Just once I wish the authors of such pieces would preface their arguments with their visualization of the ideal size of the Hall. Looking at RFers, and extrapolating to the overall size of the Hall, do you draw the line at Clemente and Waner, inclusive (100 overall electees) Winfield and Heilmann (into gray area now, 160), or Cuyler and Klein (300 members)? Once you do that I can then pay attention to your arguments. I'd guess this guy is a small hall type, but he really needs to spell that out in the first paragraph.

"8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

This is where it gets tricky...the HOF tests put him in the middle of the pack, but realistically, the only HOF caliber numbers he has are his home runs and RBIs. His career OPS is not that impressive...he trails, among others, Moises Alou, Bobby Abreu, Jim Edmonds, and Nomar Garciaparra in career OPS. He's not in the top 100 in career hits. He's got the homers, but almost nothing else."

Taking Abreu at random, the following HoF RFers have worse OPS+ than Abreu:

Paul Waner
Willie Keeler
Al Kaline
Enos Slaughter
Dave Winfield

Because Abreu is now (apparently) entering his decline phase, while everyone else had to play through theirs, including Sammy (128). Winfield's at 129 and I don't/didn't hear any complaints about his election.

I'll bet he has never heard of the "small hall/big hall" argument.

the only HOF caliber numbers he has are his home runs and RBIs

600 HRs. Everything else is a footnote, which tells the limits of the Keltner test.

Just once I wish the authors of such pieces would preface their arguments with their visualization of the ideal size of the Hall.

I used to be an extreme small-Hall guy but I've come around to the point of view that the Hall of Fame is the size that the Hall of Fame is and while it's perfectly reasonable to argue that there are guys on the outside (e.g., Santo, Blyleven) better than guys on the inside (e.g., Traynor, Hunter), you should more or less take the overall size of the Hall of Fame as a given in these debates.

That said, one thing I've noticed as the Hall of Merit project nears completion is just how big the Hall of Fame is. For example, the Hall of Merit elected Keith Hernandez on the first ballot. From the comments I read, I think that people were accurately assessing Hernandez's value and his election wasn't a "mistake" in any sense, but I'll be damned if I'd ever thought of Keith Hernandez as being a Hall-of-Famer.

His career OPS is not that impressive

That's not only because he's gone through a decline phase in 2005 and 2007 but also because he spent four years in the major leagues as a below-average hitting toolsy outfielder. His first season as an above-average hitter was 1993 at age 24 when he put up an OPS+ of 108. That's a perfectly reasonable figure for a 24-year-old rookie. The problem is Sosa was already in his 5th season that year and had 1,411 plate appearances before then.

If you're going to use career rate stats to evaluate Sosa's HOF resume, then I think to be fair you really should start his "career" in 1993 or, at the earliest, 1992.

You'd have to have a pretty damn small Hall not to include Sammy....

Kiko..that is exactly the point I was going to make. From 1993-2003 Sosa hit ,.287/.362/.581 .943 OPS

In those 11 seasons he played in 1618 games, hit 502 homers, and drove in 1309 runs while scoring 1135. Just because we all know that RBI are overrated doesn't mean they have no value, and when the numbers are THIS high, they mean something. That coupled with his .943 and everything he meant to the game during his peak, before the great "disillusionment" is plenty enough for me.

600 homers is a lot of homers. It's not his only career value, but even if it were, it's enough.

The only argument against him is the steroids thing. Otherwise he is a surefire HOF.

I think articles like this are an overreaction to the MSM's misunderstanding of Sosa's degree of "HOFness". He's a HOFer like Hank Greenberg, or Dick Allen, rather than a HOFer like Bonds or Griffey.

If men told their grandchildren about a legendary figure named Sammy Sosa who entered this thing called the "Hall of Fame", even though he either hadn't really entered it, or both were too far lost in the mists of time to prove that he had, then you could say there was a "Hall of Famer Sammy Sosa myth". As it stands right now there's merely a "Hall of Famer Sammy Sosa preconception".

And yes, I'm being nitpicky, but only because I find the article's premise to be ridiculous, and I get the sense he's being contrary just to be contrary here. You can make the case that he's not Inner Circle, unlike all the other 600 HR hitters, but if you can't put Sammy Freakin' Sosa in the Hall of Fame, you might as well tear it down.

Anyone else dead tired of the Keltner list?

Jesus H. Christ. Now I just read the article and find it even more stupid.

Egregious example:

2. Was he the best player on his team?
Until 1998, Mark Grace was probably the best player on what were generally not very good Cubs teams. From 1998 through 2002, he was the best player on the Cubs, although only one of those teams (the 1998 team) was a playoff team. On the first place 2003 Cubs team, he was, at best, the fourth best player on the team, behind Mark Prior, Kerry Wood and Carlos Zambrano. Alex Gonzalez was also ahead of him that season in WARP.

So Sosa was the best player on his team for a stretch of five years, and otherwise was not.

Here's how that question should have gone:

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes.

Another one:

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Other than from 1998 through 2002, the answer is an easy "no."

Yes, an easy no - other than the four years where the answer was YES!!!

I especially like the end, where he sums up "So...under the Keltner test, Sosa appears to be a fringe HOFer, at best, rather than the slam-dunk HOFer that many seem to consider him."

Yes, if you cherrypick numbers, ignore past standards, and squint really, really hard, you can turn Sosa from a slam-dunk HOFer into a borderline case. Good show, Commander!

I wonder what percentage of Hall of Famers were the best player on their team for more than 5 years and the best at their position for more than 4.

Incidently, Grace and Sosa's OPS+ for their years together through 1997:

Grace: 127, 130, 106, 143, 127, 126
Sammy: 98, 108, 127, 123, 128, 99

Now, Grace was slick with the glove, but in those years Sammy was no slouch in right, either. I doubt he was below average defensively. I'd wager his VORP was better as well. Certainly he had more value on the basepaths. So, I'd say he was better than Grace (and probably the best player on the Cubs) in '94 and '96, as well as 1998 on.

Grace is pretty much the face of the Hall of the Very Good. I say it's a pretty good mark in Sosa's favor that his younger days compare favorably with Grace's peak.

He's a HOFer like Hank Greenberg, or Dick Allen

Or maybe like Nolan Ryan? Sosa is most famous for 600 HR and for hitting 60 three times -- when you consider that 60 has only been reached eight times and Sosa has three of those, it's a very impressive feat. So he has some extreme single-season totals and an extreme career total in a marquee stat, as Ryan did in strikeouts -- in the context of a long career as an obviously very good player much of the time. (Ryan's a little more extreme than Sosa, granted.)

You could argue that both Ryan and Sosa have been overrated in the media; people do argue that constantly. But their achievements really are unique, and they're unique in an important way, not Vandermeer- or Wambsganss-unique.

But obviously, with a Hall around its current size, Sosa is well within the bounds.

But 600 home runs is no different than hitting 300 dingers fifty years ago! Gil Hodges would have had 700!!!

:-)

I watched Sosa's entire Cubs career, and I never had the sense that I was seeing a great player. And this is in spite of my being very aware of his numbers at the time I was watching him. He rarely did anything that impressed me, watching the games, other than hit homers. He was an unremarkable baserunner (he stole bases but only at a breakeven rate). He was a wild swinger who lacked discipline (he drew some walks in his big 5 year run, but only because pitchers were afraid of his power). In the field he was fast when young, but only an average fielder because he lacked instincts. He never seemed to make any 'smart' plays on offense or defense. His arm was pretty good, I guess...

And his OPS+ of 128 is a bit misleading because OPS overvalues SLG over OBA, and Sosa's OPS is somewhat lopsided on the SLG side (.344/.535).

Someone mentioned that his first 4 mediocre seasons should not be held 'against' him. But those seasons in his early 20s were an 'opportunity' given to Sosa to put up numbers, an opportunity which some other players don't get. He did what he did in those seasons.

When Duke Snider and Al Kaline were elected to the HoF in 1980, every eligible player with more than 399 career HR was in. The line seemed to be at Frank Howard; eligible with 382 HR, but not in. Over the years, that 399 number has moved up. It stayed there until Dave Kingman came along with 442 HR, and everyone KNEW he wasn't going to get in. It's moved to 462 since with Jose Canseco's retirement/blackball (depending on whether you believe Jose). It'll likely bump again to 493 in 2009 when McGriff doesn't get in. And as this crop of hitters retire, the number may bump into the low 500's.

That number will continue to bump upward, but I doubt it will ever get to 600+ without a Pete Rose/ Rafael Palmiero situation causing it. Sosa should be in.

And his OPS+ of 128 is a bit misleading because OPS overvalues SLG over OBA,

Doesn't OPS+ already take that into account?

.....Doesn't OPS+ already take that into account?
---------------------

No. It effectively weights OBA as 1.25 or so, but the most accurate weight has been shown to be around 1.8.

I wonder what percentage of Hall of Famers were the best player on their team for more than 5 years and the best at their position for more than 4.

If you look at the latter, you've got to consider Bobby Bonds a legit HOF candidate. A blurb on Bobby:

To begin with, Bonds was truly a complete player ...

Some of Bonds' most notable achievements:

* He was a 30/30 (30 home runs/30 stolen bases) man five times … tied for the all time mark with son Barry.
* He won three Gold Gloves
* He is fourth in baseball history in power/speed average*. The top five are Bonds, Rickey Henderson, Willie Mays, Barry Bonds, and Joe Morgan

Hall of Famers tend to have rare aspects to their careers. While their numbers may superficially seem similar to other players ...in reality they’re not. Bobby Bonds had a rare combination of power and speed that few players have had. Interestingly only Barry and Bobby have had careers with five 30/30 campaigns in them and have hit at least 300 home runs and 400 stolen bases.

When assessing a player’s Hall of Fame credentials you can look at it two ways: career and peak. Some players had Hall of Fame careers based on peak performance (Ralph Kiner, Sandy Koufax) while others, while never having a mind boggling peak, amassed terrific numbers over the course of their careers (Don Sutton, Paul Molitor) and of course there are the rarest of the rare: players with amazing peaks that were simply part of an equally amazing career. Bonds overall career numbers don’t scream “Hall of Fame” … he never hit 400 home runs, he didn’t garner 2000 hits, he wasn’t a career .300 hitter, he didn’t have 1500 runs or RBIs; in fact he had just over 7000 at-bats (234th all time). What about his peak? Generally, what I consider “peak” is a player’s 5-10 best seasons. In Bonds’ case, his peak ran from about 1969-78 ... 10 seasons, so he had a long peak.

Since that consisted of 71% (10 of 14 seasons) of his career, you could even say that the bulk of his career was played at a very high level.

To look a little closer at his 10 best years we’re going to take a few questions from Bill James' “Keltner List” as a guide. The results, quite frankly, surprised me:

Was he the best player in his league at his position?

Yes, from 1969-78 he lead all NL right fielders in Runs Created Above Average (205), runs (1047), stolen bases (247), walks (745), hits (1578), doubles (256), triples (56) and home runs (287), while copping a trio of Gold Gloves for fielding excellence.

Was he the best player in baseball at his position?

From 1969-78 he lead all major league right fielders in the same categories except RCAA (Reggie Jackson finished ahead in that department with 338). Throw in Bonds’ superior fielding and I think you can make a case that for a decade Bonds was the best right fielder in baseball.

Is he the best eligible player at his position not in the Hall of Fame?

At the moment … yes, however in a few years he’ll be challenged for that distinction as players like Larry Walker, Sammy Sosa, Vladimir Guerrero, Gary Sheffield, and perhaps Bobby Abreu become eligible.

So the question we have to answer is this: Is a player who, for ten years, was the best at his position, a man who is only one of two players with five 30/30 seasons and more than 300 home runs and 400 steals, the fourth best power/speed threat in baseball history, who was also a Gold Glove defender, a worthy Hall of Fame candidate?

YMMV.

Best Regards

John

Sosa averaged 34 homers a year in his 5 seasons from age 24 through age 28, which seems to set a pretty decent benchamk for the kind of performance you could expect from him going forward.

Then he averaged 58 homers a years in his 5 seasons from age 29 through age 33. Somehow I have hard time reconciling his adding 25 homers a year for five seasons with the notion that his ultimate numbers suggest election to the Hall of Fame. Subtract those 125 homers and now he's a guy falling short of 500 homers, with an OPS+ probably 10 points lower...

#21. Let me get this straight, if you subtract out the "extra" from his peak numbers then his whole career is average and then presto he really doesn't belong. Gee I wonder what would happen if you did that to Sandy Koufax's career - he isn't a HOF worthy player either I bet.

What a great idea, take the first five years of every players career, make an average of that, and ignore everything else. Heck why have them even play more than five years? Every player should have five years to establish themselves as a hall of famer, if they fail, then they are out.

Brilliant!

I wonder what percentage of Hall of Famers were the best player on their team for more than 5 years and the best at their position for more than 4.

I mentioned Winfield in the OP, but it was 1:00 at night and I was happily tired after Clay's no-no. Here's a very quick rundown of Winfield using the KT:

1. Best player in baseball? MVP seasons? All Star?

I'd have to say no. In his 3 best seasons (1979, 1984, 1988) there was always someone a bit better (who was also better in the years before and after), and he wasn't really robbed at all. Tough standard. 12 time All Star, FWIW.

2. Best on team?

Padres: yes. Yankees: arguably, at least before Rickey and Donnie joined up. Latter part of his career? No.

3. Best at position?

Main competition was Parker, Evans, and Gwynn. So yes in some years.

4. Impact on pennants?

Surprisingly, he only made it to the postseason twice. Yankees came somewhat close in the mid-80's, but didn't make it. No real advantage over Sosa.

5. Good enough past his prime?

Yes, tho it was injury plagued, including the missing 1989 season. Had a 137 OPS+ at age 40.

6. Very best outside the Hall (discussing from the viewpoint of his first year of eligibility)? Best at his position?

Santo & Minoso are the top two position players not in (I won't bring up Dick Allen here): Minoso is comparable if you give credit for the color barrier. So, arguably.

7. Most comparable in Hall?

Yes. Nobody with 1833 RBIs is outside looking in.

8. HoF standards?

Black Ink was only 4, oddly enough. "HoF Standards" tho is 55.4, 47th all time (Sosa BTW is 50.8, 70th).

9. Evidence he was better or worse?

None that I can think of. Excellent defensive OFer in his prime, with a gun for an arm, if that hasn't been counted yet. Some whisperings from some quarters that he wasn't "clutch", which in his case is just sour grapes.

13. If he was best on team, could they win it all?

In his prime, arguably, even tho he only did it once (and then he was like 2nd best, behind Alomar).

14. Impact on history and sportsmanship?

He killed a seagull once. Other than that had a rep of a gentleman and "elder statesman".


Very comparable outcome to Sosa, so I guess we have to revoke Winfield's election.

Anyone else dead tired of the Keltner list?

Is the Keltner List good enough that it can be used regularly after passing its prime?

Let me get this straight, if you subtract out the "extra" from his peak numbers then his whole career is average and then presto he really doesn't belong.

My implicit point was that Sosa's leap in performance from a 34-homer-a-year guy to a 58-homer-a-year guy was not a "natural" occurrence, and if his career HR total is the main argument for his HoF inclusion (unlike, say, a more well-rounded player like Barry Bonds), then you had to look at that total in the context of PEDs, and if you correct for that (which is why I called those "extra" homers) then Sosa becomes more like a 475-homer guy. Similarly, if you "correct" Bonds' HR totals, you still have a guy with more than 600 homers.

Should a 475-homer guy be Hall-worthy? Maybe, maybe not. Should a 600-homer guy be Hall-worthy? To me, that's the Sosa case... He's a 475-homer guy who "somehow" hit 600 homers, and I think you have to consider the environment in which he hit them... If 600 is the new 475, then 600 isn't, on its own, a sure-fire HoF number.

Some great arguments here. I agree that Sammy is squarely in the Nolan Ryan class of HOFer. Great counting stats, but a look at other numbers (lack of walks and AVG for Sammy, too many walks for Ryan) shows some serious flaws in their games--flaws that you hate to see in a Hall of Famer.

Kiko, you wrote:

That's not only because he's gone through a decline phase in 2005 and 2007 but also because he spent four years in the major leagues as a below-average hitting toolsy outfielder. His first season as an above-average hitter was 1993 at age 24 when he put up an OPS+ of 108. That's a perfectly reasonable figure for a 24-year-old rookie. The problem is Sosa was already in his 5th season that year and had 1,411 plate appearances before then.

While that is a legitimate point, you have to wonder how much developing in the Majors rather than at AA helped the finished product. Additionally, if you remove those seasons (in order to improve his rate stats), you also lose out on 69 (and counting) home runs. Given everything else about Sammy, to include the PED allegations, does he get in with 540 dingers? Or does that become the new bar mentioned by p8p?

My view: I didn't like the guy. I thought his media persona during all of 1998 was a sickening act. I am suspicious that a guy who never hit more than 40 HR suddenly averaged 61 per season over a 4-year span. I'm really suspicious of a guy who hit .257/.308/.469 (777 OPS, 19.43 AB/HR) in 4000+ AB through age 28 suddenly exploded to hit .310/.396/.662 (1.058 10.08 AB/HR) with 243 HR over the next four season.

I mean, the guy hit 207 HR in 1088 games prior to the 1998 season. He proceeded to hit 243 over the next 637 games.

I don't think of him as a great player, nor a Hall of Famer.

But you can't keep him out.

What a great idea, take the first five years of every players career, make an average of that, and ignore everything else.

That's not what I did. I ignored the first four years of Sosa's career--approximately 15% of his career at-bats---and instead focused on the period when he began hitting over 30 homers a year. By the end of that five-year period, Sosa had accrued about 1/2 of the career at-bats he'd attain through 2005.

After more than 4,000 at-bats, I think it's fair to use the established level of performance as a sort of lens through which you can view later performance. Some players have radically different career arcs. It's unusual, though, to find an established power hitter whose HR totals suddenly go up by 25 annually. Something else was up, IMO, and I'm just trying to take that into account.

Similarly, Koufax benefitted from a great pitcher's park in an era that already suppressed offense, and you have to take that into account today when viewing his eye-popping numbers from 40+ years ago.

It effectively weights OBA as 1.25 or so, but the most accurate weight has been shown to be around 1.8.

The studies that have shown this are based on the effect on *team* runs per game. One cannot make the assumption that the same effect applies to a specific *individual* player. Cyril Morong has demonstrated that, for a cleanup hitter, OBP and SLG have about the same weight, whereas for a leadoff hitter OBP is approximately 3 times as valuable as SLG. Sosa, obviously, wasn't being used as a leadoff hitter, but as a middle-of-the-order hitter, and his value is much more fairly reflected by a model which attempts to consider the role in which he was actually used rather than a generic "one-size-attempts-to-fit-all" approach.

-- MWE

Interesting. So OPS+ severely underrates Ichiro. I wonder what that does for his would-be HOF case. And how does Josh Gibson fit into all this?

My implicit point was that Sosa's leap in performance from a 34-homer-a-year guy to a 58-homer-a-year guy was not a "natural" occurrence, and if his career HR total is the main argument for his HoF inclusion (unlike, say, a more well-rounded player like Barry Bonds), then you had to look at that total in the context of PEDs, and if you correct for that (which is why I called those "extra" homers) then Sosa becomes more like a 475-homer guy. Similarly, if you "correct" Bonds' HR totals, you still have a guy with more than 600 homers.

Well, it is within the realm of possibility. Consider:

- Sosa has terrific natural power.

- The era itself was conducive to the 60-HR barrier being breached by someone (smaller parks, lighter and harder bats, livelier baseballs, better weight training and nutrition, a shrinking strike zone, and pitchers being actively discouraged from pitching inside).

-Sosa's seasons of 66, 63, 50 and 64 HR from 1998-2001 occurred during the four seasons of the age a hitter's power generally peaks (late 20s-early 30s) and coincided with the seasons he garnered the most hits (198, 180, 193, 189), AB (642, 643, 625, 604), doubles (116), and percentage of balls in play being hits (.302 BA). A power hitter getting between 30-45 more hits will translate into a lot more taters. Ergo, Sosa improved both his contact and plate discipline at the same time his power spiked. If the home runs came first, then the walks, I could see pitchers avoiding his "new-found" power. However, the home run spike seemed to coincide with greater selectivity, more consistent contact and many more opportunities while playing half his games in a good home run park.

Again YMMV

Best Regards

John

Taking away 125 homers from Sosa looks to me like the fallacy of the statistically normal individual. Sosa's arc doesn't look like the averaged player's so that is proof that every deviation has an external cause. In fact no one looks exactly like the averaged player, and there is massive variation among humans. No one can possibly isolate which part of Sosa's increase was related to substances, which part to changes in the game, which part to changes in his training or swing, and which part to his peculiar physical traits.

Sosa's not inner circle, but I do think he's a deserving HOFer. And I had a different experience watching him while I lived in Chicago. It was indeed clear that he was not a complete ballplayer, especially on the basepaths and in the field. That was true also on the South Side, where it was clear Frank Thomas wasn't a complete ballplayer. But this isn't the measure of greatness. Sosa changed the game more than almost anyone I've seen; he changed the scoreboard and he changed the other team's strategy. (Thomas did this even more so, though in different ways.) You wouldn't trade him for an average hitter with better fielding and baserunning skills, but his strengths made more of an impact than his weaknesses.

I think Bill James said there were only a handful of players who were above average in every category. If I recall, he ran one set of numbers and ended up only with Willie Mays. Did he run it again and end up only with Joe Morgan and Tris Speaker? I can't recall exactly. Anyway, being a complete player is not the same as being a great player.

lets not forget that it is well known that in the off season before 98 sosa worked extensivly with petland to shorten his swing.

------ Cyril Morong has demonstrated that, for a cleanup hitter, OBP and SLG have about the same weight, whereas for a leadoff hitter OBP is approximately 3 times as valuable as SLG
_____________________________

I wouldn't use the term 'demonstrated'. Morong's is just one way to look at the issue. Another is lwts by batting order. From The Book, here is that for overall and the cleanup batter:

Overall) .323/.475/.776/1.07/1.397/-.299out
Cleanup) .337/.504/.802/1.09/1.436/-.319

The cleanup values are all higher, but I don't see a relative preference for the slugging part of production over the on-base part.

Sosa is a HOFer, even if he used PEDs.

What a great idea, take the first five years of every players career, make an average of that, and ignore everything else.

In his first five full years in the majors (1925-29), Red Ruffing was 39-93 (with a 93 ERA+) for unspeakably awful Red Sox teams. Mutiply that winning percentage (.295) by his career 498 decisions, and that's...147-351.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Sosa averaged 34 homers a year in his 5 seasons from age 24 through age 28, which seems to set a pretty decent benchamk for the kind of performance you could expect from him going forward.

Then he averaged 58 homers a years in his 5 seasons from age 29 through age 33. Somehow I have hard time reconciling his adding 25 homers a year for five seasons with the notion that his ultimate numbers suggest election to the Hall of Fame. Subtract those 125 homers and now he's a guy falling short of 500 homers...

Should a 475-homer guy be Hall-worthy?...He's a 475-homer guy who "somehow" hit 600 homers

This is a plea for you to stop using statistics so terribly to make your point. I hate to rehash these arguments, but it seems that they must be repeated in every Sosa thread until people stop saying the same ridiculous things about his home run hitting before 1998. You cannot use the home run totals from strike and injury-shortened seasons and compare them to full seasons at face value. If you simply adjust his 1993-97 plate appearances to match his 1998-2002 plate appearances, Sosa averaged 40.35 HR in his age 24 to age 28 seasons.

Furthermore, most players do not reach their power potential until their late 20s. There's a reason many fantasy websites tout a player's age 27 season as a possible breakthrough performance. Especially considering that Sosa was a toolsy, part-time player in the Majors immediately prior to his age 24 season, you wouldn't think that his improvement as a full-time starter that year would be his ultimate level of play. If you look at his age 26 and 27 seasons, when one might expect him to start reaching his HR potential, you'll see that Sosa moved to the top the league as a power hitter. He was second in the NL in home runs in 1995, and in his age 27 season of 1996, Sosa very likely would have led the league in HR if not for being hit by a pitch in late August. He hit 40 HR despite missing the final 6 weeks of the year with a broken bone in his wrist. Sosa had hit double-digit HR in each of his final 3 full months of the season and was on pace to tie McGwire's MLB-leading 52.

Sosa's power fell off a bit in 1997, which should not be at all surprising. We've seen in several instances lately how difficult it is for a player to recover his power in the immediate aftermath of a wrist injury. He came into his age 29 season of 1998 with a healthy wrist and improved discipline, and we all know what followed. Certainly there is much room for argument with regard to how Sosa attained his 1998-2002 level of performance. Please don't base your claims on the facts that he had never hit more than 40 HR, averaged 34 over his previous 5 years, or added 25 HR per year over his "benchmark" level. Sosa was one of the top few HR hitters in baseball in his age 26 and 27 seasons when no one is accusing him of using PEDs, and to assume that you should base his peak power on his age 24 season is ridiculous. If you continue to call him a 475-homer guy and refer to his "extra" 25 HR per season, I will be highly disappointed.

Should a 475-homer guy be Hall-worthy?

Winfield had 465 homers. Yeah I still would take Dave over Sammy given a choice but it's pretty close, as my analysis above demonstrates. Sammy is comfortably over the de-facto line for the Hall; he easily beats out at least half-a-dozen HoF RFers (albeit most from the early part of the century or even earlier). If you want a Hall with just 100 members come out and say so; else Sammy qualifies. I can probably find flaws in most of the "middle" tier HoFers; the only "perfect" guys were the likes of Ruth, Wagner, or Mays, in which case your Hall has 50 members.

I watched Sosa's entire Cubs career, and I never had the sense that I was seeing a great player.
Were you watching on WGN with the sound turned down?
I can't imagine how you define greatness if you never saw it in Sosa.

WRT #33:

Looking at the whole LWTS table by BOP in The Book, two things become apparent:

1. Extra-base hits are most valuable in the middle of the order. The LWTS for doubles, triples, and HRs are all highest for the #4 and #5 hitters (singles too, for that matter).

2. Walks are less valuable in the middle of the order. The #3 spot in the order has the lowest LWTS value for the walk; the #4 spot is tied with #8 for the third lowest value, behind the #9 spot (although all of those are within .001).

I look at the whole table as supporting the argument that Morong's data also demonstrates - OBP is less important relative to SLG in the middle of the order than it is at the ends of the order, and there's no real reason to assume, in Sosa's case, that his OPS+ significantly overstates his value in that context.

-- MWE

This is tangential to Sosa, but I wanted to comment on post #20.

As to the underlying point about Bonds the Elder, I think he's a fringe HOF candidate. He wouldn't embarrass the HOF if he were in, but there's no compelling <u>reason</u> to put him in, either; it's not an injustice that he's not in.

Was he the best player in his league at his position?

Yes, from 1969-78 he lead all NL right fielders in Runs Created Above Average (205), runs (1047), stolen bases (247), walks (745), hits (1578), doubles (256), triples (56) and home runs (287), while copping a trio of Gold Gloves for fielding excellence.

Of course, being the best right fielder over an extended period of time is a very good thing, but I don't think this is the right analysis. To select someone's best stretch and say he was the best at his position over that specific stretch is the weakest form of excellence.

Consider someone who was the third best RF in the league every year over a ten-year stretch. He would likely be the best RF overall in the league over that ten year stretch -- but without ever having been the best (or even second best). Is that, by itself, really HOF-level of greatness?

Now, if he had the best ten-year stretch of any player of his era, that would be a different story -- but that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about someone who was the best only over one specific ten-year stretch.

Thanks for saving me all that typing Dandy Little Glove Man.

On the "importance" of OBP and SLG. Saying that OBP should receive a higher weight is not the same thing as saying it's more important. (It can be viewed as the same thing as saying it's under-rated by OPS.)

Why don't you judge "importance" by the weight? Because you haven't adjusted for variances -- SLG has a higher variance than OBP so, given equal "importance", OBP would receive a higher weight. In other words, it is "easier" to increase 1 point in SLG than it is to increase 1 point in OBP so they shouldn't be treated as equal -- but that also means that in terms of "importance" you shouldn't compare a 1 point change to a 1 point change.

If you want to assess "importance" statistically, you can use the STANDARDIZED coefficient (the "raw" weight multiplied by the ratio of the independent variable SD to the dependent variable SD). When I ran this regression several years ago (at the team level for the 94-02 period or something like that) you find that OBP and SLG are virtually equal in importance. Run it season by season and you find it bounces around a lot from year-to-year -- which is a bit odd -- with OBP being much more important some seasons and SLG being much more important in other seasons.

If you simply adjust his 1993-97 plate appearances to match his 1998-2002 plate appearances, Sosa averaged 40.35 HR in his age 24 to age 28 seasons.

And then, for the next five seasons, he averaged 60 homers a year (okay---58.4).

I'm just sayin' that those numbers make Sammy Sosa the most fearsome, dangerous, productive home-run hitter EVER, if you look at a multi-year span.

Those numbers make Sammy Sosa a 600-home-run hitter.

And I don't buy it.

I buy that Sosa was a great power hitter, one of best half-dozen of his era, even if he never touches the PEDs. But you don't go from a 40-homer guy over five seasons (again, that right there puts Sosa in some pretty exclusive company) to a 60-homer guy over the next five seasons---nearly a 50% increase over already huge numbers---just through "maturation," "small strike zones," and "smaller ballparks."

And where are all these other hitters that Jeff Pentland has helped "shorten their stokes"? Or does that only work in combination with other training "techniques"?

There are two extremely different arguments to be separated here.

1) Sammy Sosa used PEDs, and thus his peak should be discounted by some X% that makes his peak no longer HoF quality.
2) Sammy Sosa's peak was not HoF quality by the numbers.

Your argument in post 42 is argument (1), while your argument in the article is quite expressly argument (2). While there is a reasonable case for (2) - google "Danny" and "Sammy Sosa" at BTF - you did not make it in the article at all, and now you seem to have shifted to (1).

I buy that Sosa was a great power hitter, one of best half-dozen of his era, even if he never touches the PEDs. But you don't go from a 40-homer guy over five seasons (again, that right there puts Sosa in some pretty exclusive company) to a 60-homer guy over the next five seasons---nearly a 50% increase over already huge numbers---just through "maturation," "small strike zones," and "smaller ballparks."

I love people who make confident statements like this. You don't? How do you know? If you don't go from 40 -> 60, how much do you go up to, if league offensive levels increase at the same time you hit your prime?

But you don't go from a 40-homer guy over five seasons (again, that right there puts Sosa in some pretty exclusive company) to a 60-homer guy over the next five seasons---nearly a 50% increase over already huge numbers---just through "maturation," "small strike zones," and "smaller ballparks."

Except, of course, Sammy did. Unless you think those "extra" homers are somehow illegitimate, because he was on the sauce, or got lucky, or the Magical Dinger Fairy visited his house.

For the Hall to leave out a guy with six hundred flippin' home runs is insane. I mean, we're not talking about Dave Kingman here. Geez.

The argument, such as it is, that all Sosa did was hit 600 homers reminds me of the Cris Carter argument ("all he does is catch touchdowns").

Your argument in post 42 is argument (1), while your argument in the article is quite expressly argument (2). While there is a reasonable case for (2) - google "Danny" and "Sammy Sosa" at BTF - you did not make it in the article at all, and now you seem to have shifted to (1).

I don't understand... the person you are responding to didn't write the article.

I love people who make confident statements like this. You don't? How do you know?

Okay, let me change my comment from "You don't go from a 40-homer guy..." to "I believe you don't go from a 40-homer guy..."

So you're right---I don't know. I believe.

And yes, I am making argument No. 1, that when viewed throught the PED lens, I believe Sosa's HoF case is much weaker than if one chooses to ignore the PED issue, because I believe that Sosa used PEDs and that he benefitted to the tune of 100+ home runs.

I'm Dialing the thread a bit, but:

Should a 475-homer guy be Hall-worthy?"

So now you're questioning the HoF credentials of Stan Musial. Great.

I kid, but it's related to one of my points: context matters. As Dandy Little Glove Man said so well, it's possible that Sosa's 60-homer seasons weren't chemically created. You clearly suspect them, but do you agree that that dandy explanation is a plausible explanation too?

As someone already mentioned, you're mashing together three different arguments:
1. Sosa's number's aren't HoF-worthy.
2. Sosa used PEDS.
3. PED users shouldn't be in the HoF.
I can see both sides to each of these arguments, but really, you should pick one at a time.

there is visual evidence that sosa shorted his swing by quite a bit in 98, other cibs followers here can attest to that, though i havnt gone to youtube to find it

How do you explain other variations? Before Bonds, Aaron's late career HR streak was unequaled. Clearly, you don't go from hitting 29 HR at age 34 to hitting 47 at age 37 and 40 at age 39. I just don't buy it. And Davey Johnson hit 5 HR at age 29 and 43 at age 30? I don't buy that either. And Kirby Puckett hit 4 in 1200 ABs and then the next season hit 31! I don't buy that.

History proves that players establish clear rates of performance early on, vary precisely with the changes predicted by their age, and have predictably steady declines. Every variation from that demands an explanation, and should be treated as illegitimate.

Right?

I put together a database with baseruns over replacement for all hitters. I ranked players by 6 year peaks. Sosa came in at 45.7 wins (I have not factored in defense). For Sosa this covers 1998-2003.

The 4 corner OF's immediately above him are Musial, Aaron, Robinson, and Ott. The 4 right below are Kiner, Stargell, Heilman, and Yaz. The only player close to Sosa's peak level who's not in is Charlie Keller (41.8).

Outside his peak Sosa was not as great a player as these other guys (except Keller, whose whole career was a brief but outstanding peak.) I haven't calculated career rankings yet since I only ran seasons with 200+ AB through the formulas, but my answer is that Sosa is clearly in the HOF based on his stats unless your hall is so small that you need to kick Willie Stargell and Yaz out.

Pretty much any case against Sammy rests on how you think baseball should treat PED users, and how comfortable you are with punishing Sammy for them, considering he's never tested positive or had Balco-type detail brought to light about him. Unlike McGwire, I don't think he's ever even been accused by an ex-teammate. Jose Canseco mentioned Sosa in his book, but had no first hand knowledge, they never played together and Jose was just making the stats + "just look at him" argument.

- The era itself was conducive to the 60-HR barrier being breached by someone (smaller parks, lighter and harder bats, livelier baseballs, better weight training and nutrition, a shrinking strike zone, and pitchers being actively discouraged from pitching inside).

So what is it that separates that era from this one?

[I believe that] you don't go from a 40-homer guy over five seasons (again, that right there puts Sosa in some pretty exclusive company) to a 60-homer guy over the next five seasons

In his first five years in the AL, Al Simmons averaged 16 home runs a season. Over his next five, he averaged 28 per season. The totals aren't absolutely as huge as Sosa's, but 16 HR was a very respectable, leaderboardish total in the mid-20s. Then Simmons hit his prime as the league offense took off overall (DMN's point in #44).

And if you think I spent the last two-and-a-half hours looking for that example, I assure that I just logged back into this thread, saw the remark, and leafed over to Al Simmons as a shot in the dark to see if he'd ever done anything Sosesque. It's probably not really very rare at all ...

Duffy:

I watched Sosa's entire Cubs career, and I never had the sense that I was seeing a great player. And this is in spite of my being very aware of his numbers at the time I was watching him. He rarely did anything that impressed me, watching the games, other than hit homers.

I don't understand this. You didn't see greatness in his 1998-2002 peak?

He did more than just hit home runs -- not that I understand why you seem to think that all-time great levels of home runs are really not that big a deal. He was hitting for high averages, drawing lots of walks... OPS's of 1.000 for each year (including an OPS of 1.174 one year) except 2002, when it was "only" .993.

He was an unremarkable baserunner (he stole bases but only at a breakeven rate). He was a wild swinger who lacked discipline (he drew some walks in his big 5 year run, but only because pitchers were afraid of his power).

Come on now. He dramatically improved his plate discipline, notwithstanding the increase in intentional walks.

He was a wild swinger who lacked discipline (he drew some walks in his big 5 year run, but only because pitchers were afraid of his power).

If drawing walks is wholly and entirely a function of pitchers being afraid of a hitter's power, then the career statistics of Willy Mo Pena, Dave Kingman, Tony Armas, Steve Balboni, Ron Kittle, and Dick Stuart simply cannot be explained. I guess they didn't really happen, then.

From 2000-2002 his OBP was something like .414. That sounds to me like a pretty fair number for a guy with decent power.

Also, a walk is a good thing. Not a great thing, but a walk (for whatever reason) helps the team. A guy could make a career out of walking.

- The era itself was conducive to the 60-HR barrier being breached by someone (smaller parks, lighter and harder bats, livelier baseballs, better weight training and nutrition, a shrinking strike zone, and pitchers being actively discouraged from pitching inside).

So what is it that separates that era from this one?

Possibly nothing more than the lack of a single player good enough to hit 60 HRs. In the 1998 National League, 2,565 home runs were hit. In the 2006 National League, 2,840 home runs were hit. That's an argument <u>for</u> Sammy Sosa to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, not an argument against him.

Possibly nothing more than the lack of a single player good enough to hit 60 HRs. In the 1998 National League, 2,565 home runs were hit. In the 2006 National League, 2,840 home runs were hit. That's an argument for Sammy Sosa to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, not an argument against him.

Yep.

I fear there is a mythology rapidly being forged, which posits that home runs were cheap and plentiful then, but nowdays only real and clean heroes hit them. This mythology just takes as a given that home run rates have declined, when in fact they haven't in any meaningful way.

NL HR/G, 1998-2207:

1998 1.00
1999 1.12
2000 1.16
2001 1.15
2002 1.01
2003 1.05
2004 1.10
2005 0.99
2006 1.10
2007 1.02

"Should a 475-homer guy be Hall-worthy?" So now you're questioning the HoF credentials of Stan Musial....I kid

I'm not suggesting that guys who hit 475 homers aren't Hall-worthy... I'm asking if hitting 475 homers is enough to hang your Hall hat on....

As someone already mentioned, you're mashing together three different arguments:
1. Sosa's number's aren't HoF-worthy.
2. Sosa used PEDS.
3. PED users shouldn't be in the HoF.
I can see both sides to each of these arguments, but really, you should pick one at a time.

The only point I've been making in my posts is that I believe Sosa was on PEDs during his 5-year stretch of averaging almost 60 homers a year, and that if you're going to use that incredible peak as being a point in his favor when considering Hall-worthiness, I think you have to take the "environment" into account and realize that his 600 homers may not be the same as, say, Frank Robinson's 586. I'm not convinced that Sammy Sosa was "naturally" the greatest 5-year home-run hitter of all time, even though the raw numbers show he did hit the most. Of course the era in which he played was conducive to offense, but let's face it, a lot of hitters were putting up huge numbers while using PEDs. I don't have proof, I don't know who did and who didn't.

Similarly, I don't need to have proof that many congressmen/women routinely put their own and their corporate donors' interests ahead of the interests of the public, and often engage in illegal/unethical practices to further those interests. If I just focused on those that were exposed, and assumed that all the rest were clean, then I'd have to be pretty naive. And if I believe it when Congressman A votes on legislation favoring Company B while maintaining that their relationship was an irrelevant coincidence, then that would be like my believing Sammy Sosa all of a sudden averages almost 60 homers a year for five years because he shortened his swing and learned better pitch recognition. It's fishy, we all know it, and sure, that legislation that gives the corporation a $20 million tax break may also deliver a new road that benefits the public, just as Sosa may still have been one of baseball's top sluggers, but I wonder why we couldn't have the new road without the $20 million tax break, or why we couldn't have 49 or 54 homers instead of 66.

With regard to Sammy's improvement in plate discipline, there's an article which discusses that up right now at B Prospectus (Future Shock by K Goldstein, the last part).

salvomania,

I don't necessarily disagree with your main point - that Sosa probably used PEDs. But how do you explain the numbers that Steve quotes right above your post? The fact is, leaguewide home run rates have not fallen with the advent of more stringent PED testing.

This mythology just takes as a given that home run rates have declined, when in fact they haven't in any meaningful way.

I don't know the historical home-run rates well enough to know if that three-year run from 1999-2001 of 1.143 homers per game representing a 9.4% higher home-run rate than in the years since, is "meaningful," but it sure seems like home-run rates have declined since 1999-2001. And perhaps it's all due to pitcher-pool-dilution, or to subtle changes in approaches to hitters in reaction to the increase in homers...

I don't know the historical home-run rates well enough to know if that three-year run from 1999-2001 of 1.143 homers per game representing a 9.4% higher home-run rate than in the years since, is "meaningful," but it sure seems like home-run rates have declined since 1999-2001.

Well then I guess I don't know the technique of cherry-picking endpoints well enough to know that if one decides upon a particular three season-run, which excludes the one season in which the player in question achieved his greatest success in the stat in question, but the results are nonetheless "meaningful," but it sure seems like home-run rates haven't declined over the period of 1998-2007.

Cherry-picking?

You compare 1998---the low point immediately preceding the three-highest years in the last 10, and compare it to 2006, a year sandwiched by the two lowest years since '98. So Sosa hit 66 homers in '98, a year in which homers weren't being hit as frequently as last year. Maybe once hitters looked around in '98 and saw two muscle-bound sluggers putting up freakish homer run numbers, that kick-started a PED explosion that resulted in the increase in '99-'00-'01.

Or maybe it's just random fluctuation.

But it's hard to look at your 10-year list and not notice that the three-highest home-run seasons were all before PED testing, and that since those three years, home runs rates have been lower every year---on average, almost 10 percent, comparing the most recent six years to the previous three. Like I said---and I wasn't being flippant---I don't know how that 10% greater HR frequency during those three years compares with other, random three-year stretches that are then compared to stretches that bracket them. And I have no explanation for why home runs were suddenly down in 2002-03, before testing. The higher rate in '99-'01 was probably a combination of diluted pitching, juiced ball, smaller ballparks, PEDs, etc.

And speaking of PEDs, I think Sosa was on them when he was averaging almost 60 homers a year over a five-year span. I believe that, among other things, that is a reason why he has reached 600 homers for his career. The only opinion I was trying to get across is that his career numbers therefore need to be assessed in the context in which they were amassed, which I guess seems pretty obvious. But it was a response to a couple in the first half-dozen posters who seemed to believe that 600 homers made Sammy a shoo-in.

Cherry-picking?

You compare 1998---the low point immediately preceding the three-highest years in the last 10, and compare it to 2006, a year sandwiched by the two lowest years since '98.

No, I don't. Kiko Sakata did that. But his essential point is clearly valid: the HR/G line between 1998 and today doesn't trend downward.

But it's hard to look at your 10-year list and not notice that the three-highest home-run seasons were all before PED testing

Nor is it hard to notice that the three-lowest were also before serious PED testing.

since those three years, home runs rates have been lower every year---on average, almost 10 percent, comparing the most recent six years to the previous three

Well ...

maybe it's just random fluctuation.

Because ...

I don't know how that 10% greater HR frequency during those three years compares with other, random three-year stretches

You would if you looked at HR frequency rates. They're freely available.

NL HR/G, 1969-1997:

1969 0.85
1970 0.90
1971 0.77
1972 0.63
1973 0.80
1974 0.70
1975 0.76
1976 0.58
1977 0.89
1978 0.74
1979 0.89
1980 0.81
1981 0.71
1982 0.92
1983 0.84
1984 0.87
1985 0.96
1986 1.01
1987 1.16
1988 0.84
1989 0.76
1990 0.79
1991 0.86
1992 0.78
1993 0.91
1994 1.11
1995 1.07
1996 1.21
1997 1.09

Just a few three-year (and more) stretches in there with 10%+ swings, huh.

And speaking of PEDs, I think Sosa was on them when he was averaging almost 60 homers a year over a five-year span.

So do I.

I believe that, among other things, that is a reason why he has reached 600 homers for his career.

I don't believe you have begun to amass evidence that PED use significantly increased Sosa's HR production. It might have, but it might also not have, and your arguments are utterly unpersuasive.

The only opinion I was trying to get across is that his career numbers therefore need to be assessed in the context in which they were amassed, which I guess seems pretty obvious.

As those of every player, every time.

I watched Sosa's entire Cubs career, and I never had the sense that I was seeing a great player.

That may be the single dumbest thing I've read this year. You didn't think he was great in 2001? Puh-lease.

Am I wrong in saying that if Sosa had had his '94-'04 seasons (in which he hit 504 homers) during a period like the '70s and '80s, with something like .79 hr/g instead of the average of 1.04 that those 11 years actually come out to, and therefore hit only 75% of the home runs that he did--378 instead of 504--all else being equal, with batting averages roughly 20 points lower, he wouldn't have any more chance at HOF induction than Andre Dawson or Jim Rice? His line would be 480 home runs and a .250-ish average. Many MSMers would say he was a guy who hit home runs and nothing else; if anything, he'd have less support than Dawson, who has defense at a premium position supporting him in a way that Sosa doesn't.

My reasoning could be totally wrong, and I'm not really arguing one way or the other. The same process in reverse gives Dawson roughly 30% more HR over his career had it been from the mid-90s till now--569. If he had 569 HR, he'd probably get elected, which would mean that Sosa with 40 more probably should, too. MSMers will think they need to make an era adjustment, and think they know what adjustment to make. A lot hinges on whether they know what the heck they're doing or not, and my hunch is that they'll discount post-1994 offense much more than they should, especially since offense isn't actually dropping much if at all anytime soon.

all else being equal, with batting averages roughly 20 points lower,

WTF?

MLB Batting Average, 1970-2005:

1970 .254
1971 .249
1972 .244
1973 .257
1974 .257
1975 .258
1976 .255
1977 .264
1978 .258
1979 .265
1980 .265
1981 .256
1982 .261
1983 .261
1984 .260
1985 .257
1986 .258
1987 .263
1988 .254
1989 .254
1990 .258
1991 .256
1992 .256
1993 .265
1994 .270
1995 .267
1996 .270
1997 .267
1998 .266
1999 .271
2000 .270
2001 .264
2002 .261
2003 .265
2004 .266
2005 .264

My reasoning could be totally wrong

Are you freaking kidding me?

When did I miss the memo here, that spelled out how it was acceptable to be blatantly ignorant of fundamental facts?

All right, 10 points lower.

It's late. . . that construction really doesn't make any sense at all, does it?

I loved this:

He was a wild swinger who lacked discipline (he drew some walks in his big 5 year run, but only because pitchers were afraid of his power).

Whereas no other power hitter ever drew a walk because the pitchers were afraid.
Gosh darn it, they earned those!

71. Vaux Posted: September 03, 2007 at 04:09 AM (#2509398)
All right, 10 points lower.

It's late. . . that construction really doesn't make any sense at all, does it?

No, none at all, man. If Sosa had played his peak in the "'70s and '80s" and managed a whopping 378 home runs (over 34 per year!) in those conditions, he's have been an excellent HOF candidate, just like he is now.

1969 0.85
....
1997 1.09

Just a few three-year (and more) stretches in there with 10%+ swings, huh.

Well I certainly could have saved myself typing a couple hundred words if I had bothered to look up historic home run rates. Those 10%-higher totals in '99-'00-'01 seemed suspicious to me, but it's clear that those are just normal year-in year-out fluctuations as opposed to some sudden significant swing.

It seems that the era produced conditions that overall made it not unlikely that someone could reach the previous single-season HR record, and perhaps the reason only three men did was because they were home-run freaks who were perfectly poised to exploit the conditions.

----------Whereas no other power hitter ever drew a walk because the pitchers were afraid.
Gosh darn it, they earned those!
----------------

There are 3 defensible reasons why Sosa's BB rate increased:
1) he layed off a higher % of bad pitches
2) he is thrown more balls because of the pitcher's fear
3) he gets more BB as a byproduct of going deeper in the count due to swinging and missing more often (trying to hit HR)

From observation, I believe in Sosa's case it was mostly the last 2, although he certainly may have improved his discipline slightly. And the Prospectus article I mentioned in post 62 also sees it the same way

all else being equal, with batting averages roughly 20 points lower,

WTF?

Not to mention you're deducting 20 points from his career batting average and applying it to his peak. During his peak Sammy hit over .288 6 times, including 5 times over .300 and twice over .320.

edit: Disregard, I see it was a hypothetical career HR and batting average line, not a peak.

I don't see that it matters why Sosa's walk rate went up. As Steve noted up in #56, there have been some really scary dudes who never managed to walk at any higher rate than when they came into the league. In 1991, Juan Gonzalez's first year as a regular, his walk rate was .071. By 1996, when he won the MVP, it was all the way up to .076. In 1998, as a repeat MVP-winner, it was .069. In 2001, his last year as a regular, it was .069. Pitchers were certainly afraid of the guy, but it didn't help him draw more walks.

If Sosa had played his peak in the "'70s and '80s" and managed a whopping 378 home runs (over 34 per year!) in those conditions, he's have been an excellent HOF candidate, just like he is now.

Sounds like the HOF lock known as Jim Rice.

Rice averaged over 34 homeruns per year?

I don't see that it matters why Sosa's walk rate went up. As Steve noted up in #56, there have been some really scary dudes who never managed to walk at any higher rate than when they came into the league.

Agreed. Duffy doesn't seem to want to give Sosa much credit for anything. As far as Duffy is concerned, Sosa's historic home run numbers were really the "only" thing that impressed Duffy -- as if they weren't that big of a deal ("He rarely did anything that impressed me, watching the games, other than hit homers."). And Sosa's improvement in plate discipline was mostly just due to "pitcher's fear" and... ... "swinging and missing more often (trying to hit HR)"; Sosa was still a "wild swinger who lacked discipline." And, oh, Sosa never seemed to make any "smart" plays.

It almost seems as if Duffy is stuck in a time warp and is decribing the pre-1998, non-stathead favorite Sosa. However, most people realized the player Sosa made himself into in 1998, and gave him the credit he deserved.

I also think that using Sosa's current level of ability to make conclusions as to "why" his plate discipline improved during his prime is a bit dubious. And, for what it's worth, Sosa's current plate discipline against lefties is good, as is his performance against them; he can't hit righties anymore.

Sounds like the HOF lock known as Jim Rice.

Really? They do have the same OPS+ and not incomparable career lengths--Sammy putting up about a season and a 1/3 more time.

But Sammy's peak is way higher:

201, 169, 160, 160, 141

Rice is:

158, 154, 148, 141, 137

Rice was more consistent and did not put up a below 100 OPS+ season any time between his first and last years, but Sammy's peak is in a different league. Rice's best season would be Sammy's 5th best. Given that, I think Sammy, rightly, would have a huge edge, no matter when they played.

Besides, a 10% reduction in his HRs gives him 540. Justifying a 20% reduction means ignoring the fact that Rice also played during seasons with HR rates equivalent to Sosa's prime in 1985 and 1986. Sammy was in the top 10 in HRs 11 times in his career, Rice 7. I don't think they'd look the same no matter when they played.

Wow, you got that right. .327 .411 .609 against lefties. Any chance he gets picked up as a lefty masher next year?

The Pitch Data Summary at B-Ref shows a huge difference in Sosa's approach starting in 1998. From the beginning of his career through 1997, Sosa swung at the first pitch 37-46% of the time. In 1998 and 1999, he swung at the first pitch 21% of the time. It would seem that one of the surest ways to draw more walks would be to stop having so many 1-pitch ABs. Most of his other numbers, including contact rate, showed little change. Largely as a result of swinging at the first pitch half as often, Sosa's pitches/PA went up about .25 from his previous seasons. I can't say if this led to him getting better pitches to hit, but it was certainly a major factor in his improved walk rate.

I can't say if this led to him getting better pitches to hit, but it was certainly a major factor in his improved walk rate.

Watching him, it seemed pretty obvious that the main skill Sosa learned in mid-career was to lay off the breaking ball in the dirt. Once he stopped being a sucker for that pitch, he became a far tougher out.

A dramatic mid-career improvement in the ability to recognize and thus not go fishing after the most traditional of waste pitches is rare, but not unprecedented. Frank Howard, Willie Stargell, and George Foster all come to mind as guys who achieved it and thus, like Sosa, took their game to a whole new level.

----"Agreed. Duffy doesn't seem to want to give Sosa much credit for anything.

----"It almost seems as if Duffy is stuck in a time warp and is decribing the pre-1998, non-stathead favorite Sosa.
------------------------------------------------------
I thought my post was clear that I was well aware of Sosa's numbers, and was simply giving my impressions watching him play everyday as a sabermetrically knowledgeable fan. I admit that I have a bias because I strongly disliked Sosa's persona, and that this almost certainly colors my view.

If you want me to admit that Sosa's stats during his 5 yr peak are those of a great batter, I'll do it. But in his other seasons he was merely passable to good. His career WARP2 is 7.2 per 162 G. M Grace, who was compared to Sammy in an earlier post I think, had a WARP2 per 162 G of 6.8, not much below Sammy. And I believe that Grace was a bit better player than his stats, while Sosa was a bit worse (just my subjective impression). And I haven't even mentioned steroids yet.....

But in his other seasons he was merely passable to good.

Even that's not really accurate. Outside of his Himalayan 5-year peak, Sosa was still kind of all over the place: rather than "passable to good," he fluctuated from bad to excellent. His was an extraordinarily steep and unusual career arc (Foster is about the only guy who comes to mind as comparable in this regard), and thus it makes summing-it-all-up-in-one-figure stats such as career WARP as unusually non-helpful in assessing Sosa.

Am I wrong in saying that if Sosa had had his '94-'04 seasons (in which he hit 504 homers) during a period like the '70s and '80s, with something like .79 hr/g instead of the average of 1.04 that those 11 years actually come out to, and therefore hit only 75% of the home runs that he did--378 instead of 504--all else being equal, with batting averages roughly 20 points lower, he wouldn't have any more chance at HOF induction than Andre Dawson or Jim Rice

If you neutralize their stats at BB-Ref, these three actually do have some passing similarity if you look at their per-162 line:

Sosa's at .270/.339/.524 with 109 runs created
Rice is at .298/.351/.500 with 113 runs created
Dawson's at .285/.330/.493 with 100 runs created

As I said way back early in this thread, looking at career rate stats under-rates Sosa because he spent the first four years of his career being a minor-league talent playing in the major leagues.

Dawson suffers a bit from the same thing at the end of his career - he had a lot of "hang-on" time. He also has the best defensive value of the three.

FWIW, "neutralized" Sosa still has 603 homers with a career high of 63 (twice), but I'm not sure how "neutral" those numbers are (I know at one time BB-Ref just neutralized runs scored but assumed that the relative mix of components - S, D, T, HR, etc. - stayed unchanged).

In terms of career, Rice, Sosa, and Dawson are probably pretty decent comps. I do think that Sosa's easily got the best peak of the three, though. Rice's peak - which is what his HOF case is largely built on - was really only 1-3 years at the end of the 1970s. He then coasted on reputation for a few more years. Whereas Sosa had a legitimate 4-5 year peak that I think would have shown up in any era (even if he wouldn't have hit 63 homers twice in the 1970s or '80s).

I wonder at what point will hitting lotsa homers actually become a negative in the minds of HOF voters? Will the logic become:

1) He hit a lotta homers.
2) Only somebody on steroids could hit that many homers.
3) Roiders shouldn't be in the Hall.
4) QED, this guy is out.
5) Meanwhile, the guy who hustled and had heart and could throw out a runner with a baby elephant on his back is in, his 87 OPS+ notwithstanding.

I wonder at what point will hitting lotsa homers actually become a negative in the minds of HOF voters? Will the logic become:

1) He hit a lotta homers.
2) Only somebody on steroids could hit that many homers.
3) Roiders shouldn't be in the Hall.
4) QED, this guy is out.

I think that sort of thinking does occur more than occasionally, and it isn't just a recent phenomenon. It occurs just about anytime a guy's stats are just off-the-charts great, going beyond established standards and expectations. Bill James made a convincing argument that it was the line of thinking that caused Vern Stephens to be greatly underrated:

1) He hit 39 HRs and drove in 159 freaking runs as a shortstop.
2) Only somebody benefitting from an extreme park effect could do that.
3) Park effects shouldn't fool us.
4) QED, this guy wasn't that great.

Chuck Klein has tended to be similarly dismissed. A similar over-compensation for park and era effects tends to have many modern folks pooh-poohing Sandy Koufax.

From observation, I believe in Sosa's case it was mostly the last 2, although he certainly may have improved his discipline slightly.

Slightly?!?!? Did you see Sammy play with any regularity over the course of his career? He went from a guy who never saw a 1-2 slider in the left-handed batters box that he didn't love, to a locked-in hitting machine. His batting skill and discipline improved more over the course of his career than almost any player who ever played MLB.

I put together a database with baseruns over replacement for all hitters. I ranked players by 6 year peaks. Sosa came in at 45.7 wins (I have not factored in defense). For Sosa this covers 1998-2003.

The 4 corner OF's immediately above him are Musial, Aaron, Robinson, and Ott. The 4 right below are Kiner, Stargell, Heilman, and Yaz. The only player close to Sosa's peak level who's not in is Charlie Keller (41.8).

Outside his peak Sosa was not as great a player as these other guys (except Keller, whose whole career was a brief but outstanding peak.) I haven't calculated career rankings yet since I only ran seasons with 200+ AB through the formulas, but my answer is that Sosa is clearly in the HOF based on his stats unless your hall is so small that you need to kick Willie Stargell and Yaz out.

Pretty much any case against Sammy rests on how you think baseball should treat PED users, and how comfortable you are with punishing Sammy for them, considering he's never tested positive or had Balco-type detail brought to light about him. Unlike McGwire, I don't think he's ever even been accused by an ex-teammate. Jose Canseco mentioned Sosa in his book, but had no first hand knowledge, they never played together and Jose was just making the stats + "just look at him" argument.

AROM,

I'm curious where Jason Giambi's 6 year peak ranks, and how you view his HOF qualifications based on that peak. Also, isn't the definition of peak as six consecutive years perfectly tailored to a pro-Sosa HOF case?

to a locked-in hitting machine.

Even I wouldn't go that far. He was, at times, a locked-in hitting machine. But evil Sammy would still show up for substantial stretches during those years. In 98, it was kinda freaky. He'd catch up to McGwire ... then start trying to hit a homer on every pitch ... fall behind McGwire ... calm down, get a couple singles to right, go nuts and catch up to McGwire ... then become evil Sammy again.

Of course my memory might be crap on that but nevertheless, Sammy was never as consistently disciplined as Bonds (obviously) or even McGwire I don't think.

The lat post almost readas like an X-Men story from the late 70s - early 80s.

Of course my memory might be crap on that but nevertheless, Sammy was never as consistently disciplined as Bonds (obviously) or even McGwire I don't think.

I agree. But Sosa's improvement in that regard, not just from '97 to '98, but also from '98 through 2001, was remarkable. And his decline was a function not only of deteriorating bat speed, but also of a lapse back into his old bad habits.

Of course my memory might be crap on that but nevertheless, Sammy was never as consistently disciplined as Bonds (obviously) or even McGwire I don't think.

Ok, he wasn't as locked-in as the most locked-in hitter of our time. But he was up there. And considering he started in the bottom 5% of hitters in the MLB, and topped out easily in the top 20%, maybe top 10%, he did have a huge transformation over the course of his career.

And his decline was a function not only of deteriorating bat speed, but also of a lapse back into his old bad habits.

Sammy's decline really began with the Salomon Torres beaning. A lot of Cubs fans noted that Sammy had moved further back off the plate (and he stood really far off the plate to begin with) and this change led to much difficulty reaching those outside pitches again.

B-ref's neutralized stats give Sosa an extra four runs created. They also give his AIR as 107, which makes me wonder where their neutralized numbers come from.

Looking at his careet RC, Sosa's 54th, and surrounded by these guys:

Robin Yount-1655
Willie Mac-1638
Tony Gwynn-1636
Tim Raines-1636
Edgar Martinez-1631
Sammy-1619
Larry Walker-1619
Dewey Evans-1612
Harold Baines-1606
Harmon Killebrew-1606
Rod Carew-1595

Walker, Evans and Baines are in my HoVG. The only other guy here who peaked post-1993 is Edgar and I know opinions are divided on him (though he obviously had less defensive value than Sosa). The others here are probably better than Sosa. That suggests to me that he's not a strong career candidate, he's a peak/prime candidate.

What's remarkable about Giambi is how Mo Vaughn dominates his similarity score list; he's the most-similar through age X for the last four years, then second for the three years before that. Despite the fact that Giambi is obviously a better hitter.

he's not a strong career candidate, he's a peak/prime candidate.

That's quite clear. But think about this: career value is not his strong case for the HOF ... and he's got over 600 career home runs. Even with the most severe era adjustment, that's awfully impressive.

What's remarkable about Giambi is how Mo Vaughn dominates his similarity score list; he's the most-similar through age X for the last four years, then second for the three years before that. Despite the fact that Giambi is obviously a better hitter.

It's odd, there numbers are all reasonably close- it just that insetad of Giambi being better at 5 catergories- and Vaughn at 10- it's Giambi in 8 and Vaughn 2- (average by 1 point and triples by 2)
Gimabi is ahead in everything else, more walks, fewer Ks, more homers, RBI, runs, Slugging OBP, not by huge margins, but it all adds up.