Nobody is saying that Ichiro couldn't have played at a high level in MLB before 2001 -- only that he didn't.

Right, but they're also screaming "Short career! Short career!" as if that's his fault, or even very relevant. I happen to think that the justifications for NOT considering his extra-MLB performance are lacking, but either way, let's quit harping on the number of games he's played. He's got a sufficiently established peak that indicates what kind of player he is--a good baserunner with next to no power who happens to be the greatest hit accumulator in MLB history, and whose defensive skills fall somewhere between Ozzie Smith and Adam Dunn on the spectrum. Some people rate his defense more highly than others, and some people give extra weight to his consistent presence in the lineup that boosts his counting stats, while a minority of people downgrade him on both counts and think this is what helps overrate him.

When all's said and done, most people (here and in the mainstream media) seem to think he's over the line for qualification, so even if you're one of those in the minority, it wouldn't seem ridiculous to put him in, even without factoring in the extra pioneer/whatever credit many want to provide.

It's the incredulity with which these arguments are met that's bizarre.

I guess if I interpret it as parody, it isn't stupid.

Gee, thanks. I thought the use of "teh suck" would give it away - well, that or the gratuitous "LOL" I threw in there. Caught me on the 100-run seasons thing though.

How many months pregnant are you?

I don't give him special consideration, as they do.

This reminds me of the political arguments against granting "special rights" to gays and lesbians. As if it would be bizarre to partially excuse the relatively short career of some alternate-reality Cuban Ichiro who'd been able to defect only late in his career.

I think it would be "bizarre" to, in effect, pretend that he played MLB. Or to act as if it's not an issue that he didn't.

Forget the .333 BA, 9 Gold Gloves, 9 100-run seasons, 9 200-hit seasons, 341 steals, etc. There's a three-digit metric that says Ichiro is teh suck! I found another one: LOL, Ichiro, your peers are Matt Stairs, Gary Matthews, Nick Swisher, and Ron Fairly! Welcome to the Hall of Fame - the Hall of Fame of FAIL!

Pass.

Right, but they're also screaming "Short career! Short career!" as if that's his fault, or even very relevant.

Since when is having a short career not "very relevant"? As for whether it's "his fault," I don't care. He suffered no injustice. He missed time serving in no wars.

I happen to think that the justifications for NOT considering his extra-MLB performance are lacking, but either way, let's quit harping on the number of games he's played.

Thanks for the offer, but I'll decline.

Pass.

I was just translating your post for the younger crowd. Some of them can barely read you know.

Caught me on the 100-run seasons thing though.

Ichiro had 225 hits; he also walked 32 times, and was HBP 4 times. So he was on base at least 261 times (plus ROE, FC), and scored 88 runs. That seems awfully low for a guy as fast as Ichiro, even given how bad the Mariners' offense was.

I was just translating your post for the younger crowd.

Ray only seems 50, he's actually part of the younger crowd.

Ichiro had 225 hits; he also walked 32 times, and was HBP 4 times. So he was on base at least 261 times (plus ROE, FC), and scored 88 runs. That seems awfully low for a guy as fast as Ichiro, even given how bad the Mariners' offense was.

And yet he is one of baseball's best baserunners. I think it's a good bet that to the extent that his runs scored total is low, it was due to the Mariners offense.

Writers always make their case on statistical grounds -- maybe not always the best statistics, and sometimes silly ones and grouped in a silly fashion -- and never say "there is no statistical case for him but I'm voting on intangibles."

It's the other way around - the worst writers use their guts and "intangibles" to decide who they are voting for. Then they carefully craft a statistical case for the player in a way that paints their candidate in the best possible light. Hell, this is why we have the Keltner test - pick the player first, then figure out how they're statistically qualified for the hall.

The "intangible" is that he has a style of play that makes him interesting and entertaining.

And yet he is one of baseball's best baserunners. I think it's a good bet that to the extent that his runs scored total is low, it was due to the Mariners offense.

And his incredibly low slugging rate.

Ichiro had 225 hits; he also walked 32 times, and was HBP 4 times. So he was on base at least 261 times (plus ROE, FC), and scored 88 runs. That seems awfully low for a guy as fast as Ichiro, even given how bad the Mariners' offense was.

Take a look at Seattle's splits by lineup position (BA/OBP/SLG/OPS):

Hitting 2nd: .224/.297/.376/.673 - 78 OPS+
Hitting 3rd: .264/.311/.423/.735 - 75 OPS+
Hitting 4th: .238/.308/.423/.731 - 77 OPS+

That's some terrible, terrible hitting right behind his spot in the lineup.

None of your fancy numbers make up for derailing the crowd from my intangibles argument!

Writers always make their case on statistical grounds -- maybe not always the best statistics, and sometimes silly ones and grouped in a silly fashion -- and never say "there is no statistical case for him but I'm voting on intangibles."

It's the other way around - the worst writers use their guts and "intangibles" to decide who they are voting for. Then they carefully craft a statistical case for the player in a way that paints their candidate in the best possible light.

Yet another Primate who knows something about human nature. Welcome aboard, J. Roberts.

Ok, just for clarification, people should post their answers to these questions so the rest of us reading at home can know which are the strawmen arguments and which are actually held by someone.

Section I
Real world prediction:
Do you expect Ichiro Suzuki to be voted into the Hall of Fame if...
(1) ...nothing terribly unexpected happens (ie. if his career winds down in what you think of as typical for someone of his skills, age, etc.)?
(2) ...he suffers a severe baseball-related injury (see Tony Conigliaro) and never plays another season?
(3) ...he suffers a severe non baseball-related injury (see Bo Jackson) and never plays another season?
(4) ...he suffers a collapse of skills for no discernible reason other than age (see Dale Murphy), plays 2 more years, and is really really bad?
(5) ...he is discovered to have used PEDs (see Jose Canseco)?
(6) ...he is implicated in gambling on baseball (see Pete Rose)?

Section II
Normative declarations. This is how you think it ought to be if the world evaluated things as you would have them evaluate things.
Do you think Ichiro Suzuki should make the Hall of Fame if...
(1) ...nothing terribly unexpected happens (ie. if his career winds down in what you think of as typical for someone of his skills, age, etc.)?
(2) ...he suffers a severe baseball-related injury (see Tony Conigliaro)?
(3) ...he suffers a severe non baseball-related injury (see Bo Jackson)?
(4) ...he suffers a collapse of skills for no discernible reason other than age (see Dale Murphy)?
(5) ...he is discovered to have used PEDs (see Jose Canseco)?
(6) ...he is implicated in gambling on baseball (see Pete Rose)?

Section III.
Non-MLB factors.
To which of the following non-MLB arguments, do you give credence/weight?
(1) His skills were good enough to allow him to play in MLB, but he was excluded for reasons beyond his control (comparable to players stuck in the minors, or comparable to players who missed time for the war, or comparable to players who were born the wrong skin color at a time when that mattered to MLB). Suzuki deserves some amount of bonus credit beyond his MLB performance for this reason. The credit need not be quantified -- i.e., the numbers aren't directly important as much as the evidence that they provide that he could have played in MLB if circumstances were different.
(2) His performance in another league can be given some (or complete) credit (see Satchel Paige). His Japanese League numbers should not be completely ignored when we account for Ichiro Suzuki's HOF case. In this case, the amount of credit we give to the numbers should be quantified -- how much credit do you give his numbers in assessing his HOF case? Does he belong in the Hall of Fame if
(3) He's a good ambassador for the game (like, I dunno, Yao Ming or someone).
(4) (Others?)

Note: the distinction I'm trying to draw between (1) and (2) here is the first is more "intangible" credit and the second is more, say, "I give him credit for about 80% of his performance there because I think the Japanese League quality is about 80% of the quality of MLB" or whatever.

Answering these for myself, I get...

I. Will he make the HOF?
(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) Yes
(4) ...Yes... (I think Ichiro Suzuki captures the imagination in such a way that I still think he'd get voted in even if he plays only 2 more years).
(5) ...Yes... (I think that the PED monster will have become less worrisome to writers by the time they get around to voting on him).
(6) No

II. Should he be voted in?
(1) I don't know. I'm at a loss to even guess how long he'll keep going. I'm not a "peak voter" so I think it's possible that Suzuki plays long enough to amass counting stats for which I'd vote. I have no idea if I think he will or not.
(2) Without knowing (1), I don't think I can answer (2).
(3) No. (Though I think it's interesting that I draw a distinction between 2 and 3 -- I'm not sure it's right to do so).
(4) No.
(5) If the answer to (1) turns out "yes" then "yes." I'm not bothered by PEDs.
(6) No.

III. Non-MLB factors...
(1) I give no weight to this.
(2) I give no weight to this.
(3) I give no weight to this.
(4) I can't think of any to which I'd give weight.

I. Will he make the HOF?
1-4 yes
5-6 no

II. Should he be voted in?
1-4 yes
5-6 no

III. Non-MLB factors...
1. lots of credence
2. much credence, though in spite of what you write, this seems but a variance of III/(1). In both cases they're relevant for assessing Ichiro's overall career, but without the foundation of his MLB record, they wouldn't put him over. Otherwise we'd be wanting to induct Sadaharu Oh into Cooperstown, which nobody's suggesting.
3. It's a tie-breaker, but far less relevant that (1) and (2), but in any event it's not necessary in Ichiro's case
4. I suppose his pleasing style of play would be one more reason to put him in, but again, without his MLB numbers as a base to build upon, it wouldn't matter. Brett Gardner's an exciting baserunner, but what of it?

The "intangible" is that he has a style of play that makes him interesting and entertaining.

His style of play isn't all that interesting or entertaining to me, but obviously YMMV.

Section I
Real world prediction:
Do you expect Ichiro Suzuki to be voted into the Hall of Fame if...
(1) ...nothing terribly unexpected happens (ie. if his career winds down in what you think of as typical for someone of his skills, age, etc.)? Yes.
(2) ...he suffers a severe baseball-related injury (see Tony Conigliaro) and never plays another season? Yes.
(3) ...he suffers a severe non baseball-related injury (see Bo Jackson) and never plays another season? Yes
(4) ...he suffers a collapse of skills for no discernible reason other than age (see Dale Murphy), plays 2 more years, and is really really bad? Yes.
(5) ...he is discovered to have used PEDs (see Jose Canseco)? No.
(6) ...he is implicated in gambling on baseball (see Pete Rose)? No.

Section II
Normative declarations. This is how you think it ought to be if the world evaluated things as you would have them evaluate things.
Do you think Ichiro Suzuki should make the Hall of Fame if...
(1) ...nothing terribly unexpected happens (ie. if his career winds down in what you think of as typical for someone of his skills, age, etc.)? Not sure yet. If there's enough evidence that he was a world-class defender, then probably. If the evidence that he was a standout defensive player is lacking, then I would need to see what his career numbers look like first.
(2) ...he suffers a severe baseball-related injury (see Tony Conigliaro)? No.
(3) ...he suffers a severe non baseball-related injury (see Bo Jackson)? No.
(4) ...he suffers a collapse of skills for no discernible reason other than age (see Dale Murphy)? No.
(5) ...he is discovered to have used PEDs (see Jose Canseco)? If he has a what I feel was a HOF career, the discovery that he used PEDs would still not change my opinion that he belongs in Cooperstown.
(6) ...he is implicated in gambling on baseball (see Pete Rose)? No, no, no, no!!

Section III.
Non-MLB factors.
To which of the following non-MLB arguments, do you give credence/weight?
(1) His skills were good enough to allow him to play in MLB, but he was excluded for reasons beyond his control (comparable to players stuck in the minors, or comparable to players who missed time for the war, or comparable to players who were born the wrong skin color at a time when that mattered to MLB). Suzuki deserves some amount of bonus credit beyond his MLB performance for this reason. The credit need not be quantified -- i.e., the numbers aren't directly important as much as the evidence that they provide that he could have played in MLB if circumstances were different. No.
(2) His performance in another league can be given some (or complete) credit (see Satchel Paige). His Japanese League numbers should not be completely ignored when we account for Ichiro Suzuki's HOF case. In this case, the amount of credit we give to the numbers should be quantified -- how much credit do you give his numbers in assessing his HOF case? Yes.
Does he belong in the Hall of Fame if
(3) He's a good ambassador for the game (like, I dunno, Yao Ming or someone). No.
(4) (Others?) No.

His style of play isn't all that interesting or entertaining to me

How does it feel to have no soul?

I) Yes to all but 5 and 6
II) Yes to all
III) Yes to 1 and 2; no to 3 and 4

I know my hall is bigger than some, and I know I'm in the minority that thinks the hall shouldn't be making moral judgments on PEDs and gambling.

Alluding to what I wrote in 116, Jolly Old St. Nick wrote...

III. Non Mlb-factors...
1. lots of credence
2. much credence, though in spite of what you write, this seems but a variance of III/(1). In both cases they're relevant for assessing Ichiro's overall career, but without the foundation of his MLB record, they wouldn't put him over. Otherwise we'd be wanting to induct Sadaharu Oh into Cooperstown, which nobody's suggesting.
3. It's a tie-breaker, but far less relevant that (1) and (2), but in any event it's not necessary in Ichiro's case
4. I suppose his pleasing style of play would be one more reason to put him in, but again, without his MLB numbers as a base to build upon, it wouldn't matter. Brett Gardner's an exciting baserunner, but what of it?

My attempt with this section was to refer to some of the arguments that I've seen made. (I'll admit that I may not have understood them well enough to do them justice). I thought I discerned too slightly different (albeit related) arguments about giving Suzuki credit or Japan.

One such argument says, "Sure, it's a major league -- perhaps one for which we need to discount the stats somewhat, perhaps not -- so we shouldn't ignore the numbers there. Include 'em, but then make adjustments as you would between other leagues of differing qualities." That's what i was trying to convey with (2)

The other argument (which I think is slightly different) speaks to the idea that although we can't give credit for what he did there (no "80% of a major league" or whatever), we ought to recognize that, but for an 'accident of geography,' Suzuki would have been playing in the minors over here, would have made the majors, and would have had an opportunity to play in MLB and so forth. This seems slightly less numerical and slightly more 'by feel' to me. That's what I was trying to convey with number (1). Obviously, without Suzuki's performance in Japan and his subsequent performance over here, we would not have the ability to guess at the sort of credit he might or might not deserve, but unlike the "take all his value and multiply by a number" argument, this argument seems to be more "give him (some undetermined amount of) credit" for his missing years (a la veterans, those screwed by the minor league system, players who weren't white at times when MLB wanted its players white, etc.).

As for 3, there are people who don't consider it whatsoever. You do. That's good to know. That you also think he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame even if you did not give credit whatsoever for it is also good to know.

Yet another Primate who knows something about human nature. Welcome aboard, J. Roberts.

Yet another Andy post full of snark rather than evidence. It's like Groundhog Day.

His style of play isn't all that interesting or entertaining to me, but obviously YMMV.

This goes back to the comments about moving back the fences. I'd like to see his style of play rewarded more than it is.

How does it feel to have no soul?

Eh, I'm not terribly enamored of his play either. Scratch singles don't excite me as much as hitters who get solid wood on the ball. I don't enjoy singles and stolen bases as much as I enjoy players who hit doubles. I don't enjoy tons of dinky hits as much as I enjoy fewer hard-hit balls. And my small sample size of games has not made me love his defense, for whatever it's worth. Its no fault of Suzuki's but I also tend to act contrary towards players whom I'm told I ought to like for having a certain style of play -- see Jeter, Eckstein, Suzuki, Rose, others; I'm more likely to like the players who I think contribute value below the popular radar -- see Bellhorn (when he didn't suck), Rob Deer, Rich Garces. Again, that last thing isn't Suzuki's fault, it's my own, but it doesn't help Ichiro Suzuki.

Section I
Real world prediction:
Do you expect Ichiro Suzuki to be voted into the Hall of Fame if...
(1) ...nothing terribly unexpected happens (ie. if his career winds down in what you think of as typical for someone of his skills, age, etc.)?
(2) ...he suffers a severe baseball-related injury (see Tony Conigliaro) and never plays another season?
(3) ...he suffers a severe non baseball-related injury (see Bo Jackson) and never plays another season?
(4) ...he suffers a collapse of skills for no discernible reason other than age (see Dale Murphy), plays 2 more years, and is really really bad?
(5) ...he is discovered to have used PEDs (see Jose Canseco)?
(6) ...he is implicated in gambling on baseball (see Pete Rose)?

1 - Yes
2 - Yes if he's on the ballot
3 - Yes if he's on the ballot
4 - Yes
5 - Yes
6 - Yes if he's on the ballot

The Ichiro Cult is such that, short of being caught molesting children (and perhaps even then), he will be voted in if given the opportunity.

Section II
Normative declarations. This is how you think it ought to be if the world evaluated things as you would have them evaluate things.
Do you think Ichiro Suzuki should make the Hall of Fame if...
(1) ...nothing terribly unexpected happens (ie. if his career winds down in what you think of as typical for someone of his skills, age, etc.)?
(2) ...he suffers a severe baseball-related injury (see Tony Conigliaro)?
(3) ...he suffers a severe non baseball-related injury (see Bo Jackson)?
(4) ...he suffers a collapse of skills for no discernible reason other than age (see Dale Murphy)?
(5) ...he is discovered to have used PEDs (see Jose Canseco)?
(6) ...he is implicated in gambling on baseball (see Pete Rose)?

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - No
5 - N/A - PEDs are irrelevant to a HOF consideration for me
6 - No

Section III.
Non-MLB factors.
To which of the following non-MLB arguments, do you give credence/weight?
(1) His skills were good enough to allow him to play in MLB, but he was excluded for reasons beyond his control (comparable to players stuck in the minors, or comparable to players who missed time for the war, or comparable to players who were born the wrong skin color at a time when that mattered to MLB). Suzuki deserves some amount of bonus credit beyond his MLB performance for this reason. The credit need not be quantified -- i.e., the numbers aren't directly important as much as the evidence that they provide that he could have played in MLB if circumstances were different.
(2) His performance in another league can be given some (or complete) credit (see Satchel Paige). His Japanese League numbers should not be completely ignored when we account for Ichiro Suzuki's HOF case. In this case, the amount of credit we give to the numbers should be quantified -- how much credit do you give his numbers in assessing his HOF case? Does he belong in the Hall of Fame if
(3) He's a good ambassador for the game (like, I dunno, Yao Ming or someone).
(4) (Others?)

Note: the distinction I'm trying to draw between (1) and (2) here is the first is more "intangible" credit and the second is more, say, "I give him credit for about 80% of his performance there because I think the Japanese League quality is about 80% of the quality of MLB" or whatever.

(1) None.
(2) None.
(3) None.
(4) None.

And I wouldn't care if NPB were of a higher quality than MLB. NPB is not MLB.

Section I
Real world prediction:
Do you expect Ichiro Suzuki to be voted into the Hall of Fame if...
(1) Yes.
(2) Yes.
(3) Do you mean that Bo Jackson attacks him, or that he's injured playing professional football? Either way, yes.
(4) It's tempting to say yes... but, then, I'd have said yes about Dale Murphy, too. No.
(5) Yes.
(6) No.

Section II
Normative declarations. This is how you think it ought to be if the world evaluated things as you would have them evaluate things.
(1) Can't answer that until I see how it plays out. He could have a long slow decline and could be a "yes," -- I'm open to career votes as well as peak -- or he could have a sharp decline, and it would be "no". Neither one would be atypical. Or I could be convinced that his defense is legen - wait for it - dary, and vote yes either way.
(2) No.
(3) No.
(4) No.
(5) I don't care whether he used PEDs; they wouldn't affect my vote one way or the other. Unless the revelation caused self-righteous sportswriters to all die suddenly of heart attacks, in which case he'd get extra points from me.
(6) No.

Section III.
Non-MLB factors.
To which of the following non-MLB arguments, do you give credence/weight?
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) No.
(4) When you think of them, I'll say No to them, too.

The other argument (which I think is slightly different) speaks to the idea that although we can't give credit for what he did there (no "80% of a major league" or whatever), we ought to recognize that, but for an 'accident of geography,' Suzuki would have been playing in the minors over here, would have made the majors, and would have had an opportunity to play in MLB and so forth. This seems slightly less numerical and slightly more 'by feel' to me. That's what I was trying to convey with number (1). Obviously, without Suzuki's performance in Japan and his subsequent performance over here, we would not have the ability to guess at the sort of credit he might or might not deserve, but unlike the "take all his value and multiply by a number" argument, this argument seems to be more "give him (some undetermined amount of) credit" for his missing years (a la veterans, those screwed by the minor league system, players who weren't white at times when MLB wanted its players white, etc.).

Glad you explained this one better, Robert. I'm going to change my answer to "no" now, since it's silly to go this route when we have his tangible pre-ML stats to analyze.

Eh, I'm not terribly enamored of his play either. Scratch singles don't excite me as much as hitters who get solid wood on the ball. I don't enjoy singles and stolen bases as much as I enjoy players who hit doubles. I don't enjoy tons of dinky hits as much as I enjoy fewer hard-hit balls.

I agree with this, in part. It's not that Suzuki isn't a power hitter that's the problem; I don't have a problem noting that a speed-based player can be exciting. But Ichiro just gets lots of infield hits. Blech. If he were hitting balls in the corner and getting lots of doubles and triples, I'd be fine with him. (Also, a speed-based player should be stealing 60-70 bases a year, not 30-40.)

(4) It's tempting to say yes... but, then, I'd have said yes about Dale Murphy, too. No.

Should note that the comparison doesn't really work; Murphy's last good year was age 31; age 35 was his last full season. He had a sudden precipitous decline, but it was from four years of below average play. Ichiro's 35 already, OTOH.

Robert (#122),

I think I get the distinction you're making, and I appreciate the further explanation. All I'm saying was that for me they're variants of one another. In both cases we're giving him credit for the Japanese part of his career, and in both cases we're looking at his numbers both there and here and making an educated guess that together they form an organic whole---there seems to be no disconnect between his performance in Japan and his Major League career.

But it's also hard to imagine a scenario where you might answer "yes" to one and "no" to the other. The first question may be "more numerical," but it's still little more than an educated hunch as to how to translate those Japanese numbers. And without Ichiro's Major League career as a foundation that gets him into the argument to begin with, it wouldn't matter how good those Japanese numbers were. If we were talking about a Major League career on the level of a projected Dice-K, one that alternated brilliance with mediocrity, I wouldn't care if he'd been considered the Walter Johnson of Japan, he wouldn't get anyone's vote for Cooperstown, other than possibly the Japanese ambassador's.

But this isn't Dice-K or Hideki Irabu. This is a player who's had a Major League career that only a tiny handful of people wouldn't acknowledge has at least brought him into the Hall of Fame discussion on the basis of his Major League career, whether or not they think it's over the top at this point. Of course that doesn't mean that you have to give him any credit at all for his Japanese career, but at this point it does make him a unique case, not really quite comparable to anyone who's come before him.

-----------------
Writers always make their case on statistical grounds -- maybe not always the best statistics, and sometimes silly ones and grouped in a silly fashion -- and never say "there is no statistical case for him but I'm voting on intangibles."

It's the other way around - the worst writers use their guts and "intangibles" to decide who they are voting for. Then they carefully craft a statistical case for the player in a way that paints their candidate in the best possible light.

Yet another Primate who knows something about human nature. Welcome aboard, J. Roberts.

Yet another Andy post full of snark rather than evidence. It's like Groundhog Day.

Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't directed against J. Roberts, who seems to understand the nature of HoF voting a lot better than you do.

More on this one:

Do you expect Ichiro Suzuki to be voted into the Hall of Fame if...
(1) ...nothing terribly unexpected happens (ie. if his career winds down in what you think of as typical for someone of his skills, age, etc.)?

For starters, Ichiro needs to end up better than Larry Walker, who right now is on the border for me. Walker was an excellent hitter, with walks, power, SB value, and good baserunning. He was a corner OF with excellent fielding and a strong arm. He had 2000 career games.

What is the argument that Ichiro will finish better than him?

This is a player who's had a Major League career that only a tiny handful of people wouldn't acknowledge has at least brought him into the Hall of Fame discussion on the basis of his Major League career, whether or not they think it's over the top at this point.

Who's the tiny handful? Even Ray and David (and Dial, and others) are willing to bring him into the Hall of Fame discussion. They just happen to feel that he falls on the wrong side of the cutoff based on his MLB career to date. David has even acknowledged that, with a gradual decline to Ichiro's career (and depending on the defensive evaluations), he could see Ichiro being a worthy and deserving candidate without NPB-credit.

I) 1-4 yes; 5-6 no
II) 1-5 yes; 6 no if giving even token Japan credit. Ignoring all Japan credit, it would be 1 yes; 2-5 maybe but <50%; 6 no.
III) 1 no; 2-3 yes; 4 no. I'm assuming Japanese "pioneer credit" may be included in 3.

This is a player who's had a Major League career that only a tiny handful of people wouldn't acknowledge has at least brought him into the Hall of Fame discussion on the basis of his Major League career, whether or not they think it's over the top at this point.

Who's the tiny handful? Even Ray and David are willing to bring him into the Hall of Fame discussion. They just happen to feel that he falls on the wrong side of the cutoff based on his MLB career to date. David has even acknowledged that, with a gradual decline to Ichiro's career (and depending on the defensive evaluations), he could see Ichiro being a worthy and deserving candidate without NPB-credit.

Who I meant by that are people who don't think that Ichiro's present Major League numbers (given one more year) bring him into serious consideration for Cooperstown at this point. Ray clearly falls into that category, given his many dismissive comments in this and other threads. It was merely a description, not an argument. And as I wrote, it's a tiny handful I'm talking about, and virtually nonexistent outside BTF.

it's silly to go this route when we have his tangible pre-ML stats to analyze.

DISCONCUR

This is exactly the route I think that you have to go. Well, not *have* to, frankly the stridency in this thread is a little puzzling even for Primer, but it's the path that makes actual sense out of the two opposing sides and incorporates their positions into the voting process, rather than blindly sticking one way or the other.

Fact (and I'm not saying anyone in particular or even anyone at all has specifically argued otherwise, I'm just noting for the record):

The Hall of Fame is not the MLB Hall of Fame. The two relevant rules for the BBWAA election are: #1 - Authorization: By authorization of the Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc., the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) is authorized to hold an election every year for the purpose of electing members to the National Baseball Hall of Fame from the ranks of retired baseball players. And #5 - Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Now, if push came to shove and I had to choose one side or the other, I'd go on the side of not counting NPB stats in any way or giving them any weight whatsoever. But I'm not being shoved, and so posts like this one from DMN go much too far for my taste:

We're just not giving him credit for something he didn't do -- play MLB. We don't think it matters why, whether it's because he spent the first decade of his adult life as a bad player, or as a stockbroker, or as a Cuban player. There's nothing "blind" about saying that the Hall of Fame is for U.S. play, not for play -- no matter what quality -- in a foreign league. Players don't exist for HOF purposes before they set foot on an MLB field.

Other than the last sentence, this is all true. It would be a defensible (and not "blind") position to say only US play counts, nothing else, not one iota of it no matter what. But given that the entire basis for the position is the word National in the name of the Museum, that nowhere in the rules does it say anything even hinting at a "US play only" standard, and that it would be at least equally as legitimate to interpret the word National as meaning "of interest to US fans of the sport and/or of impact to the game played in the US" or even to completely disregard National altogether (other than not voting for Sadaharu Oh), you can't act, even snarkily, like this is the equivalent of people wanting to bring in stockbroker career stats because a guy didn't get any shot until he was 30. The last sentence is incorrect on any factual level you want to go to, but I'm sure David knows it and let a rhetorical flourish pass by.

So to my mind, we have an unsettled issue in the extreme as to what the "proper" or "correct" thing to do with his NPB stats is, and therefore it's each individual's call no matter which way they go and how strongly they go. I don't think there's an equitable way to do NPB translations for all Japanese guys in a consistent and accurate manner that's open-source, so I can't back anything involving "official" translations being given to the voters. I can't delude myself into believing that a large percentage of the voters will do their own translations, so I'd rather not see the whole thing come down to that. But, I do think that those numbers are important on a few levels that go right to the heart of his candidacy: those numbers made him popular in Japan which was the first thing 99% of Americans heard (and kept hearing) about him from posting until Opening Day, those numbers are complete and able to be trusted and can be for the large part translated, and those numbers quantify and verify the popular story about what Ichiro was before he was here. And he wasn't a stockbroker, he was the best and most popular player in the second best league in the world.

That's important to his HOF story. But that league wasn't MLB and those numbers were in no defensible way a part of American baseball, so they can play a big part of confirming suspicions or fleshing out the anecdotes, but they can't just be translated and added on to the front of his actual MLB career.

virtually nonexistent outside BTF

This you still have not shown, unless I missed it in catching up on the thread just now. We can skip over pedantically playing gotcha with random blogs from around the 'net because it doesn't serve much purpose; I'll stipulate that the vast majority of those writing about him probably think that his present MLB numbers on their own bring him into serious HOF consideration. However, we did talk about MSM, and more pointedly the voters, and I still do not see where voters are saying one way or the other.

That's important to his HOF story. But that league wasn't MLB and those numbers were in no defensible way a part of American baseball, so they can play a big part of confirming suspicions or fleshing out the anecdotes, but they can't just be translated and added on to the front of his actual MLB career.

Okay, I'm confused now, Jeff. I definitely don't think his numbers from Japan should be included with his ML stats in the record books or in a ML encylopedia. All I'm saying is that the adjusted sum total of his pre-ML contributions should be taken into account when deciding whether or not he belongs in the HOF. This, to me, is different then giving Joe DiMaggio WWII credit for the years he missed, so that's why I said "no" to numero uno.

Okay, I'm confused now, Jeff. I definitely don't think his numbers from Japan should be included with his ML ones in the record books. All I'm saying is that the adjusted sum total of his pre-ML contributions should be taken into account when deciding whether or not he belongs in the HOF. This, to me, is different then giving Joe DiMaggio WWII credit for the years he missed, so that's why I said "no" to numero uno.

I didn't mean in the record books, I meant to the statistical record that you (hypothetically) sit down to look at when voting. Robert put it well: "unlike the "take all his value and multiply by a number" argument, this argument seems to be more "give him (some undetermined amount of) credit" for his missing years". I'd word it slightly differently, but the basic point is still there. The credit you give him need not be quantified, and in fact I think it shouldn't be. You said you felt it was silly to take that track when the NPB numbers are there to analyze. We may be just a hair's breadth apart here and it just seems like more, but I think that the issues with translations overwhelm the benefits of the kind of quantification that I think of as "analyzing." I think the numbers should be used in a more ephemeral way, I guess.

We may be just a hair's breadth apart here and it just seems like more, but I think that the issues with translations overwhelm the benefits of the kind of quantification that I think of as "analyzing."

Well, I guess there has to be an element of the "ephemeral" in this type of analysis, Jeff, since our faith in the translations will vary. With that said, I still think your analysis has to be rooted in the NPB stats to be accurate as possible. Just my opinion, though.

For starters, Ichiro needs to end up better than Larry Walker, who right now is on the border for me. Walker was an excellent hitter, with walks, power, SB value, and good baserunning. He was a corner OF with excellent fielding and a strong arm. He had 2000 career games.

The "2000 games" argument has to be weighted when it comes to Larry Walker. The man had 600 PAs in two out of seventeen seasons, and wasn't particularly close to achieving that total for the majority of his career (career high games played: 153). Interestingly, both those 600+ PA seasons occurred after Walker was in his 30s...

This back-and-forth just leads me further to believe that Robert's III (1) and III (2) are for all intents and purposes equivalent. People either want to give him credit for his pre-MLB career or they don't. Nobody's arguing that there's a dispute as to the basic excellence of that career, and whatever questions there might be as to the exact translations of those numbers would be more in the details than in any substance. You either think his case rests solely on his U.S. career, or you don't. There really isn't much middle ground to this.

----------

virtually nonexistent outside BTF

This you still have not shown, unless I missed it in catching up on the thread just now. We can skip over pedantically playing gotcha with random blogs from around the 'net because it doesn't serve much purpose; I'll stipulate that the vast majority of those writing about him probably think that his present MLB numbers on their own bring him into serious HOF consideration. However, we did talk about MSM, and more pointedly the voters, and I still do not see where voters are saying one way or the other.

I guess you just haven't read the same comments about Ichiro in the MSM that I have, but I've certainly seen enough of them that speak of him in Hall of Fame terms, and none whatever that question his likely eventual HoF induction. In any case it's certainly no more than a "tiny handful" who have said that he doesn't even at this point warrant an entry into the discussion, which is all that I was saying.

At this point it's getting to be too much repetition for my taste, since we all know by now what we all think, and nobody's changing any minds. But I'm glad that Robert introduced that question format so that our positions will be less likely to be misinterpreted.

I don't know what I think about Ichiro and the HOF. I *think* right now that if he had one more Ichiro year and then didn't do much else, I wouldn't vote for him. But that would be way up in the air and dependent on how I parsed my own feelings on the NPB credit, because on a basic level I have near-zero question in my mind that he is a HOF caliber talent who has proved that in his statistical achievements and fan/media accolades.

The Hall of Fame is not the MLB Hall of Fame. The two relevant rules for the BBWAA election are: #1 - Authorization: By authorization of the Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc., the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) is authorized to hold an election every year for the purpose of electing members to the National Baseball Hall of Fame from the ranks of retired baseball players. And #5 - Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Those aren't the (only) two relevant rules. You forgot this one: one needs (as you know) 10 years of MLB play just to be eligible as a player. Doesn't that suggest that it is the MLB Hall of Fame? As it stands right now, the BBWAA wouldn't even be allowed to consider Ichiro, no matter what excuse he has for a shortened MLB career and no matter how well he played in Japan.


Here's a question for Ichiro supporters: suppose Ichiro had played mediocrely in Japan -- let's say he's the Japanese Gary Matthews Jr. (to pick a name referenced earlier). Now he comes to the U.S. and has the exact MLB career he has actually had since 2001. (200 hit seasons, batting titles, speed, etc.) Is he a HOFer to you in that case?

The "2000 games" argument has to be weighted when it comes to Larry Walker. The man had 600 PAs in two out of seventeen seasons, and wasn't particularly close to achieving that total for the majority of his career (career high games played: 153).

Yes; on the other hand, his offensive value isn't as speculative as Ichiro's defensive value.

I've raised Dwight Evans before. Durable, 2600 games, same EqA, very good defense. Does Ichiro's non-SB baserunning and any extra defensive value make up for 1200 games?

Here's a question for Ichiro supporters: suppose Ichiro had played mediocrely in Japan -- let's say he's the Japanese Gary Matthews Jr. (to pick a name referenced earlier). Now he comes to the U.S. and has the exact MLB career he has actually had since 2001. (200 hit seasons, batting titles, speed, etc.) Is he a HOFer to you in that case?

By who? Who referenced him early?

What if Babe Ruth was actually a talking llama instead of a man? What if baseballs were made of stitched pubic hair?

Here's a question for Ichiro supporters: suppose Ichiro had played mediocrely in Japan -- let's say he's the Japanese Gary Matthews Jr. (to pick a name referenced earlier). Now he comes to the U.S. and has the exact MLB career he has actually had since 2001. (200 hit seasons, batting titles, speed, etc.) Is he a HOFer to you in that case?

In that case, hellacious credit to the GM who saw the potential.

Those aren't the (only) two relevant rules. You forgot this one: one needs (as you know) 10 years of MLB play just to be eligible as a player. Doesn't that suggest that it is the MLB Hall of Fame?

No, it really doesn't. It means that meaningful participation in American baseball (not just MLB, as many HOF did not play for 10+ years in MLB) is a prerequisite for inclusion. Not that only American/MLB play may be considered in the case for inclusion.

Is there any evidence the rules-makers were considering a case like Ichiro! when they got together at Independence Hall back in the 1780's to draft a constitution for the National Major League Baseball Hall of Fame? I'm guessing no, which suggests avoiding a strict reading of the by-laws here.

I've raised Dwight Evans before. Durable, 2600 games, same EqA, very good defense. Does Ichiro's non-SB baserunning and any extra defensive value make up for 1200 games?"

If you recall, when you brought this up the first time, the consensus answer was that most Primates believe Dewey to be a fully deserving HoF choice; Ichiro doesn't have to have as valuable a career as Dewey's to still be a deserving HoFer. Also, the point myself and others have made is that, based only on his MLB career, Ichiro isn't a fully deserving HoFer right now, but given a normal decline, he will be.

In that case, hellacious credit to the GM who saw the potential.

Maybe the GM just got lucky. The Mets signed Tsuyoshi Shinjo, despite him being nothing special in Japan.

But anyway, nobody answered the question; I'm not surprised that E-X refused to, but I wanted to know what other people thought, because it would clarify their position considerably.

Here's a question for Ichiro supporters: suppose Ichiro had played mediocrely in Japan -- let's say he's the Japanese Gary Matthews Jr. (to pick a name referenced earlier). Now he comes to the U.S. and has the exact MLB career he has actually had since 2001. (200 hit seasons, batting titles, speed, etc.) Is he a HOFer to you in that case?

In that case, hellacious credit to the GM who saw the potential.

Matty Alou, with the San Francisco Giants, 1960-1965 , through age 26:

PA: 1131 AB: 1048 BA: .260 OBP: .304 SLG: .338 OPS+: 77

On December 1, 1965 Matty Alou was traded by the San Francisco Giants to the Pittsburgh Pirates for Joe Gibbon and Ozzie Virgil. Alou played for the Pirates through the 1970 season, for the Cardinals in 1971 and both the Cards and A's in 1972.

Matty Alou, 1966-1972 , age 27-33:

PA: 4451 AB: 4152 BA: .322 OBP: .358 SLG: .398 OPS+: 115

Matty Alou, a centerfielder, was comparable to Ichiro offensively after joining the Pirates at the age of 27 (the same age Ichiro was when he joined Seattle) despite the fact that Alou was (to put it kindly) not a good hitter in his first one thousand major league at bats. So, in a nutshell, DN(nwc)'s point is not totally far-fetched, and is certainly not without precedence.

Oh, and hellacious credit to the Pittsburgh GM who saw the potential in Matty Alou.

DB

Matty Alou, with the San Francisco Giants, 1960-1965 , through age 26:

PA: 1131 AB: 1048 BA: .260 OBP: .304 SLG: .338 OPS+: 77

On December 1, 1965 Matty Alou was traded by the San Francisco Giants to the Pittsburgh Pirates for Joe Gibbon and Ozzie Virgil. Alou played for the Pirates through the 1970 season, for the Cardinals in 1971 and both the Cards and A's in 1972.

Matty Alou, 1966-1972 , age 27-33:

PA: 4451 AB: 4152 BA: .322 OBP: .358 SLG: .398 OPS+: 115


Clearly on steroids.

Here's a question for Ichiro supporters: suppose Ichiro had played mediocrely in Japan -- let's say he's the Japanese Gary Matthews Jr. (to pick a name referenced earlier). Now he comes to the U.S. and has the exact MLB career he has actually had since 2001. (200 hit seasons, batting titles, speed, etc.) Is he a HOFer to you in that case?

That's a good hypothetical question. I'm assuming that his tenth season won't see any major dropoff, in which case it would be a relatively easy "yes." And even if he broke leg on Opening Day and had to retire from the game, I'd still put him in. It'd be a closer call than the real Ichiro's will be, but he's still over the line in my book.

Here's a question for Ichiro supporters: suppose Ichiro had played mediocrely in Japan -- let's say he's the Japanese Gary Matthews Jr.

It would certainly make his case worse, in my opinion.

Also, the point myself and others have made is that, based only on his MLB career, Ichiro isn't a fully deserving HoFer right now, but given a normal decline, he will be.

Andy thinks Ichiro is deserving right now (or at least with his first game in 2010). But wouldn't a normal decline have him with another 500-750 games at a lower level of play -- assuming he doesn't flat collapse, which is a possibility as well? What is so special about that end result? 1950-2300 games at a .285-.295 EqA from a corner OF? Is his peak that good?

It all hinges on the evaluation of his defense.

As to Evans, after Rice he was my favorite player growing up. Evans is HOVG to me, but even if he's HOF, Ichiro needs to have an argument to being at least as deserving as Evans, whether on peak, career, or peak/career.

I can't imagine a normal decline for a guy who has been playing full seasons at basically the pinnacle leagues of the sport (his last 7 in Japan, he won the NPB batting title, so you know there's no big injuries in those years) since he was 20 and is now 35, is 3-4 more full seasons. Until last year, he had never missed more than 5 MLB games, and in the previous 5 years he missed a grand total of 3. I'm not saying I expect him to not play those 500-750 games, but if he does, I don't know that that can be called normal.

Andy thinks Ichiro is deserving right now (or at least with his first game in 2010). But wouldn't a normal decline have him with another 500-750 games at a lower level of play -- assuming he doesn't flat collapse, which is a possibility as well? What is so special about that end result? 1950-2300 games at a .285-.295 EqA from a corner OF? Is his peak that good?

The way I evaluate a player is by counting their number of notable years, and IMO Ichiro's already had nine of those. Once a player hits about 9 or 10 such years, and especially if they're consecutive as Ichiro's have been, I don't generally pay that much attention to the other years one way or the other. AFAIC he's already in by Opening Day's end.

But since we're now into hypothetical questions, I'll try one of my own: How many more years like the ones he's had (on average) to date would it take to convince you that Ichiro's a HoFer? Two? Five? Ten? Or do you simply see that his generic 226 hit season to date isn't Hallworthy no matter what the multiplier is, and simply adding more seasons like that wouldn't change your vote?

What is the argument that Ichiro will finish better than [Larry Walker]?

This is what I'm talking about. The argument is well known, and the position is held by the majority who've bothered to bicker about it, that Ichiro isn't a short career flash in the pan. Even if you don't want to give credit for his NPB years, whatever that may mean to you, most people accept that there's evidence of his quality outside his MLB seasons that doesn't need to be quantified exactly to add or detract from his case.

There's nothing unusual about treating Ichiro as Andy describes (and as many people do with every player) and looking only at his extended peak. If you must be an absolute purist, fine, but recognize that you're among a hyper-strict minority. It's the disingenuous "What's the argument?" stuff that's maddening.

Oh, and great question at the close, Andy. I've asked that in different ways before without getting much response. To pick a reasonably good comp, I think Ichiro's better than Lou Brock, for example. Is he a deserving Hall of Famer? If not, how much better do you have to be to get in?

Forgot to answer this:

suppose Ichiro had played mediocrely in Japan

I'd be a lot less excited about his candidacy. I think he's shown a good enough peak that I'd vote for him, but I wouldn't cry if he didn't make it. I'd only get hot under the collar if he tacked on another three or so comparable MLB seasons and still missed out.

But anyway, nobody answered the question; I'm not surprised that E-X refused to, but I wanted to know what other people thought, because it would clarify their position considerably.

I didn't refuse to, I just didn't see the point. When you use such a dickish intro to it and don't qualify what you mean by "like Gary Matthews Jr." that suggests you don't want a real discussion.

Personally, it would hurt his case, but I would look at the body of work.

I can't answer in more detail than that, as I have no idea what you mean by Gary Matthews Jr. and why it's worth comparing him to any other player. My understanding (and I could be mistaken) was that the only reference to GM in the thread was to Sarge as an example of a solid, non-HoF OFer with Ichiro's hitting ability but not his defense, baserunning, etc.

If that's the question, "If he had the first half of Sarge's career in Japan with his own defense and baserunning and then had an Ichiro MLB career, is he HoF?" my answer is extremely "Yes!".

It just that when you cite a post that is parodying you and you manage to mix up the players cited and then try to compare the player in question to some other player in history that is particularly bad and non-comparable simply because you wanted to choose a player that is the epitome of suck, it makes it hard to extricate a thoughtful line of conversation.

By the way, just in case someone wasn't aware:

Hits = Batting Average * AB

I really think we have better tools for evaluating batting performance available to us now. (Batting average is pretty well discredited among people who frequent this site, and I'm not really interested in having a conversation with someone whose seen that evidence and unpersuaded. I don't know why AVG would be suddenly much more respectable when multiplied by AB.)

I didn't refuse to, I just didn't see the point.

And yet, for some reason you felt the need to respond, shmuckishly.

When you use such a dickish intro to it and don't qualify what you mean by "like Gary Matthews Jr." that suggests you don't want a real discussion.

Only to a nutjob whose entire line of "thinking" is actually "Ichiro's not white so I love him." It was a very straightforward question, designed to ferret out the role that Ichiro's Japanese performance actually has on people's evaluation of his HOF case. There was no "intro" at all, let alone a "dickish" one, and I don't know why "like Gary Matthews Jr" is so confusing to you that it needs further explanation.

I can't answer in more detail than that, as I have no idea what you mean by Gary Matthews Jr.

Really? No idea what I mean? No idea at all? The words are totally confusing to you?

If that's the question, "If he had the first half of Sarge's career in Japan with his own defense and baserunning and then had an Ichiro MLB career, is he HoF?" my answer is extremely "Yes!".

Yes, that was the question, (except that Sarge is Gary Matthews Sr.). See, now it wasn't so hard, was it?

So, in other words, for you (and Andy), the whole thing about Japan is a red herring. You think Ichiro is a HOFer because you think that a player who puts up years like Ichiro did from 2001-2009 is a HOFer, regardless of what he does in the rest of his career. In which case, all the responses to Ray and I about how we shouldn't pretend that Ichiro had a short career are misplaced; you actually think that such a short career is HOFworthy, standing on its own. Which is all I was trying to find out.

Again, guys?

My ballot's pretty much the same as Kneepants', particularly with the note that "if his defense could be demonstrated as legendary"

I might be persueded to allow him on the ballot if he was struck by lightning in the 09-10 off season and wouldn't normally have his 10 years.

C'mon - _Oh_ is not even in the HOF. NBP don't count.

But since we're now into hypothetical questions, I'll try one of my own: How many more years like the ones he's had (on average) to date would it take to convince you that Ichiro's a HoFer? Two? Five? Ten? Or do you simply see that his generic 226 hit season to date isn't Hallworthy no matter what the multiplier is, and simply adding more seasons like that wouldn't change your vote?

I am by no means some kind of Gaelanic peak performance nut, but I like to see some peak. Offensively, Ichiro doesn't have one. He's had some decent years, but no spectacular ones at all. (I don't care -- for reasons CW illustrates in post 162 -- how many hits he has.) I would find it hard to support someone with his lack of peak no matter how long it went on.

Now, that's all talking about his offense. If I'm convinced that he's the Ozzie Smith of RFers that some people think he is, I can be convinced he belongs with, say, 4-5 more years like he has had. But at the moment, I'm not convinced; the assessment of his defense just has too large of an error bar. And if he's merely a good defensive player, he doesn't belong in the same zip code (yes, I know) as the HOF.

I really think we have better tools for evaluating batting performance available to us now. (Batting average is pretty well discredited among people who frequent this site, and I'm not really interested in having a conversation with someone whose seen that evidence and unpersuaded. I don't know why AVG would be suddenly much more respectable when multiplied by AB.)

Yes, that's what's bizarre about the focus here on raw hits totals, number of 200-hit seasons, times leading the league in hits, 262 hits, times leading the league in batting average, and batting average. Most of the people obsessed over these things w/r/t Ichiro couldn't give a flying leap about them in all other cases.

Of course, some of them are too embarrassed to hang a HOF argument on batting average, and so they cite his "exciting and entertaining style."

I couldn't give a rat's ass about batting average or raw hits totals, I haven't since I was in high school in the 1980s, and nobody has ever seen me use those things here to support a player's HOF case or assess his value. I don't care if Johnny Damon or Garret Anderson were to get to 3,000 hits. That doesn't make them HOFers as far as I'm concerned, any more than they would be if they'd had 2,999 hits. The focus on Ichiro's hits totals and 200-hit seasons is childish. Trivia is not value.

However, we did talk about MSM, and more pointedly the voters, and I still do not see where voters are saying one way or the other.

No idea which of these guys have HoF ballots, and which ones don't. But the general direction of what's being said is clear:

Ted Keith, Sports Illustrated:
"...despite their impressive debut campaigns, it seems likely that this year's [Rookie of the Year] winners will one day more closely resemble those from 1989 (when forgettables like Gregg Olson and Jerome Walton were the AL and NL winners, respectively) than 2001 (when future Hall of Famers Ichiro Suzuki and Albert Pujols took home the hardware)."

Jon Paul Morosi, Fox Sports:
"Soon, Suzuki will feel the relief that comes with Hit No. 200, that annual signpost of a season well-played. A new record will come with it this time, moving him a few miles closer to Cooperstown. Where he belongs."

Jim Street, MLB.com:
"There are bats and balls, caps and wristbands worn by Ichiro Suzuki resting comfortably at the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., waiting for the owner to arrive. And make no mistake about it, the nine-time All-Star and likely nine-time Gold Glove Award winner has one foot in the door of baseball's shrine."

Jim Caple, ESPN:
"...after nine seasons, it's clear Ichiro is not going to change an approach that has worked so well for him that a career that began in Japan likely will end in Cooperstown."

Nick Cafardo, Boston Globe:
"I would vote for him on just Mariner merits... He'd be in that Koufax, Pedro, Puckett category for me."

Kevin Kernan, New York Post:
"I know an upper echelon Hall of Fame player when I see one and Ichiro is, in my book, a Hall of Famer from his major league accomplishments."

Tom Haudricourt, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
"In my opinion, Ichiro has been one of the dominant players in the major leagues for a decade or so, which is all he has been able to play. That's probably going to be good enough to get my vote, especially considering he has plenty of gas left in his tank, apparently."

Richard Justice, Houston Chronicle:
"If he has a 10th 200-hit season, he's in as far as I'm concerned... Ichiro is a Hall of Famer."

Bill Plunkett, Orange County Register:
"Without hesitation, yes, Ichiro gets my HOF vote."

Jayson Stark, ESPN:
" Ichiro is about to have his ninth 200-hit season. And it took him NINE years to get there... So how could he not be a Hall of Famer?"

Larry Stone, Seattle Times:
"The question with Ichiro is no longer whether he's going to make the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. The question is how many milestones he can reach before he gets there..."


What if Babe Ruth was actually a talking llama instead of a man?

Then he would have been the sport's all-time spitballer, and the hairiest-ever Red Sox not on the 2004 team.

What if baseballs were made of stitched pubic hair?

Then the phrase "put one under his chin" would take on a whole new level of sexiness.

"I know an upper echelon Hall of Fame player when I see one and Ichiro is, in my book, a Hall of Famer from his major league accomplishments."

Who among our group is actually delusional enough to believe Suzuki would be in the upper echelon of the HOF if he were enshrined today? Maybe some of these sportswriters should get their heads out of the record books and actually watch a game to assess true offensive worth. :-)

"I would vote for him on just Mariner merits... He'd be in that Koufax, Pedro, Puckett category for me."

This one I don't understand. It looks like a peak argument (which Ichiro! fails, BTW) at first, but then you have Puckett (more of a prime guy) listed here. Suzuki is much closer to Kirby than the other two, IMO.

I agree with Ray that Walker is much better than Ichiro. But then, I think Walker is pretty clearly a Hall of Famer...

My Dad is around, so I thought I'd run all this past him. He's a baseball man, and has been since before age 10. His opinion is that Ichiro is a slam dunk HOF, citing the hit record as a reason. I didn't bother to bring up the games played difference, but did acknowledge that Ichiro's hit totals are significantly more impressive than (some of) this community has recognized. Should a player's athletic accomplishments be honored beyond their value to winning a given game? This is the criticism that Ichiro suffered through 2008; this is a criticism that was widely refuted on this board.

I believe that Ichiro should be credited for his play in Japan. His defense and base running are also excellent attributes. These skills, in addition to his records and general influence, merit a HOF nod; not Lou Gehrig level, but definitely above Paul Waner and the like; Walker and Evans are in the discussion, but on a different tier.

Larry Walker, career splits (6 seasons with Montreal, 9.5 seasons with Colorado, 1.5 seasons with St. Louis):

STAT....HOME......AWAY

PA......3996......4034

AB......3429......3478

HR......215........168

RBI.....747........557

BA..... .348...... .278

OBP.... .431...... .370

SLG.... .637...... .495

OPS....1.068...... .865



DB

"I know an upper echelon Hall of Fame player when I see one and Ichiro is, in my book, a Hall of Famer from his major league accomplishments."

Who among our group is actually delusional enough to believe Suzuki would be in the upper echelon of the HOF if he were enshrined today?

Probably none of us would believe that, John, but gonfalon's compilation of MSM opinions was in direct response to Jeff K's skepticism that the MSM had even bothered to address the subject of Ichiro and the Hall of Fame. It
started out with this:

Who I meant by that are people who don't think that Ichiro's present Major League numbers (given one more year) bring him into serious consideration for Cooperstown at this point. Ray clearly falls into that category, given his many dismissive comments in this and other threads. It was merely a description, not an argument. And as I wrote, it's a tiny handful I'm talking about, and virtually nonexistent outside BTF.

which led to Jeff K's challenge:

This you still have not shown, unless I missed it in catching up on the thread just now. We can skip over pedantically playing gotcha with random blogs from around the 'net because it doesn't serve much purpose; I'll stipulate that the vast majority of those writing about him probably think that his present MLB numbers on their own bring him into serious HOF consideration. However, we did talk about MSM, and more pointedly the voters, and I still do not see where voters are saying one way or the other.

Which in turn led to gonfalon's rather decisive answer, in the form of a list that could probably be greatly expanded with a bit of effort. Gonfalon was only showing that the MSM has indeed spoken out on Ichiro's Hallworthiness; he wasn't saying that he agrees with any given one of those opinions.

But wouldn't a normal decline have him with another 500-750 games at a lower level of play -- assuming he doesn't flat collapse, which is a possibility as well? What is so special about that end result? 1950-2300 games at a .285-.295 EqA from a corner OF? Is his peak that good?"

First, two caveats:
1. Ichiro has a high PA to G ratio, so simply citing his games played understates his value. Why not cite his PAs instead?
2. EqA ignores all non-SB baserunning, which also understates his value.

Ichiro's peak, however you define it (3-year, 5-year, etc) isn't that good. His prime is quite good, though. AROM's database has him at 45.3 WAR through 2008. Adding this year probably pushes him up between 50 and 51 WAR. If he adds, say, another 10-12 WAR over the next 2-3 years, that would put him around 60 in about 8000 PAs. That would be enough for me to seriously consider him as a borderline but possibly deserving candidate on his MLB stats alone.

I know that for whatever reasons you don't think Ichiro's non-SB baserunning should be counted. But for a borderline player such as Hypothetical Ichiro of 2012, every available piece of evidence needs to be examined and weighed, because at that level something minor like baserunning can make the difference between a player I'd induct and one that I wouldn't.

As to Evans, after Rice he was my favorite player growing up. Evans is HOVG to me, but even if he's HOF, Ichiro needs to have an argument to being at least as deserving as Evans, whether on peak, career, or peak/career."

For those like myself who consider Evans comfortably qualified, this isn't true. Evans isn't the dividing line; Ichiro does not have to be as valuable as Evans was to be deserving. My dividing line is somewhere around the Clarks, Dawson, Wynn, Edgar and Larry Walker. I have Dewey clearly above those players.

These skills, in addition to his records and general influence, merit a HOF nod; not Lou Gehrig level, but definitely above Paul Waner and the like;

Ichiro! is obviously the superior baserunner and his fielding might be better (though Waner was a good right fielder himself), but Big Poison has it all over Suzuki as a hitter. Even the BBWAA would agree with me there (of course, for different reasons :-)

...but gonfalon's compilation of MSM opinions was in direct response to Jeff K's skepticism --- which led to Jeff K's challenge --- Which in turn led to gonfalon's rather decisive answer...

I should say that I didn't feel any of the red-blooded aggression that Andy's "direct response/challenge/decisive answer" language might suggest. I just remembered seeing a decent amount of Ichiro HoF chatter in the traditional sports media, even though other people hadn't. I figured it wouldn't take much time to pluck a few examples.

Some of the quotes are too extravagant, obviously. "One of the dominant players in the major leagues for a decade"? But not only has the S.S. Ichiro sailed, it's surprisingly difficult to find counterquotes that debate his credentials at all. Other than the "it ain't 10 years yet" angle.

The only strongly negative piece I came across was from Salon.com, but it dates from July 2001, when Ichiro's MLB career was less than 80 games old. And it's kind of stupid.

But not only has the S.S. Ichiro sailed, it's surprisingly difficult to find counterquotes that debate his credentials at all. Other than the "it ain't 10 years yet" angle.

Agreed. Ichiro! probably has his HOF speech partially completed already.

Ichiro has +48 non-SB baserunning runs in his career (according to my own metrics), or an average of about 5 runs a year. Certainly not bad, but not enough to make Ichiro a Hall of Famer if he is simply an average defender.

Because, let's be honest - the question of if Ichiro belongs in the HoF is basically a question of how good his defense is.

Only to a nutjob whose entire line of "thinking" is actually "Ichiro's not white so I love him." It was a very straightforward question, designed to ferret out the role that Ichiro's Japanese performance actually has on people's evaluation of his HOF case. There was no "intro" at all, let alone a "dickish" one, and I don't know why "like Gary Matthews Jr" is so confusing to you that it needs further explanation.

Because you said that

Here's a question for Ichiro supporters: suppose Ichiro had played mediocrely in Japan -- let's say he's the Japanese Gary Matthews Jr. (to pick a name referenced earlier).

So I looked for a person referenced earlier. The only example I found was a post where someone referenced Sarge to make fun of you. It's clear when you look at the other comparables:

Matt Stairs, Gary Matthews, Nick Swisher, and Ron Fairly!

As to the rest of your paragraph, what does it say about you that you assume that someone who is of Chinese descent, whose grandparents survived the holocaust of the Pacific War, and has explained this every time that this has come up, must "love Ichiro because he's non-white"?

I mean, I used serious tone in the last post because it pissed me off when you use bad debate techniques--bringing up a player yourself and attributing it to someone else. I shouldn't have been so abrasive about it and I'm sorry.

But to parade your own ignorance of my past postings and world history to fire back, I certainly would hope that that is beneath you.

So, in other words, for you (and Andy), the whole thing about Japan is a red herring. You think Ichiro is a HOFer because you think that a player who puts up years like Ichiro did from 2001-2009 is a HOFer, regardless of what he does in the rest of his career. In which case, all the responses to Ray and I about how we shouldn't pretend that Ichiro had a short career are misplaced; you actually think that such a short career is HOFworthy, standing on its own. Which is all I was trying to find out.

No, I wasn't being intentionally obtuse. I honestly thought that you were meaning to bring up Sarge--you said that you were referring to the person brought up earlier in the thread. If you meant little Sarge, you shouldn't have included that reference. If you read the original reference, you chose wrongly.

I don't see why little Sarge or Rey Ordonez or Ayn Rand is remotely relevant, but if that's what you meant, then I also answered that in the post.

I would have to see the exactly numbers, but it certainly WOULD hurt him. I don't really know how I could be clearer: ICHIRO'S JAPANESE PERFORMANCE HELPS HIM! IT HELPS HIM!

I should say that I didn't feel any of the red-blooded aggression that Andy's "direct response/challenge/decisive answer" language might suggest. I just remembered seeing a decent amount of Ichiro HoF chatter in the traditional sports media, even though other people hadn't. I figured it wouldn't take much time to pluck a few examples.

Sorry if I seemed to impute an overly fighting spirit to that list of yours, gonfalon, especially since it was in response to a challenge that had been posed 15 hours earlier. But your state of mind aside, it was a decisive answer. I would have provided such a list myself, but I was just too lazy, and beyond that, I find it hard to believe that anyone who reads the MSM isn't already aware of many such examples of Ichiro-worship and "Ichiro is a Hall of Fame shoo-in" commentary.

I expect he could end up borderline enough that baserunning could be decisive. But I mostly agree with you Colin that how you rate his D will probably determine if you think he's deserving or not.

The only strongly negative piece I came across was from Salon.com, but it dates from July 2001, when Ichiro's MLB career was less than 80 games old. And it's kind of stupid.

I don't like the way Kaufman separated out OBP and SLG and did the comparison thing, but I found the article interesting. He's always been a very good writer, but it also hit me how much better of a writer he is now than he was nearly ten years ago.

I miss the column, but I'm sure he's doing great things.

At any rate, I've been a bit abrasive in this thread, and I'm sorry to those who have been contributing great content that I've enjoyed and benefited from immensely while I've been a negative influence.

I guess I'm tired from have the same arguments spun around again and again and I missed the new contributions that because this is BTF are always sprinkled in.

I particularly liked Robert's list which for me, I'd answer as follows:

Part 1:
1 - Yes
2 - Yes
3 - Yes
4 - Yes
5 - No. If this occurs though, I think there's some contingency on how it occurs and when. I would say that while it would be unfortunate, it might help stop this stereotyping that "sluggers use steroids".
6 - No. I'd throw his name in a hole and invoke it only as a cautionary note.
Part II:
1 - Yes
2 - Yes
3 - Yes
4 - Depends on the shape of the decline--if it's literally Dale Murphy, sure.
5 - Doesn't matter to me
6 - No

Part III:
(1) Yes. I think this is an integral part of what the Hall of Fame should be about.
(2) Yes. I think if we have the translations, we should use them. It helps us conjure the best possible understanding of baseball history.
(3) Yes. I think those who bring us toward the best level of competition through courageous decisions should be recognized for that achievement.
(4) Can't think of anything.

EDIT: I also appreciated Gonfalon's contributions of compiling quotes.

Re: 167. I don't know how many of those guys are HOF voters, or for that matter how many of them vote the same way when they cast their ballot as they do when making throwaway lines in columns. (I don't mean to denigrate the work in compiling these quotes, btw.) But what I do want to point out to Andy is that, of all the people who give reasons for claiming he belongs, they focus on his play, not on anything intangible.


I'm still trying to wrap my head around the "Koufax, Pedro, Puckett category."

Re: 167. I don't know how many of those guys are HOF voters, or for that matter how many of them vote the same way when they cast their ballot as they do when making throwaway lines in columns. (I don't mean to denigrate the work in compiling these quotes, btw.) But what I do want to point out to Andy is that, of all the people who give reasons for claiming he belongs, they focus on his play, not on anything intangible.

Indeed they do, as indeed they always will when they think that a candidate's tangible factors are beyond dispute. As I've repeatedly said, it's only in the case of marginal candidates that the intangible factors get emphasized as a reason for selection.

But the point in this case is that Ichiro is not considered a "marginal" candidate by the MSM. In fact, if you go by the likely vote***, he's almost certain to be seen as an Inner Circle selection, and the chances are that his induction will be treated along the lines of a Ripken, as a cause for celebration of both the man and what he represents: the essence of what the Hall of Fame is all about.

***first ballot, 85% or better, guaranteed. And it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the crowd at his induction smashes the all-time record, whatever that may be

Eh, I can explain what's meant by "Koufax, Pedro, Puckett category." These are all players that the author thought were Hall of Famers despite short careers (though I'm not sure how much longer Pedro Martinez needs to pitch before he hasn't had a short career). That there's a huge difference in quality between Puckett and the other two is irrelevant since the author only cares about placing the players on the (for him) correct side of the in/out line.

"Arnold Schwarzengger is a big man. Steve Buscemi doesn't belong in that same Andre the Giant, Shaquille O'Neal, Charles Barkley category."

At the moment, Ichiro! is 161st* in MVP career shares, which is not to be sneezed at and indicates a HOFer by their standards in the making. However, the BBWAA has not regarded him as an inner-circle player in that forum up to this point. Therefore, to say he is inner-circle HOFer in waiting, the BBWAA would have to look at things beyond actual contributions to winning games. That's at least the conclusion that I have come up with.

* He would obviously be much further down the list if MVP voting had been uniform from the beginning of the professional leagues up to the present time. Of course, Suzuki would most likely have more career shares if he had started his career in the US. All said in the spirit of fairness. :-)

if ichiro has a 2010 season pretty much like his other 9 seasons, i think he's in. i know that ray thinks that hits without power are beneath contempt, but fact is that i seriously doubt the majority of HOF voters think like ray

they are gonna look at the hit totals, the batting titles, the gold gloves, the stolen bases, the ROY and MVP, and the fact that he's been in 10 consecutive ASG. (and yeah, the fact that ichiro is KEWL and The Face Of The Franchise just might could help too)

i think that if ichiro had been a White nobody indy league player who somehow lucked into a ML job and exploded onto the ML scene as ichiro did, and had the same 10 year career, he'd be in

i personally think that if you have to even bring up the fact that ichiro played all those years in another country that it actually looks like you are trying to find SOMEthing to augment his HOF case. which actually makes him look like a weaker candidate. i agree with DMN (for once - hey, it happens, what can i say) and think that a player's stats in any other country are not relevant to his HOF case (and then again, i don't believe in adding in missing war years, injury years, all that stuff. just look at the record)

Indeed they do, as indeed they always will when they think that a candidate's tangible factors are beyond dispute. As I've repeatedly said, it's only in the case of marginal candidates that the intangible factors get emphasized as a reason for selection.

But the point in this case is that Ichiro is not considered a "marginal" candidate by the MSM.

But so what? When has that ever been in dispute, or worth discussing? The point is that this is not based on intangibles, which is how you've tried to justify his induction.

the essence of what the Hall of Fame is all about.

Ridiculous overrating of high average singles hitters at the expense of well-rounded offensive players? I guess in a sense it is the essence of the Hall, yes.

i personally think that if you have to even bring up the fact that ichiro played all those years in another country that it actually looks like you are trying to find SOMEthing to augment his HOF case.

What is wrong about augmenting his case (at least as a great player, since his HOF induction is a certainty and a moot point), especially if he needs it to bolster it?

if ichiro has a 2010 season pretty much like his other 9 seasons, i think he's in.

Nobody really disputes that.

i know that ray thinks that hits without power are beneath contempt, but fact is that i seriously doubt the majority of HOF voters think like ray

Hits without power are less valuable than hits with power. Everyone knows this. Some people have taken this to the logical conclusion and have produced measures of hitting that measure the value of hits based upon how powerful they are (and incorporated walks, etc.) Yes, we know some people are willfully ignorant, and that those people have Hall of Fame ballots. No, we're not going to shut up about how ignorant those people are.

they are gonna look at the hit totals,

Which are vastly overrated.

the batting titles,

Which are almost entirely attributable to his vastly overrated hit totals.

the gold gloves, the stolen bases,

His defense and stolen bases are both legitimate points for his HoF case, but the Gold Glove is hardly an ironclad measure of defense.

the ROY and MVP, and the fact that he's been in 10 consecutive ASG.

All of which, again, can be attributed at least in large part to his overrated hit totals. It's such a circuitious arguement:

"HoF voters overrate Ichiro's ability on offense."

"No they don't! Look at the MVP award!"

Uh, those are the same voters, champ. Persisting in an error doesn't make it correct.

(Hell, calling Ichiro the MVP of the '01 Mariners requires ignoring the fact that Bret Boone outhit him by a country mile and played second base.)

First, two caveats:
1. Ichiro has a high PA to G ratio, so simply citing his games played understates his value. Why not cite his PAs instead?

Well, first, I look at G, not PA, for all players. Granted that for someone like Walker who missed time in a lot of years, just looking at G could overrate him; I make a mental note of that. (Also if the player spent a lot of time as a pinch hitter towards the end of his career, G could overrate him as well; I consider that too.)

That aside, the reason I wouldn't look at PA for Ichiro is that it overrates him, beyond his durability, since it was a manager's decision to bat him leadoff. That gets him extra PAs that other players wouldn't get.

it was a manager's decision to bat him leadoff. That gets him extra PAs that other players wouldn't get."

Yes, but he still got them. That's my point. Why does he matter how he got them?

Gonfalon, nice job with the quotes. That said, are those all from different articles, or are they from a smaller number of articles that are about whether Ichiro will get in, etc? I ask because the bits of my posts and his that Andy is quoting aren't really where the discussion was, that was me bringing it back up. And in the context of the actual discussion, it matters whether these quotes are from the authors as part of their own article about Ichiro and the HOF, or not.

Andy
Me

And nobody but a handful of baseball birthers seriously thinks that there's any real issue of any kind with Ichiro's HoF candidacy that hasn't already been raised and answered.

Uh, I do. Unless you just mean that the issues have been raised and discussed; if that's what you mean, sure, I think all relevant issues have probably been brought up. If you mean that the issue of whether he's a legitimate MLB HOFer right now is largely settled in favor of, I hardly think that's the case. [Ed: I will agree that I was wrong here, and those quotes do go towards proving that.]

But who, other than Ray and a handful of holdouts in places like this, is raising these "issues"? How many actual HoF voters have you seen who are saying that Ichiro isn't a HoFer, because of these "issues" that Ray has been harping on for the past 57 threads?

How many are saying that he is? He's only got 9 years in. I don't see much talk, except around here, about Ichiro for the HoF at all.

If you google "Ichiro" + "Hall of Fame" you get 136,000 hits. If you add "Baseball Think Factory" it drops to 3,180. That leaves a mere 132,820 for everyone else. The baseball world doesn't begin and end with BTF.

And how many of those 136,000 hits are from the actual HoF voters that you're asking about? I'm not claiming BTF is the center of the baseball universe, I was just posing your question back to you. This is the only place I see discussion of the topic, pro or con. I'm sure it is discussed on USSM and Fangraphs, or MarinerWank.com. But those sites, and BTF, aren't the mainstream. You're claiming that the notion of Ichiro not being a HoFer is outside the mainstream to an extreme, I'm simply saying that I don't think the plebeian mainstream has really even started the discussion, and I've seen no indication the actual voters have, either. And for good reason: he's still not eligible in a technical sense (though if he got hit by a bus tomorrow, they'd vote on him.)

When I google 'is ichiro a hall of famer' without quotes, I do indeed see articles from USSM, THT, some dude at Fox Sports.com that used to write for the P-I (which seems to have touched off a number of these other articles from lower traffic sites, as they're all a day or two later), and some quotes from a handful of current or future HoFers, but while I see a majority view, I don't see consensus even here, much less the notion that the debate is done except for the holdout whack-jobs.

So the question remaining is whether all of these HOF voters have actually had the discussion in their medium, by writing a column or whatever. Andy is of the opinion that they clearly have, so much so that not only is DMN and Ray's position is in the extreme minority, but that it is the equivalent of 'birthers' if they were to keep bringing it up on their own. A 'this is long settled by the people that matter, so stifle it' issue. I am of the opinion this is not the case.

Yes, but he still got them. That's my point. Why does he matter how he got them?

Ray (and John DiFool), when judging HOF worthiness, does a lot of context neutralization in trying to get down to a judgment that would probably be much closer to what you think of as "true talent" than "performance". That's what lit the fuse in the Mussina thread; not that it was combative, but we spent a lot of time discussing the pros and cons of that. It's a legitimate voting paradigm, albeit one that I happen to disagree with in most of its applications. Ray would want to neutralize out the managerial decision there because it's not something that can properly be attributed to Ichiro, and it represents an opportunity that other players didn't get, thereby granting him an 'advantage' in that sense.

Indeed they do, as indeed they always will when they think that a candidate's tangible factors are beyond dispute. As I've repeatedly said, it's only in the case of marginal candidates that the intangible factors get emphasized as a reason for selection.

But the point in this case is that Ichiro is not considered a "marginal" candidate by the MSM.

But so what? When has that ever been in dispute, or worth discussing?

Ask Jeff K, since he was the one who brought it up. As usual, you butt into the middle of one discussion and try to derail it with an irrelevant point of your own.

The point is that this is not based on intangibles, which is how you've tried to justify his induction.

With that 100% false statement, you've descended into complete trolldom, an accusation I've almost never made before against anyone. Right on this page I've written [in # 158]

The way I evaluate a player is by counting their number of notable years, and IMO Ichiro's already had nine of those. Once a player hits about 9 or 10 such years, and especially if they're consecutive as Ichiro's have been, I don't generally pay that much attention to the other years one way or the other. AFAIC he's already in by Opening Day's end.

and in response to Robert's questions, my answers [in #117] follow his questions in bold type. I posted them immediately after he asked them.

Section II
Normative declarations. This is how you think it ought to be if the world evaluated things as you would have them evaluate things.
Do you think Ichiro Suzuki should make the Hall of Fame if...
(1) ...nothing terribly unexpected happens (ie. if his career winds down in what you think of as typical for someone of his skills, age, etc.)? YES
(2) ...he suffers a severe baseball-related injury (see Tony Conigliaro)? YES
(3) ...he suffers a severe non baseball-related injury (see Bo Jackson)? YES
(4) ...he suffers a collapse of skills for no discernible reason other than age (see Dale Murphy)? YES
(5) ...he is discovered to have used PEDs (see Jose Canseco)? NO
(6) ...he is implicated in gambling on baseball (see Pete Rose)? NO

Section III.
Non-MLB factors.
To which of the following non-MLB arguments, do you give credence/weight?
(1) His skills were good enough to allow him to play in MLB, but he was excluded for reasons beyond his control (comparable to players stuck in the minors, or comparable to players who missed time for the war, or comparable to players who were born the wrong skin color at a time when that mattered to MLB). Suzuki deserves some amount of bonus credit beyond his MLB performance for this reason. The credit need not be quantified -- i.e., the numbers aren't directly important as much as the evidence that they provide that he could have played in MLB if circumstances were different. lots of credence
(2) His performance in another league can be given some (or complete) credit (see Satchel Paige). His Japanese League numbers should not be completely ignored when we account for Ichiro Suzuki's HOF case. In this case, the amount of credit we give to the numbers should be quantified -- how much credit do you give his numbers in assessing his HOF case? much credence, though in spite of what you write, this seems but a variance of III/(1). In both cases they're relevant for assessing Ichiro's overall career, but without the foundation of his MLB record, they wouldn't put him over. Otherwise we'd be wanting to induct Sadaharu Oh into Cooperstown, which nobody's suggesting.

Does he belong in the Hall of Fame if
(3) He's a good ambassador for the game (like, I dunno, Yao Ming or someone). It's a tie-breaker, but far less relevant that (1) and (2), but in any event it's not necessary in Ichiro's case
(4) (Others?) I suppose his pleasing style of play would be one more reason to put him in, but again, without his MLB numbers as a base to build upon, it wouldn't matter. Brett Gardner's an exciting baserunner, but what of it?

I'm sure you'll find a way to distort that, too, but at this point I don't care.

Jeff K,

Forget the substance of your post #192. We disagree about our interpretation of gonfalon's list, but no big deal. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your placing the discussion in full context, rather than taking snippets of paragraphs for the purpose of misrepresentation. Such basic intellectual honesty should not go unnoticed.

By the way, if people are curious about who reads these HOF threads, in a bizarre coincidence I just got an email from Jennie Paul, presumably Gabe's daughter. Also presumably in relation to the Veteran's Committee thread we had a few weeks ago. It came through PrimerMail, so she's registered.

By the way, if people are curious about who reads these HOF threads, in a bizarre coincidence I just got an email from Jennie Paul, presumably Gabe's daughter. Also presumably in relation to the Veteran's Committee thread we had a few weeks ago. It came through PrimerMail, so she's registered.

Nice info, Jeff. Hope she still likes us. :-)

john

i guess to me the question is - if ichiro has 10 years or basically the same stats/awards, would the BBWAA vote him in?

answer - absolutely positively yes.

if you have to include what he did somewheres else because he needs "bolstering" - well, that is a mighty weak-ass case, far as i'm concerned. and i would bet as far as the BBWAA are concerned, too. (and i don't see what difference it makes what someone does in the japanese, chinese, korean, mexican, dominican etc leagues - what if ichiro's japanese career had looked like shinjo's? would that matter one bit?)

cw,

i understand perfectly that you don't think that singles hitters are worth much of anything, let alone the HOF, no matter how many singles they hit. a leadoff guy who hits 260 singles is basically crap. i got it. really.

i also got the part about how it is ichiro's fault that he didn't score lots more runs in spite of the fact that for years, he had crap for hitters in the 2,3,4,5 hole and if he was any kind of a real player he would have stolen second third and home every time he got on base. just like the BBWAA insist that a Real Pitcher should be able to win even if his teammates can't field or hit when he pitches.

but it ain't YOU voting, it is people who think that batting titles achieved by hitting mostly singles and hitting 200 hits a year are something good (and not GIDP, neither) especially when that hitter is also a good base stealer, runner, fielder (and c'mon, i know all about the arguments about fielding assessment/metrics)

Nice info, Jeff. Hope she still likes us. :-)

I dunno. She didn't seem happy with me, and I was the one vehemently (for some reason) arguing in his favor!

Yes, but he still got them. That's my point. Why does he matter how he got them?

Because getting some of them via manager decision overrates him. That's my point.