Meanwhile, we have Juan Pierre, a 34 year old outfielder currently playing for the Chicago White Sox. (...) Juan Pierre is not a Hall of Famer.

He's also not a current member of the White Sox. He's with Philadelphia.

By "solely by the numbers" I hope he's making a distinction between voters who use arbitrary milestones and voters who balance different numbers to establish a rough estimate of the player's value.

Juan Pierre is not a Hall of Famer.

But look at all those runs battered in!

Thanks for the White Sox - Phillies corrective. Don't know what I was thinking there.

so there’s a fair chance that if he wants to, he can play into his early 40s

Maybe not so fair. All players with 980+ hits from their age-34 season to end of career with OPS+ of 100 or less:

Paul, what you say is perfectly true. But it's also true that the BBWAA has never really used 3,000 hits as an automatic pass into the HOF. It's very difficult to think of a Hall of Famer who reached 3,000 hits and wouldn't have been elected if he'd retired at 2,950. The closest cases are perhaps Molitor, Murray, and Winfield. But the first two of them passed 3,000 going away, having great years during the season in which they reached 3,000, so it's kind of a moot point. Winfield wasn't as good when he reached 3,000, but say he'd retired after the 1992 World Series – after getting 100 RBIs for a World Champion, and the Series-winning hit – I don't think that 3,000 really clinched anything for him.

The others are all players for whom the 3,000th hit was icing (including Lou Brock, who was much more famous at the time for his stolen bases). They were all considered great players, no-brain HOFers, long before they got there. In fact, Craig Biggio may lose a vote or two for hanging around to pick up 3,000.

IOW, we've yet to see somebody stumble past 3,000 without being an obviously great player (or at least widely perceived so by contemporaries, like Brock). People keep worrying about Bill Buckner or Edgar Renteria or Vizquel or Damon or Pierre, but these guys don't really seem to get all that close to 3,000 when it comes down to it. They weren't great enough to begin with. (And 3,000 is really arbitrary, of course; the better benchmark is around 2,850, where Vizquel and Harold Baines are sitting: that's about as many hits as you can get without being a really great hitter, sticking around for reasons of good health / good fortune / good SS glove / good clubhouse presence till you're definitively through.)

Tell Juan Pierre the first 2,000 hits are the easiest.

(And 3,000 is really arbitrary, of course; the better benchmark is around 2,850, where Vizquel and Harold Baines are sitting: that's about as many hits as you can get without being a really great hitter, sticking around for reasons of good health / good fortune / good SS glove / good clubhouse presence till you're definitively through.)

This was true before the 90s. the reason ARod caught Gehrig was the offensive environs. R/G are way up, so he gets 12% boost from his era. I'll call the team quality a wash.

It used to take more games to get 2000 hits (for the older guys). It takes fewer games these days.

The others are all players for whom the 3,000th hit was icing (including Lou Brock, who was much more famous at the time for his stolen bases). They were all considered great players, no-brain HOFers, long before they got there. In fact, Craig Biggio may lose a vote or two for hanging around to pick up 3,000.

I think this is entirely wrong, though it's very hard to demonstrate. My impression is that the only way Craig Biggio was making the Hall of Fame was with 3000 hits or a big public campaign that took a decade.

I think he gets something much more like the Alan Trammell treatment if he doesn't make it to 3000. Other than the milestone, what does Biggio have that Trammell doesn't? No MVPs, no postseason performance to remember, steady but unspectacular defender, .280 hitter whose offensive value was wrapped up in secondary skills, a great player overshadowed by a flashier HoFer at his same position at the time of his peak - that's not an easy Hall of Famer without a big, juicy milestone.

It is true that we haven't seen a truly undeserving Hall of Famer go in only because of the milestone, but I think the milestone can make a big difference for a deserving or borderline Hall of Famer who otherwise doesn't have much of a narrative. And I wouldn't want to bet too heavily against a hypothetical 3000-hit Johnny Damon.

Interesting comment on Biggio, MCoA. I may be influenced by two factors: (1) living in Texas, and (2) hanging out on BBTF (where Biggio will go into the HOM without a throw). It's perhaps the Houston media who were most skeptical of Biggio's late hanging-on (and most sanguine about his greatness while he was still great). The Chick would have a better take on this than I would, of course.

The post was occasioned by a Twitter back-and-forth I was having with an old friend who more or less said that certain numbers should mean automatic induction into the Hall. The example I actually used with him was Rafael Palmeiro, and I asked whether he should be in (because on a purely numbers basis it's a no-brainer), and my friend said "yes", which got me to thinking about the whole obsession with numbers thing in more general terms. Are metrics really all that helpful? I think the vast majority of players would never be considered Hall of Famers, and the overwhelming majority of Hall members are probably very easy choices. Where it gets tricky is with borderline cases, like Jack Morris, perhaps, but then you have guys like Raines that, to me, are slam dunks, and yet they languish. In the end, with the exception of that group of players who are sure-fire first ballot guys, it's a pretty subjective thing, and I think people get too obsessed with using numbers to try and justify this player or that player. Of course, I mentioned lots of Raines' numbers in my post, so I appreciate the irony (although I would argue I did so to illustrate my broader point).

And don't get me started on Craig Biggio, a guy I think should have been a Hall of Famer even without the 3,000 hits, but it seemed pretty clear to me that he prolonged his career beyond the valuable stage just to get to that magic number, because he realized that without it many would consider him borderline. Which again sort of proves my point.

P.S. Before Raines gets in, however, the injustice of Dwight Evans being shut out needs to be addressed. A pet peeve of mine.

he prolonged his career beyond the valuable stage just to get to that magic number

I think that's also true of several others (Kaline, Carew, Boggs, Rickey Henderson), though in their cases it probably wasn't due to much anxiety over making Cooperstown – it was just an extremely nice round number within reach.

Pretty much all careers are "prolonged ... beyond the valuable stage." I doubt that I will recognize when I'm no longer good enough at my job to produce at a high level, and I expect I'll keep trying to play through it. (Plus hopefully I'll have tenure.)

Consider some guys who weren't all that close to a milestone, like Roberto Alomar, or were well beyond one, like Steve Carlton, who kept playing through a couple years of suckitude. Or guys like Reggie Jackson who appeared to be cooked, but kept playing anyway and did recover a valuable season or two before the end.

I like it when ballplayers keep pushing on. It shows a love of the game that I can relate to.

Are metrics really all that helpful?

I think they are, the problem is no one seems able to agree on the metrics. I think it's important to have a statistical record that takes away the perception and highlights the accomplishment. That doesn't mean any one number should be a benchmark though. 3,000 hits, 300 wins, 60 WAR, whatever you want to use, slavishly using a single number as an automatic yes is a great way to get a bad result.

2010's attendance numbers were down again, they lost money again, and they expect 2011's numbers to be just as bad or worse. You want to talk about numbers, well, those are the numbers that matter.

2010's attendance numbers were down again, they lost money again, and they expect 2011's numbers to be just as bad or worse. You want to talk about numbers, well, those are the numbers that matter.

who is the "they"? The white sox? THe Phillies? MLB? I dont get it.

who is the "they"? The white sox? THe Phillies? MLB? I dont get it.

I suspect he's talking about the Hall of Fame's attendance numbers, part of his neverending (and mostly fruitless) effort to get someone to agree with him that it should be moved from Cooperstown.

As Bob noted above, a milestone number can grease the skids for the deserving (but it's not automatic, as the waits of Sutton, Mathews and Killebrew* demonstrate). There's no reason to think simply attaining omne of those counting stats would usher in an otherwise nonentity such as Pierre.

As for Biggio, I think the voters would have treated him similarly to Alomar, not Trammell. I think he gets in, though the ballot logjam may make him wait through an election or two.

* Thanks for your help Killer.

Probably Hall of Fame attendance.

If I was in charge of the Hall of Fame I would be a mite concerned about how these sportswriters, who have control over my induction ceremony, are going rogue and ignoring career accomplishments, spurning most of the greatest players of the last 20 years while inducting people like Jim Rice and Jack Morris and whoever the next campaign will be for, Kirk Gibson or Don Mattingly or Kent Hrbek or somebody.

Hmm... who will be the next Jack Morris/Jim Rice/Bruce Sutter - a guy clearly not a HOF'er as far as many here are concerned but make it (or nearly do) thanks to writers looking for a story.

Lee Smith has a shot (was save leader for years), I can imagine a storyline for Bernie Williams (one of the keys to Yankee success for example) or Fred McGriff (great non-steroid guy who came close to milestones) but don't see any of those 3 as likely. Trammell and Raines should be in so if the writers grab onto them we won't complain. Edgar Martinez & Larry Walker each have something (best DH, best Canadian hitter) but not enough to overcome shorter careers, no milestones and neither was in a media centre so never got called 'most feared' I think and many here would love to see them in or wouldn't complain too much.

Yeah, hard to think of another guy who is clearly overrated by media ala Morris, Sutter, Rice who is likely to get close or in. Mattingly had a shot once but it is too late with the killer class next year.

Next year could be a very, very frustrating year - we have two guys with over 130 WAR on the ballot and both will probably not be voted in (Bonds & Clemens of course), two more in the 70's who might sit it out too (Bagwell, Schilling due to steroid fears and too few wins), 7 in the 60's with just one likely to get in (Biggio, the lowest of the 7 - others are Walker, Trammell, Raines, Palmeiro, Lofton, Martinez), 3 in the 50's who might not make it (McGwire, Piazza, Sosa) but the guy who is 22nd in WAR among qualifiers might get in (Jack Morris at 39). Sigh.

Y'know, if Selig wants to avoid the embarrassment of Bonds & Clemens on the ballot he should encourage a team to sign them for September or something and get them into a game or two just to delay it by 5 more years. Oakland is certainly desperate enough for any publicity to go for it after all, they did sign Manny.

just in case all yall want my opinion about biggio and the 3000 hits:

he wasn't good enough to be a full time player after the 2004 season, but he was a STAH!!!! and the owner's pet and whatever biggio wanted biggio got (you talk about selfish players - he's #1 on MY list, but the media sure nuff didn't think that). the owner wanted biggio to finish his career on biggio's terms, in an astros uni. the owner wanted a player to get 3000 hits in an astros uni.

biggio was a very VERY good fielding second baseman and deserved the gold gloves he got - it wasn't a batting average gift. as a second baseman, he should be an easy choice for the Hall - not everyone can be joe morgan.

were well beyond one, like Steve Carlton, who kept playing through a couple years of suckitude.

I remember Carlton had the incentive of being broke -- his investment counselor defrauded him late in his career. I can't find any references to it though.

Carlton, as much as one could state without ever talking to the media, made it pretty clear that he wanted to pass Warren Spahn for wins by a left-hander.

Hmm... who will be the next Jack Morris/Jim Rice/Bruce Sutter - a guy clearly not a HOF'er as far as many here are concerned but make it (or nearly do) thanks to writers looking for a story.

The two guys who come to mind are Andy Pettitte and Omar Vizquel though I think both have cases that are better than "clearly not a HOF'er." Depending on how long he lingers I wouldn't be stunned if Michael Young made a run. Get him to 2,500-2,600 hits, another World Series (maybe one where he does something Morris-esque) and I can see a narrative building around him.

Depending on how long he lingers I wouldn't be stunned if Michael Young made a run. Get him to 2,500-2,600 hits, another World Series (maybe one where he does something Morris-esque) and I can see a narrative building around him.

Good call. Most of the other guys that have been mentioned are at least reasonable candidates (Pettitte, Vizquel, McGriff, Edgar, etc.). But Young is clearly a non-candidate value-wise who is praised well beyond his worth. It's not hard to see Young's vote total slowly climbing while much-better players getting bumped from the ballot, while we scream helplessly about the idiocy of it all.

I, for one, having lived in STL all my life, believe that the 3000 hits was crucial to Brock's easy HoF entry. So was his World Series performance. But, aside from the WS, Brock was often considered a base stealing freak with a weak glove (his enormous ballpark made his speed extra valuable, countering some of the effects of his errors, but people at the time focused on the weak arm) until he got the 3000 hits. THEN the voters said, OK, this guy is a HoFer, even without the SBs. And it didn't hurt that, as a leadoff man in the 60s and 70s, he scored a lot of runs because, as Bill James put it, he got himself into scoring position constantly, in a league where getting two hits to drive you in from first was a rare event compared to other eras.

One of the eternal beauties of baseball, and one of the few rules that has lasted from the 1860s, is "four bases, three outs, and no one scores if the third out is a forceout or fly out." This forces you, when you get your leadoff man on, to engage in a race for the run. You can't just score the guy with three sacrifice bunts ("productive outs"), because the last one will be a forceout at first, and Brock won't score. Lou Brock was, in his time, the very best, combining power and SBs, at getting an extra base ahead in the race under his own power. In the one-run scoring environment of the 60s and 70s, this was a tremendously important skill. HoF voters are not known for their ability to elect leadoff men, but when Lou got to 3000, and had some power, people stopped thinking of him as a simple leadoff man, realizing that he combined the OBP virtues of a leadoff guy with a very large helping of extra bases allowing him to win that scoring race for the run. Without the 3000 hits, I don't think the voters would have credited him with that kind of self-base runner advancement.

As for Carlton, yes, he made a truly horrid choice of financial advisors, who managed to bleed him of almost all his money without, as far as I know, going to jail or getting beaten up by one of the strongest athletes alive at the time. This is well documented in STL newspapers of the time. His last two or three seasons were things he needed to do to get a comfortable retirement. Not, mind you, that Steve Carlton ever passed up a chance to compete, as long as someone was willing to play him. - Brock Hanke

3,000 is really arbitrary, of course; the better benchmark is around 2,850, where Vizquel and Harold Baines are sitting: that's about as many hits as you can get without being a really great hitter

Seems to me that, if you can get 2,850 without being really great, you can get 3,000 without being really great too, if you're as good as a Baines/Vizquel but have slightly more friendly circumstances than they did (which could happen through many different routes). So, we can't just assume that everyone who gets 3,000 will be HOF-worthy even without it and thus that "automatic milestones" will never be an issue.

Biggio is interesting. I really don't know how he would do in the voting without 3,000. If I had to bet, it'd be "in" -- if they can figure out to elect Roberto Alomar on the second ballot, it seems like they could figure out to elect Biggio within 15 ballots. But it does seem like Alomar came off as a more glamorous figure to the writers than a non-3,000-hit Biggio would, and then Biggio will have to deal with a much more crowded ballot. So I'm not totally sure. I suppose it would depend in part on exactly how many hits Biggio ended up with. (I think there's a helluva chance Trammell gets in with 2,800 or something, rather than the 2,365 he had. God, I hate this. Hits are such a terrible career stat. Anyway.)

Damon has all kinds of "narrative", so I don't think he'll have any problem getting in if he reaches 3,000. If it were Brett Butler or some other mundane guy on mundane teams, that'd be the real test of how automatic the milestone is.

Without reading the article, is the author arguing that we shouldn't go by advanced stats, but rather by "feels like a HOFer"/"dominance"... and then suggesting we elect Dwight Evans? I don't get how that would work.

Very interesting perspective, Brock. What I remember best is how (Lou) Brock's pursuit of the various stolen-base records brought the SB into the fore of the "thinking-man's" appreciation of baseball in the 1970s (for instance, leading to players' season total of SB being noted in boxscores). And the 1974 MVP vote, which at the time seemed to pit the dull old RBI against Brock's more subtle and cerebral approach. But you're probably right that it would have been a harder BBWAA path without the 3,000 – and, certainly, without Brock having gotten to 3,000 in good shape, with such an excellent final season.

Speaking of just getting to a milestone, does anyone have a sense that Early Wynn would have made it to the HOF, well, earlier, if he'd stopped with 285 or 290 wins instead of undertaking his long protracted march to 300? I used to hear quite a bit of disparagement of his hanging-on from old-timers.

If I was in charge of the Hall of Fame I would be a mite concerned about how these sportswriters, who have control over my induction ceremony, are going rogue and ignoring career accomplishments, spurning most of the greatest players of the last 20 years while inducting people like Jim Rice and Jack Morris

If we took a poll of BBTFers in good standing, I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of them thought that Jack Morris was a member of the Hall of Fame.

Good call. Most of the other guys that have been mentioned are at least reasonable candidates (Pettitte, Vizquel, McGriff, Edgar, etc.). But Young is clearly a non-candidate value-wise who is praised well beyond his worth. It's not hard to see Young's vote total slowly climbing while much-better players getting bumped from the ballot, while we scream helplessly about the idiocy of it all.

I think we're probably safe from Young. He's hitting an empty .286 this season (81 OPS+, ouch), and will be a free agent going into 2014 (age 37 season) where he'll be lucky to have 2400 hits. He's a defensive liability at every position, has no speed, doesn't draw walks, lost his HR power, and can't catch. Unless he miraculously turns his hitting around in the next year and a half, there's no way a team gives him the PAs necessary to get to 3000.

The two guys who come to mind are Andy Pettitte and Omar Vizquel...

Yep.

I think he gets something much more like the Alan Trammell treatment if he doesn't make it to 3000. Other than the milestone, what does Biggio have that Trammell doesn't?

100 more home runs? 200 more stolen bases? 250 more 2B? 100 more RBI? 250 more HBP?

I can't check at the moment, but has there ever been a figure published for how many times Biggio scored off his HBPs?

In the 1960s, it would have been absolutely impossible for an Eddie Stanky or Brett Butler-type leadoff hitter to work. In order for these guys to succeed, they need to draw walks, take a lot of pitches, foul a lot of balls off. This isn't a great plan with a big, built-up mound and an expanded strike zone.

The expansion of the strike zone caused a dramatic shift from the Robin Roberts generation of pitchers to the Don Drysdale generation. And it's not that the power pitchers of the 1960s had ridiculous control and never walked anyone, but they lived off the high fastball. A guy like Frank Howard or Harmon Killebrew might still get a good number of walks because you have to pitch them carefully -- a solo home run is a costly mistake in this environment.

But against a guy with no power who's just looking for a walk, you don't worry about grooving one and you could just blow him away on high heat.

As a leadoff hitter, 45-55 walks a year were about the most you were going to get in the 1960s.

With a bigger strike zone, hitting skills are going to require an emphasis on guys who are capable of making hitting balls that are pitcher's pitches. I.E. a Vlad Guerrero. In the 1960s, that would be Tommy Davis, Felipe Alou.

The Richie Ashburns and Stankys all disappeared from the game in the 1960s, presumably because they got stuck in the minors hitting .220 with 70 walks a year.

Biggio also scored just an unGodly number of runs: 1,844, 535 of them in the Astrodome. Career Runs Scored aren't the favorite statistics of either traditionalists or statheads, for sure, but after a certain point … I mean, Johnny Damon has scored 1,655 runs, and that's one of his most serious HOF credentials. 1,844 is ahead of Carl Yastrzemski and Eddie Collins and a number of other great hitters who played forever.

Seems to me that, if you can get 2,850 without being really great, you can get 3,000 without being really great too, if you're as good as a Baines/Vizquel but have slightly more friendly circumstances than they did (which could happen through many different routes). So, we can't just assume that everyone who gets 3,000 will be HOF-worthy even without it and thus that "automatic milestones" will never be an issue.

In Baines's case, without three work stoppages he gets damned near 3,000 without anything else changing.

It used to take more games to get 2000 hits (for the older guys). It takes fewer games these days.

Oh, sure but not by much really. And which "older guys" are you talking about?

LgBA (adjusted for park) for Rose was 265. For Carew it was 260. For Jeter it's been 270. 5 points difference for Rose is only 70 more hits which is, at worst, half a season's more work. For Carew, an extra 10 points is 105 hits so we might have been saved his last season of mediocrity.

On the other hand, for DiMaggio, lgBA was 276. 272 for Musial, 285 for Paul Waner.

The most recent offensive era had almost nothing to do with BA and everything to do with ISO (and Ks). And of course we aren't in a high offense era anymore.

I suppose the other way offense helps is in turning the lineup over more. The effect here is not that dramatic either (PA per 162 G)

Carew 692
Rose 723
Jeter 745

Give Carew an extra 50 PA per 162 games and, again, you save him about one season (742 PA).

But it's also true that the BBWAA has never really used 3,000 hits as an automatic pass into the HOF. It's very difficult to think of a Hall of Famer who reached 3,000 hits and wouldn't have been elected if he'd retired at 2,950.

Possibly true (we don't know how many voters use auto cutoffs) but we don't want to wait until we have proof (i.e. they elect a Pierre). Hopefully whining early and often will prevent such a thing. :-)

Biggio is also fifth in doubles. I know doubles aren't as glamorous as home runs, but it's always worth noting when you're in the top five of any non-dubious statistic.

#35 While it's generally true that the leadoff hitter was more likely to be in the Brock/Alou/Aparicio/Wills family (ie high speed and such OBP as they had was driven by BA), there were some notable exceptions. Dick McAulliffe batted all over the place, but spent more time in the leadoff spot than any other spot. His OBP was .100 higher than his BA when ledaing off.

Don Buford was a fast guy who walked a lot. Earl Weaver certainly valued him a lot.

Neither is exactly Eddie Stanky in terms of walks, but walks were a big part of their game.

Albie Pearson was a very good leadoff hitter in the early 60s. Didn't really start walking until his mid 20s and again wasn't exactly Stanky. (I'll take a .380 OBP from a CF even if he doesn't have much power)

Other than the milestone, what does Biggio have that Trammell doesn't?

1. A reputation as one of the most durable and toughest guys to play the game, coming from playing Catcher and Second Base and all the HBP, while playing 550 more games in the same number of years as Trammell

2. Being an All Star at both Catcher and Second Base

3. 600 more runs scored (14th all time at retirement).

4. Almost 200 more bases stolen (for 15 more CS)

5. 100 more home runs and 225 more doubles (5th all time)

Between the narrative extra from starting out as an all star catcher and then being a second baseman, the Killer B's and the HBP thing, and the huge numbers he piled (up not even including hits), Biggio had a lot going for him.


EDIT: Had a problem with posting and was beaten to the punch on this by a lot of guys. Kudos and cokes to all

1. A reputation as one of the most durable and toughest guys to play the game, coming from playing Catcher and Second Base and all the HBP, while playing 550 more games in the same number of years as Trammell

2. Being an All Star at both Catcher and Second Base

3. 600 more runs scored (14th all time at retirement).

4. Almost 200 more bases stolen (for 15 more CS)

5. 100 more home runs and 225 more doubles (5th all time)

I mean, yes, he has all those things. Other than runs, it's really hard for me to see most of those variables making much difference in Hall of Fame voting. And Trammell has the fact that he played shortstop, a position to which HoF voters have been quite generous.

I would have guessed that a hypothetical Biggio who retired somewhere between 2003-2005 would have debuted in the 30% range.

There have been 159 games in which Biggio had at least 1 HBP and at least 1 run scored so that is the maxmium amount of runs caused by getting on base via HBP.

3,000 is really arbitrary, of course; the better benchmark is around 2,850, where Vizquel and Harold Baines are sitting: that's about as many hits as you can get without being a really great hitter

Seems to me that, if you can get 2,850 without being really great, you can get 3,000 without being really great too, if you're as good as a Baines/Vizquel but have slightly more friendly circumstances than they did (which could happen through many different routes).

I don't know if the 2,850 number is right or not, but I think maybe what Bob Dernier Cri is saying is that, if you're not a really great hitter, 2,850 is about as high as you can push that final total, including your decline and including favorable circumstances, before you're out of the game.

In other words, it's not too hard to get to 2300-2400 hits by your late 30s if you're lucky/good enough to have a long career in the first place (see Buddy Bell, Chili Davis), and you can get that up to 2,850 if you stick around for a long time as a non-star, but you can't simply stay around "accumulating" 3,000 hits unless you are (or were) a truly great hitter.

The good-not-great guys might reach 2,400 while they're still reasonably useful, but even when you include the decline and hanging-on and desperately-hanging-on stages, there's a natural limit, maybe, of about 2,850. That's where Vizquel is at right now, and it certainly doesn't look like (i) he will reach 3,000 hits or (ii) teams will continue to offer him contracts.

So if Baines/Vizquel, in an alternate world, had careers where they reached 3,000 hits, that would probably require, for Baines, better knees -- but with better knees, he would also have been a better hitter. And for Vizquel, well, I guess he could have played more games in his 20s and dissolved the MLBPA. But he started at 22 and is still playing at 45, despite a career OPS+ of 82. I'd say his career already had just about the friendliest circumstances possible, and he's probably not going to break 2,900 hits.

The closest cases are perhaps Molitor, Murray, and Winfield.

Everytime I see a list of borderlines, it seems that Murray has recently become the go to guy, and I just don't get it. I'm pretty sure my 15 year old self in 1985 knew he was a destined hofer(my dad died in '86 and we talked about him which is why I remember) The guy for years had the most mvp shares of any player without ever winning an mvp, he was just so consistently very good, that I find it baffling when I see people saying he might have been iffy by the writers. I'm an NL guy, and I knew Eddie Murray. Did his hanging around hurt his perception among fans?

Hmm... who will be the next Jack Morris/Jim Rice/Bruce Sutter - a guy clearly not a HOF'er as far as many here are concerned but make it (or nearly do) thanks to writers looking for a story.

I would put my money on Damon. (Vizquel was another good option) And of course Ichiro is going to go in :)

with the backlog, I find it hard to imagine anyone staying on the ballot and getting in. I imagine Morris goes in next year, and that would be the last teeth gnashing on undeserving players going in. The next round of teeth gnashing will be righteous indignation crap from people who don't care about roid usage complaining about Griffey going in but not Bonds. I'm in the camp, that I'm not going to complain about a deserving player going in ahead of a more deserving player, so it's going to be painful to the ears from 2014-2029.

There have been 159 games in which Biggio had at least 1 HBP and at least 1 run scored so that is the maxmium amount of runs caused by getting on base via HBP.

small caveat, there is a possibility he got hbp in a game in which it advanced a runner into scoring position that subequently scored, that he didn't get the run scored and wouldn't have otherwise.

Edit: I see that the comment was a response to another comment specifically asking how many runs, not a value comment on hbp, so ignore the caveat.

I mean, yes, he has all those things. Other than runs, it's really hard for me to see most of those variables making much difference in Hall of Fame voting. And Trammell has the fact that he played shortstop, a position to which HoF voters have been quite generous.

I would have guessed that a hypothetical Biggio who retired somewhere between 2003-2005 would have debuted in the 30% range.

I guess it's my NL bias/saturation, but I thought Biggio was widely considered a future hofer around the time he got to 2000 hits. Versus Trammel was constantly overshadowed in his own league by Ripken. I always thought Biggio's narrative helped him stand out from the relatively bland Trammel.

There have been 159 games in which Biggio had at least 1 HBP and at least 1 run scored so that is the maxmium amount of runs caused by getting on base via HBP

Whatever this is supposed to mean; I find it really hard to believe that the maximum of it is 159.

There have been 159 games in which Biggio had at least 1 HBP and at least 1 run scored so that is the maxmium amount of runs caused by getting on base via HBP

Whatever this is supposed to mean; I find it really hard to believe that the maximum of it is 159.

That appears to be in direct response to Post #34 by Lassus:

I can't check at the moment, but has there ever been a figure published for how many times Biggio scored off his HBPs?

So in this case, the maximum is definitely 159.

#35 While it's generally true that the leadoff hitter was more likely to be in the Brock/Alou/Aparicio/Wills family (ie high speed and such OBP as they had was driven by BA), there were some notable exceptions. Dick McAulliffe batted all over the place, but spent more time in the leadoff spot than any other spot. His OBP was .100 higher than his BA when ledaing off.

Don Buford was a fast guy who walked a lot. Earl Weaver certainly valued him a lot.

Neither is exactly Eddie Stanky in terms of walks, but walks were a big part of their game.

Albie Pearson was a very good leadoff hitter in the early 60s. Didn't really start walking until his mid 20s and again wasn't exactly Stanky. (I'll take a .380 OBP from a CF even if he doesn't have much power)

1. McAuliffe is certainly not a historically common leadoff hitter type, although he was a good one. Still, McAuliffe had quite considerable power (197 homers lifetime). I don't think you are going to pitch him the way you would an Eddie Stanky or Richie Ashburn.

2. Don Buford has all the skills of a prototype leadoff hitter. But his OBP from 1963-67 was only .335. That's basically on par with what Maury Wills and Lou Brock were doing. Buford had a tremendous season in 1968, with an OPS+ of 144. It may be one of the best hidden seasons ever. His OBP was .367, which is pretty outstanding. But for sure, he was hurt by the playing conditions of his time. He was a consistent .400 OBP guy (.397, .406, .413) from age 32-34 (after the rule changes). He went from drawing 50-70 walks a year to 89-109. And he also had some power. He seems a lot more like a Tony Phillips-type hitter than an Ashburn,Stanky, Butler.

3. Albie Pearson is a good example but he cratered in 1964, hitting .223/.316/.272. He came back with a solid 1965 but was out of baseball after that. I know there's some unusual story about him, but I can't recall at the moment.

So in this case, the maximum is definitely 159.

I don't think that's clear. He said at least 1 run and at least 1 HBP. There certainly could have been games where Biggio was hit more than once and scored more than once, which would increase the theoretical maximum numbers of runs scored after reaching via HBP. Of course, the real number is likely much lower due to games in which the run(s) scored came after PA other than the HBP.

Alex, I'll take pedantic for $2,000.

I find it baffling when I see people saying he might have been iffy by the writers. I'm an NL guy, and I knew Eddie Murray. Did his hanging around hurt his perception among fans?

No, Eddie Murray definitely "felt like a Hall of Famer" all along. His mystique was much talked-of: a strong silent type with the secret of consistency. He had many of the characteristics that Albert Pujols has today, without looking like he was continuously peeved about something.

It's just relative. Murray was never an MVP, despite a sense in the media that over a stretch of years in the early '80s he probably was the MVP of an entire half-decade. He won a HR and RBI championship, but in the strike year, and it was a shared title. He led the majors in batting in 1990 despite not winning a batting title (how weird). Despite the mystique, he was not nearly as good as Pujols; he was somewhat better than either McGriff or Palmeiro. And his career had a monotonously even shape (30 HR and 110 RBI for years and years, followed by 25 HR and 90 RBI for years and years). And for all that, if he'd retired with 2,930 hits when the second strike came, he'd have been an easy Hall of Famer.

So if Baines/Vizquel, in an alternate world, had careers where they reached 3,000 hits, that would probably require, for Baines, better knees -- but with better knees, he would also have been a better hitter. And for Vizquel, well, I guess he could have played more games in his 20s and dissolved the MLBPA. But he started at 22 and is still playing at 45, despite a career OPS+ of 82. I'd say his career already had just about the friendliest circumstances possible, and he's probably not going to break 2,900 hits.

Again, not really. Baines lost ~40 games in 1981, another ~40 in 1994, and ~15 in 1994 due to work stoppages. Without those, and extrapolating missed hits at a rate identical to his performances those years gives him another 90 or so hits putting him at ~2950. Now, he was well and truly cooked when he finally retired, so hanging around for another 50 looks unlikely, but without the work stoppages he needed to be only a teeny, tiny bit better or durable to get to 3,000. A Harold Baines without the work stoppages who is 1% more durable and 1% better is still an ordinary good but not great player.

Omar lost time to the 94-95 strikes as well, but didn't lose nearly as many hits as Harold.

Hmm... who will be the next Jack Morris/Jim Rice/Bruce Sutter - a guy clearly not a HOF'er as far as many here are concerned but make it (or nearly do) thanks to writers looking for a story.

Jeter, of course.

Seriously, though, maybe Konerko? If he gets to 500 he's got a nice story (2005 White Sox) and the whole "I was part of the White Sox so I simply cannot be accused of taking steroids" thing.

if Baines/Vizquel, in an alternate world, had careers where they reached 3,000 hits, that would probably require, for Baines, better knees -- but with better knees, he would also have been a better hitter. And for Vizquel, well, I guess he could have played more games in his 20s and dissolved the MLBPA. But he started at 22 and is still playing at 45, despite a career OPS+ of 82. I'd say his career already had just about the friendliest circumstances possible, and he's probably not going to break 2,900 hits.

I don't mean to be rude, but arguing this point just seems really weird to me.

Here's my lesser point. As mentioned, Baines lost time to strikes, so we're not really speculating about "changing his game" at all. But even if you ignore that (which you shouldn't), he was platooned for a very long time. If he had played against lefties some of those years, surely he could have added 150 hits. He would have been putting up better total stats and worse rate stats. Would that have destroyed his career? During the portion of Vizquel's career when he was a decent, fast hitter, could he have hit leadoff and gotten 150 more hits? Are these hypotheticals outrageous?

Here's my larger point. Forget specific players. Do you seriously think that it is possible that there is some number of hits where everyone who will ever get that number will inevitably be a much better player than anyone who gets 150 fewer hits?

Here's my larger point. Do you seriously think that it is possible that there is some number of hits where everyone who will ever get that number will inevitably be a much better player than anyone who gets 150 fewer hits?

Yeah: 150.

and the whole "I was part of the White Sox so I simply cannot be accused of taking steroids" thing.

I don't understand this reference? Something to do with Frank Thomas?

In related news, Johnny Damon's quest for 3,000 hits and the Hall of Fame is on life support.

In related news, Johnny Damon's quest for 3,000 hits and the Hall of Fame is on life support.

And in related news to that, I believe we have a little wager I'm close to winning.

Do you seriously think that it is possible that there is some number of hits where everyone who will ever get that number will inevitably be a much better player than anyone who gets 150 fewer hits?

Of course not. Joe Morgan had about 2,500 hits, Mickey Mantle about 2,400, Mike Schmidt about 2,200, and Mickey Cochrane had about 1,650. There are always going to be very great players a ways down a career list.

My idea (and Cooper in #44 both paraphrased it well and elaborated it much better than I could) started from an empirical observation: once you get down the career list to about 2,850, you begin to see players who are not going to be elected to either the HOF or the HOM.

Actually, once you get to ~3,000, you begin to see players who either aren't in the HOM or are going to have an uphill struggle: Palmeiro and Brock. (The HOF line, less consistent, has to be drawn to exclude Rose and 'roiders, and is a less objective thing.) So that's one kind of high-water mark. Palmeiro is a very tough case, because absent steroids there would be HOF voters who'd say "that guy just was never a great player." So I'm probably being generous by choosing 2,850 as a benchmark.

But by 2,850, you begin to see players who aren't real serious HOM candidates: Vizquel and Baines.

As you approach 2,700, these guys proliferate (Pinson, Oliver, Staub, Buckner, Parker).

I don't think there's anything magical about any arbitrary number; it's just how things have happened historically, so far.

As you approach 2,700, these guys proliferate (Pinson, Oliver, Staub, Buckner, Parker).

Maybe we got lucky that these guys all played in such low offense eras. Here's Rusty Staub's career line transposed to Texas during the sillyball era:

313/401/480, 3226 H, 340 HR, 1535 R, 1904 RBIs

Most hits, eligible for HOF


Played after 2006:

Seriously, though, maybe Konerko? If he gets to 500 he's got a nice story (2005 White Sox) and the whole "I was part of the White Sox so I simply cannot be accused of taking steroids" thing.

I was thinking of Big Papi - higher peak than Konerko and slightly more WAR. No defense, of course, and he's on "The List" (according to the leakers - however, he's probably as likely as any steroid-tainted player to get a mulligan from the writers.) Ortiz has the better narrative - media friendly, walkoffs, 2004 PS.

Of course, if Konerko/Ortiz put up several more seasons at their current "renaissance" pace, they approach borderline metrics, anyway.

Actually, once you get to ~3,000, you begin to see players who either aren't in the HOM or are going to have an uphill struggle: Palmeiro and Brock.

Didn't Palmeiro make the HoM pretty easily?

Speaking of WAR, what happened to WAR totals sometime in the last few months? I could've sworn the likes of McGwire and Sheffield were in the 60's last I checked, and now they're in the 50's? Doesn't it kinda hurt the reliability of the stat if the numbers fluctuate?

Didn't Palmeiro make the HoM pretty easily?

My bad – I wrongly conflated Palmeiro's likely HOF skeptics (even absent steroids) with HOM skepticism of Brock. Palmeiro is in the HOM, on the basis of a reasonable face-value look at his stats, and strongly distinguished by them from Harold Baines, who has disappeared from their discussions altogether.