Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, January 08, 2017

Who will be the next Hall of Famer for each team?

Four teams are still not represented in Cooperstown—at least not by the caps worn on players’ Hall of Fame plaques. Three of those are expansion teams from the 1990s: the Rockies, Marlins and Rays. The fourth is the Angels, born in 1961. Nolan Ryan spent eight years with the Angels and nine with the Astros, but he wears a Rangers cap on his plaque, which leaves the Angels without a Hall of Famer. The franchise will likely have to wait for Mike Trout, assuming Vladimir Guerrero eventually goes in with an Expos cap.

That brings up a fun idea: Who is the next Hall of Famer for each team? This requires some speculation not only on who gets elected—and what active players’ final stats will be—but also in predicting the cap. Let’s take a guess.

cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2017 at 02:34 PM | 90 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: espn, hall of fame

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Jacob Posted: January 08, 2017 at 04:04 PM (#5379825)
Arizona Diamondbacks: Robbie Ray (2043). He didn’t seem like a future Hall of Famer when he was 14-31 after three seasons in the big leagues, but those 218 strikeouts in 174.1 innings in 2016 were the sign that he was about to break out. He finishes with 254 career wins, a Cy Young Award and three NL strikeout titles.


I guess you never know.
   2. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2017 at 04:11 PM (#5379831)
Towards the end it gets a bit ridiculous.

The first disagreement I have the list is the Tigers, the writer seems to think that Trammell has a better shot than Morris, which is ridiculous. (Trammell is a better candidate than Morris of course, but he has almost no shot with any version of the Veteran's committee that has existed so far)

The first "clunker" is probably Minnie Minoso for the White Sox, I just do not see him getting in at all. And Beltran for the Mets sounds like a stretch, as Maddux showed, a player has more than the major league career with an organization, and I don't think many people associate Beltran with the Mets more than the Royals.
   3. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2017 at 04:14 PM (#5379832)
I'm also not sure that Longoria goes in for the Carolina Mustangs. Third baseman struggle to get elected.
   4. Booey Posted: January 08, 2017 at 04:51 PM (#5379848)
Longoria's a tough one. I doubt he "feels" like a HOFer for most casual fans and sportswriters; he plays for a team no one cares about, has just a .271 avg, never leads the league in anything, never came close to an MVP, just 3 AS selections and 2 gold gloves, etc. At first glance I'd say he's a SABR only candidate, like Rolen and Utley, and those guys aren't sniffing Cooperstown.

However, even though it feels like he's been around forever, 2017 will still just be his age 31 season. He could get 70 WAR, and with 36 homers and 98 rbi last year, he could also easily move his mainstream counting stats into borderline territory before he's through - say, 400 homers and 1,500 rbi (he's at 241 and 806 now). Throw in the defense, and that's basically a poor man's Beltre. It should be enough to at least get him a long look on the ballot.
   5. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 08, 2017 at 05:11 PM (#5379851)
The first disagreement I have the list is the Tigers, the writer seems to think that Trammell has a better shot than Morris, which is ridiculous


Huh, I was actually thinking that the Tigers would have to wait like 12 years as the vets committee never elects anyone and the Tigers will just have to wait for Miggy to retire then of course the 5 years. Miggy is going in first ballot.
   6. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2017 at 05:15 PM (#5379853)
never came close to an MVP, just 3 AS selections and 2 gold gloves,


The thing is, he has 3 seasons where he received MVP votes and didn't make the all-star team, to me that is equivalent to 6 all star seasons. He had at least 3 if not 4 MVP quality seasons (and maybe even a fifth if you prorate his rookie year out to a full season) He's been tremendously healthy the last four seasons (160 or more games played) and as 4 points out, he has a legit chance at some decent counting numbers because of his youth. Yes he is also a third baseman, and it feels like that position has a tendency to end careers rapidly, but I'm not 100% sure that is always the case, especially with the DH being an option. He hit 36 hr last year with a 127 ops+, so it doesn't look like he's slowing down.




sidenote: (I don't agree with bb-ref shorthand for all star season being 5 war, 4 war seems much more accurate.---for example in 2016 there were 26 position players with 5 or more war, while there were 43 with 4.0 or better war, an all-star team is roughly 20 position players, so there should be about 40 players matching 'all star' criteria, obviously there are injuries etc...but a 5.0 war pace seems a bit high to expect for all star, 4.5 is probably closer to matching up with the standards for all star)
   7. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2017 at 05:16 PM (#5379854)
Huh, I was actually thinking that the Tigers would have to wait like 12 years as the vets committee never elects anyone and the Tigers will just have to wait for Miggy to retire then of course the 5 years. Miggy is going in first ballot.


That is what I think will happen also, but if the vets committee does elect a Tiger before Cabrera, it's going to be Morris and not Trammell.
   8. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 08, 2017 at 05:17 PM (#5379855)
Huh, I was actually thinking that the Tigers would have to wait like 12 years as the vets committee never elects anyone


The failures of the recent vets committees have been wildly overstated, and should not be confused with the previous installment. They elected Santo easily. The next time the Golden Era committee met it had too many choices, and none of them was able to stand out. With the Expansion Era group, they've had a bunch of easy exec types, and very few worthwhile players (the best players, such as Grich, didn't make the ballot).

They'll elect Morris. Trammell will also have a chance with the vets.
   9. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 08, 2017 at 05:33 PM (#5379859)
The failures of the recent vets committees have been wildly overstated, and should not be confused with the previous installment.


Fair enough. It would be nice to see them elect someone really deserving like Trammell, Grich or Whitaker. I do agree with the consensus here though, if they are electing someone, it'll be Morris.
   10. Scott Ross Posted: January 08, 2017 at 06:08 PM (#5379863)
Have to respectfully disagree on Beltran, I think he goes in as a Met. He played more games, made more All Star teams, won all his GG in NY, and compiled more WAR there.
   11. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2017 at 06:19 PM (#5379865)
Well he didn't play more games as a Met, he played more major league games as a Met, he played about 350 games in the minors for the Royals, was drafted by the Royals, established his reputation as a Royal, won Rookie of the year as a Royal etc. I get that he could go in as a Met, but I don't think anyone outside of New York would identify him as a Met.

More than likely he'll go in with no cap though.
   12. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 08, 2017 at 06:25 PM (#5379870)
I think Beltran is going to have a hard time going in as anything. His OPS+ is lower than Edmonds', Walker's, Kent's, B. Williams' and Delgado's, and is tied with Baines (for now).

If Beltran does make it, he'll probably have Murray Chass' 2017 HOF ballot on his hat.
   13. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2017 at 06:43 PM (#5379878)
I think Beltran is going to have a hard time going in as anything. His OPS+ is lower than Edmonds', Walker's, Kent's, B. Williams' and Delgado's, and is tied with Baines (for now).

If Beltran does make it, he'll probably have Murray Chass' 2017 HOF ballot on his hat.


He also has 400 hr and will be probably be over 450 when he retires, which none of those guy have, (except the one dimensional power hitter Delgado, who isn't really part of this discussion) he has 1500 rbi and runs scored, (only Kent reaches the rbi mark of the ones that he would be compared against) and he has over 300 stolen bases. He also will have over 11,000 pa, Kent has 9500, Bernie has 9000, Edmonds 7900. which is why Beltran has the war advantage over these guys.
   14. Walt Davis Posted: January 08, 2017 at 07:16 PM (#5379891)
I'm not sure Beltran goes in at all ... obviously Raines making it should make it easier for Beltran.

By the way, the article under-states Hoffman's chances. This may have depended on when he looked but it's more that he cites the less important number. Since Ryan tracks individual voters, the key number is not the percentage that they are getting in Ryan's spreadsheet, it's the change. These specific voters weren't particularly big on Hoffman last year at just 65%. Now he's up to 73% with them. That jump of 8% is exactly what he needs. You can also get there by looking at his +/-. He's at +16 after a very slow start -- he's projected to need +38 to make it, 42% of the projected vote is in ... if he maintains that pace of adding votes, he gets exactly the 38 he needs. The other way to get there is to note that he has converted a net 16 of the 65 tallied voters who did not vote for him last year which is exactly the conversion pace he needs (over the full set of voters) to get to 75%. In short, it projects to be very close -- he'll make or miss by just a handful.

Goldschmidt would seem the obvious choice for the DBacks. He's nowhere near a lock or even a serious candidate but it's a lot easier seeing him than Robbie Ray. It doesn't look like he'll get to 500 HR, might get to 1500 R and RBI, probably won't maintain a 300 BA. But they're all possible, could really use a MVP to go with his two 2nd place finishes and a couple more RBI titles. Could have a nice run of AS games as he's likely to be their rep. But there's also the question of which cap does Greinke wear if he makes it. He'll probably need pretty good performance for the DBacks, maybe including a CYA, to make it. They'd probably nod towards the Royals (meaning he makes it before Ventura).

On other stuff: Edgar is going to be tough but he probably looks like he makes it after this year's boost. But again, this group of voters were pretty strong Edgar supporters before. Last year this group of voters gave him 52% -- overall, he finished at 43%. So the outstanding group of voters is much less Edgar-friendly. They might change their minds this time but for now I'd expect him to finish around 60%. That gives him just two years to get 15% but the top hitters in Bagwell and Raines will be off, Vlad has a shot at election this year too. Alas the 2018 ballot brings Thome and Chipper both of whom should be ahead of Edgar (but Thome may not be). 2019 only adds pitchers (and Helton). Anyway, the first question is whether this big Edgar boost is just a one-year reaction to all the Ortiz publicity or whether he will continue to grow in 2018-19.

On Vlad -- he seems the sort of candidate who should do just as well, maybe better, with the private/post-vote. He's just under 75 at the moment so I think he'll be very close like Hoffman. I will guess that the curmudgeons in the shadows include a big enough group who never vote for more than 3-4 that Vlad will get left off enough of those ballots this time to fall short before going over next year.

On Pudge -- I abstain. :-) He's at 81% so on the one hand, he seems like he'll make it. Another way of looking at that though is that he's about 15% ahead of Clemens and Bonds. This group of voters was kinder to those two last year and no doubt this year. At 55% last year, they finished at 45 so this year we might guess they'll finish around 55. If he maintained that gap roughly, Pudge would be around 70%. That said, maybe the non-Pudge vote is less roid-related than I suspect -- clearly he's not getting full Bonds/Clemens treatment, maybe he's not getting it at all in which case he'll sail in.

On Manny -- I'll admit I'm stunned at 25% even among these voters. I was wrong. With two actual tests, I thought he'd be lucky to get 5%. He's already guaranteed himself around 11% and obviously some of the remainder will vote for him. He's never going to make it but he's out-polling Kent, Sosa and Sheffield easily ... I suspect he'll fall behind Walker when all is said and done.

On Mussina -- it's a bit of a mystery. He's +13 overall which is reasonable progress but that's from 21 adds and 8 drops. The 8 drops are odd. I thought maybe voters were dropping Schilling cuz of what he said then figuring they had to drop Mussina too since Schilling was the better pitcher (making it look like they were dropping Schilling for baseball reasons). But there's only one voter who dropped both and the other Mussina droppers either didn't have Schilling last year or kept Schilling this year. There's even one guy who dropped Mussina and added Schilling. So my best guess is that he was just #9 and #10 on a lot of ballots and some combo of Vlad, Pudge and pushing him off to join the Bagwell/Raines/Edgar bandwagons pushed him off. Everyone who dropped him did have a full ballot except the bizarre Paul Daugherty. Tim Cowlishaw who dropped him to add Kent also has some explaining to do.

Anyway, there's an outside chance we'll actually see 5 elected. I doubt it for the same reason I don't think Vlad will quite make it but 3-4 looks very good. If 4-5 make it, then Mussina should gain back many of his lost votes and Edgar will probably continue to grow even with the coming ballots. If only two make it across (with 3 probably very close) then next year becomes a mini-ballotgeddon probably hurting Thome's debut and Edgar's progress.
   15. Walt Davis Posted: January 08, 2017 at 07:25 PM (#5379894)
More positive for Pudge: Last year Piazza got 86% of the pre-vote and about 80% of the post-vote. If Pudge repeats that sort of performance then it's 81% and 75% and he's in.
   16. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2017 at 07:38 PM (#5379901)
I'm not sure Beltran goes in at all ... obviously Raines making it should make it easier for Beltran.


I think Beltran has a very good chance, he'll be around another season, and maybe even more after that. He has rate numbers, he has counting numbers, he is probably the greatest post season player of all time (if post season had a WAA format).

450 hr, 300+ sb, 1600 rbi, 1600 runs, 70 war, 2700 hits, (assuming a full season next year) Add in that the electorate is improving on sabr knowledge and he seems to be a pretty easy inclusion.
   17. Walt Davis Posted: January 08, 2017 at 07:40 PM (#5379902)
Beltre-Longoria is interesting. Through age 30 (AB then EL)

PA 6900 5500
BA 270 271
OB 325 344
SL 453 490
OPS+ 105 128

WAR 45 46
WAA 21 27
Rfd 142 68

Through 30 it's clearly in Longoria's favor with only Beltre's PA edge and Rfield keeping him in the WAR race. Of course Beltre's going to the HoF because of his post-30s offensive surge. Beltre's 31-37 is substantially better than Longoria's 22-28:

AB 310/359/521, 133 OPS+, 46 WAR, 30 WAA, 4400 PA
EL 273/351/494, 131 OPS+, 39 WAR, 25 WAA, 4100 PA

Something tells me that if 7 years from now, Longoria has added about 4200 PA and 30 WAR (basically 7 years of Belre's 20s) that folks will still be viewing him as a very borderline candidate.
   18. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 08, 2017 at 07:41 PM (#5379904)
I don't think anyone outside of New York would identify him as a Met


I'm not from New York and the Mets are definitely the team I most identify Beltran with.
   19. Tuque Posted: January 08, 2017 at 07:42 PM (#5379905)
Longoria also suffers from being in a generation full of excellent third basemen. Between Donaldson, Beltre, Machado, Arenado, and Bryant all being current superstars, the festering corpse of David Wright still being a general contemporary, and another fleet of second-tier stars like Matt Carpenter, Kyle Seager, Todd Frazier, and the late Pablo Sandoval, Longoria quickly gets lost in the shuffle. I don't think anyone would list him in the top 5 of third basemen right now and he's only 30.

Edit: Well, maybe he's #5 - I...might rather have him than the 38-year-old Beltre? Not sure - but still, being the fifth-best at your position in your age-30 season is not really a strong identifier for the Hall of Fame.
   20. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 08, 2017 at 07:55 PM (#5379911)
I think Beltran has a very good chance,


The issue Beltran has is that he'll be seen as a compiler. A very good one, but a compiler nonetheless. 1 top 5 MVP finish, 1 top 10. The whole "not seen as one of the best players each year he played, hence no MVP votes" type of thing will hurt his chances.

Then you have a guy like Halladay, who had a quite a short career, but was definitely considered the best in the business there for several years, winning a couple of Cy's etc., lots of top 5 finishes.

I think Beltran struggles, I think Halladay goes in within 5 years. Being seen as the best when you played, even for just a couple of years, I think is a huge, huge boost to your chances.

Personally, I'd elect them both but I like a big hall and I think every really good player who was both interesting and did some stuff of note should be elected. The hall should tell the story of each era of baseball as it unfolded and guys like Beltran and Halladay fit that bill for me.
   21. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2017 at 08:04 PM (#5379912)
I think Walt hit it on the head earlier when he talked about Raines going in making it easier on Beltran. I think as time moves forward, complete players like Beltran that got overlooked in the past(see Trammell/Grich) are not going to be as easily overlooked. With one exception, Abreu is going to be massively overlooked and one and done, but other complete players that have any type of positive narrative will be fine. (I know we around here don't place a negative on this, but Abreu high strikeout rate affects his reputation in a negative way.)

edit: to add, I don't think the writers care about strikeouts when it's a power hitter, but when it's a doubles or on base hitter, it affects their reputation. So Abreu is going to get knocked more than he should by the voters.
   22. Booey Posted: January 08, 2017 at 08:37 PM (#5379921)
I think last year's resurgence put Beltran in the HOF. The SABR stats have always loved him, obviously, but the traditional counting stats have now gotten too high to ignore as well. Hits, HR, runs, rbi, SB. Throw in the ROY, 9 AS selections, and that .323/.432/.646 postseason line with 16 homers, and I think it should be enough.

Last year moved him from this generations Dwight Evans (didn't sniff the Hall), to this generations Andre Dawson (made it eventually).
   23. cardsfanboy Posted: January 08, 2017 at 09:49 PM (#5379948)
I think last year's resurgence put Beltran in the HOF.


Another thing I agree with, he was looking like he was going to get Edmonds, Bernie or Andruw before last year, but that last year changed the narrative, and now he has all the sudden become "future hofer" Beltran. I think that sometimes we forget the power of the narrative for a player to have a decent season or two at the end above the gradual career decline on how it helps their view in the eyes of the electorate.

We talk about Tim Raines, and often the people who argue against his inclusion, point to his lack of good years towards the end.
   24. TomH Posted: January 08, 2017 at 10:14 PM (#5379953)
Beltran's post-seasons (OPS almost 1100, 11 SB, 45 runs scored, 41 RBI in 55 games) are gonna get him some votes.
   25. bookbook Posted: January 09, 2017 at 01:33 AM (#5380008)
Take a closer look at Kyle Seager, Tuque. Longoria's clearly had the better career, but Seager has substantially outproduced him for the last three years (including 2016). Given each player's respective injury history, I'd bet on Seager going forward.
   26. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:31 AM (#5380049)
At first glance I'd say he's a SABR only candidate, like Rolen and Utley, and those guys aren't sniffing Cooperstown.

However, even though it feels like he's been around forever, 2017 will still just be his age 31 season. He could get 70 WAR, and with 36 homers and 98 rbi last year, he could also easily move his mainstream counting stats into borderline territory before he's through - say, 400 homers and 1,500 rbi (he's at 241 and 806 now). Throw in the defense, and that's basically a poor man's Beltre. It should be enough to at least get him a long look on the ballot.


Longoria actually matches up very closely with Rolen through age 30

Rolen 1251 G 47.4 WAR 37.4 oWAR 11.7 dWAR 31.4 WAA .284/.375/.515 129 OPS+ 231 HR 1300 H

Longoria 1279 G 46.4 WAR 39.0 oWAR 9.5 dWAR 27.3 WAA .271/.344/.490 128 OPS+ 241 HR 1311 H

After 30 (at 30 actually, although age 31 was a very good year) Rolen started breaking down - only 787 games with an OPS+ of 107 - he kept up the defense though and was worth 22.6 WAR

Personally I think Rolen should absolutely get elected to the HoF - but he probably wont, we shall see.

   27. Rally Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:22 AM (#5380074)
He could get 70 WAR, and with 36 homers and 98 rbi last year, he could also easily move his mainstream counting stats into borderline territory before he's through - say, 400 homers and 1,500 rbi (he's at 241 and 806 now). Throw in the defense, and that's basically a poor man's Beltre. It should be enough to at least get him a long look on the ballot.


Sounds exactly like Rolen, except for the 400 homerun part.
   28. DanG Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:28 AM (#5380081)
Last year moved him from this generations Dwight Evans (didn't sniff the Hall), to this generations Andre Dawson (made it eventually).
Although it's not a perfect analogy, I like it. Yes, Beltran clinched the Hall in 2016. By the time he hits the BBWAA ballot it will have cleared out. Whether or not he gets in quicker than Dawson's nine years depends on how much more he compiles.

If he can get the 383 hits he needs for 3000 he'll be first-ballot. Nine players had that many hits from age 40-43:

Rk          Player   H OPS+   PA From   To
1        Cap Anson 569  118 2036 1892 1895
2        Pete Rose 540   93 2182 1981 1984
3     Luke Appling 488  116 1930 1947 1950
4     Honus Wagner 479  111 1989 1914 1917
5      Jim ORourke 457  110 1674 1891 1893
6         Sam Rice 453  111 1542 1930 1933
7     Carlton Fisk 420  127 1739 1988 1991
8    Dave Winfield 413  110 1722 1992 1995
9 Carl Yastrzemski 410  108 1762 1980 1983 

The Bill James Handbook 2017 has him with a 5% chance for 3,000 hits.
   29. Covfefe Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:31 AM (#5380087)
I think Longoria's going to be helped, though, by being the face of a moribund expansion franchise tasting its first ever postseason successes (despite the fact that his postseason numbers are - currently, at least - pretty bad and especially fall off the cliff after his age 22/2008 ALCS).

   30. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:40 AM (#5380096)
On Mussina -- it's a bit of a mystery. He's +13 overall which is reasonable progress but that's from 21 adds and 8 drops. The 8 drops are odd. I thought maybe voters were dropping Schilling cuz of what he said then figuring they had to drop Mussina too since Schilling was the better pitcher (making it look like they were dropping Schilling for baseball reasons). But there's only one voter who dropped both and the other Mussina droppers either didn't have Schilling last year or kept Schilling this year. There's even one guy who dropped Mussina and added Schilling. So my best guess is that he was just #9 and #10 on a lot of ballots and some combo of Vlad, Pudge and pushing him off to join the Bagwell/Raines/Edgar bandwagons pushed him off. Everyone who dropped him did have a full ballot except the bizarre Paul Daugherty. Tim Cowlishaw who dropped him to add Kent also has some explaining to do.


Honestly, at this point, Mussina's better served if a few voters drop him for Hoffman, or choose Vlad over him for the 10th spot. Long term, I don't think he'll have a problem as long as we can remove 3-4 big vote getters this year and next. The only way he gets hurt is if guys like that never leave the ballot.

It's also interesting to note voters Lynn Henning, John Romano, Willie Smith, and Clark Spencer all voted for Mussina after not voting at all last year (or in Henning's case, two years in a row). Not the same thing as a switched voter, I know, but still votes that weren't part of his 43% last year.
   31. Covfefe Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:43 AM (#5380104)
I think I'll also take Rizzo over Bryant as the Cubs more likely next HoFer... Riz is 2-3 years older, seems to have settled into a 4-5 WAR payer, and still ought to have a good 4-6 years of prime production left, and figures to be settling into the team leader role of what looks like it will be a pretty good team for the foreseeable future. If he can keep stealing hardware from Goldschmidt, his chances become even better.

The danger would seem to be the HBPs and whether they ever start to take a toll or end up costing him some significant time.

I'd agree that Bryant is more likely to outproduce him over the course of their careers, but I suspect Rizzo retires a few years ahead of him.
   32. Rally Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:55 AM (#5380119)
Rizzo has been wonderful over the past 3 years, and amazingly consistent, exactly +37 batting runs each year. Combined with his excellent glove that makes him a 5-6 WAR player.

But he hasn't done anything yet to suggest he's a HOFer. To get there he needs to reach a higher level and stay there. He hasn't done anything yet that guys like Will Clark, Mark Teixiera, or John Olerud had at the same age. Carlos Delgado, Norm Cash, and Jason Giambi had later starts to their career, but he's got a ways to go before surpassing any of those guys.

I'd say a HOVG career is much more likely for him than HOF.
   33. Covfefe Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:12 AM (#5380135)
Rizzo has been wonderful over the past 3 years, and amazingly consistent, exactly +37 batting runs each year. Combined with his excellent glove that makes him a 5-6 WAR player.

But he hasn't done anything yet to suggest he's a HOFer. To get there he needs to reach a higher level and stay there. He hasn't done anything yet that guys like Will Clark, Mark Teixiera, or John Olerud had at the same age. Carlos Delgado, Norm Cash, and Jason Giambi had later starts to their career, but he's got a ways to go before surpassing any of those guys.

I'd say a HOVG career is much more likely for him than HOF


Maybe... or he could steady-Eddie Murray his way in.

I think his path is certainly more of the 'Fame' aspect than the 'Merit' aspect -- i.e., assuming he sticks around for the majority of his career and assuming the team continues to be what Cub fans hope, I think he'll end being the 'face' of the Cubs. KB is certainly the matinee idol. Addison Russell is likely to be the best player overall. Kyle Schwarber is destined to the be rolly-polly fun guy (fair or not).... but Rizzo generally gives the best interviews (with a slight nod towards Russell, but Russell tends to be a bit more cerebral and less quotable), is the team captain/elder statesman, and is probably the most beloved Cub at the moment.

It certainly would help if he could put up some black ink, maybe a gonzo season or two, add an MVP (deserved or not) -- but if the Cubs do more or less do what TFA says they'll do in regards to Bryant (4 WSs), and assuming Rizzo can have a big moment or two (you could already say that he had a couple -- after his scary slow start in the NLDS this year, he had a great NLCS and WS), I think he can 'fame' his way past rather pedestrian 1B HoF numbers.

Favorite toy says his chances of getting to 500 HRs are only 20%... whether that's still a thing in 20 years, who knows, I guess.
   34. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:47 AM (#5380165)
Beltran's post-seasons (OPS almost 1100, 11 SB, 45 runs scored, 41 RBI in 55 games) are gonna get him some votes.
For those inclined to dismiss Beltran, won't this be discounted heavily given that despite his performances he never (yet anyway) got a ring? Which unfortunately could be easy to also tie into that called third strike.

(Granted, however, that the electorate might have shifted quite a bit by the time he is considered.)
   35. SandyRiver Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:50 AM (#5380168)
he is probably the greatest post season player of all time (if post season had a WAA format).


I've seen this stated before, and recall some ancient guy who played only 41 PS games to Beltran's 55, but hit 15 hr and had an OPS (1.214) about .135 higher than Carlos. (Also had a teammate with exactly the same OPS, but in 7 fewer games.)
   36. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:00 AM (#5380178)
Addison Russell is likely to be the best player overall.


This strikes me as . . . optimistic.
   37. Booey Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:17 AM (#5380190)
Sounds exactly like Rolen, except for the 400 homerun part.

Exactly. But that's a biggie. A hypothetical Longoria with 400 homers and 1500 rbi's will look way better to the voters than Rolen's 316 homers and 1287 rbi's. Especially with Longoria's career coming post sillyball.

I think Longoria - like Rolen, Edmonds, Beltran, Dawson, Evans, etc - is absolutely a player that needs to rack up the counting stats to gain proper recognition. Those who do it get in (Dawson, Beltran), those who don't, don't (Evans, Rolen, Edmonds).
   38. Rally Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:21 AM (#5380192)
I've seen this stated before, and recall some ancient guy who played only 41 PS games to Beltran's 55, but hit 15 hr and had an OPS (1.214)


Not bad numbers for a pitcher. 3 games on the mound he was 3-0 with a 0.87 ERA. And one of those wins was a 14 inning complete game.
   39. Covfefe Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:24 AM (#5380196)
Addison Russell is likely to be the best player overall.

This strikes me as . . . optimistic.


I probably should have said "most complete"... though "best" shouldn't be discounted -- don't forget, Russell is basically the age now that KB was when he was drafted.
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:25 AM (#5380197)
Exactly. But that's a biggie.


It ain't that big. You're basically arguing, in separate locations, that the 400-home run barrier, no one's idea of a major milestone, is the difference between election to the hall and not making it to a second ballot.
   41. cardsfanboy Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:30 AM (#5380200)
I've seen this stated before, and recall some ancient guy who played only 41 PS games to Beltran's 55, but hit 15 hr and had an OPS (1.214) about .135 higher than Carlos. (Also had a teammate with exactly the same OPS, but in 7 fewer games.)


Which is why I mentioned WAA in my original comment, because Beltran's defense and positional adjustment covers all of that ground. (except of course as 38 points out his post season pitcher numbers, so yes Ruth still leads overall)
   42. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:32 AM (#5380201)
You're basically arguing, in separate locations, that the 400-home run barrier, no one's idea of a major milestone, is the difference between election to the hall and not making it to a second ballot


We really can't draw any meaning between Rolen being on the ballot in 2018 and Longoria being on it in 2030 or whatever. It's a completely different ballot (literally) with a drastically different voting body (We'll probably have 100-150 new voters and dozens more who are no longer allowed to).
   43. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:39 AM (#5380208)
We really can't draw any meaning between Rolen being on the ballot in 2018 and Longoria being on it in 2030 or whatever. It's a completely different ballot (literally) with a drastically different voting body (We'll probably have 100-150 new voters and dozens more who are no longer allowed to).


True, but it's still a massive difference between election and first-ballot miss. I just think the projections that Rolen doesn't get 5 percent are pretty farfetched (in part because of the very different nature of the election now than when, say, Kenny Lofton came aboard in 2013).

By the way Booey, what are the stakes of the bet?
   44. Booey Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:47 AM (#5380214)
Unless we haven't seen his best yet (still possible, of course), I wouldn't bet on Rizzo making the HOF. He seems awfully Mark Teixeira-ish to me. The last three years Rizz has been put up OPS+ numbers ranging from 146-152. That's nice, but for a HOF 1B, that's about where you want their career OPS+ to be, not their peak (McGwire, Thomas, Bagwell, Thome, Cabrera, and Votto range from 147-163). To make it with peak OPS+ numbers like Rizzo's you pretty much have to Palmeiro your way in, and it's always unlikely any given player will last that long.
   45. Booey Posted: January 09, 2017 at 12:10 PM (#5380233)
It ain't that big. You're basically arguing, in separate locations, that the 400-home run barrier, no one's idea of a major milestone, is the difference between election to the hall and not making it to a second ballot.


Not really. I'm saying that an extra 100 homers and 200 rbi (while playing in a less offense happy era), plus a (likely) much less crowded ballot, plus an extra decade+ of analytical awakening for voters, all could come together to make a world of difference.

By the way Booey, what are the stakes of the bet?


Well, I'd feel guilty taking A LOT of money from you, SoSh. ;-) And I'm not in a position where I can really afford to lose much money, either, so something small works for me. 20 bucks? 40 bucks? Something like that. And whether you want it to be a BBTF donation bet or other, I'm fine with whatever.
   46. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2017 at 12:17 PM (#5380238)
If Rolen had 400 homers and 1500 rbi's, I'd be taking bets whether or not he makes the HOF, not whether or not he see's a 2nd ballot.


And I'd say four hundred homers just aren't that important. It wasn't enough to get Darrel Evans to a second ballot, at a time even less offense-heavy than this one.

Something like that. And whether you want it to be a BBTF donation bet or other, I'm fine with whatever.


Twenty to BTF is fine. And if he reaches the second and then is gone, it's either a push or we each send $20 to Jim.

And I may lose a BTF bet someday, but it isn't going to be this one.

   47. Booey Posted: January 09, 2017 at 12:33 PM (#5380258)
And I'd say four hundred homers just aren't that important. It wasn't enough to get Darrel Evans to a second ballot, at a time even less offense-heavy than this one.


I removed the line you quoted with an edit, cuz I can see how it would be confusing. I agree that 400 homers isn't a huge milestone in and of itself. Rolen with 400 homers probably doesn't get significantly more support than Rolen with 390. But career totals are important, and the real Rolen barely cleared 300. I don't see how an extra 100 homers and 200 rbi's wouldn't greatly increase his chances. Edgar with an extra 100 homers and 200 rbi makes the HOF for sure. Walker with an extra 100 homers and 200 rbi...well, the voters suck when it comes to adjusting for Coors so I don't know, but he's a lot closer than he is now.

Darrell Evans hit .248. He's not a good comp.

Twenty to BTF is fine. And if he reaches the second and then is gone, it's either a push or we each send $20 to Jim.

A push works for me. Deal.

And I may lose a BTF bet someday, but it isn't going to be this one.


Hey, I have never lost a BBTF bet yet!*

* Never done one before, but that's immaterial ;-)
   48. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2017 at 12:52 PM (#5380285)
I don't see how an extra 100 homers and 200 rbi's wouldn't greatly increase his chances


I'm sure it would. More of good stuff is good.

But he's the eighth-best player on the ballot by WAR next year, in front of an increasingly stat-friendly electorate that has maintained the trend of full ballots past the worst of the glut. Meanwhile, the back end of the electorate continues to be purged, excising more small-hall, less statty type voters from the rolls. He only needs to double the total votes received by the much-inferior Jim Edmonds (13th by WAR, and a worse candidate than No. 14, Piazza).

Yes, he has a defense-heavy case, which historically hasn't been helpful. But unlike some defense-heavy cases, his numbers are entirely consistent with his reputation (8 GGs, third all-time at the position behind Brooks, elected for his defense, and Schmidt).

As with Darrell Evans, most of your previous examples aren't good comps for Scott Rolen.
   49. Booey Posted: January 09, 2017 at 12:59 PM (#5380300)
As with Darrell Evans, most of your previous examples aren't good comps for Scott Rolen.


Maybe, but Rolen will be facing similarly packed ballots as Edmonds, Lofton, and Posada. He's better than them, but I doubt most the voters will see it.

We will see.
   50. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2017 at 01:15 PM (#5380328)
Maybe, but Rolen will be facing similarly packed ballots as Edmonds, Lofton, and Posada.


Lofton was the seventh-best newcomer on the 2013 ballot, at a time when few writers were using all of their ballot slots. The 2013 shutout changed voting habits, to where more than 100 voters have been using all of their slots every year (allowing such backloggers as Billy Wagner, Jeff Kent, Larry Walker to hang around year after year). And the purge came after Lofton's one and done. Oh, and he wasn't as good as Rolen.

Jim Edmonds was not a good enough SABR candidate to overcome his weakness as a traditional candidate, and he was still half way to Ballot 2. Much less qualified than Rolen.

Jorge Posada was a borderline candidate who looks worse as time goes on (as catcher defense is better understood). And he's hovering right about below 5 percent, with a decent chance to make the cut if the New York contingent has been underrepresented so far. Less qualified than Rolen.

   51. Booey Posted: January 09, 2017 at 01:33 PM (#5380365)
Just curious, SoSh, who do you think IS a good comp for Rolen as far as probable support level goes? Kent, maybe? I'd say that Kent is a much better (traditional) candidate.
   52. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 09, 2017 at 01:47 PM (#5380376)
The one thing I think we're overlooking wrt to Rolen/Edmonds: Rolen's ballot is much more PED friendly. Bonds and Clemens could be drawing 60% on that ballot instead of 43%. That could mean 50-75 voters with two fewer slots on their ballot
   53. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2017 at 01:57 PM (#5380387)
Just curious, SoSh, who do you think IS a good comp for Rolen as far as probable support level goes?


Walker's probably the closest. They have excellent stathead cases (Walker slightly better by bWAR, Rolen a similar margin in fWAR) with obvious weaknesses (in Rolen's case, a defense-heavy resume, in Walker's the Coors Effect that voters really don't have a great handle on). Both had durability issues, Walker more so. Walker had a few batting titles and the MVP, but Rolen had a RoY and eight GGs and a WS ring.

I don't expect him to match Walker's vote total next year, given their different places in their candidacies. But somewhere in the 8-10 range as a floor, with the potential to finish ahead of Kent, Sheffield Wagner in the mid double-digits.

Honestly, barring other considerations, I don't think we'll see a 70-WAR player fall off the ballot after one vote again. Voting habits may change and ballots start to shrink, but that will coincide with the continued acceptance of advanced metrics by the electorate and what should be less congested ballots five years down the road.

   54. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2017 at 02:02 PM (#5380390)
So do the Cubs really not elect anyone until Bryant 20 odd years from now?

Sammy Sosa isn't going in before that? I guess outside of him their really is no one with a realistic shot at it. Grace isn't going in and neither is Aramis.
   55. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2017 at 02:04 PM (#5380391)
The one thing I think we're overlooking wrt to Rolen/Edmonds: Rolen's ballot is much more PED friendly. Bonds and Clemens could be drawing 60% on that ballot instead of 43%. That could mean 50-75 voters with two fewer slots on their ballot.


The 2018 ballot will have 4-6 major vote hoggers cleared (Raines, Bagwell in, at least one and up to three others elected), plus Smith gone. Rolen is a clear third among newcomers on the stat side (closer to No. 2 than No. 4), and probably No. 4 among BBWAA types (I expect Vizquel to do quite well, but Andruw's case is even more advanced-metric driven. Santana could siphon a few votes from the real peak-heavy voters).

There are more than enough votes there to offset continued gains by Bonds and Clemens, provided so many voters continue to max out their ballots, which at this point we should assume they will.
   56. Booey Posted: January 09, 2017 at 02:54 PM (#5380460)
I don't really see Walker as a good comp for Rolen, either. Coors or not, .313/.400/.565 will at least get you a good, long look from a lot of voters. .281/.364/.490 is a lot easier to ignore. Plus Walker had the MVP, the 3 batting titles, and other black ink (HR, 2B, TB, twice a piece in SLG and OBP). Rolen's ROY won't carry as much weight, and he literally never led the league in anything.

I think Kent is probably the best comp on the current ballot, but even he has higher numbers than Rolen in all 3 triple crown categories (at a tougher position), plus an MVP and the 2B HR record. Yes, Rolen has the much better stathead case, but the ballot is deep enough that even the statheads could justify leaving him off. 8th in WAR - with a few others right behind (Manny, Edgar) - isn't someone that absolutely NEEDS to be included for a ballot to be reasonable.
   57. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2017 at 03:17 PM (#5380491)
but the ballot is deep enough that even the statheads could justify leaving him off.


They could. They won't in the numbers necessary, just as they never did for Walker or Edgar and haven't for lesser players Kent, Wagner or Sheffield, regardless how stacked the ballots have been. Moreover, the stathead voters are going to be aware of the predictions of his falling off the ballot, and many will act to prevent that (not that the stat-friendly writers would have to do any electoral gymnastics to get the eight-best player on a 10-player ballot).

It didn't happen with Edmonds (to the degree necessary), because he was merely borderline by the stathead case. Rolen's way over the line.

Walker's his closest comp. It's not a perfect one, and Walker probably looks better to the BBWAA, but those two are a lot closer for the similarities I listed than Rolen is to the vastly inferior player Kent. But hell, even if he's Kent 2.0, Jeffy's never gotten less than 13 percent of the vote.

There are 19 players who have received votes this year. It's possible all of them will receive the necessary 5 percent to stay on the ballot (if that were an option). Just look at Thibs' spread sheet, and what we've seen already. I don't see Rolen having trouble squeezing 22 votes out of just the 179 guys who have already voted, more than half of whom have used the entire 10 space, are aware that there are other qualified candidates, and some who have admitted to voting strategically in the past.

   58. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 09, 2017 at 03:36 PM (#5380517)

The 2018 ballot will have 4-6 major vote hoggers cleared (Raines, Bagwell in, at least one and up to three others elected), plus Smith gone. Rolen is a clear third among newcomers on the stat side (closer to No. 2 than No. 4), and probably No. 4 among BBWAA types. There are more than enough votes there to offset continued gains by Bonds and Clemens, provided so many voters continue to max out their ballots, which at this point we should assume they will.


Look, I agree, if Hoffman, Vlad, and Pudge get in, Rolen will survive. Let's say, hypothetically though, only one gets in. Call it Pudge, since he's doing the best. Looking at say Ammenheuser's ballot, he'd free up Bagwell, Pudge, Raines, and Smith. According to the tracker, he'd also have voted for Schilling, Manny, and Wagner if he had room. And you're adding a clearly better candidate in Chipper, and a relatively equal one (by career WAR, which is sort of Rolen's whole case) in Thome. So does he really have a spot free for Rolen suddenly?

I think there's something like 20-22 voters who have at least two players listed who they'd vote for this year if they didn't have a limit (and I don't think Thibs has that info for all voters, as he added it midway through.) IDK that Rolen will necessarily jump them in the pecking order to the top 10—and I suspect his only real support is going to be on 9/10 player ballots, unless I guess you're a hardliner no-PED guy and can thus disqualify a bunch of dudes in your own mind.
   59. Walt Davis Posted: January 09, 2017 at 03:49 PM (#5380534)
McCoy in #54: The best bet before Rizzo/Bryant is Lester ... who obviously has a way to go to be an HoFer and might still be debated whether he'd go in with a Cubs or a Sox hat. But if he compiles numbers worthy of HoF consideration, it will mean he continued to pitch well for the Cubs, maybe won another ring. He needs a Glavine-style CYA probably along the way which would also come with the Cubs.

He's less of a long shot that people probably first think. Another 8 seasons of 150 IP and 13 wins a year gets him to 3200 innings and 250 wins through age 40. Both are slight undersells, especially the innings as he's churned out 200 innings a year like clockwork so he's got a reasonable shot at 3500 innings. The wins will (mostly) be up to the Cubs but he's averaged exactly 15 a year, again almost like clockwork, since becoming a regular, so that could be pushing 270. Glavine didn't have much left after age 40 but it still added another 15 wins and 263 IP and adding that to the hypothetical Lester gives him counting stats like Mussina.

If he just lived out this contract with the Cubs, his time with the Red Sox would still be higher in IP and most likely WAR with 2 rings with Bos and at least one with Chicago. If he won a CYA with the Cubs that might even things up or it's already close enough they might leave it up to him.

The cap issue is "problematic" for several potential HoFers these days. Sheff would be a problem ... the most PA is just 2358 with Fla but more WAR in 2276 PA with the Dodgers and 6 teams with 1000+ PA. Counting stat performance virtually identical Fla vs LA, never won an MVP with anybody, made the AS team with almost everybody. It's not just that he has two teams that are tied, it's that it was only 4 seasons with either of them. Of course it's very unlikely he'll make it (it would be an odd VC that put him in) so it's likely moot.

For Rolen, Philly has a PA edge of 3600 to 2700 but it's pretty close by WAR and Rolen became a regular AS, made two WS (winning one) in StL (not that he wants voters looking at his postseason performance). We've discussed Beltran but Beltre is very close by PA right now. But Tex will have the PA edge and a big WAR, counting stat edge, AS edge, etc. Still I was surprised (i.e. #### memory) that his Seattle time is nearly 1/3 of his career. (Sea + Bos is almost exactly 1/3.)

Obviously the DBacks hope that Greinke makes a run at the HoF which will also put them in the running for his cap. CC has some work to do but right now his Cle and NY lines are virtually identical ... seriously, it's 19 more IP in Cle, 106 wins in both, 1.9 WAR edge to Cle. His CYA came in Cle. But if he does what he needs to make it, this season would put the Yanks a smidgen ahead of Cle.

On Bryant -- obviously starting your career with a ROY, a MVP, 2 AS appearances and a ring puts you on the "feels like a HoFer" radar. Another MVP in his 20s would almost push it into the "just needs to hang on long enough" territory (i.e. don't pull a Murphy). Without a second MVP, he'll almost certainly have nice counting stats in HR and RBI but it is still a long haul to 500/1500. Surely Cub fans will keep voting him into the AS game as long as he is there. Other than the tiny matter of career longevity :-), his main problem may be that he's started too well. Almost anything from this point will seem a disappointment to the national audience.

On Cubs' "most complete" player ... Russell will always be the superior defender and his Rfield (or whatever) at SS will likely always be better than Bryant's at 3B ... but Bryant is a really good OF. It's almost too bad that RF is blocked by a superstar although I'm more than happy to let him keep playing a more than solid 3B (still worry about the supposed big-guy/3B/back connection though). And Bryant is probably the better baserunner -- I know, makes no sense, one look at Russell and it seems he should fly around the bases (even if not a great base stealer ... and obviously "fly" by the standards of the non-Billy-Hamilton division). Maybe I'm prejudiced by Beane referring to Russell as the next Larkin -- Larkin was a great baserunner (apparently from day one according to the fancy stats) so I was expecting a great baserunner. (When somebody gets called the next Larkin, the reaction is of course "yeah, right" but the reaction is more that you figure there's no way a guy will hit like Larkin ... but you figure that guy is solid defensively and runs great cuz those are the easier bits to match Larkin.)
   60. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2017 at 03:52 PM (#5380537)
I suspect his only real support is going to be on 9/10 player ballots,


Nine-ten player ballots represent 71.5 percent of all ballots cast so far. If this were 2008, or 2010 or 2013, then Rolen would have a bigger problem because voters weren't using all of their slots (which is one, but not the only, reason why Lofton was one and done). But a lot of voters have been maxing out their ballots every year in response to that shutout (and, it seems, the guys most likely to max the ballot are also the ones most open to new metrics), and there's no reason to think that will stop this year.

And you're adding a clearly better candidate in Chipper, and a relatively equal one (by career WAR, which is sort of Rolen's whole case) in Thome. So does he really have a spot free for Rolen suddenly?


You could ask the same question about the current ballot and Kent or Sheffield or Sosa or Wagner. How are they going to fit on a 10-person ballot? But they have all already exceeded the level of support they're going to need to hang around for another year, despite all being worse than a dozen other candidates on this ballot by value.

This year's ballot will lose at least four players with significant support (the two locks, one of Hoffman, Rodriguez or Vlad) and Smith. It adds three players who will get varying levels of significant support (Chipper up near Bagwell-Raines territory, Thome at the Vlad level, and Vizquel, well no one knows, but probably somewhere in the Smith range). Finding room for Rolen won't be a problem for the stat-friendly voter.
   61. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 09, 2017 at 04:10 PM (#5380551)
I think I'll also take Rizzo over Bryant as the Cubs more likely next HoFer... Riz is 2-3 years older, seems to have settled into a 4-5 WAR payer, and still ought to have a good 4-6 years of prime production left, and figures to be settling into the team leader role of what looks like it will be a pretty good team for the foreseeable future. If he can keep stealing hardware from Goldschmidt, his chances become even better.


I think Sosa gets in before either retire.
   62. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 09, 2017 at 04:39 PM (#5380584)

This year's ballot will lose at least four players with significant support (the two locks, one of Hoffman, Rodriguez or Vlad) and Smith. It adds three players who will get varying levels of significant support (Chipper up near Bagwell-Raines territory, Thome at the Vlad level, and Vizquel, well no one knows, but probably somewhere in the Smith range). Finding room for Rolen won't be a problem for the stat-friendly voter.


But for a stat friendly voter, a 10-player ballot isn't really a 10-player ballot. Often, it's a 12, or 13, player ballot. Gene Myers loses Bagwell, Raines, Pudge, and Smith next year, let's suppose. That leaves him with six holdovers. He says he'd vote for Schilling, Walker, and McGriff without the limit. If he thinks Thome, Chipper, and Rolen are all worthy (a reasonable assumption, if he's going to vote for Rolen) then he's considering 12 guys for 10 spots. Same with say, Mike Harrington. If he gains spots from Raines, Bagwell, and Pudge being off the ballot, and he'd have voted for Schilling and Hoffman with room, and he likes Thome, Chipper, and Rolen, he's considering 12 players for 10 spots.

I simply think there's more of these voters out there than we think and that, if only four guys leave the ballot, Rolen is going to get squeezed
   63. JohnQ Posted: January 09, 2017 at 04:44 PM (#5380593)
There's about 80 players with 55+ WAR not in the HOF. This would be the teams most likely on a HOF cap:

Giants: Ba Bonds, Bo Bonds, W. Clark, J. Kent
Red Sox: Clemens, Dw Evans, L. Tiant, R. Smith, Manny, D. Ortiz
Browns/Orioles: Mussina, U. Shocker
Phillies: Schilling, C. Utley, D. Allen, S. Magee, B. Abreu
Astros: Bagwell, J. Wynn
Reds: P. Rose, S. Rolen
Cubs: B. Dahlen, R. Reuschel, S. Sosa
Tigers: L. Whitaker, A. Trammell, M. Cabrera
Rockies: L. Walker, T. Helton
Rangers: Palmeiro, B. Bell, A. Beltre, I-Rod
Angels: B. Grich, C. Finley, F. Tananna
Expos: Raines, Vlad
Mariners: Edgar, Ichiro
Dodgers: K. Brown, W. Davis, G. Sheffield, O. Hershiser, C. Kershaw
Indians: K. Lofton, J. Thome, W. Ferrell, G. Uhle, C.C. Sabathia
Yankees: G. Nettles, W. Randolph, D. Cone, A-Rod, D. Jeter, R. Cano, M. Rivera, A. Pettitte.
Cardinals: S. Rolen, K. Boyer, J. Edmonds, K. Hernandez, A. Pujols
White Sox: Shoeless Joe, T. John, E. Cicotte, R. Ventura, C. Lemon, M. Buehrle
A's: M. McGwire, S. Bando, B. Johnson, T. Hudson
Blues: J. Glasscock
Royals: B. Saberhagen, K. Appier, J. Damon, Z. Grienke.
Braves: Da Evans, A. Jones, C. Jones
Blue Jays: J. Olerud, D. Steib, R. Halladay
Mets: C. Beltran

None: Pirates, Pilots/Brewers, Padres, D-Rays, D-Backs, Senators 1/Twins.

Catchers are usually a bit lower because of the position here's 50 WAR catchers:

Cards-T. Simmons
Senators 1/Twins: J. Mauer

The Pirates are a bit surprising not having a 55+ WAR guy not in the HOF. They've been pretty good about getting guys elected. Wilbur Cooper would be the next at 53.8 WAR.














   64. Walt Davis Posted: January 09, 2017 at 04:54 PM (#5380603)
On Rolen, SoSH's points, some of the other points ... all good points. It's probably right that for some voters, WAR is becoming enough of a milestone that something like 65-70 WAR will at least keep you on the ballot. Or having a good placement in JAWS or whatever readily available JAWS-style rankings might be available in the future. I suppose 20-25 years from now we'll start seeing voters citing Statcast data.

On changing voting patterns though ... new voters aren't quite the godsend some people seem to think. It is of course hard to say what the electorate will look like in the future (and various voting eligibility rules, etc. can change) but somebody tossed out the idea of 150 new voters over a 10-year period. Sounds about right.** Let's say it's a total voting pool of 450, a bit larger than today (depends if they add more than they lose ... presumably yes, since organizations like to grow).

At 450 voters, a player needs 338 to get across. Even if all 150 vote for Beltran (or Rolen or Ian Kinsler or whoever), he still needs nearly 63% support of the remaining 300 voters to get to 75%. Obviously doable but still meaning that Beltran would have been on a HoF track even with the old electorate. If we doubt that Beltran would have a real shot if on the ballot today***, we don't think that he'd poll 60% plus with today's voters ... so it takes a leap of faith to expect him to do so in the future. And obviously under the more likely scenario that 85-90% of the 150 support Beltran, he would need 68-70% support from the rest.

And while this year's new voters have a fairly strong "saber" bent (more a pro-Bonds and Clemens bent than we've seen in the past), when I look over the last 3 years of new voters using Ryan's spreadsheet, they don't seem that far out of line with the regular voters. They're generally higher on Raines, Schilling and Mussina ... but not major supporters of Walker, Edgar, Sheff, Sosa or Manny and just about as likely to support Hoffman. They are probably closer to "us" but not in lock step and not generally enough to do much more than help push a guy over. (Using our hypothetical, 80% support from 1/3 of the electorate still requires 73% from the rest.)

It takes 10 years of BBWAA membership just to qualify. Most saber-heavy writers are still 5+ years away from eligibility. There was that one year when they made a big push to add internet writers so maybe there's a big year of saber influx ahead of us, but for the most part they'll trickle in. Still, we're probably at least 20 years away from half the electorate being "raised" on saber stuff. What's been more promising from a saber perspective is the number of veteran voters citing WAR, etc. The power of easily available numbers -- most of them probably don't have a clue what the numbers really mean but, as QB ratings and college sports polls and Nate Silver's and others' election projections show, if some numeric ranking/estimate can get wide enough exposure, folks will cite it like a meaningful fact whether it is or not. (That's not a knock on WAR or other numbers, other than QB ratings ... it's a knock on how people use/trust numbers whether they understand where they come from or not. They especially like single number rankings over having to consider how best to combine rankings on different dimensions into one. Anyway, I think that's the way most current voters who use WAR are using WAR. I'm sure it's also the case that they'll believe WAR/JAWS when it confirms their belief and argue against it when it doesn't. Not that I'm any different. I can't wait to see what they say when Jeter hits the ballot and they see how relatively low JAWS ranks him.)

** With the future of newspapers, what a "sports writer" is, what "covers baseball" means over the next 10 years and beyond ... who knows how many new writers will meet the criteria for membership. So they'll change those criteria as necessary with who knows what effect.

*** It is a good point about the strength of future ballots. There will be a solid stream of good candidates (Chipper, Thome, Rivera, Jeter, Ortiz, Ichiro, Beltran, Beltre, Pujols not too far behind) but not a lot of great secondary candidates (Halladay, Rolen spring to mind). Combined with the 10-year limit, if Beltran (say) doesn't make it 1st ballot, he'll almost certainly be the top guy in the backlog and probably over 50% due to a lack of competition if nothing else. I don't think the full ballot phenomenon will survive much longer.

Here's the top 15 in position player WAR for players whose "final year" was 2011 to 2015 (plus Omar who is #17).

Chipper, Jeter -- easy 1st ballot
Pudge, Thome, Vlad -- possible 1st ballot, easy election
Rolen, Manny -- will eat some votes but I don't think will ever come close
Andruw, Omar, Torii -- could do surprisingly well but I don't think will ever make it
Helton, Abreu, Damon, Berkman, Giambi, Tejada -- probably one and done, maybe somebody hangs around 10-20%

Now those born 1981 or earlier (upcoming retirements):

Pujols, Beltre, Ichiro, Ortiz -- 1st ballot or easy election
ARod -- the last roid hero
Beltran -- a topic of discussion
Utley -- the only other one over 60 WAR

Note in Ichiro and Ortiz they'll already be electing two guys under 60 WAR. 8th in WAR in this group is Tex, followed by Rollins (maybe a surprise), Holliday, Granderson (see Hunter?), Zobrist ... then Carl Crawford is still top 15 and we're under 40 WAR.

Obviously things are more grim on the pitching side -- Mo, Halladay, Pettitte and Hudson are the top retired pitching candidates coming up; CC, Felix, Greinke, Verlander, Hamels might age their way gracefully into consideration; Kershaw is a lock.

As to the current ballot, by the time Ichiro comes on (assuming at least one PA this year), all of the currently viable candidates except possibly Mussina will be gone one way or the other. Either as top back-logger or as best debut candidate, Beltran might have the 2024 ballot all to himself.

Contradicting some things I've written before, this isn't really an issue for the HoF -- enough qualified candidates to keep them flowing at least one per year and do they really care if an Omar or Hudson makes it through "undeservedly?" But from an HoF standards perspective or a history of the game perspective, it could be if it pushes through a lot of the undeserving. It won't necessarily do that -- as I said, there will be a steady flow, the BBWAA won't be under pressure to push guys through -- but historically voters have a tendency to vote based on the names in front of them. That is, it's less about how Omar compares historically as it is about whether he's one of the top 4-5 candidates on a ballot. The full ballot phenomenon might be about to pass but I don't think it's going to be replaced by the 2-man ballot phenomenon.

So I do expect paeans to Omar's brilliant defense and Rollins' tough leadership and Hunter's excellent all-around game and it's almost certainly the best thing that could happen to Andruw's candidacy (nice WAR, good JAWS rank could help him stand out on weak ballots). Halladay will have an open field for his last 5-6 years on the ballot, more if Schilling and Mussina can get out of the way fast enough. (I think Halladay belongs on a peak argument and I won't object if Andruw makes it.)
   65. DanG Posted: January 09, 2017 at 05:17 PM (#5380623)
I won't object if Andruw makes it
Andruw will be lucky to avoid one and done. He's 5th in line among next year's newbies.
   66. Zach Posted: January 09, 2017 at 06:22 PM (#5380661)
He has Yordano Ventura for the Royals, which is a big reach when Salvy Perez is sitting right there.
   67. Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan Posted: January 09, 2017 at 06:28 PM (#5380666)
Magee might be the one with all the WAR, but Magie is a lot more valuable.
   68. Booey Posted: January 09, 2017 at 06:28 PM (#5380667)
Andruw will be lucky to avoid one and done. He's 5th in line among next year's newbies.


Plus his entire case - and it's still only borderline, even by SABR stats - revolves around defense. Offensively I think he'll be seen as a major disappointment. Like Juan Gone, Andruw was a guy that felt like he might hit 600 homers, but didn't even reach 450.
   69. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 09, 2017 at 07:01 PM (#5380687)
Plus his entire case - and it's still only borderline, even by SABR stats - revolves around defense


And as pointed out in another thread, he's 100+ runs better then Mays. Now that may be so, but I'm guessing it's pretty unlikely so the defensive stats still need to be considered with a little bit of scepticism.
   70. Danny Posted: January 09, 2017 at 07:52 PM (#5380702)
Andruw had 57.9 WAR through age 29. The only position players in the history of baseball with more WAR through age 29 who are not in the Hall are Bonds (66.2), Pujols (73.6), and A-Rod (80.5).

He has a pretty good peak/prime case.
   71. JJ1986 Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:08 PM (#5380707)
And as pointed out in another thread, he's 100+ runs better then Mays. Now that may be so, but I'm guessing it's pretty unlikely so the defensive stats still need to be considered with a little bit of scepticism.
Aren't defensive stats compared to average, though? He might not have been nearly that much better than Willie; it might be that other CFs in the 50s and 60s were picked more for their defense than CFs in the late 90s and 00s.
   72. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:22 PM (#5380714)
Andruw had 57.9 WAR through age 29. The only position players in the history of baseball with more WAR through age 29 who are not in the Hall are Bonds (66.2), Pujols (73.6), and A-Rod (80.5).

He has a pretty good peak/prime case.


Eh. That's a fancy way of saying he has a 10 year peak of 57.9 WAR. I'll bet lots of non-HOF players have a similar 10 year WAR total. First one I thought of is Sammy Sosa, who had 54 from 1993-2002.

Graig Nettles - 54.4
Ken Boyer - 56.8
Sal Bando - 56.4
Dick Allen - 54.4
Bobby Grick - 55.3
Chase Utley - 59.4

Add in the fact that he did very little beyond that (4.9 WAR outside of those years), and that those numbers are dependent on incredible, almost unbelievable defensive numbers, and his candidacy is a real stretch.


   73. QLE Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:53 PM (#5380775)
Eh. That's a fancy way of saying he has a 10 year peak of 57.9 WAR. I'll bet lots of non-HOF players have a similar 10 year WAR total. First one I thought of is Sammy Sosa, who had 54 from 1993-2002.


Quite- there are, by my count, at least three dozen position players with a 10 year peak of over 50 WAR not in the HOF, and, while in most cases I'd regard this as enough, the fact that it is so heavily dependent on that much of a defensive peak makes it dubious- he becomes borderline if he was merely as good as Willie Mays, and out of the HOF entirely if only as good as Kenny Lofton.
   74. Walt Davis Posted: January 10, 2017 at 04:44 PM (#5381190)
Andruw is a test case of the influence of WAR, b-r, JAWS, fangraphs, etc. He certainly has enough WAR to merit at least 5%. JAWS puts him 10th all-time in CF -- granted behind Beltran and Lofton but with 3 HoFers right behind in Ashburn, Dawson and Hamilton. You've also got Doby and Puckett (and other early) HoFers further down. Obviously WAR/JAWS didn't do #### for Lofton a couple of years back so it may indeed not help Andruw.

It is obviously understandable to be suspicious about his Rfield. But we know he won 10 GG, tied with Griffey, behind Mays. His defensive value was recognized by the supposed experts within the game. Being a Cub fan, I never had the pleasure of watching excellent CF defense on a regular basis, so my eyeball test is pretty limited but I can say that Andruw is the best I've ever seen and I don't consider it particularly close (White, Pettis, Blair are probably second ... how I ever got to see enough of Pettis to form an opinion I don't know, maybe he was just so crazy good the few times I saw him that the impression stuck). Note, prime Mays is way before my time as a baseball fan but I was at least baseball-conscious for Blair's prime ... again, I wouldn't have seen much of him and I was young, no doubt influenced by TWIB, announcers, GG awards, etc. more than actual eyeball.

I won't be surprised either if he's one and done. But if the changes that folks say they want to see are underway, he should survive and then, as the ballot thins, he should rise. I didn't think Manny had a chance at 5% because of the roid tests and being perceived as a jerk and he's gonna cruise way past that. I had serious doubts that Sosa would survive the super-crowded ballots yet here he is. As far as I'm concerned, Andruw has a better case than Kent. Walker is growing, Edgar is growing, Schilling would still be growing if he'd kept his mouth shut. On the other hand, Lofton and Edmonds ...
   75. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 10, 2017 at 09:43 PM (#5381389)
Maybe, but Rolen will be facing similarly packed ballots as Edmonds, Lofton, and Posada. He's better than them, but I doubt most the voters will see it.


I'm not 100% sold on the idea that Rolen was better than Edmonds (stats from B-R):

1. WAR credits Edmonds 60.3 career wins, and 32 in his 5-year peak, pretty much the definition of borderline. Though Rolen's best season (2004) is far better (9.1 WAR) than Edmonds', and his career WAR is 10 higher, there's no way to get a 5-year peak that high. 7-year is probably more forgiving to Rolen.

2. The entire difference in career WAR comes from defense. Both men played 17 years, and Jedmo has the advantage in oWAR, 56.7 - 52.1. On a season-by season basis, that's pretty much a wash. But WAR credits Rolen with 20.6 defensive wins, and Edmonds with 5.9. I don't know exactly what the positional adjustments are -- they clearly favor Edmonds, on the whole, given that the difference in their defensive WAR is almost 14 wins and their difference in overall WAR is about 10 -- but given the wooliness of defensive statistics (especially in the pre-statcast era), I'm just not sure I buy the idea that Rolen's glove makes up that much ground on Edmonds. Both men won 8 GG. Even accepting the idea that Edmonds was overrated by his contemporaries, and that Rolen was an historically-good 3B, I'm not sure I find that difference wholly creditable.

3. Both men played 17 years. The difference between them is less than six-tenths of a win per season. That's the kind of margin that, on a single-season basis, is easily written off as an artifact of noise. Over the course of a 17-year career, is a 10-win difference (A) easier to accept because of the larger sample size, or (B) more likely to fall within the margin of error? I genuinely don't know. But it gives me doubt.

I must, of course, confess to my biases: I've been a fan of Mr Edmonds for a long time. So I'm probably engaging in motivated reasoning. But might it also be convincing reasoning?
   76. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:41 PM (#5381417)
I think Andruw hangs around on the ballot for awhile without even getting close to election. For the old timey guys, 10 GG and 400+ homers from a CF are pretty glitzy numbers.

I'm still not buying that he's 100 runs better then Mays and totally blows out of the water guys like Blair and Pettis(guys I am old enough to have seen enough on TV and such from the olden days). Jones was fantastic in CF, but so were the other guys we've all named, I'm just not sure if he can actually be THAT much better.

Ironically he would've been a terrific bus candidate if sometime in Dec. 2007 he'd fallen under one. Sure the average cratered but still popped 26 dingers and nabbed a GG. Those things matter to the voters.
   77. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:52 PM (#5381426)
I'm still not buying that he's 100 runs better then Mays and totally blows out of the water guys like Blair and Pettis(guys I am old enough to have seen enough on TV and such from the olden days).


Yeah, this is one of those things that could, theoretically, be true, but seems extremely unlikely. Even if he's one of the greatest fielders of all time, the other greatest fielders of all time should be in his neighborhood. Ruth, Bonds, and Williams are all hanging around the same space. There's no reason to believe that Jones should bury Mays as deeply as the stats say he does.
   78. cardsfanboy Posted: January 10, 2017 at 10:56 PM (#5381431)
I'm not 100% sold on the idea that Rolen was better than Edmonds (stats from B-R):


I'm not sold either, but Rolen ranks a bit better to his positional group, than Edmonds does to his "voter perceived positional group". (Rolen is going to be compared to third baseman, Edmonds is going to be compared to the greatest centerfielders of all time AND all corner outfielders)

3rd base is under appreciated, but I think that the stat group is going to appreciate them more, especially after the Santo election.
   79. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 11, 2017 at 09:19 AM (#5381512)
2. The entire difference in career WAR comes from defense. Both men played 17 years, and Jedmo has the advantage in oWAR, 56.7 - 52.1. On a season-by season basis, that's pretty much a wash. But WAR credits Rolen with 20.6 defensive wins, and Edmonds with 5.9. I don't know exactly what the positional adjustments are -- they clearly favor Edmonds, on the whole, given that the difference in their defensive WAR is almost 14 wins and their difference in overall WAR is about 10 -- but given the wooliness of defensive statistics (especially in the pre-statcast era), I'm just not sure I buy the idea that Rolen's glove makes up that much ground on Edmonds. Both men won 8 GG. Even accepting the idea that Edmonds was overrated by his contemporaries, and that Rolen was an historically-good 3B, I'm not sure I find that difference wholly creditable.

The positional adjustment difference between 3B and CF is pretty minimal. Rolen gets 34 Rpos and Edmonds 26 for their careers (just noticed they are very close in career games at 2038 and 2011, respectively).

The defensive metrics gap between the two is large, as you point out. Rolen notches 175 rField and Edmonds 37. Some of that is better aging and an earlier retirement for Rolen. His last good fielding year was at 36 (+10); he had a 0 the next year and was done. Edmonds put up a -19 from 36 to 40. But most of it is Rolen having consistently better fielding numbers during their primes. Rolen had ten seasons of +10 or better, which generally matches up with his reputation. Edmonds had good fielding numbers but only one +10 season. If rField severely underrates Edmonds, he makes up that difference. That's possible and perhaps suggested by all the GGs. But that would be a massive correction which vaults Edmonds past guys like Kenny Lofton (108 rField in 2103 games) or Griffey Jr. (73 in 1685 games for SEA). I don't put Edmonds in that category.

   80. Booey Posted: January 11, 2017 at 11:28 AM (#5381596)
For the old timey guys, 10 GG and 400+ homers from a CF are pretty glitzy numbers.


Maybe, but that's only slightly more of each than Edmonds, and Jim Ed was clearly the much better hitter (higher AVG/OBP/SLG). I have a hard time buying that Jones was even as good as Edmonds, let alone better.

Yeah, this is one of those things that could, theoretically, be true, but seems extremely unlikely. Even if he's one of the greatest fielders of all time, the other greatest fielders of all time should be in his neighborhood.


This is my problem with Jones candidacy. To even get up to the borderline 60-ish WAR that he's at, you have to believe that he's the greatest center fielder of all time by a significant margin. And again, that still just gets him up to borderline. If you have even the slightest doubt about the accuracy of fielding metrics, then he drops out of the conversation entirely. Amongst CF's of his era, I'd take (obviously) Griffey, but also Beltran and Edmonds over Andruw any day, and probably Lofton. All those guys were also multiple time gold glovers, but the first 3 were also much better hitters and the latter added a ton more value on the bases. I'll pass on Jones with my super important hypothetical HOF vote for now.
   81. SoSH U at work Posted: January 11, 2017 at 11:34 AM (#5381604)
This is my problem with Jones candidacy. To even get up to the borderline 60-ish WAR that he's at, you have to believe that he's the greatest center fielder of all time by a significant margin. And again, that still just gets him up to borderline. If you have even the slightest doubt about the accuracy of fielding metrics, then he drops out of the conversation entirely. Amongst CF's of his era, I'd take (obviously) Griffey, but also Beltran and Edmonds over Andruw any day, and probably Lofton. All those guys were also multiple time gold glovers, but the first 3 were also much better hitters and the latter added a ton more value on the bases. I'll pass on Jones with my super important hypothetical HOF vote for now.


Same here. I think it's possible he's the best defensive centerfielder who ever lived, though I wouldn't bet on it. I don't believe it's possible he laps the rest of the field.
   82. Booey Posted: January 11, 2017 at 11:57 AM (#5381624)
Plus he spells his first name weird. That always annoyed me.

You too, Jayson Werth.*

* The exception is Chone Figgins, who spells his name SO weird that it's actually kinda cool.
   83. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 11, 2017 at 02:09 PM (#5381752)
And as pointed out in another thread, he's 100+ runs better then Mays. Now that may be so, but I'm guessing it's pretty unlikely so the defensive stats still need to be considered with a little bit of scepticism.

Sure, but there is a huge data gap, when it comes to defensive metrics. The older they are, the less data there is to work with, the more cautious people are in their estimates, and the more heavily outliers are regressed. Is Andruw 100 runs better than Mays because he is high, or because Mays is low? Go and look at Mays' rfield totals. To me, they look very low, for somebody who is in the conversation for best defensive CF ever. A 21, a 20, 7 more in the teens... 14 seasons under 10 runs! Including full seasons at age 20, 24, 26, and 28.

When I see Andruw as 100 runs better than Mays, I see that primarily as an issue, because Mays' numbers seem so low.

ETA: And now that I actually checked Andruw's numbers, he is at 236 rfield, to Mays 185. That's half the difference I was promised! Where is the 100+ runs coming from?
   84. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:02 PM (#5381806)
And now that I actually checked Andruw's numbers, he is at 236 rfield, to Mays 185. That's half the difference I was promised! Where is the 100+ runs coming from?


I was going to say, maybe the original comment was pro-rating the numbers, but the math doesn't add up there, and if you look at Mays through age 35 you get 186 rField so it's not like they were looking at equivalent ages. The closest I can come up with is that the poster was looking at Andruw's peak (19-26 Where Andruw had 183 rfield and Mays 20-28 had 76 rField(in about 40 fewer games)

edit: which seems absurd, that over about 1100 games, Jones was 100 runs better than Mays defensively.
   85. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 11, 2017 at 03:37 PM (#5381858)
edit: which seems absurd, that over about 1100 games, Jones was 100 runs better than Mays defensively.

I don't disagree, but again, I think that is primarily because of Mays' numbers. I am more suspicious of those, than of Jones'. If I told you that one of the (if not the) best defensive CF's of all time, over those mentioned 20-28 age seasons, put up: 8, 4, 21, 7, 13, 4, 15, 4, I think most people would react with "is that all?". I mean he can't get into double digits more often than not?

The fact that Mays seemed to get a lot better as a fielder from age 29+ is also a little suspicious. That is not really supposed to happen, defense peaks early. Also, comparing one guys absolute peak, to another guy's non-peak is inherently problematic.
   86. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 04:25 PM (#5381915)
The fact that Mays seemed to get a lot better as a fielder from age 29+ is also a little suspicious. That is not really supposed to happen, defense peaks early. Also, comparing one guys absolute peak, to another guy's non-peak is inherently problematic.


What was the history with the stadiums? Giants played in the Polo grounds in 1957, Seals Stadium in 1958, and then Candlestick in 1960, not sure if any of those would have changed the way defense was credited.
   87. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 11, 2017 at 05:16 PM (#5381975)
What was the history with the stadiums? Giants played in the Polo grounds in 1957, Seals Stadium in 1958, and then Candlestick in 1960, not sure if any of those would have changed the way defense was credited.

Well they are supposed to be park adjusted, but how well that works in practice, I couldn't say.

However, when using the phrase "the way defense was credited" I do want to stress that we are not dealing with PBP info or anything remotely sophisticated in the pre-1989 era. The player will get "credit" for every out made (basically range factor). And then he will get a portion of negative "credit" for every hit allowed, based on which position that batter happens to normally makes out against. If a batter makes an out to short 30% of the time, and to CF 15% of the time, then the SS will get 0.3 hits credited, and the CF 0.15, whenever that batter gets a hit. And obviously the way through for all 9 poistions, based on that batters tendencies. If the batter makes an out to short 20% of the time, and to CF 25% of the time, then the SS gets 0.2 hits credited, and the CF 0.25. And so on. I hope the limits and flaws of such a system are fairly obvious.
   88. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 05:26 PM (#5381985)
Well they are supposed to be park adjusted, but how well that works in practice, I couldn't say.


That is the issue, the Polo Grounds was a huge park at certain spots, but still played as a neutral park, and as we have seen with Fenway, irregular parks do have a tendency to overstate defense(either positive or negative)

As far as my 'defense was credited'. It was a continuation of the concept I mention above, that it's possible that some of these parks played different that helped or hurt a player like Mays, and that since he jumped around so many parks in such a short time span, that we can't really begin to figure out whether it was a one season discrepancy or an accurate gauge of his ability.

1956 he posts a 13 rField in the Polo grounds, 1957 a 4 in the Polo Grounds, jumps to Seal stadium and posts a 15 rfield, followed by a 4 the next season, then moves to Candlestick and routinely posts 12-20 rField. It's possible that those off years was just a weird year on balls in play or something as he became consistent once he reached Candlestick, it's also possible that he was the Bret Saberhagen of defenders up until his age 29 season

age-rfield
23-21 (Polo Grounds)
24-7
25-13
26-4
27-15 (Seals stadium)
28-4
29-14.... (Candlestick)

Either way, for a guy with his reputation, it does feel like he's about 10 rField per season below where he should be.
   89. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 11, 2017 at 05:31 PM (#5381989)
That is the issue, the Polo Grounds was a huge park at certain spots, but still played as a neutral park, and as we have seen with Fenway, irregular parks do have a tendency to overstate defense(either positive or negative)

Yes I understand that, what I was trying to stress, is that a huge part of the evaluation, is based entirely based on team defense, and who the batter is, with the actual location of the hit being a complete non-consideration. And the rest of it is range factor.

Either way, for a guy with his reputation, it does feel like he's about 10 rField per season below where he should be.

Which is basically the main point I was trying to make. It doesn't really matter where the shortfall came from, but it does not seem fair to hold it against an entirely different player.
   90. cardsfanboy Posted: January 11, 2017 at 05:44 PM (#5381994)
Which is basically the main point I was trying to make. It doesn't really matter where the shortfall came from, but it does not seem fair to hold it against an entirely different player.


Good point, it's not that Andruw is overrated, it's more likely that Mays and a few others are underrated by rField, and if that is the case, then it's arguable that Andruw's War number is closer to correct. (mind you, there are valid reasons to think that Andruw is overrated defensive for other reasons, but IF the argument is that Mays is 50 rField inferior and that doesn't pass the smell test, it does seem more likely that it is because Mays is undervalued by rField, not that Jones is overvalued)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCC Sabathia went from lowest low to highest high in two weeks | New York Post
(15 - 12:35am, Aug 21)
Last: Lars6788

NewsblogJeffrey Loria has ‘no sad feelings whatsoever’ about selling the Marlins - Sun Sentinel
(9 - 12:07am, Aug 21)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogOTP 14 August 2014: The American Pastimes of Rock ’n’ Roll, Baseball and Poetry
(2841 - 12:04am, Aug 21)
Last: Srul Itza At Home

NewsblogMLBTR: Dodgers Acquire Curtis Granderson
(27 - 11:57pm, Aug 20)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

NewsblogMLB umpire protest: Umps unlikely to get sympathy from fans | SI.com
(18 - 11:37pm, Aug 20)
Last: Robert S.

NewsblogAin't no WEEKEND OMNICHATTER until someone gets punched in the face, for August 19-20, 2017
(257 - 10:06pm, Aug 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogDaren Willman:"Breaking down the quality of contact chart (exit velocity / launch angle)
(3 - 9:53pm, Aug 20)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

NewsblogReusse: Twins' altercation in 1967? Part about a gun on team bus was avoided
(1 - 9:34pm, Aug 20)
Last: winnipegwhip

NewsblogOT-NBA off season thread
(1809 - 9:29pm, Aug 20)
Last: 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em

Sox TherapyThe Gauntlet
(77 - 8:46pm, Aug 20)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogJake Arrieta is pitching like an ace again — just in time for free agency - Chicago Tribune
(9 - 7:57pm, Aug 20)
Last: Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com

Gonfalon CubsNow or Never
(106 - 7:06pm, Aug 20)
Last: Andere Richtingen

NewsblogOT: New Season August 2017 Soccer Thread
(159 - 7:00pm, Aug 20)
Last: SPICEY WITH A SIDE OF BEER ON A BABYYYYYYY

NewsblogArthur: Buster Posey Has Quietly Become A Lock For Cooperstown
(114 - 6:18pm, Aug 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogGregg Olson: Orioles' emphasis on talented, structured bullpens is nothing new - Baltimore Sun
(4 - 5:23pm, Aug 20)
Last: Sunday silence

Page rendered in 1.1401 seconds
47 querie(s) executed