Active players who will make the Hall of Fame

Given I'm bleary eyed from lack of sleep the last two nights watching Barry Bonds, and given that my wife laments every April - October (and then September to Jan for CFB/NFL, and Nov to April for CBB, and Oct - June for NHL) I'd say I've watched some games. And I played the game until bad shoulder, a bad back, and a bad knee ended a sure-fire Cooperstown career :laugh:

Ah, the beloved intangibles you praise when it helps your biases and deride when they hurt them. There's no question that this is a factor. However, you cannot logically make the argument you are making as a plank in his resume. Let's turn your argument around: Does that mean that Ichiro, who has a good assist number, either (1) is very lucky because he has a weak arm and players run on him with little fear of being cut down, or (2) these wise base coaches suddenly haven't caught on to the now 7 year player? If a player has a low number of assists, then he either (1) has no arm, or (2) Players will not run on him for fear of him. That's why the other numbers speak a lot about shoring up a poor fielding glove like Vlad's. Ichiro has almost 5 assists for every error made. Vlad? Barely 1 assist per error. Couple that with his other telling D numbers and you cannot use that as a plank in his resume. I do understand his powerful arm. I do know that it has a reputation for being erratic. He could have more assists from where I've seen him. Garrett Anderson has a much higher FP, and a little over 2 assists per error. Same with Junior. I know (all) of Vlad's rep as an OF. We can't be selective about what we look at.So it's a wash. And he has never won a GG. His other numbers are better qualifiers. I'd stick to his bat, because his bashing is going to get him to Cooperstown.

Fine. But he didn't make 7 less errors. He makes more errors than a league average OF. That weakens him.

I'd love to see Vlad's FR and FW numbers and how they compare to other OFs. I just think this would tell us more. Not that it would matter much!

But as I said, now that you're hanging your hat on this, then no FP should be considered for an OF. It is meaningless, in your book. Throw out Ichiro's, et.al. I just can't go there with you.

And you spoke of the chasm between Simmons and Bench defensively as being a negative for Simmons, despite the fact that they were 3 points apart. Are you now willing to amend your comments about this in light of your new disdain for FP/LgFP?

More later...they were selective because (1) I just wanted to wet your whistle, and (2) I wanted to do a breakdown on BR that would be more telling. More on that later. Besides, where you rank among the all-time greats does matter. I know the Paris Hilton voters want 500 HR or 3,000 hits and you're a lock, but I prefer not to have hard lines like that (you've agreed in the past) and look at a player's whole body of work.

I don't try to use the selective stat method. I criticize it often. I've seen you and others use it. It's natural to some extent. But it should be avoided. Some stats jump out (gawdy HRs, SLG, BA, etc.) and that can be too myopic, although precedent has shot that in the head. James speaks out of both sides of his mouth on this one. Never made a whole lot of sense to say that someone is the best SS in an extended period (as he does) and a lock as the best in a certain decade (as he does) and arguably the best in his era (as he does) but yet say he's only sniffing the top 25. And even despite all this, James's opinion is James's opinion. Tony's numbers are good, but he's overall nowhere near Davey. His MHOF is almost half what Davey's is. Burt? Same story, and his numbers are not as good as Davey's or Tony's overall. And tweaking their numbers to make them comparable just on a gift, not an extrapolation based on any other criteria? Please. We aren't inventing the precedent set by the HOF. They already have. We aren't inventing the picture of a HOF SS. They already have.

But we've done that to death.

Thank you. But just not enough to register on the Andy Bias Meter!

Played against him in HS. Great pitcher. Great QB. But too good of a hitter. Played both baseball and football at Tennessee, and could've been a pro prospect either wa. Led Tennessee back to the CWS in 1995. A knee injury killed his FB career and he wisely decided to stick to baseball since he had used his FB eligibility (and a guy named Peyton Manning was waiting in the wings). I wonder how the humidor era will affect the Coors adjustment?

But I spent a good while yesterday doing some Helton research. Away from Coors: 2697 AB, 404 runs, 792 hits, 201 doubles, 8 triples, 115 HR, 413 RBI, .294 BA .393 OBP .502 SLG, .895 OPS. Maybe not earth shattering. Plus, it's hard (nay, impossible) to just do a player batting career comparison on just away or just adjusted numbers. I do agree his candidacy will be hurt by playing at Coors. And I don't believe he's a juicer. I just think his injuries have caught up to him. He was hurt in HS and in college, and given the knee injury he suffered, I think it's tremendous he's able to play at the level he has. He's a leader in his era and (I think) some all-time categories, but I consider him marginal right now at best. I think he has no chance of being voted in. I just wish he could've played for a better team in a better park.

Always a pleasure, Andy!

 

One thing I wish: that the statisticians developed an "Assists possible" number. It's great if a player has 100 assists. However, if he had 250 chances at an assist, maybe not. Or what about a catcher or 2b or 3b dropping a ball that costs an OF an assist? Oh well, just a thought.

 

Schilling: Great K to BB ratio. Really good W/L pct (6th in his era among comparable games, etc.) 5th in SO. 4th in ERA. His heroic performance in the '04 ALCS may just push him in. However, he's got several great pitchers to contend with. I think he may be on the bubble.

Pedro Martinez: A no-brainer. 206-92 lifetime. 691 w/l pct. 8 time AS. 3 Cy Youngs (1 in both leagues, 5th in shares). Sniffed a couple of MVPs. Best ERA among actives and led his league in ERA 5 times. Too much black and grey ink to mention. However, only 10th among actives in wins. Very colorful. We know that will help. I'd put him in easily.

Trevor Hoffman: Career save leader (510). Did you know he's only led the league in saves twice? Only two "Rolaids" awards. My point? He's amassed his saves almost quietly and with little October presence. Not his fault. I say put him in. But it opens up the Pandora's Box of relievers in the Hall. You can certainly make a case for some others to go in with him. (Lee Smith?)

 

In today's juiced ball environment, I think whatever you can do to bring up your resume helps. A good glove helps. And you did open the door on Vlad's glove as an asset back in the thread

Interesting about Hernandez. His offensive numbers are suprising. I don't have them in front of me and I have to get back to doing some real work. Maybe we'll discuss him in the future.

I do believe that defense should be more of a factor. You wear a glove a heck of a lot more than you swing a bat. Again, I like looking at the whole picture. I don't want .240 1B who have .997 FPs in the hall, but I just think we need to rid the BBWA of the myopic nature of their selection process. It hurts some otherwise good candidates and inches us closer to having "mandatory minimums."

 

Well, you did disparagehim using his FP. I agree it's not the bene esse , but it does tell something.
Can you demonstrate your assertion mathematically that there's more of a point to error correlation than among OF?
By the way, we never proved that Simmons gave up more SB. In fact, I quoted the study that James cited showing that Simmons was better than avg at throwing runners out.

I haven't made up my mind about Smith. I'm not ready to rule him out, but not ready to enthusiastically put him in. But consider he has more saves and a better ERA and ERA+ than the Eck (.50 better than the Eck). 2nd most saves all time. Rivera could catch him, but will he? 147 more saves than Rollie. 8 times led or 2nd in saves. MHOF has him right at being a lock. I think Smith was great. Was he great enough? Debatable. I won't argue much either way.

I'll have to tackle the other quote later.......

 

That's supposed to stand for a double post, FTR.

Ed

 

FTR, check the stats and I'll bet you find the number of "passed balls" is almost directly comparable to the number of Knucklers, spitters, 'er I mean splitters, and sinkers, the staff offers up. Smoke is easier to handle than junk, by far.

Phil Niekro, the old knuckleballer of Braves fame, once led the league in ERA, while his catchers had the most passed balls as a team. Not directly dependant one on the other?? Here is what a catcher, Bob Uecker said. BTW, He had 25 PBs that year, in only 59 games.

I do not know how many PBs were attributed to Charlie Lau, Joe Torre, and Gene Oliver, the three other catchers with the Braves, that year. And the big, oversize mitt, roughly the size of a #3 washtub, was already being used to catch the K-ballers. {laugh} {laugh}

Ed

 

It is what it is. I don't dispute that relievers roles are different, but Rollie's rings are what I referred to as unnecessarily hurting Smoltz, et.al. Where is your stat about Rollie's more innings per appearance? Fewer save chances? I can't find anything about saves to save chances. Eck was indeed dominant, but so was Smith. Smith is impressive because of his longevity.

Agreed, but I'd say a great fielder fails 5% of the time It doesn't carry the same poetic value, though.

Very hard. Not all throws are chest high. And you're the closest infielder, especially to lefties, and especially when holding runners on. As Pete has said, 3rd base is the hot corner, but 1st base is the busy corner. You have to be smart and athletic to play 1st base. (Yes, I played the position....so what?) :laugh:

I won't quibble much with your assertion that this is now the accepted standard, but as I said, I don't think defense is an afterthought. I think it's important. However, if you can't hit, you aren't going to get the chance to field.

As for your math, you're technically correct as far as the absolute value of the numbers. But the correlation doesn't hold. A .250 hitter is 25% better than a hitter at .200? The correlation is not 1 to 1. Having a 25% better batting average makes you much more than a 25% better player, and those values are certainly relative. Consequently, having a 2% better FP is meaningless because having a 20 point higher FP means you're a better fielder. Try being in the lineup every day with a 10% difference in FP than league average. And again, the values are relative and do not correlate 1:1. Does having 42 HR make you 80% of the player with 50 HR? Does having a 1.05 WHIP make you 20% more of a pitcher than a pitcher with a 1.25 WHIP? That's the pct difference. So while Excel or the BA Plus is right about punching up the numbers, this is more than just simple math. This is value to the team and to the game.

 

Do you figure Brooks Robinson is in the HOF because of a career BA of .267, OB - .322, Slg - .401??

Or could it be, just perhaps, 16 straight Gold Gloves, at the "hot corner"?? And an overall career fielding at 3B of .971 against an average of .953. BTW, as an emergency fill-in at 2B and SS for 30 games, he made a total of exactly 1 error.

Gimme' a break!

FTR, my two leading candidates who should be in the HOF are Joe Torre and Mark McGwire, both of whom were above average fielders, with Torre a better fielder than average at every position he played, overall, and in about every year, with his worst regular years being .003 behind the average, except for one year where he played in only 18 games at 3B and committed 4 errors in those games. (The next year, as the regular at 3B, he was well above the average for the position, although he was no Brooks R. Who was??) And both Torre and Big Mac also won a GG, BTW.

Ed

 

I'm going to start a discussion about Torre for the HOF. I think it's overdue.

 

He's on my list, too. We just took a detour to active guys. Santo is in poor health. I hate seeing things done posthumously when they could've been honored while alive.