While Fat Elvis is one of my favorite players, and a truly great hitter.....nope. Not quite.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I see Berkman as a no brainer for the Hall. Dude was one of the best hitters in MLB for a decade, and I don't know what more you could ask for. Berkman was an integral part of two World Series teams, has a ring from one of them, killer lifetime stats (especially if you look past his drek 2010), and was very well-regarded during his prime.

He's not Lou Gehrig, but not every Hall of Famer has to be.

He looks like a somewhat better version of Norm Cash or Bob Johnson to me. It's a classic HoVG case - see also Giles, Brian.

He simply doesn't have the counting stats-his season if not his career might be over, and he's only at 359 home runs. His peak isn't all that spectacular either, which doesn't quite jibe with his SLG/OB numbers, but he's a fair to middling defensive corner outfielder who also played a lot of 1B.

Agree with #4. Nearly 2,000 fewer PA, a slightly lower OPS+, a lesser peak, and though Bagwell's decline phase was relatively short and gentle, Berkman's is yet to come (other than 2010), so the rate stats will likely depart even more from Bags' when all is said and done.
Berk's OBP is great, currently #36 (28 for 1900 onward), so HoVG seems right, unless he has another 3-4 seasons of OPS+ above 140 in the tank, which I think very unlikely.

His World Series line will impress the BBWAA: .410/.520/.564 in 11 games. (And by "impress," I mean get him an extra 2-3% of the vote every year, not get him near election.)

Berkman drove in six runs against the White Sox in '05 – hell, I didn't even think Houston scored six runs in that series.

Comparing to Bagwell, he falls way short on PA. 9431 for Bagwell, 7472 for Berkman.

I did a search on players born after 1930, 6500-8500 PA, and 135-155 OPS+. There are 10 players besides Berkman:

Larry Walker, Reggie Smith, Mike Piazza, Will Clark, Jack Clark, Brian Giles, Norm Cash, Albert Belle, David Ortiz, and Frank Howard. Berkman ranks right in the middle of this group in career WAR.

Piazza is a catcher so he's the deserving HOFer here. Everyone else is a 1B/DH/OF, with 9 of the 11 in the 300-400 homerun range. Walker and Smith stand above the others for having defensive value. Berkman is most similar to Cash, Giles, and the Clarks. I can't vote for all of those guys without turning into a big hall advocate, so I can't vote for Berkman if this is it for him.

Right, you can't double count the shorter career. His counting stats aren't enough yet, but in order to get the counting stats he'll have to go through his decline phase, which will drag down his rate stats.

“Given his numbers and his peers, my guess is that Berkman ends up with guys like (Edgar) Martinez and Todd Helton—hitters who specialized in the wrong skills.”

What the hell does this mean? What wrong skills is he talking about?

What wrong skills is he talking about?

I imagine he's talking about skills that most BBWAA voters won't recognize (OPS+/OBP etc).

Awesome rate stats, but I wouldn't vote for him without some more PA's. Here's hoping he has something left in the tank and can keep raking until he's 40.

What the hell does this mean? What wrong skills is he talking about?

I'm guessing he means that they walked too much, keeping their hits total down.

I imagine he's talking about skills that most BBWAA voters won't recognize (OPS+/OBP etc).

There may be some truth to this, but Berkman's done fine on the traditional stats. He hit over .300 5 times (not counting 2012), hit 40+ home runs twice, drove in 100 runs 6 times (led the league once), finished top 5 in MVP voting 4 times (plus 2 7th-place finishes). Those are all reasonably accurate measures of his value. To the extent the numbers of times he did those things are relatively few, that simply reflects what others above said: his career is relatively short. Heck, he's done better in MVP voting than he has in WAR. I'm not sure that he's a "sabermetric" poster boy.

One guy who he stacks up reasonably well against who would have been a Hall-of-Famer, but for an unfortunate Congressional hearing, is Mark McGwire. Similar number of PAs: 7,660 v. 7,472. Baseball-Reference gives McGwire a fairly clear edge. I calculated a set of Player won-lost records that actually put them much closer in career value, especially if you include postseason numbers: Berkman v. McGwire

I'd probably vote for him on a HOF ballot if I had room for him (he probably wouldn't make my hypothetical 2013 ballot, for example, though, because of the 10-name limit).

Hopping on Kiko's post...
Initially I laughed at the headline, the idea is kinda absurd because Berkman's never passed my "He feels like a HoF player" test...then I dug deeper.

Lifetime 2.96 hitter
5 times scored 100 runs, 6 times drove in 100.
5 times hit 30 Hr's, hit 20 ten straight years.
100 walks 3 times, 90 10 times, including 9 straight.
He was a member of many good teams with the Astro's including the Killer B's, which was a cool moniker. Unfortunately they never won a series despite lots of star power, which may hurt his case. I've not heard it discussed much in the media, but Berkman was a good postseason player and a beast in the series.


This is a guy who has the traditional stats that can get one in.

Going further,
Lifetime .296/.409/.546 for a career .955 OPS with a 146 OPS+
49 WAR, which is kinda low, three years high of 18.6 WAR, five year high of 29 WAR, seven year high of 36.9
HoF monitor score of 98, HoF standards 44.
Finished in the top five in MVP voting 4 times (two thirds and two fifths)

Negatives
-Short career
-No major counting stats
-That poor MVP showing is telling
-Was never the best player in his league or at his position...and was rarely even close (That Pujols guy messes things up here)
-Never had a big catchy story line other than a kinda cool nickname.Played on a team that maybe did not achieve all that people expected. No hooks.

A few weeks ago in a thread on Vlad, someone (Maybe booey) brought up the fact that he thought Vlad was gonna disappear under the greater stats accumulated by some juicers during the sillyball era.I disagreed, mostly because I think Vlad has too many other hooks, but I do think this fear will apply to Berkman.
He's been a good, often borderline great player for a fairly long time(No Jim Rice peaks here-Lance has a good 8-10 year run)but when his numbers are compared to the true greats of his era they pale. He played in maybe the greatest era of 1B in history (McGwire, Raffy, Pujols, Helton, Prince, Tex, Agon, Giambi,just to start) and, between his short career and lack of comparable numbers to some of his immediate peers, I think he's going to get lost in the shuffle.

Good, and often very good, but not great is my call...and I'm kinda a peak guy, so if a guy is just good, he needs to be really good for a really long time (Ala Eddie Murray) to make the hall in my book.
It will be fun watching the HoM debate him...I think Lance might just get in there.

Comparing to Bagwell, he falls way short on PA. 9431 for Bagwell, 7472 for Berkman.

Seasons played in the Astrodome:

Bagwell - 9 (age 23-31)
Berkman - 1 (age 23)

But hey, let's all stupidly pretend Berkman's career line from Minute Maid/Enron is comparable to Bagwell's line from the Dome. Because that makes so much sense, really.

What the hell does this mean? What wrong skills is he talking about?

Walks. Berkman takes a lot of them, and voters tend to ignore the stat, even today. It's actually true that Berkman was better than Albert Pujols last year. Both had power, but Lance had a serious edge in BB. I think he's borderline for the Hall right now, even if he never returns from his latest injury. If he gets two more seasons like 2011 down, though, I think he's a serious shoo-in. Many of the comparable players padded their career lengths with DH seasons. Lance could probably do that, if he ended up on an AL team. But right now, he's played the field in every game. - Brock Hanke

BB-Ref's WAR does not see Lance as being better than Albert in 2011. But Lance has the edge in batting average, OBP,and SLG. He played the outfield, so I doubt Albert gets a big bonus there. Frankly, I don't see what it is that WAR is not seeing in Lance's season. - Brock

BB-Ref's WAR does not see Lance as being better than Albert in 2011. But Lance has the edge in batting average, OBP,and SLG. He played the outfield, so I doubt Albert gets a big bonus there. Frankly, I don't see what it is that WAR is not seeing in Lance's season. - Brock

Defense. Berkman was at -17 Rfield and Pujols at +9.

EDIT: Pujols also had ~65 more PA's.

BB-Ref's WAR gives Lance 41 batting runs, -2 baserunning runs, -17 defensive runs, and an extra -7 runs because he played right field.
For Albert, 34 batting runs, 0 baserunning runs, 9 defensive runs, and an extra -9 runs because he played first base. And an extra -4 runs for hitting into lots of double plays. (tops in the majors)

So offensive RAR gives Lance a 9-run advantage, and defensive RAR gives Albert a 24-run advantage. Defensive stats put Lance behind Matt H. as well.

Frankly, I don't see what it is that WAR is not seeing in Lance's season.

The defensive system that it uses rates Berkman as a -17 defender and Pujols as +9. That's probably the biggest difference.

Edit: Probably better to read the descriptions that were more detailed and also posted first.

Sure are a lot of 1B/LF/RF who look like Hall of Famers in isolation.

If Lance Berkman isn't in the hall of fame than they shouldn't have one.

I think BBWA voters will (wrongly) confuse Berkman with his contemporary Paul Konerko, who, at least in many of the traditional counting stats, is a similar player to Berkman. And in concluding that Konerko is not worthy, will conclude that "Berkman must not be worthy."**

Konerko beats Berkman in all the "important" counting stats -- hits (2077-1836), homers (404-359), and RBI (1285-1197), as well as TB (3679-3381). If Berkman is truly done, Konerko will pass him in runs scored, as well (currently 1115-1061, Berkman). If the postseason is the tiebreaker, they each have one ring, and each performed well in the postseason. Plus, when they went head-to-head in the playoffs in '05 (for FOUR whole games!), Konerko won in a sweep. BBWA types tend to like that narrative.

I think the BBWA concludes that "since Konerko isn't HoF-worthy, and Konerko was better than Berkman, Berkman can't get in."

**Note that I am not suggesting, even as a Sox fan, that they are equivalent players. Even a cursory analysis demonstrates that Berkman was superior -- 146 to 122 career OPS+, Berkman could actually, you know, run, and played a bit better defense at more challenging positions than Paulie.

I'm honestly stunned that there's a Lance Berkman for HOF contingent. It never even occurred to me that people would think he was qualified.

I think the BBWA concludes that "since Konerko isn't HoF-worthy, and Konerko was better than Berkman, Berkman can't get in."

I think that's bad reasoning that leads to a correct result. If I compare him to Will Clark, Norm Cash, and Brian Giles - well none of those guys are going in the hall either.

Seasons played in the Astrodome:

Bagwell - 9 (age 23-31)
Berkman - 1 (age 23)

But hey, let's all stupidly pretend Berkman's career line from Minute Maid/Enron is comparable to Bagwell's line from the Dome. Because that makes so much sense, really.

That's in the discussion, but their OPS+ marks, 149 to 146, should account for at least some of the park effects.

Also, Bagwell's home/road splits don't show a "dome drag", nor do Berkmans a "home bonus".
Bagwell's H/R OPS: .978/.919 (Probably about a league avg home advantage, 6% above rd)
Berkman's........: .957/.953 (Only 34 total games in his dome year)

It's true that almost 40% of Bagwell's PA came after the Astros departed the dome, but checking a few years 1991-99 reinforces that he was such a good hitter that he defeated the dome, with better home than road numbers in most years. (Except for his last dome year, 1999, when his H/R were .899/1.186. The year before was just the opposite, 1.132/.853.)

As Dave Cameron wrote on FanGraphs, “Given his numbers and his peers, my guess is that Berkman ends up with guys like (Edgar) Martinez and Todd Helton—hitters who specialized in the wrong skills.”

As with nearly everything Dave Cameron says, this is wrong. "The wrong skills" aren't what's keeping Edgar out of the Hall. The fact that he was too fragile to play a position in the field without damaging himself is.

5 times scored 100 runs, 6 times drove in 100.
5 times hit 30 Hr's, hit 20 ten straight years.
100 walks 3 times, 90 10 times, including 9 straight.

Is this really that impressive?

Just as a for instance, Adam Dunn has:
3 times scored 100 runs, 6 times drove in 100
5 consecuteve times hit 40+ HRs, 7 consecutive 38+, 9 straight 26+.
100 walks 7 times.
And is 4 years younger than Berkman. To date, he has more HR and is within 55 BB and 250 RBI.

Now granted, Berkman has 50 points of BA on Dunn, but his lead in OBP and SLG is much smaller. After a disasterous '11, Dunn again looks like his old self - already 14 HRs (2nd in the AL) and 35 BB (1st in MLB) in just 43 games - point being, he's likely to put up more high HR/BB/RBI/R seasons.

30 HR or 90 BB just doesn't seem that impressive these days, especially from a slugger.

Just as a for instance, Adam Dunn has:

But is Dunn a "for instance" of a broader group of players, or is Adam Dunn a single guy who's also been a very good hitter over the course of his career? Dunn looks especially good in your analysis because you've highlighted everything that Adam Dunn does well - he walks and hits home runs - and glossed over the things he does poorly - he strikes out and is a terrible fielder.

On the one hand, okay, you can compare the 162-game averages of Dunn and Berkman and say that Berkman is just Adam Dunn if he could convert 30 K's into 20 singles and 10 doubles. But, on the other hand, Adam Dunn is already a very good hitter and if you gave him an extra 30 hits and 40 total bases every year, he'd be a hell of a player, and if that hypothetical Adam Dunn could play defense non-embarrassingly, he'd probably have a Hall-of-Fame case too.

The obvious comparison to me is Vlad Guerrero - through 2008 Vlad had the following line:

Vlad - 7419 PA, .323/.389/.575, 147 OPS+, 53 WAR
Berk - 7472 PA, .296/.409/.546, 146 OPS+, 49 WAR

Vlad had more slugging and less OBP, he had a bit more defensive value, and he put up another three seasons of average-ish DH play in his decline phase from 2008-2011 (2 extra WAR, brought his OPS+ down to 140).

A few thoughts:

1. I don't think the last three years of Vlad's career add much to his case, although the extra counting stats help.
2. Overall, Berkman was probably a slightly worse player than Vlad, but it's close.
3. Vlad was more "famous" and "feared" -- he was typically thought of as a future HOFer while Berkman was not. He was also a bit more multi-dimensional during his peak. He could steal bases, he had a great arm.
4. I think most people today view Vlad as a borderline guy who will get in. If that's the case, then Berkman is on the wrong side of the borderline, and needs another few years of real value, not just counting stat accumulation, to get in.

Just as a for instance, Adam Dunn has:
3 times scored 100 runs, 6 times drove in 100
5 consecutive times hit 40+ HRs, 7 consecutive 38+, 9 straight 26+.
100 walks 7 times.
And is 4 years younger than Berkman. To date, he has more HR and is within 55 BB and 250 RBI.

And Adam Dunn is a pretty damn good player(OK-rephrase that-very good hitter, mediocre baseball player) who a few years ago folks on this forum were debating as a HoF case if he kept up the pace and ended up with 550-600 HR's.
Yes. It's rare and impressive. Not so much now as it's been in the past, but that just ties into my comment about his numbers getting lost in the shuffle.

Check the HoF players. Hell, Mantle only scored 100 9 times, hit 30+ jacks nine times, drove in 100 only five times and walked 100 eight times.

Color me in Sam's contingent. I would never have expected Lance to have a HoF case...or supporters. But when I peeked, he's got a pretty good argument for at least consideration, if not induction.

At this point, his career totals, to me, say "Jim Edmonds without the center field defense." Not a HOFer, in other words, since Edmonds himself is a borderline HOF case (though I'd put him in).

EDIT: OK, Berkman's been a little better hitter than Edmonds, but they're comparable, and the positional difference more than offsets.

Dude was one of the best hitters in MLB for a decade, and I don't know what more you could ask for.

I'd ask for a slightly higher peak and/or a little longer prime. Yes, he was one of the better hitters, but never the best (his best OWAR ranking was 5th in his league, though he shows a little better by OPS+). And though he was one of the better hitters, he was not one of the better fielders or baserunners. His best ranking by WAR for Position players was 5th in his league and he was in the Top 10 only four times in his career. His career is a bit short right now, fewer than 7,500 PA's. A decade may seem like a long time, but in HOF terms it's a bit short. If he can play after the surgery and put up reasonable numbers another couple of seasons, he's a solid candidate. If his career is done, he's a bit short for me.

Does the HOF Monitor overrate the chances of all recent players since it gives so many points to milestones that were much more accessible in the last 15 years or so? 30 HRs, etc. That's the only one of those monitors that makes Berkman look like a real contender. On his sims, the only 2 who made HOF are Stargell and Duke Snider. I'd say that's fair. If Berkman wins a late-career MVP or plays center field for one of the most-memorable franchise runs of all time, he might eventually get some support. At the end of 2010, I would have guessed he'd never cross 2%, but 2011 was such a bounce back year that it's conceivable he could play himself up. Tough luck on the knee injury.

I would argue that Adam Dunn could hit 600 HRs and still not be qualified for the HoF.
A liftime BA of under .250 and leading the league in SOs for several years is not how one gets to Cooperstown.
Dunn is more of a one-dimensional player than McGwire ever was.
Mark could make the occasional play at 1st base; Dunn was pitiful to watch in DC in 2009 and 2010.

I'd pick Thome way before Dunn should they attain similar HR totals when their careers end.

Berkman....I just don't know.
HoVG is my call if he's done today; potential HoF if he puts up 2 or 3 more decent "counting" years.

The fact that he was too fragile to play a position in the field without damaging himself is.

Except this isn't a fact. It's a fact he played DH for the vast majority of his career. Anything beyond that is speculation.

A liftime BA of under .250 and leading the league in SOs for several years is not how one gets to Cooperstown.

Neither of those really matters, and you know it.

Dunn is more of a one-dimensional player than McGwire ever was.

They weren't one-dimensional unless you don't count the ability to get on base as a "dimension" of batting.

I would argue that Adam Dunn could hit 600 HRs and still not be qualified for the HoF.

Sure. It's just that Dunn's a terrible example of how unimpressive 30HR/90BB seasons are these days, because that's basically every bit of value that Adam Dunn gives you. If you hit 30 HRs and walk 90 times in a season, it is pretty much not possible to be LESS valuable than Adam Dunn. But that's not Lance Berkman - he could also hit singles and doubles and while he was never in danger of deserving a Gold Glove anywhere, you could put him at any of 1B/LF/RF and not have to turn in horror every time the ball was hit in his direction.

5 times scored 100 runs, 6 times drove in 100.
5 times hit 30 Hr's, hit 20 ten straight years.
100 walks 3 times, 90 10 times, including 9 straight.
Is this really that impressive?

I would say no. From 1995 (which I consider the beginning of the sillyball era) there have been 532 seasons where a player scored 100 or more runs (Berkman's best, 114, ties for 159th; Bagwell actually has the 1st spot and the 5th spot), 607 seasons of 100 or mor RBI (Berkman's best, 128, is good for a tie for 84th), 543 sesaons of 30 or mor HR (think he ties for 59th here), only 149 seasons of 100 or more BB and 274 of 90 or more. His BB are the only area where he really seems to stand out a bit, but I don't think this will play with the voters although it is a large part of his value.

A liftime BA of under .250 and leading the league in SOs for several years is not how one gets to Cooperstown.


Neither of those really matters, and you know it.

Doesn't matter to who? It certainly matters to a good deal of HOF voters.

Doesn't matter to who? It certainly matters to a good deal of HOF voters.

The post I was responding to:

I would argue that Adam Dunn could hit 600 HRs and still not be qualified for the HoF.
A liftime BA of under .250 and leading the league in SOs for several years is not how one gets to Cooperstown.

I took that to mean qualified to go in based on actual quality of play and not qualified based on the ridiculously inconsistent and poorly justified opinions of the BBWAA.


EDIT: Also, there was this player who led the league in strikeouts the same number of times(3) as Dunn and was a career .267 hitter. You may have heard of him, he played 3B for the Phillies for quite a while. Most people seem ok with him having been elected to the HoF and hell, he only hit 548 HR.

Reggie Jackson: .262BA, led league in strike outs 5 times

I took that to mean qualified to go in based on actual quality of play and not qualified based on the ridiculously inconsistent and poorly justified opinions of the BBWAA.

Well, on what quality of play then would you consider him qualified to go in? He's 32, which by most indications would mean his peak is behind him. So far he's led the league in a meaningful, positive offensive category once, BB in 2008. He's a negative baserunner and defender who will, in all likelihood, finish out his career as a combo 1B/DH. His Career OPS+ pre-decline is 128 and highest season by WAR is 4.3. So, give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll accumulate another 321 career HR. In what way would he be qualified for the HOF?

EDIT: Also, there was this player who led the league in strikeouts the same number of times(3) as Dunn and was a career .267 hitter. You may have heard of him, he played 3B for the Phillies for quite a while. Most people seem ok with him having been elected to the HoF and hell, he only hit 548 HR.

Reggie Jackson: .262BA, led league in strike outs 5 times

Ah, I see. So Adam Dunn is comparable to Mike Schmidt and Reggie Jackson? Please elaborate. I'd love to hear how well he compares to them beyond K's.

EDIT: Also, there was this player who led the league in strikeouts the same number of times(3) as Dunn and was a career .267 hitter. You may have heard of him, he played 3B for the Phillies for quite a while. Most people seem ok with him having been elected to the HoF and hell, he only hit 548 HR.

Reggie Jackson: .262BA, led league in strike outs 5 times

To be pedantic, Schmidt led the league in strikeouts 4 times.

I'd agree that HOF voters aren't as obsessed with strikeouts as some might think, but Dunn is a special case. He's 10 Ks away from passing Schmidt's career total, in ~3300 fewer PAs. Dunn's already 11th all-time, and is a lock to finish in the top 4. Reggie's career record is less than 5 years away for Dunn, unless ARod beats him to it. There's also the .243 career BA. Schmidt's .267 isn't that impressive, but it's a hell of a lot higher than .243.

Edit: Dunn also was the first player to break the 190 K barrier in a season. Ryan Howard and the master, Mark Reynolds, have made us forget about it a little, but Dunn was a strikeout pioneer.

OK, last post and then I am done with this.

I WAS ONLY RESPONDING TO THE STATEMENT QUOTED BELOW.

A liftime BA of under .250 and leading the league in SOs for several years is not how one gets to Cooperstown.

I was NOT commenting on whether or not Adam Dunn should or will get elected to the HoF. I was NOT saying that Adam Dunn is a comparable player to Mike Schmidt or Reggie Jackson. I WAS saying that a player with a ~.250 BA who led the league in strikeouts 3 or more times could ABSOLUTELY still be a HoF quality player.

To be clear, this post is in reference to alilisd in posts 39 and 41, who apparently either did not read my posts or needs to improve his/her reading comprehension skills.

To be clear, this post is in reference to alilisd in posts 39 and 41, who apparently either did not read my posts or needs to improve his/her reading comprehension skills.

My reading comprehension is just fine. You may want to work on your writing skills though.

To beat a dead horse -- the lowest BA for a HOF batter is Schalk's .253. The next lowest is Killebrew's .256. That's probably the absolutely bottom for a player who's in for his hitting skills. Rabbit Maranville is the only other batter in with a BA under .260. Reggie is the only full-time OF/1B/DH type to have a BA below McCovey's .270. I think we can conceive of a guy who hits .250 and gets in, but for a corner OF to do it he'd pretty much have to have a Clemente-type defensive reputation and be a top-10 home run hitter.

post-integration, non-C HoF writer inductees, <8000 PA:

Jackie Robinson
Kirby Puckett
Ralph Kiner

You can make a case Berkman's been as valuable as Puckett but that's true of tons of guys. You can make a case he's as deserving as Kiner but (a) that would be true of lots of guys and (b) it helps to lead the league in HR several times.

Berkman doesn't stand out in any way (other than having the fewest PA) from Edgar, Giambi, F Howard, Walker, Snider, Cash, or Delgado even in OPS+ terms. In WAR terms, things are much worse. Restricting it to post-integration, 7000 to 9000 PAs, he ranks 29th in WAR. He is just ahead of Giambi, Giles and Puckett; he is just behind Cedeno, J Clark, J Cruz, Cey and Lemon.

I'm a fan of Berkman -- grabbed him in a keeper league way back in 2000 -- and I've been pointing him out for years as an overlooked start. But he just doesn't stand out. I can see him in the HoM and I might see an argument for him under the logic that we have nearly twice as many teams so we should have nearly twice as many HoFers. But to be voted into the real HoF -- to deserve that level of recognition -- he needs several more good years.

That list is the saber vs. trad list. Pujols is #1 at the moment but after that it's Walker, Grich, Rolen, Edgar, Snider, R Smith, Beltran, Andruw, Boyer, McGwire, Helton, Edmonds, K Hernandez, Bando, Bobby Bonds, Allen, Beltre. Most of those guys are/will be in the HoM.

Dude was one of the best hitters in MLB for a decade, and I don't know what more you could ask for.

Historically I just don't think that's enough.

He's the 6th best hitter from 2000-2009 (min 3000 PA). Jack Clark was the 6th best of the 80's. Pedro Guerrero was the 4th best of that decade. To be a real candidate he's got to last longer than he has, be the best or at least top 3 of a decade, or add significant value outside of the batter's box.

I think we can conceive of a guy who hits .250 and gets in, but for a corner OF to do it he'd pretty much have to have a Clemente-type defensive reputation and be a top-10 home run hitter.

It also depends on the era. Harmon Killebrew hit .256 (and was a top-10 home run hitter; he's eleventh now) and was one of the dominant offensive players of his time. For most of Dunn's career, a .250 hitter had to take even more walks than Dunn and hit even more homers than Dunn to rank among the league's best.

Berkman's postseason hitting has been mentioned a few times, but I can't resist the temptation to bring it up again, because he's legitimately one of the very best postseason hitters ever, and basically nobody has noticed. The way his playoff feats have managed to be overshadowed every time is genuinely remarkable.

2004: .409/.480/.591 in the LDS, .292/.400/.750 in the LCS. Played on the same team as Carlos Beltran, who hit .455/.500/1.091 and .417/.563/.958, respectively, in the same series; also went against Pujols's .500/.563/1.000 in the LCS.

2005: .357/.500/.643 in the LDS, highlighted by an 8th-inning grand slam in Game 4 to bring the Astros within a run; the game lasted 10 innings after that, so nobody really remembered anything that happened in regulation. "Slipped" to .286/.400/.524 in the NLCS, but he did have one key hit - a 3-run homer in the seventh inning that gave the Astros a 4-2 lead in Game 5. Let's see, what happened in the rest of that game, again? Oh, right. Anyway, Houston won the series regardless, and Berkman played magnificently in the World Series - .385/.526/.538, 6 RBI; the 6 RBI came on four separate plays, and each of those plays either tied the game or broke a tie, which is pretty impressive. It was probably the best Series performance ever by a player whose team got swept. But his team got swept, so it would have been a bit awkward to give him the MVP.

He was OK but nothing special in 2010, and didn't do much in the first couple of rounds in 2011. Then came the Series, in which he hit .423/.516/.577, highlighted by a performance for the ages in Game 6: 3/5 with a walk, a homer, 3 RBI, and 4 runs scored; he had a 2-run homer in the first to give the Cards a 2-1 lead, reached on an error and scored in the fourth to tie the game at 3, singled and scored the tying run again in the sixth, walked and scored the tying run again in the ninth, and to cap it off, singled in the tying run with 2 out in the tenth. It was .832 WPA, the second-most ever in a Game 6 of the World Series, and very high on the list among all WS games... and it came in the same game in which David Freese had the best postseason day ever for a hitter (in dramatic terms), full stop.

On balance, I'd contend that Berkman probably has one of the 10 best postseason hitting resumes ever assembled. I don't think I'd put him in the HOF if his career ended right now, but if you consider the playoffs at all, he's at least getting pretty close.

To be pedantic, Schmidt led the league in strikeouts 4 times.

I'm surprised Schmidt couldn't find some other way to be pedantic.

Firstbasemen and corner OF within 15 WAR, 10 OPS+ and 1000 PA of Berkman

Berkman's problems, which are fatal to his HOF chance are as follows:

1) Almost no black ink

He never lead the league in BA/OBP/SLG OPS or OPS+. He never lead the league in HR, and only once in RBI. He lead the league twice in doubles but never lead the league in TB, and only finished higher than 7th once.

2.) Because of the above, he never came close to winning an MVP. Sure, he had to contend with Bonds and Pujols peak for his entire career. He did have two 3rds and two 5th.

3.) He had negative value throughout his career with the glove and on the bases.

4.) He just did not have a high enough peak. While WAR has it's issues, it's instructive here. He's only got two seasons over 6 WAR. Dick Allen by contrast had two seasons over 8, and one over 7. There just is not that signature season that stands out and says Hall of Famer. If you don't have that, then you need to have a longer career sustained over more than 10 years.

His 146 career OPS+ and 5 seasons over 160 are really excellent. But it's just not enough to overcome the above 4 issues for me.

Berkman is awesome and has two awesome nicknames. I'd much rather see him in the Hall than a randomly generated ######### like Kevin Brown.

berkman is indeed teh awesomeness and has been very VERY overlooked most of his career because of his playing in the middle of nowhere, and also being heavily censored by bagwell/biggio for his first 6-7 years, but honestly, he isn't a hall of famer.

bagwell is.

but it should be noted that bagwell is significantly more responsible for the astros playoff failures than berkman, who more than held his own. bagwell (and his pal biggio) flat out sucked in every single playoff.

Thanks to all for the info on WAR's opinion of Berkman's defense. I never do seem to get WAR's defensive evaluations right, partially because I don't understand how they compute their positional adjustments. I would assume that a good first baseman who cannot play the outfield because he has plantar fasciitis would rank worse than even an old, poor outfielder, whose defense would improve if moved to first base because his lack of speed would not be such a problem. I would assume this because Berkman can play, albeit poorly, a position that Pujols cannot play at all. - Brock

Chase Utley is a better HOF candidate than Berkman, and Utley ain't gonna make it either.

I would assume that a good first baseman who cannot play the outfield because he has plantar fasciitis would rank worse than even an old, poor outfielder, whose defense would improve if moved to first base because his lack of speed would not be such a problem.

Albert Pujols is an excellent first baseman, and it's obvious from watching even just a game or two. Lance Berkman was not a good first baseman, both by observation and by the numbers, and then he got moved back to the outfield in his mid-30s after a couple of knee injuries. I would have been surprised if Albert didn't rank as at least 10 runs better than Berkman in the field.

Put more simply: Pujols and Berkman both played first base for years. Pujols was much better than Berkman. Then, Berkman got switched to a more difficult position. Why would you think that moving to a more difficult position, which he did not play well, would make Berkman suddenly better defensively than Pujols? Pujols had been much better in the field up until last year, and that pattern merely continued.

I didn't intend to start an Adam Dunn crapstorm; I only wanted to point out that the cited accomplishments for Berkman (followed by the statement "This is a guy who has the traditional stats that can get one in") don't really scream "Hall of Fame!!!" to me. The only thing Berkman has over Dunn is batting average (and Dunn likely will finish with HR and RBI totals that could get one in), and Dunn isn't going to get in without buying a ticket.

he's legitimately one of the very best postseason hitters ever, and basically nobody has noticed

Multiplied out to 162 games, his post-season numbers look remarkably similar to his career per-162 numbers -- OPS is .949 vs. .955, for example.

Despite the game 6 heroics, it seems like he doesn't quite have that singular moment to generate the "clutch god" mythology. As a contrasting example, David Justice seems to have maintained a top reputation as a post-season performer because of one critical game-turning homer, despite sub-pedestrian overall numbers and a fairly historic level of failure in game 7 of the 1997 WS. As DiMaggio demonstrated, marriage to a starlet is good for the narrative. Maybe there's an assumption of enormous cojones?

Put more simply: Pujols and Berkman both played first base for years. Pujols was much better than Berkman. Then, Berkman got switched to a more difficult position. Why would you think that moving to a more difficult position, which he did not play well, would make Berkman suddenly better defensively than Pujols?

That does point up Berkman's value, though. The mere fact that he was able to cover right field allowed the Cardinals to get both their bats in the lineup. If Berkman had Pujols' set of defensive skills, he would have been a better defensive first baseman - but the Cardinals wouldn't have been able to use both him and Pujols.

So, give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll accumulate another 321 career HR. In what way would he be qualified for the HOF?

Whoa! That would give Dunn 700, and apart from a future steriod complication (and I'm NOT implying that such will occur), he'd have a 100% chance of election.

However, he's not getting another 321, and the question above about his HOF chances postulated 550-600. If he hits 600 and remains "clean", he'd probably be tiptoeing close to 75% at some time in his 15-yr eligibility. (Unfortunately, IMO.)

re: #60: I'd guess that Pujols could play OF at least as well as Berkman, but does so much better than Berks at 1B that the best combo was as the Cards played it.

If he hits 600 and remains "clean", he'd probably be tiptoeing close to 75% at some time in his 15-yr eligibility. (Unfortunately, IMO.)

Why would that be unfortunate? At that point, he'd be somewhere in the top 10 in HR in baseball history (there are currently 8 at 600+, one of whom is still active; Pujols has more HR and is the same age as Dunn). How would that not be HOF worthy, especially considering there still is no one who has 500+ HR, is eleigible, and has no steroids background who's been left out?

Is this what we've become? Adam Dunn, at 600 HR, would have hit a career milestone that fewer than 1/2 of 1/1000 of all MLB players equalled, and that wouldn't be enough for you?

Why would that be unfortunate? At that point, he'd be somewhere in the top 10 in HR in baseball history (there are currently 8 at 600+, one of whom is still active; Pujols has more HR and is the same age as Dunn). How would that not be HOF worthy, especially considering there still is no one who has 500+ HR, is eleigible, and has no steroids background who's been left out?

Is this what we've become? Adam Dunn, at 600 HR, would have hit a career milestone that fewer than 1/2 of 1/1000 of all MLB players equalled, and that wouldn't be enough for you?

If bWAR is to be believed, Dunn has given up a whopping 24.4 wins on defense throughout his career, including an incomprehensible -5.2 wins in 2009. He's also given up a win on the bases. He'd have to be a truly great hitter to make up for that, and he's not. That said, I have no trouble believing that Dunn's a terrible defender, but -5.2 wins in a single season? I'm always a little skeptical of defensive stats, but that just seems crazy.

If Berkman had Pujols' set of defensive skills, he would have been a better defensive first baseman - but the Cardinals wouldn't have been able to use both him and Pujols.

Why not? You can just have one of them play third.

but -5.2 wins in a single season? I'm always a little skeptical of defensive stats, but that just seems crazy.

Does sound crazy. But getting Dunn in 2008, th Nats allowed 42 more runs than the year before. And when they got rid of him, the defense improved by 132 runs in 2010. I know, not everything is equal and there are plenty of other reasons for the change. But there's room enough for that number to be plausible.

If bWAR is to be believed, Dunn has given up a whopping 24.4 wins on defense throughout his career, including an incomprehensible -5.2 wins in 2009. He's also given up a win on the bases. He'd have to be a truly great hitter to make up for that, and he's not

Teammates Dunn and Konerko are going to combine for a crazy number of career homers for two players who aren't really close to being Hall of Famers, aren't they?

An interesting discussion --

I'd vote for him, but I'm a 10 names always voter.

I think he's inferior to Edgar, Bags, Utley, Allen, and maybe the HoM Reggie Smith... but I think he's superior to Helton, Dunn, and Giles (and I'd vote for two of those three).

@ 32/alilisd

I'd ask for a slightly higher peak and/or a little longer prime. Yes, he was one of the better hitters, but never the best (his best OWAR ranking was 5th in his league, though he shows a little better by OPS+). And though he was one of the better hitters, he was not one of the better fielders or baserunners. His best ranking by WAR for Position players was 5th in his league and he was in the Top 10 only four times in his career. His career is a bit short right now, fewer than 7,500 PA's. A decade may seem like a long time, but in HOF terms it's a bit short. If he can play after the surgery and put up reasonable numbers another couple of seasons, he's a solid candidate. If his career is done, he's a bit short for me.

&
@47/AROM

Historically I just don't think that's enough.

He's the 6th best hitter from 2000-2009 (min 3000 PA). Jack Clark was the 6th best of the 80's. Pedro Guerrero was the 4th best of that decade. To be a real candidate he's got to last longer than he has, be the best or at least top 3 of a decade, or add significant value outside of the batter's box.

*rather than review premises liability, I decided to write out my entire HOF thought process.*

I suppose this is a matter of big Hall vs. small Hall, and I clearly lean towards a big Hall and I'm in the process of becoming pretty peak-oriented. I'd rather induct a player for a very significant prime than for a very good, lengthy career. There's a place for Don Sutton, but it's well behind Sandy Koufax. I'm also an advocate of the "smell" test, which is an initial quick yes/no determination (if you waffle and say yes, it's a no) followed by a bb-ref check just to make sure you're not wrong... I might be wrong.

As I started to write this post, I wrote "granted, I'm not for a Pedro Guerrero-Big Hall." And this leads me to a pretty uncomfortable point: Pedro Guerrero was a LOT better than I thought. Having been born in the mid-80's, Guerrero was before my time and I'd just never bothered to investigate him, really. I basically had him lumped together with Tony Armas. So, you could imagine my surprise when I discovered that his 1980-89 OPS+ was... 148. Just like Lance Berkman's 2000-09 OPS+ (in a relatively similar number of PA's). Of course, Berkman produced 10 more WAR in that period (43-33). Moreover, this sells Berkman short by skipping his 2011 season (which plenty outweighs his crap 2010.)

Then there's Jack Clark, who put up a 145 OPS+ from 78-90, which is plenty lengthy. Clark was good for 45 WAR during that period, which means he was a pretty damn good player. From 00-11, Berkman put up 48 WAR in one less season of "prime" than Clark, which is just enough of a lead that I feel comfortable saying this is probably not within the margin of error. So, pretty clearly, Berkman/Clark/Guerrero are comparable, even if I'd take Berkman over either of them (and I think you would, too.)

Berkman's career WAR is obviously short of a typical Hall of Famer's, but he was consistently one of the best hitters in baseball over a 9 year consecutive stretch and there's big value in being able to pencil in a big bat in a set-it-and-forget-it fashion. I'm willing to forgive some of Berkman's defensive ineptitude because he clearly was willing to move around the field to accomodate his team, and that may have prevented him from ever really honing his skills. He was an average-ish first baseman, and moved off the position for a chance at a ring with the 2011 Cards, costing him almost 2 wins of value.

A decade does seem like a long time to me, and it is one. Berkman's peak isn't of the Ralph Kiner/Sandy Koufax sort where he was obviously dominant for a 5 year stretch and it seems very likely that Berkman isn't going to go become a compiler for someone. However, Lance Berkman was really damn good for a long time. His candidacy would probably be helped if he had the surgery and put up 10-ish WAR from next season until he's 40 as a DH somewhere. I don't think those extra 2-3 WAR seasons should really weigh in his candidacy because his argument is his demonstrated hitting prowess from 2000-2011, as shown in the regular season and the playoffs.

Berkman's not one of the top 3 hitters of the Aughts (maybe not even top 5), but he happened to have an unusually strong list of contemporaries (Bonds, Ramirez, Pujols, Jones, etc.) Berkman might just be a blind spot for me, but he easily passed the smell test for me. Unfortunately, the stats test didn't work out as well. Berkman was consistently one of the ten best hitters of the 00's, and he probably needs another year or two at his prime performance level to really merit induction into the Hall without lowering standards. In my initial post, I said you don't have to be Lou Gehrig to be a Hall of Famer, and I'll stick by that. Unfortunately, you might have to be more than a little better than Jack Clark because he's not the borderline.

P.S. The biggest turning point, honestly, was probably when BBC said Berkman wasn't a Hall of Famer. It was then I knew I could be wrong.

Highest OPS+ first 13 seasons, debut 1986+, WAR 30+

The lesson from Berkman really seems to be "Don't go to college" --

Berkman got significant playing time as a 24 yo, but didn't begin starting absolute full-time until he was 25. He was drafted at 21, got in just a month, played at two levels at 22, repeated AAA as a 23 yo, before getting a cup of coffee.

I'm not going to pretend I've got the MLEs equivalent, but it looks to me like he could have been "rushed" at 22 and might have been just fine...

I think there are folks that give Edgar some minor league credit - does Berkman deserve any? He seems to have raked at every stop, but the Astros look like they just kept him on the farm a year longer than necessary.

If you add another vintage Berkman season, I think he starts to look more and more like a legit HOFer.

He was drafted at 21, got in just a month, played at two levels at 22, repeated AAA as a 23 yo, before getting a cup of coffee.

He didn't "repeat AAA", though. He played 17 games in AAA at 22, then after 60 more the next year, got called up to the majors. After a disappointing 30 games in the majors, he started in AAA at 24, raked, got called up, and stayed up for good.

I think there's an interesting "what if?" narrative with a Lance Berkman who is drafted out of high school and takes a quicker path to the majors, but it's hard for me to see where Berkman was held back by the Astros. I'd have kept him up for good after his half season in AAA at 23, but you're only looking at, at most, 30-40 lost games.

Why would that be unfortunate? At that point, he'd be somewhere in the top 10 in HR in baseball history (there are currently 8 at 600+, one of whom is still active; Pujols has more HR and is the same age as Dunn). How would that not be HOF worthy, especially considering there still is no one who has 500+ HR, is eleigible, and has no steroids background who's been left out?

Is this what we've become? Adam Dunn, at 600 HR, would have hit a career milestone that fewer than 1/2 of 1/1000 of all MLB players equalled, and that wouldn't be enough for you?

Just my opinion, and after checking BBRef for the 500+ club, maybe not quite as strong an opinion as before. Sosa's career OPS+ is 128, same as Dunn's today, and Murray is 129. Of course, Sammy could run well when younger and played a not terrible OF, along with the 3 seasons of 60+ and the drama of 1998 (since tainted, at least in perception.) Steady Eddie played a good 1B and had 130+ SB at 72% success. Dunn's "fielding" and baserunning are apparently far poorer than these 500-ers with similar OPS+. However, were Dunn to reach 600 while maintaining OPS+ within a few points of its current level, that would mean 4-6 more good seasons, and I'd need to re-evaluate. Of course, I'd give Adam about a 0.1% chance of doing that.

Is this what we've become? Adam Dunn, at 600 HR, would have hit a career milestone that fewer than 1/2 of 1/1000 of all MLB players equalled, and that wouldn't be enough for you?

Dave Kingman, playing in the sillyball era, would have hit maybe 500-550 homers. That would not have made Kong a Hall of Famer. Dunn is better than Kong - he draws walks - but not so much better that simply quoting a single stat milestone achieved during an era in which homers were easier to come by than ever before in MLB history makes a slam-dunk case.

Dave Kingman hit nearly 500 homers in a relatively low-offense era and not only didn't make the Hall of Fame, but wasn't even a very good player. It would be possible to hit 600 homers in a high-offense era and not be a Hall of Famer, and if Adam Dunn were to play out his 30s as a good DH, he could be that guy.

He's the 6th best hitter from 2000-2009 (min 3000 PA). Jack Clark was the 6th best of the 80's. Pedro Guerrero was the 4th best of that decade. To be a real candidate he's got to last longer than he has, be the best or at least top 3 of a decade, or add significant value outside of the batter's box.

Again, if the sixth best hitter of a decade isn't in the hall of fame, why do you have a hall of fame at all. I'm pretty surprised this is a conversation at all. It never occurred to me that Lance Berkman wasn't a hall of famer. The reality is that BTF is filled with small hall fascists. What's a reasonable number of inductees per decade? I figure in a 30 team league, more than twice as big as when the hall of fame was invented, the conversation starts around 30. Berkman is one of the best 30 players of the decade and hence should be an easy hall of famer.

The only way to keep him out is either to fetishize career length or to have a hall of fame so small there is no reason to have it at all. The hall of fame doesn't exist to honour the Albert Pujols of the world. It exists for the Lance Berkman's of the world. Building a hall for only the supra-elite is antithetical to the purpose of the hall of fame, and the preservation of the memory of great players.

So not only are you guys collectively wrong in your analysis of the data but your error is inspired by a moral failing. You are enemies of history, and since the love of baseball is based upon the love of history, you also hate baseball. So explain to me please, why are you here you haters of all things good?

Oh, go away.

Again, if the sixth best hitter of a decade isn't in the hall of fame, why do you have a hall of fame at all.

Because there is more to the game of baseball than being a hitter and traditionally greatness has required more playing time than Berkman has had.

Berkman is one of the best 30 players of the decade and hence should be an easy hall of famer.

I think limiting yourself to a single ten year period is a great way to get a bad result (see Jack Morris, wins and the 1980s). Berkman is 36th in WAR since 1995 and while I won't say "pfft, 36 is more than 30, he's out" I think it would be similarly foolish to reach the conclusion that he is an absolute certainty to be worthy of induction.

What's a reasonable number of inductees per decade? I figure in a 30 team league, more than twice as big as when the hall of fame was invented, the conversation starts around 30. Berkman is one of the best 30 players of the decade and hence should be an easy hall of famer.

He isn't, though. Take a look at 2005. Here are 32 players who played in the big leagues with Berkman that year and have clearly superior HoF resumes:

Alex Rodriguez
Albert Pujols
Roger Clemens
Derek Jeter
Manny Ramirez
Ken Griffey Jr
Chipper Jones
Vlad Guerrero
Scott Rolen
Mike Piazza
Gary Sheffield
Ivan Rodriguez
Randy Johnson
Roy Halladay
John Smoltz
Pedro Martinez
Greg Maddux
Mariano Rivera
Mike Mussina
Tom Glavine
Kevin Brown
Curt Schilling
Ichiro Suzuki
Jim Edmonds
Rafael Palmeiro
Barry Bonds
Craig Biggio
Jeff Bagwell
Frank Thomas
Larry Walker
Jim Thome
Carlos Beltran

And that's without getting into a bunch of guys who have arguably better cases like Kent, Giambi, Delgado, Helton, Beltre, Pettitte, Santana, Williams, Olerud, Lofton, Abreu, Giles, Sabathia, Posada.

So not only are you guys collectively wrong in your analysis of the data but your error is inspired by a moral failing. You are enemies of history, and since the love of baseball is based upon the love of history, you also hate baseball. So explain to me please, why are you here you haters of all things good?

This post was a joke, right? It sounded legit until this last paragraph that went completely off the tracks...

He isn't, though. Take a look at 2005. Here are 32 players who played in the big leagues with Berkman that year and have clearly superior HoF resumes:

But that's double counting a lot of those guys since a number of them are children of the nineties. But anyway, it doesn't change the point since all of those guys are hall of fame players too.

And there are likely children of the "oughts" that haven't earned their way onto the list but will - Miggy Cabrera comes to mind, and there are others.

Not important in the final evaluation of Berkman's career, but his timing was perfect for "best of the decade, 2000-09". becoming a full timer 1/3 into the 2000 season and having probably his best overall counting-stats season the next year.

I figure in a 30 team league, more than twice as big as when the hall of fame was invented, the conversation starts around 30.

Why increase the size of the Hall just because the number of teams has increased? This is rank historical relativism, which is born from moral #####-footedness, because the honest and accurate recognition of talent is deeply rooted in courage and self-worth, and thus you are, objectively, a coward, and you have caused the downfall of Western civilization. Or something.

Primey for #81

his timing was perfect for "best of the decade, 2000-09"

This is true. Looking only at players' performances in those years, Berkman is easily top-15, probably top-10 ranked for the decade. For a poll a couple years ago I had this ranking for the decade:

1 Albert Pujols
2 Barry Bonds
3 Alex Rodriguez
4 Johan Santana
5 Carlos Beltran
6 Scott Rolen
7 Bobby Abreu
8 Lance Berkman
9 Randy Johnson
10 Jason Giambi
11 Manny Ramirez
12 Chipper Jones
13 Mariano Rivera
14 Ichiro Suzuki
15 Todd Helton
16 Derek Jeter
17 Roy Halladay
18 Miguel Tejada
19 Vladimir Guerrero
20 Pedro Martinez

Take a look at 2005. Here are 32 players who played in the big leagues with Berkman that year and have clearly superior HoF resumes:

OK, but using the approach of "great careers that overlapped somewhere with Berkman's", you're talking about the great players from a three-decade span, since a typical HOFer plays about 15 years, right? You're catching the tail end of some careers, the prime of others, and the bare beginnings of still others that will ultimately be of HOF quality.

@ 61: ah dang! I should be able to do simple addition!

@ 62: See post 73 for whY it would be unfortunate. Dunn is the silly ball era Kingman much more than he is a HOF.

68: Great post, thanks.

Why increase the size of the Hall just because the number of teams has increased?

Actually, that is approximately the size of the current Hall of Fame (and Hall of Merit). They are both inducting approximately 1 player per 10 team seasons (with a 16 year lag from 1870 as the start). A "Hall of Fame" sized Hall will induct about 30 modern players in a decade.