Potential SS's for the Hall of Fame

I sort of addressed Vizquel already, and in the other forum pointed out that Tony's numbers do have some deficiencies in relation to Davey, so I disagree that Tony is better than Davey. If we need to, we can look at Omar again.

I have looked at the other two in a cursory way. It will probably be Monday before I get back to looking at them, but I may squeeze in the time later today. Larkin gets no extra points just because he's a Red, and probably one of the top three SS they've ever had, and some argue he's better than Davey. I did love watching him play. What's problematic about Barry is his injuries and his often hot and cold relationship with fans and the media. His public feuds with the Reds' FO (sometimes warranted) may factor in there. I need to look at what he did in his era. I think you'd find more people think Davey was the best in his era than think Barry was the best in his, but that's just a guess. Ancedotally I've found it to be true.

There's a local branch that has the most recent "Total Baseball." I may have to stop by there just to look at some other things we've talked about.

 

Jeter and A-Rod (Seattle / Texas)?

 

IMO Larkin, Trammel, and Vizquel are all better than Davey and would be deserving of the HOF over him.

 

What does SS stand for?
Faithgirl

 

Thank you,
Faithgirl

 

That won't work. I don't put guys in that don't have merits

We'll see about him. He doesn't measure up to Davey in some areas but has better numbers in other areas. Overall, the MHOF numbers divide them. Davey's is higher.

 

Count me as one vote for Buddy Biancalana.

 

Vizquel - Most hits, doubles, and triples by any SS since 1989. The rest of his numbers put him middle of the pack to average. What seperates him is his glove. 12 pts above league average at .984. 11 Gold Gloves. Better than LgAvg at BA and OBP. His HOFM has him as less than a lock, 20 points lower than Ozzie and Davey. His October numbers are not super but not awful. I wouldn't have a problem with him getting in, but I don't think he will be voted in.

Tony Fernandez - A few great years. A few below average years. Overall, good numbers. .288 lifetime. Doesn't rank well in his era, though. Only 64% SB success. His HOFM is half that of Davey and Ozzie. More doubles than Davey, but less hits, runs, etc. Sorry Andy

Alan Trammell - Want to see a guy hit .320something one year and .260something the next? Look at Alan. Had a monster WS in '84. Great glove. Has some very good offensive numbers and ranks pretty well in his era. I think he's marginal just because he was in an era against Davey, Ozzie, Cal, etc., and got lost in the mix. (I won't bring up the soft sand at Tiger stadium either....wait, I just did) Seriously, I think a case could be made, but his HOFM is 20 points lower than Oz or Davey, thus his case isn't as strong. I wouldn't vote for him, despite how good he was. (I believe he was overshadowed by Gibson, Morris, etc. on that WS team, but without Trammell, Detroit would not have won, IMHO).

Barry Larkin - 12 times an AS. 3 GG. 1995's NL MVP. One of the best SS in his era. However, his inability to stay durable hurt him. He put up great numbers. Was very good in what little October he saw (Oakland didn't get to see him much in 1990) Has the highest HOFM of any SS we have considered here, but still 20 points below the Ozzie/Davey line. I would not argue against him, but I just don't think he'll get in.

 

I think he invented it. Baseball Reference tweaks it a little, and there's a modified version that tweaks it even further. You get points for having X number of hits, so many home runs (300 for instance) and gold gloves etc.

I don't really hang my hat on it, but it is one way to compare folks, especially across eras.

James's calculation is found in Politics of Glory. I'd give you the page, but I don't have it with me. I prefer that to the HOF standards calculation, which is also found at Baseball Reference. The big thing I don't like about James's is that you get the same point value for 399 HR as you do for 301. The guy who hits 400 gets a much larger value for the guy who hit one HR less. That's not quite fair. (that is just an example for illustration purposes.)

 

How about Shawon Dunston? I believe he'll be on the ballot in 2008.
I know he played many positions, but he was predominately a SS.

 

Is HOFM either Hall of Fame Merit, or Hall of Fame Moniter??

BTW, Rafael Belliard for the HOF.
>
>
>
>
>
Hey, if someone else can suggest Buddy Biancalana for the HOF with a straight face, then surely Rafael Belliard is a lock! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Thanks for that info.

BTW, I assume that not all with good HOFM ratings, have made it, so far. Am I not correct in this?

BTW, there only one SS I see as a "near lock", currently, and that is Derek Jeter.

Ed

 

My calculations were using the Modified HOFM, that account for the Jamesian problems mentioned earlier.

According to James and BR, 100 is a likely HOFer, and 130 means the players is a "virtual cinch." The full link to the BR HOFM explanation is http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor

Not many above the "lock" number are not in. A good number below the "likely" number are in.

It is not pointless. It is what it is. Just a tool for comparison. It is by no means the essential tool. It is just one number. It's like the Wind Chill or to a lesser extent the Consumer Confidence Index. It means very little other than for relative purposes, used as part of an overall synthesis and analysis. At least, that's how I use it. I know there are some that argue more for it being a hard and fast number to use to discuss a player's merits vs. the Hall. I prefer to use it to compare players to other players, especially in eras that may not overlap as much. But it's just one number. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dunston? Very good SS. But not one of the best all time, and hard to say he's one of the best of his era. I did love watching him play, though.