Which of these players would you elect to the Hall?

[thepichi]

Originally Posted by unreal654

Any thoughts on Omar Vizquel? I really think his defense makes a good case for him getting in.

Vizquel is without discussion one of the best defensive SS of all time. But I don't think that make him a HoF.

[cardinals_10]

It was hard for me to vote because if you vote for vote player in the roid era you have to put them all in. And if you put those guys in Pete Rose should definately get in because betting on baseball is not as bad as using drugs that help your performance on the field. The only guy i would say no to is Joe Jackson because he threw a world series and that is a disgrace to the game of baseball. Griffey and A-Rod are the only for sure players who would get into the hall.

[jtur88]

This is a very telling headline:

Gossage elected for impact on game | MLB.com: News
Gossage elected for impact on game
Reliever's dominance, power overshadowed his statistics


So, who else deserves to be in the Hall for Impact, not Stats? How do we judge?

[Triad]

Originally Posted by jtur88

This is a very telling headline:

Gossage elected for impact on game | MLB.com: News
Gossage elected for impact on game
Reliever's dominance, power overshadowed his statistics

So, who else deserves to be in the Hall for Impact, not Stats? How do we judge?

You bring up a good point. The author doesn't understand statistics very well, and seems to think that they don't necessarily measure "impact", which is a vague concept to begin with. Who was Gossage impacting? Future relievers? His team? The game result? Ultimately, "impact" becomes a nonsense word that writers can use to romanticize.

This raises the question: If they can quantify dominance and power, don't those things show up in the stats? If you can't quantify them, then how do they know at what level they exist? Dominance and power are just buzzwords that carry very little meaning out of context. Dwight Gooden was dominant too, and so was Ron Guidry, and Smokey Joe Wood. And I dare say that J.R. Richard had power too. The bottom line is how this translated into potential wins for your team. Again, that can be quantified. And Gossage comes through in shining colors, so why do they feel the need to make excuses for him just because he doesn't have 400 saves?

The idea the media has that saves are either the yardstick or worthless is short-sighted. Saves are simply part of the larger equation. IP and ER play just as much a role. But they're harder to extract, because they require a couple extra steps.

And it's these same short-sighted media types are the ones who saw fit to elect Bruce Sutter before Rich Gossage, because they didn't recognize Gossage's overall value. Gossage pitched 1809 innings, compared to 1042 for Sutter! He threw 74% more than Sutter did, at almost the same rate! Gossage had 8 seasons with a 170 or better ERA+, while Sutter had 3. It's no contest.

From the article...

Gossage, though, was elected this past January by eligible members of the Baseball Writers Association of America in his ninth time on the ballot not so much because of numbers or longevity, but for the way he altered the game.

What the author fails to realize is that Gossage had great stats. He seems to be apologizing for Gossage, but he doesn't need to. Closers had fewer saves than today's closers do, but they pitched more innings, and this can be quantified. I don't know why they feel the need to lump saves into the category of "all stats".

Also, I didn't catch how the author explained in what way Gossage altered the game. He was a great pitcher. What's all this mumbo-jumbo about altering? Does altering help teams win?

Continuing from the article...

His playoff numbers -- a 2-1 record, eight saves and a 2.87 ERA in 19 appearances for the Yankees and Padres -- pales in comparison to those compiled so far by Mariano Rivera. In 76 postseason appearances for the Yankees...

What the author doesn't mention is that Gossage played when there wasn't a divisional series in the playoffs. This isn't a knock on Rivera, because Rivera does stand supreme, but if we simply go by raw numbers, they will be seriously skewed.

Where I'd rank the all-time relievers:
(Hall of Famers in bold)
*-active

1. Mariano Rivera*
2. Dennis Eckersley
3. Hoyt Wilhelm
4. Rich Gossage
5. Trevor Hoffman*
6. Dan Quisenberry
7. John Wetteland
8. Rollie Fingers
9. John Franco
10. Lee Smith
11. Bruce Sutter
12. Billy Wagner*
13. Jeff Montgomery
14. Doug Jones
15. Tom Henke
16. Sparky Lyle
17. Rick Aguilera
18. Dave Righetti
19. Mike Marshall
20. Randy Myers

[nanwynn]

This is in no way meant as a challenge to your lists; but when we talk of relievers and power and dominance, two names come to mind that aren't on your list at all. That is probably justified because neither had a long career.

In all my years of watching baseball, I don't believe I've ever seen any picher more scarily dominant than either Dibble or Gagne. Both simply seemd to knock the bats out of the hitters' hands.

[Grandstander]

Would anyone argue that if Ichiro had begun his career in MLB rather than in Japan, his numbers would have been mediocre or poor, and then suddenly at age 28 he would have turned into Ichiro!, the .330 hitter he has been while in MLB?

I think that as with the case of Jackie Robinson, you take circumstances into account and back end the stats for him. I think that had Ichiro begun over here, he would be a cinch for 3000 hits and 500 stolen bases, numbers which would get him into the HoF with or without the fact that he was a pioneer.

There is precedent for voters considering circumstances, Jackie Robinson, Sandy Koufax and Kirby Puckett all were inducted because the voters chose to fill in those missing numbers. In the case of Albert Belle, they have elected not to do so. Does Ichiro belong with that first group or with Albert?

[NJpanther05]

Sammy Sosa gets my vote.

[nanwynn]

Filling in the blanks on careers to tally a player up for HoF consideration has been done often; but it has not been done consistently. Some challenges and sacrifices seems to weigh far more heavily than others:

Ross Youngs was voted int the HoF although his full-time seasons played was less than 10 seasons, [8 with 2 part time years]. Youngs died at age 29 of Bright's Disease.

Monte Irvin was a rookie at age 30 [color barrier] and played only 5 full-time seasons with three part-time years added. HoF fame stats pre-MLB debut had to be substituted, because, although good, nothing in his 5 MLB seasons would have argued persuasively for the HoF.

Don Gullett was done at age 26; and a look at his lines from 19 through 25 would make a fairly persuasive argument for a guy who caught a bad break. However, a bad arm < premature death, so not to many are punding the table for his induction. Pretty much the same can be said for J.R. Richard.

HoF-er Addie Joss died in 1911 at age 31, so his career was obviously abbreviated by illness and death.

WW II presents some interesting cases, young players whose prime years were spent in the military. Cecil Travis suffered frost bite to several toes in the Battle of the Bulge and served over 4 years in the military after breaking in with the Washington Senators at age 19 in the early 1930s. Although there has been debate as to his foot injuries, the truth is that he did suffer frostbite, but NEVER used it as an excuse for no being able to come back. It was said by contemporaries that this self-effacing modesty would have been typical of Travis.

Two other young guys, Johnny Pesky and Barnie McCosky also served in WW II; and Pesky picked up fairly well after the War but was finished after age 30. McCosky, too, looked like his comeback would be a solid one; but he suffered a back injury that made him a hanger on over several declining part-time seasons.

Roy Campanella's own play speaks for him; but the convergence of color and a tragic accident certainly modified the view of HoF selectors. He played 9 full time seasons and one half season, but won 3 MVPs in the process.

Ichiro should be a lead pipe cinch for the HoF.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

There is precedent for voters considering circumstances, Jackie Robinson, Sandy Koufax and Kirby Puckett all were inducted because the voters chose to fill in those missing numbers. In the case of Albert Belle, they have elected not to do so. Does Ichiro belong with that first group or with Albert?

Belle's OPS+ in his last season (age 33) was only 109. He had just 23 home runs. There's no reason to believe that he would have been an impact player from that point on even if he could have continued his career. I'd say we can't give Belle a break just because he retired at a younger age than Hall of Famers usually do. After all, Ron Santo, Jimmie Foxx, and many other deserving players faded away around age 34.

As for Puckett, his last season was at age 35. Granted, his OPS+ was 130, yet we can't expect that he would have been able to keep that up past age 36. In all likelihood, he missed one more good season. Based on the basic career model, that's all that can be expected.

Koufax was a unique case. He was only 30, and he was the best pitcher in the game when he retired. This is unprecedented. We can expect that he would have been near Cy Young Award level for 3-4 more years.

Jackie Robinson probably lost three good years by starting at age 28, so he can be credited for that. Roy Campanella broke into the bigs at age 26, so he might have lost one good season. By the time of his accident, he was 35, and he'd already started his decline two years earlier, so there's really nothing we can expect he would have been able to do at the end of his career.

Ichiro deserves a pass for at least two good missed seasons at the beginning of his major league career, since he started at age 27 in the States. He definitely belongs in the Hall of Fame when you tack on two more quality seasons at the beginning. And like any great baserunner, his OPS doesn't tell the story. He scored lots of runs and was an excellent base stealer.

Ross Youngs' last two seasons (age 28-29) were not that good, so it's tough to say what he might have been able to do after that. Monte Irvin's selection was a mistake, as many other players did more. We didn't have enough of a glimpse of Irvin to really make a judgment. He had just two high quality seasons, and if we put him in, then we could put in Kevin Mitchell and Pedro Guerrero and Eric Davis as well. Not enough information to go by.

Cecil Travis couldn't have been expected to do any spectacular. He had one excellent season at age 27, but lots of players have one or two such seasons and then fall apart in their 30s (Carlos Baerga, Ruben Sierra, Kenny Lofton, Adrian Beltre). In fact, the default position is that players will tend to fall apart after some very good seasons in their 20s. Anyway, Travis had only one season above 120 OPS+. I'd compare him to someone like Edgar Renteria. A steady player, but didn't sustain excellence for any length of time.

I've looked at the careers of all players, and there are actually very few who were at a high level of play either directly before or after they had missed time, and had it happen during normally expected peak ages (about 25-32). Ted Williams, Hank Greenberg, and Joe DiMaggio are three of the rare cases, though Williams missed more and was at a higher level. Willie Mays also missed the better part of two seasons, though he wasn't in his prime yet, so it wasn't quite like Williams. Mike Donlin missed three seasons in the middle of his prime, while he was one of the best outfielders in the league. Ed Delahanty looked like he still had some very good seasons left in him when he died at age 35. He was just coming off seasons of 174 and 186 OPS+.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Triad

Belle's OPS+ in his last season (age 33) was only 109. He had just 23 home runs. There's no reason to believe that he would have been an impact player from that point on even if he could have continued his career. I'd say we can't give Belle a break just because he retired at a younger age than Hall of Famers usually do. After all, Ron Santo, Jimmie Foxx, and many other deserving players faded away around age 34.

Belle did not "fade away" as you suggest, rather he was forced into an early retirement due to degenerative osteoarthritis, a progressive disease which attacks the bones and makes weight bearing extremely painful. He was already suffering from the disease in 2000 when he posted the 109 +OPS, so it was not a matter of his skills having eroded at age 33, he was in the same class as Koufax and Puckett, a victim of random medical circumstances who could not play ball as a consequence.

Because he was such a surly character, I suspect many people associate his early retirement with some sort of bad for an athlete lifestyle, but osteoarthritis does not discriminate on the basis of personality, Belle was just unlucky. Had it not been for the illness, Belle would certainly have been a plus 500 homerun, plus 1800 RBI guy for his career and his qualifications for the HoF would be beyond question.

It is essentially the same story as Kirby, the difference being that people loved Puckett and disliked Albert. And that is also the difference between one of them being in the HoF and one not.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Triad

Cecil Travis couldn't have been expected to do any spectacular. He had one excellent season at age 27, but lots of players have one or two such seasons and then fall apart in their 30s ...

Since the question posed dealt with a willingness to PROJECT missing seasons for the Ichiro HoF defense, I find your willingness FOR Ichiro and against Travis a bit inconsistent.

Travis broke in at 19 [few games], so his pre-War full-time play would be from 1934 [age 20] through 1941 [age 27]. Had his career ended at the end of the '41 season, his lifetime BA would have been @ .327.

By season; Travis:

Age:............20........21......22......23...... ....24......25.......26.......27

Seasons:.....'34......'35.......'36.....'37....... ...'38.......'39....'40.......'41

OPS+.........101.....103......101....113......115. .........96......119....150

You liken him to Edgar Renteria, below, same headings, even same ages:

OPS+.........103.......80.......88.....84......... 92.........77......113....130

[not even close].

Ironically, Ichiro's U.S. & MLB career almost picks up where Travis' left off when he went into service:

Ichiro, OPS+, 8 seasons, MLB, starting at age 27:

OPS+........126........120....112...130........113 .......106......122.....101

Ichiro NEVER has had a 150 OPS+ to match Travis' 1941 season, which effectively ended his career. If we projected Travis OPS+ for 4 seasons LOST and were forced to use Ichiro's 4 lowest OPS+ seasons, 101, 106, 112, 113, as the fill-ins, there would be many arguing for Travis' induction.

I am not pounding the table here, just telling it like it is [and isn't] when filling in gaps for players, in the context of the question.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by nanwynn

Since the question posed dealt with a willingness to PROJECT missing seasons for the Ichiro HoF defense, I find your willingness FOR Ichiro and against Travis a bit inconsistent.

Travis broke in at 19 [few games], so his pre-War full-time play would be from 1934 [age 20] through 1941 [age 27]. Had his career ended at the end of the '41 season, his lifetime BA would have been @ .327.

By season; Travis:

Age:............20........21......22......23...... ....24......25.......26.......27

Seasons:.....'34......'35.......'36.....'37....... ...'38.......'39....'40.......'41

OPS+.........101.....103......101....113......115. .........96......119....150

You liken him to Edgar Renteria, below, same headings, even same ages:

OPS+.........103.......80.......88.....84......... 92.........77......113....130

[not even close]

OK, if you want a prototype for the Travis timeline, look at this shortstop's OPS numbers his first four regular seasons:
94
100
102
146

Let's suppose this shortstop went into the military for a few years following that 146 season, and then came back and never matched his earlier success. The temptation is to conclude that he would have been able to maintain his earlier success if his progress had not been impeded.

But this shortstop kept playing. And here's what he did after that:
92
91
78
104
115
73

It's none other than Rich Aurilia. The moral is that one season does not give you enough information about a player.

Here are some more...

Jeff Blauser had a full season with 124 OPS at age 27, and then he followed that up with seasons of 84, 72, 99, 130, 69, 96. At 27, he looked like a perennial All-Star, but it turned out he was an inconsistent shooting star.

Edgardo Alfonzo had three seasons at 120 or higher up through age 28 (including 147), and then he never reached 100 again. He looked like a world beater early on, but then he couldn't sustain it.

And we know the Carlos Baerga story, and Ruben Sierra, and Felix Jose, and Kevin Mitchell, etc., etc. Merely having one or two excellent seasons does not give a good enough indication of a player's true ability. We could cite many more examples, and they would outnumber the quantity of players who kept a positive trend going. So it seems wrong to me to assume the best for a player with so little data (one or two excellent seasons). In the case of Koufax, he had been the best pitcher in the game the previous 4 seasons and was still at the top of his game, so he deserves the benefit of the doubt on two counts. But for guys like Cecil Travis, he didn't really show us enough to form any solid conclusions.

Originally Posted by nanwynn

Ichiro NEVER has had a 150 OPS+ to match Travis' 1941 season, which effectively ended his career. If we projected Travis OPS+ for 4 seasons LOST and were forced to use Ichiro's 4 lowest OPS+ seasons, 101, 106, 112, 113, as the fill-ins, there would be many arguing for Travis' induction.

OPS isn't kind to great baserunners. We'd need to compare them a different way.

And regarding Albert Belle, 33-34 is a common place for players to see their stats start dwindling. Vern Stephens had 10 good seasons in a row, but then after age 30 he did nothing. Rogers Hornsby was washed up at age 34. Mike Piazza was washed up at 34. So was Don Mattingly. Surely you can concede many such examples. It's a myth that most good players play at a high rate into their late 30s. Most actually tail off around 33 or 34.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Triad

OK, if you want a prototype for the Travis timeline, look at this shortstop's OPS numbers his first four regular seasons:
94
100
102
146

Let's suppose this shortstop went into the military for a few years following that 146 season, and then came back and never matched his earlier success. The temptation is to conclude that he would have been able to maintain his earlier success if his progress had not been impeded.

But this shortstop kept playing. And here's what he did after that:
92
91
78
104
115
73

It's none other than Rich Aurilia. The moral is that one season does not give you enough information about a player.

Nicely detailed, but totally unresponsive, relative to Travis' record for several reasons:

-I presented EIGHT full-time seasons for Travis through age 27 [he broke in @ 19 and I tossed out his first part-time season.

-Your continuation 4 seasons for Aurelia, largely pathetic, would only justifiably be compared to Travis' years #5 through 8, all pre-War, and culminating with the 150 OPS+ season.

OPS isn't kind to great baserunners. We'd need to compare them a different way.

This was your response to my calling attention to the fact that Ichiro NEVER in MLB had a 150 season like Travis' 1941 OPS+ year [at age 27], after which he lost 4 seasons to WW II and suffered injured feet in the Battle of the Bulge as well.

It was YOU who selected OPS+ in the first place, not I. All I did was suggest, in the context of the "fill in the blanks" or "what ifs" proposition, we had substituted Ichiro's WORST OPS+ seasons to project Travis in lieu of the War and after-effects.

And regarding Albert Belle, 33-34 is a common place for players to see their stats start dwindling. Vern Stephens had 10 good seasons in a row, but then after age 30 he did nothing. Rogers Hornsby was washed up at age 34. Mike Piazza was washed up at 34. So was Don Mattingly. Surely you can concede many such examples. It's a myth that most good players play at a high rate into their late 30s. Most actually tail off around 33 or 34.

However, this was NOT the point of the question. Travis [used here as an example] comes to the question after 1941 [age 27], because 1942 through 1945, [his ages 28 through 31] would cover a period at which he would be exempted, agewise, from your 33-34 examples.

Moreover, context means a great deal. Hornsby suffered a broken leg, then came back and suffered from a debilitating bone spur on his heel [like DiMaggio]. I won't go into each of the others and their ages of decline for two reasons:

-for the example of Travis, the model does not fit;

-in the context of the challenge [posed by GS] we are talking players whose careers experienced extraordinary interruptions or curtailments, some fron end delays and some back end tragedies.

[jtur88]

Here's what puzzles me. Nowadays, we have exalted Shortstop to some mythical position where a player has a unique value increment just by being there. If there is no obvious MVP runaway, we grab the most conspicuous shortstop (Versalles, Larkin, Rollins) and anoint him.

Yet, 60 years ago, there was a shortstop who outhit almost every walloping first-baseman for a decade (Vern Stephens), and nobody takes his HoF credentials seriously. If Stephens' actual credentials were bolstered by today's automatic shortstop value-increment, he would be a front-runner. In fact, compared to Lou Boudreau (who is in the Hall), Stephens outhit Boudreau in many seasons of their congruent careers, always with much more power.

[Triad]

If Travis has seasons like this to start his career...

OPS+.........101.....103......101....113......115. .........96......119....150

...which of those numbers are most representative of his ability? 150 is an outlier, or an anomaly. If we were to project what his next season after the 150 would have been (based on the trend and his age), it would be about 120-125, and the season after that would be about 115. This is what I'm saying. We can't just assume that Travis would have continued having 150 seasons. It took him eight seasons to get one of them.

Originally Posted by nanwynn

It was YOU who selected OPS+ in the first place, not I. All I did was suggest, in the context of the "fill in the blanks" or "what ifs" proposition, we had substituted Ichiro's WORST OPS+ seasons to project Travis in lieu of the War and after-effects.

However, I wasn't suggesting that OPS+ would be an accurate appraisal of great baserunners like Ichiro. I was using it in the context of Cecil Travis and comparable players.

Originally Posted by nanwynn

Ichiro NEVER has had a 150 OPS+ to match Travis' 1941 season, which effectively ended his career. If we projected Travis OPS+ for 4 seasons LOST and were forced to use Ichiro's 4 lowest OPS+ seasons, 101, 106, 112, 113, as the fill-ins, there would be many arguing for Travis' induction.

Assuming that Travis had the speed and durability of Ichiro, that would be correct. But Travis had neither of those.

If we're really trying to compare Ichiro with Travis, Ichiro is on pace for his 8th straight season with 100 or more RC. Travis, meanwhile, had only one season above 100 RC, and only three seasons total above 90 RC. And Travis even played in an environment more conducive to offensive production, based on Baseball Reference's AIR scores. (106 Travis, 103 Ichiro)

I think Travis was a fine player, but I don't think he was one of the best at his position for any combination of seasons. True, Arky Vaughan overshadowed him during that period, but was Travis even the second best shortstop for any sustained period? Vern Stephens, on the other hand, was the best shortstop in baseball for the combined years of 1943-1950. That is sustained excellence.