
You and many others work under an assumption that magic number = induction, a notion I will continue to challenge until there's an otherwise unqualified player who reaches it.
So who is the test case? Who is the otherwise unqualified player that has reached such a milestone? Every player with 500 HR has at least 59.7 WAR. Every pitcher with 300 W has at least 52 WAR. It is difficult to argue that any of them are unqualified based on the HOF's general standards.
Lou Brock (3000 hits) is the closest thing we have to a test case, but even he had 39 WAR. He also had the all-time stolen base title and the postseason play going for him at the time.
Looking through the archives, it was about what you'd expect. Peak guys weren't high on him. He made it on his first ballot rather easily (Niekro and Simmons finished ahead of him in an Elect 3 year), though without a lot of enthusiasm. There seemed to be a lot of "he rated out higher in my system than I would have expected" type comments.
WAR doesn't matter, but quality of play matters. *Value* matters--and even if the voters don't necessarily measure it properly.
The reason Sutton is in, and Tommy John isn't, is that John had 288 career victories, and Sutton had 324.
Perhaps, but what does this prove? Between two roughly similar players, the voters have historically rewarded the one with the milestone. But that does not mean they will also reward a vastly inferior player simply because he met a milestone.
That Paul Konerko hasn't had as valuable a career as Don Sutton isn't in dispute.
Konerko hasn't had nearly as valuable a career as anyone who has reached any major milestone. He might come close to Lou Brock, the worst player (by a fair margin) to reach one. This is a good argument for two points:
(1) He will not likely hit 500 home runs in the first place.
(2) Even if he does, we really don't know how the voters will respond.
Yeah, though I could be wrong. He's got all sorts of things going for him that maybe shouldn't count very much, but will. The biggest of which is playing his entire career for not only one team, but also being that particular team's first real homegrown HOFer. He's basically got Mickey Mantle's exact OBP and SLG numbers, and while I suspect he will get plenty discounted for that I'm not sure it will be as much as it needs to be.
The Rockies and the Denver press will almost certainly be putting on a full court press when his time comes and I'm guessing he'll go in by his second year at most. Turning a good candidate into an exceptional one. No harm no foul, eventually, as I think he belongs.
I think this vastly understates the difference between Sutton and John, not just in a sabermetricy-WAR way, but in a fairly obvious way. Sutton has 36 more wins, 572 more IP, 1,529 more K (and a better BB/9 rate, 2.3 to 2.4), 5 top-5 finishes in Cy Young voting vs. 3 for John. Hell, Sutton actually has a lower career ERA than John (3.26 to 3.34), although John actually has the better ERA+ (John also allowed more unearned runs than Sutton even with Sutton's massive IP edge: 268 - 200).
There's plenty of room to draw your in/out line for the HOF between Sutton and John without relying on pitcher wins at all, much less a pretty round number of them.
I think you're overly optimistic about Helton - he's going to get CRUSHED for playing in Coors. But even setting that aside, I'm more curious about the other half of Juan V.'s question. What makes you think Thome won't cruise into the HOF on his first ballot? He's a clean slugger with 600 home runs when it's all said and done, widely beloved everywhere he's played.
And if you believe it was BB/9, for instance, that made the HOF voters vote Sutton in but not Tommy John, we'll agree to disagree.
That's why I put BB/9 in a parenthetical aside. It was the IP, the K, the wins - but the fact that he had 36 more of them, not that he passed an arbitrary line - possibly the raw ERA, and maybe even the Cy Young votes (if you don't like Don Sutton's peak, you'll really hate Tommy John's). Make an argument that Tommy John was better than Don Sutton using any statistic you'd like.
This is the most salient point in the whole thread, and to my eyes, Howard hasn't even begun to answer it yet.
Furthermore, I think Sutton, Mathews and Killer's waits do tell us something. After two ballots (which excludes the first-ballot issues), none had even reached 60 percent. That says to me that at least 40 percent of voters were not willing to just automatically vote in a guy with a milestone behind him, but needed to be convinced of his worthiness.
Therefore, if two-fifths of the voters had to be convinced about the Hall credentials of the guy who was fifth on the all-time homer list, the guy who was arguably the best third baseman ever and the guy who was 12th on the all-time wins list _ genuinely deserving Hall of Famers all _ why should I believe that 75 percent of them are going to usher in a vastly inferior player such as Paul Konerko?
Top 20 in OPS+, born 1970+, minimum 3000 PA, at least 1/3 of career at 1B
Rk Player OPS+ RC WAR/pos Born PA From To1 Albert Pujols 172 1502 83.3 1980 6762 2001 2010
2 Jim Thome 147 1918 70.2 1970 9798 1991 2010
3 Lance Berkman 145 1315 46.1 1976 6828 1999 2010
4 Miguel Cabrera 145 937 33.2 1983 5085 2003 2010
5 Jason Giambi 142 1549 52.8 1971 8357 1995 2010
6 Prince Fielder 140 627 15.9 1984 3486 2005 2010
7 Ryan Howard 140 700 21.0 1979 3743 2004 2010
8 Carlos Delgado 138 1588 44.2 1972 8657 1993 2009
9 Adrian Gonzalez 137 584 21.9 1982 3601 2004 2010
10 Todd Helton 137 1674 58.0 1973 8209 1997 2010
11 Mark Teixeira 135 948 36.4 1980 5318 2003 2010
12 Justin Morneau 128 641 20.9 1981 3949 2003 2010
13 Kevin Youkilis 128 576 25.5 1979 3292 2004 2010
14 Ryan Klesko 128 1068 26.7 1971 6516 1992 2007
15 Nick Johnson 124 491 14.4 1978 3214 2001 2010
16 Carlos Pena 123 662 12.9 1978 4271 2001 2010
17 Derrek Lee 122 1200 29.8 1975 7459 1997 2010
18 Richie Sexson 120 850 14.4 1974 5604 1997 2008
19 Paul Konerko 119 1157 22.0 1976 7505 1997 2010
20 Mike Sweeney 118 923 23.0 1973 5842 1995 2010
Oh good lord. I thought you were merely misguided and a bit confused.
Now I think you're a troll.
Good day, sir.
Step 1: HOF voters are utter nincompoops who only value shiny round numbers and will mindlessly vote for any mediocre candidate who crosses the line. They have no concern for actual value provided but merely look at 500/3000/300 and vote accordingly. That there is zero evidence to back up this assertion is irrelevant.
Step 2: Paul Konerko, if he defies all expectation, might pass such a line. That there is very little reason to believe that he can hit that well for that long is irrelevant.
Step 3: Profit!
Maybe, but I anticipate the current crop of steroid users will be the exception(s) that prove the rule. Palmeiro's guilt will make Thome and McGriff more appealing to voters, not less.
I also feel very comfortable in saying that Johnny Damon will be ushered into the Hall within three years of eligibility if he hangs around long enough to reach 3,000 hits, which seems likely at this point.
You do have this one indisputable fact on your side, making this whole argument at least not ludicrous. I still think it's a pretty serious misreading of voters' thought processes though.
Those round numbers do prevent writers from dismissing a candidacy - they have to at least evaluate and say "hey, does this guy really have a case?" whereas if the player had 493 HRs they would find it far easier to be dismissive. I think this was absolutely a factor (possibly a determinative factor) getting Sutton in. I don't see that voters are saying "well, I never thought of him of a Hall of Famer, but I'll be darned, turned out he was all along!"
Should Konerko make 500 (and I kind of want him to now, to see who's right about this), I think you'll see a slew of articles evaluating his candidacy, in a "hey, Paul Konerko was better than we thought!" sort of way, but certainly not feeling bound to support him or thinking that somehow 500 *makes* him an all-time great. There would be some amount of "boy, 500 isn't what it used to be, eh? Even Paul Konerko got there!" and dismissing the comparison value of numbers from "the steroid era" (never mind that if steroids were the reason for it, clean players' numbers wouldn't be affected). Overall, assuming he gets there with his current career rate stats and not another 5 2010's, I think it'd bump him from <5% to 10-20%, Parker/Mattingly/Murphy numbers (which, yes, would be more than he deserved on merit).
Not sure how valuable it is to argue on the Internet about our perceptions of what other people may or may not be thinking, but it's at least helpful in reminding us that what seems obvious to us can look very different to someone else.
A more interesting case is the one Howard Megdal brought up - Bobby Abreu. His case is the sort that voters have trouble understanding. His patience at the plate has obviously cost him some hits but has helped his teams by resulting in a much higher on base percentage (not to mention the higher pitch count for opposing pitchers). Abreu is in the later stages of a career that will look like a lesser version of Tim Raines. Raines should have gone in on first ballot. Abreu will likely fall off the ballot after one election.
The only thing that Palmeiro is going to prove is that wagging your finger at a congressional committee and then testing positive for winstrol is auto-off-the-ballot-in-one-year. He doesn't give anybody any ammo against any presumably clean player.
The reason Sutton is in, and Tommy John isn't, is that John had 288 career victories, and Sutton had 324.
You do realize that this is the approximate equivalent of comparing Harold Baines with Napolean Lajoie, don't you? Why not try it with Sam Rice and Al Kaline instead? Doesn't work quite as well, does it?
I suppose that some version or other of the Veteran's Committee might have put Bobby Matthews in at some point if he'd managed to squeeze out three more wins, but I really don't think that would be particularly informative about how the BBWAA will treat modern players. Dude's been dead for 112 years; might as well have been a cricket bowler.
TJ didn't have a "peak"
I kid slightly- he had a better one than Jack Morris fwiw
It's always about Hall size. I am a small-HOF guy but I have a very large PHOVG.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main