Active players who will make the Hall of Fame

I just did an hour's worth of career stats for Biggio, Orel, and Pudge, and their HOF projection, and one swift accidental keystroke wiped them out.

Biggio easily should be in. He's leading or near the top in his era in Hits, extra base hits, doubles, runs, and BA.

Orel is very good for his era, but not good enough. He's in the top ten in a lot of categories, but not enough.

Pudge: one of the best catchers of his era. On pace to be at or near the top among all-time C in batting, HR, hits, etc. But then again, so is Piazza. Simmons should go in first.

Can you tell I'm TICKED that all that research got wiped away? :BangHead:

More to come...and this time, I'm doing it in Word to save it first!

 

Decent? Marginal? Good Lord Andy. I'm the one off my rocker? Consider:

Among Switch hitters of all positions of all time, Simmons was:
7th in BA, 3rd in SLG, 4th in RBI, 5th in HR, 6th in Hits.
21 seasons as catcher.

Among catchers all time:
5th in RS, 1st in Hits (Pudge will pass him), 2nd in doubles, 4th in XBH, 9th in HR, 2nd in RBI. HOFM has him as a lock (higher than some C already there). Hit .300 seven times. 4 more times than Berra. SIX more times than my man, Bench. So you're in the top 5 in the biggies and you're marginal and decent? Must he have healed the sick to be HOF material for you?

Defensive liability? His FP is 2 points lower than Bench, 3 than Pudge, and is still higher than avg for his era. Granted, he had more PB than Pudge and Lil General, but if that's his biggest flaw, just how good was he overall to have his FP that comparable? Higher than avg RFG. His fielding just isn't the death knell you think.

He's at or above Pudge in all these areas statistically. Both have equal numbers of comparables. To say Pudge is a lock but to dismiss Simmons is the height of hyporcrisy. I did not like Simmons. But I respected the heck out of him and hated seeing him when the Cards played the Reds (thank God the Brewers were AL then). Who knows what kind of exec he would've been had he not died so young.

Pudge should be in. Simmons should be in. Unfortunately, posthumously.

Just out of curiousity, I suppose you would argue that Carter shouldn't be in?

Your bias against him must be because you think he played for the Twins :laugh:

 

This is akin to saying that being one of the best original NHL goalies is meaningless because there were only six NHL goalies in the original NHL. Or that being one of the best SCOTUS justices is meaningless because there are so few of them. I don't get your logic here.

To hit a baseball from either side of the plate is a feat. To be one of the best ever at that feat to me speaks volumes. I'll agree that a .225 SwH is not by default better than a .280 hitter R or L. But a .280 SwH is roundly esteemed higher than a one-dimensional hitter because of the durability and strategic advantage it gives you. And a switch hitting catcher?

Murray is praised for being a switcher. Mantle is praised for being a switcher. Are they overrated, too? I'm frankly surprised you feel this way about Sw H, given how rare it is, especially in today's compartmentalized MLB. There were lots of SwH in baseball history. Your logic is just not working here.

The 21 at C was a typo. I orignally typed that he had that much for a career and pointed out his fuller seasons as C. This bolsters his MHOF since he automatically doesn't get some of the extra points others do just for being C. And he didn't catch in '84. So what? They had a chance to get Jim Sundberg in the lineup at C. I would've probably done the same thing if I had a DH.

Only 15 other catchers have caught more games in baseball history than Simmons. 2,035 games played. 1,771 games at C. That's 87%. Yeah, barely :laugh:

Using some suprisingly strange logic, you just hung every catcher. Simmons must've caught some awfully adept K pitchers to have so many POs. His As are nothing to sneeze at. His being regarded as a poor defensive catcher? More circular reasoning. 0 Gold Gloves? True. Sundberg/Carter shared those during his era. Says an awful lot about Davey that he won some away from Ozzie, eh :laugh: Seriously, His FP is better than league average. If he was so poor, then he played in the worst catching era ever. But it's one that produced Bench, Fisk, Carter, Boone, Munson....shall I go on?

You don't get more points every time you say this, Andy :laugh: And Templeton does not have Ozzie's numbers. This is sophistry, and you know it, friend.

You're not going to consider him, period. He hit .285. That's 4th best among catchers with his # of games behind the plate. Better than Fisk, Bench, or Carter. You cannot compare Catchers to other position players. That's Bill James's rule number 1. Heck, my unborn children know this. So do you. You're reaching.

I believe I've read that only one person who leads their position in Hits is not in the HOF. That would be Simmons. Again, when you're one of the best four or five offensively at your position, how are you not in the HOF? If he were miles away defensively, fine. But his numbers are in the ballpark. Just being honest: You've made up your mind he's not a HOFer and you're grasping at straws to keep him out, it seems. No offense. (Didn't someone resign from the BBWA because Simmons didn't get in? Seems like I remember that).

Oops...I had him confused with Darrell Porter. He did in fact leave baseball after his heart attacks, though. Good thing he is still alive. Maybe he will live to see himself enshrined. He should.

It has when I've been on my laptop wireless, but not on my desktop network connection. Then again, I'm a subscriber Maybe that's a perk.

Much? Hardly. More valuable? That's one of those intangibles that you deride so often! How do you know?

Honestly, I cringe every time I argue for Murph and Simmons, just like I used to cringe every time I argued for Sutter. (Probably why I don't like Simmons...knowing he was catching the pure filth Sutter would dish against my boys). But stats are stats and a HOFer is a HOFer, whether I like them or not. It really says something the I would argue for them. I just have enough respect for the game.

Just FYI: did you hear that Morgan thinks Biggio doesn't belong in the HOF? I have yet to find the exact quote. I wonder if he was misquoted. But then again, it's Lil Joe, the same man who said he didn't think Pete Rose belonged in the HOF but he didn't have an opinion one way or the other!

 

By the way, I had to replace some of the smileys with exclamation points because of the image limit.

 

Well, I wasn't making that argument. You were deriding SwH, so you were deriding Mantle and Murray. That was my point. I felt you were unfairly deriding these guys for their prowess.

No, it isn't. However, you can't ignore his ability and rank as a SwH as part of his overall resume. You, like many, prefer to be myopic, which is to me the bane of sports and HOF qualifiers. I look at the breadth of a player's career.

Okay.

Well, I wouldn't agree with that number, but to say their O is more important than their D, I won't quibble with. However, they can't be liabilities.

Well, these numbers are pretty arbitrary, and I wouldn't even know if I'd argue that it should be this way even if it is this way.

Decent? Here we go again...set your bromide meters pretty high folks....:laugh:

Again, assuming facts not in evidence, your honor. The numbers are not that far off.

I think that's a leap. Some have posited many theories as to why he's never been seriously considered. I believe the HOF voters just aren't going to consider anyone who isn't the Paris Hilton of their day. Just my theory.

Circular reasoning folks tend to feel pretty solid :laugh: And let's be honest. The reason you aren't considering him is you have your mind made up and you won't let a little thing like statistics get in the way.

No. My philosophy has been stated before: the best of all-time, the best of their era should be considered. There is no doubt about Simmons being at least one if not both, and the numbers show this. Your philosophy on the HOF is based on your biases. If you're biased against them, they're not in - period. That's your perogative. However, I feel that players that meet the qualifications should be in, regardless of how I feel about them.

At any rate, back to the list of actives. I'm eager to tackle these guys as I have a light day tomorrow. You threw out a long list, so I may just do Q&D's on a few, but some merit in-depth analysis, and I love seeing where they are this era.

 

While I will grant that Ted Simmons was not in the same class at the plate as 'the Mick' or Eddie Murray, mainly due to HR power, in the case of both Mantle and Murray, I add, with all due respect, Andy, the stats do not say what you are implying, as to the defense of Ted Simmons. And like Joe Torre, he is getting overlooked, here, for he is worthy of HOF consideration. His defensive stats are above average, granted by not a lot, but neither are those of several other current HOF or HOF worthy catchers. In fact, the best of the defensive catchers is Gary Carter, among the later arrivals at the position, and Simmons was the equal among those of his playing days, just as Ivan Rodriguez and Jorge Posada are today, two who will potentially get serious HOF consideration, with Pudge creeping toward a near lock, barring injury, IMO.

Simmons, like Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, Carlton Fisk and Cary Carter, all had their defensive stats take a hit by the number of games they actually played at other positions, not an indictment, but a testament to all their collective abilities, in that they could fill a role at a postion other than their 'natural' one, when that was the need. Only Joe Torre, actually had better than league average defensive stats at every position he played. The rest did not. And Joe Torre and Ted Simmons should both be there, as well as the other four I have mentioned who are already there, and the two who are potentially likely to join them.

Ed

 

1. Leadership is one of those intangibles you deride and say shouldn't be a HOF quality. I guess that's only when it doesn't support your biases :laugh:
2. The circular reasoning on SImmons D has to stop sometime. Honest.
3. Carter was very media friendly, Simmons wasn't. I don't suppose that had anything to do with it.

You might quibble, but the numbers don't. You're giving yourself away here, my friend. At least you esteem Bench. Maybe you do have some cred :laugh:

You know I kid...I like your baseball knowledge. If you just weren't so obsessed with your biases. :thumbs:

 

Pujols and Santana are on pace (especially Prince Albert) but it's way too soon to tell. If I were voting today, I'd probably put Albert in, and be on the fence about Johan. Johan's overall numbers are good, but a non-factor in October.

A-Rod: He's in if he hits 500+ HR (the Paris Hilton voters love the one glaring number). However, he does have other good numbers. Telling that he has only three comparables in the HOF. However, I have no problem putting him in. What happens if the 'Roid allegations are true, though? What happens if he winds up with another team and the supposed multi-team penalty hits him? Go ahead and put him in, though. Too much black ink to ignore him, and you can definitely make a case that he's the best LSINF of his era.

Jeter: Think he's a slam dunk? I'd vote for him, but the BBWA loves black ink and grey ink. Jeter has a surprisingly low amount of both. However, I don't hold that against him the way I believe voters might. Good BA, fairly solid glove. Outstanding in the Post-Season. This should overcome any other “deficiencies.” Put him in.

I believe Clemens and Griffey (despite some who question his defense) are locks and no-brainers.

Vlad? FP is almost 20 points below league avg. Top ten in a couple of categories for his era, then the rest is top 25 or worse. No HOF, not yet. Maybe he'll be great, but for now, a very good player, but not HOF material.

Delgado? No. He's approaching 500 HR, so the "Paris Hilton" voters will love that, but the rest is indicting. League avg fielder. Pretty good offensive numbers. Little black/grey ink. His MHOF is barely that of a likely HOFer. Maybe he could climb the ladder a bit, but not one of the best of his era statistically (His BA is 65th in his era, and only a couple of top tens).

By the way Andy, I spoke too soon: BR is running slow today. So subscribing doesn't help so much after all!

More to come.....

 

Yeah...I read that in the SoCRE magazine at the doctor's office the other day (the Society for Circular Reasoning Experts) :laugh:

And you did say that about intangibles like leadership, and quantifying those. It was way back before we ever got this thing started.

 

I didn't include his numbers from his other positions. Best as BR will allow, that's how I broke them down. And I'm not going to burn down the HOF if Simmons isn't elected. I just think it's kind of ridiculous to hear them promote some of the qualifiers, which Simmons meets, and then discard him (or anyone).

About games caught:
Simmons, 87%
Bench, 88%
Carter, 90%

I think I already did most of the stats with Simmons' # of games behind the plate compared to others with similar games caught.

Looking at his PBs, almost 60% came the first 5 years of his career. From then on, he had 1 season with more than 9.

In looking at his years, he played over 90% of his games (many seasons, allof his games at C, with the big exception being the start of the 1983 season where he spent most of his time at DH. His FP is below league average at C only once as a full C (he did have one more late where he caught a handful of games). Many seasons it was a few points higher, and one season drastically higher than league avg.

I just did the analysis of his time at Catcher. Using just the first 14 seasons of his career (when he was an everyday catcher) among All-Time catchers who caught the same number of games during that span and the same percentage of games behind the dish, he outranks Bench, Carter, Berra, etc. more times than not. I don't know how legit a comparison this all is. However, he's top 3 in BA, doubles, OBP, and top five in hits, walks, and top 6 in slugging, runs, total bases, extra base hits, and Homers.

Doing the analysis this way, I'm also more convinced that Pudge is a lock, and that Piazza may be a slightly better candidate, though I'm not sold on him yet. I just haven't run his numbers as deeply.

I'm surprised you didn't tee off on my actives that I wrote about this morning

 

I think they both need more years of excellence, but are well on their way. I'm not sure what you mean about a non-factor in October. I don't even have to visit BR to know that not every HoF'er was a factor in WS/playoffs.

There are at least 4 problems with the allegations. #1, his stats have always been fantastic (at least I think they have), whether with the M's, Rangers or Yanks. #2, he hasn't gotten so much bigger like Bonds. #3, he didn't have years of average performance followed by years of extraordinary performance like McGwire. #4, his performance didn't fall off once steroid testing started like Sosa.

It's possible that he juiced also, but the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that it's not true.

 

CCRob wrote:

Just that in his limited October experience, he's been mediocore at best. 1-3 lifetime with an ERA of just under 4 and a WHIP of 1.41.

Andy wrote:

Well, I did that analysis - twice. I still think his numbers merit inclusion.

They do if, as part of your overall resume, players with your numbers are typically in the HOF, and virtually no one has your credentials and is not in the HOF. I think both are fairly true of Ted.

I want off the circular reasoning merry-go-round. Seriously, I guess you're biased and nothing is going to persuade you. That's fine. Let me posit this: should we then break down every candidate position by position? Assuming he's ever eligible, should Pete's time at different positions be broken down and compared to every other position player? So does Pete the OF get in but Pete the 1B get left out? Simmons spent as much time behind the plate as others. His numbers are similar on defense and exceed on offense. But like I said, a little thing like statistics shouldn't get in the way of a good bias :laugh:

I would love to see these, too. Maybe Total Baseball has them? I do know that in Politics of Glory, Bil James praises Simmons for his ability to throw out runners at a slightly higher than league average based on a study of Simmons defensive work. (pp. 345-346)

I wouldn't assume he's average. Typically Catchers with poor arms aren't used at the hot corner or the OF.

Well, he's good, but is he that good? He's the best C of his era, but I believe the General is a better C. I'm biased, and I admit it The MHOF for Bench is likely higher because of the titles.

I am not ready to throw a C under the bus for having to go to other positions after catching 1,700 games behind the plate. That's well above what James gives in his point system. I agree with you completely regarding Piazza's offensive numbers being contextualized. It's tempting not even to compare Piazza to other catchers in that regard, but to players in general. I need to do more study of Piazza. For now, I'm still on the fence.

I personally believe it will take more than a couple.

He has 1 error for every 1 assist. Using the formula of Errors divided by asssists plus put outs, multiplied by 100, you get something like the ERA for pitchers (lower the better): Ken Griffey Jr, 1.60. Vlad? 3.83. Top OF of his ERA? Well....the numbers really don't say this. Top ten in a couple of categories for his era, then the rest is top 25 or worse. Now who's diluting the great with the good? :laugh:

His BA? 15th in his era - among 1B! His OPS is 4th in his era, for 1Bs, 10th overall. OBP? 16th overall, 5th among 1Bs. The more I look at him, the less like a HOFer he looks to me. I ask again: now who's diluting the great with the good?