Once again, it’s time for me to cast my vote in the Baseball
Bloggers Alliance’s Hall of Fame election. This year, they switched to a binary
“Yes/No” choice for each player, rather than keeping the BBWAA’s system of a
ten-person limit. That saved me the trouble of trying to decide whether to
leave off the top choices to make room for the down-ballot players. So,
briefly, here are my thoughts on each player.
Rich Aurilia: I’m
going to try and not resort to just Wins Above Replacement to justify my
decisions, as that’s hardly the only thing I look at in my decision. But at the
same time, Aurilia only managed 18.1 WAR (Baseball-Reference). That’s…pretty
far off; only 20 of the Hall’s 211 players managed less than even 40 (and two
of those were relievers, and another one was special case Roy Campanella, and
so on).
No
Jeff Bagwell: I
made a
quick case for Bagwell as one of the five best first basemen of all-time the
other day. That still stands.
Yes
Craig Biggio: He
should have made it in last year. 3000 hits, a 112 OPS+ that’s right around the
median for Hall of Fame middle infielders (currently 113), which doesn’t even
factor in that he started as a catcher, or that he hung on to get more plate
appearances than all but ten men in history. 65.1 WAR, which is just above the
median for middle infielders in Cooperstown (63.0).
Yes
Barry Bonds: Any
argument against Bonds has to center around steroids, as the man was arguably
the best player in baseball history. I voted for Bonds last year when he joined
the ballot, and I don’t see any reason to change that this year.
Yes
Aaron Boone: Like
with Aurilia, I feel bad just pointing to WAR. But at the same time…13.5 career
WAR. At least he’ll always have the 2003 ALCS.
No
Tony Clark: According
to Baseball-Reference, Clark has the lowest WAR on the ballot at 12.5. Yes,
even lower than the relievers who didn’t reach 1000 career innings.
No
Roger Clemens: Again,
any argument against Clemens is based on steroids, and I see no reason to take
my vote for him away on an unlimited ballot.
Yes
Carlos Delgado: Delgado
is actually tough. I wrote an article last year where I set McGriff loosely as
my baseline for first basemen (more on that in a minute). How do they compare?
McGriff: 10174 PA, 2490 H, 493 HR, 1305 BB, .284/.377/.509
line, 134 OPS+, 52.4 WAR
Delgado: 8657 PA, 2038 H, 473 HR, 1109 BB, .280/.383/.546
line, 138 OPS+, 44.3 WAR
That’s tough. They’re pretty close there. But McGriff’s
slight edge in fielding and extra 1500 plate appearances are major edges in his
favor (plus, he lost some good years to the strike, something Delgado can’t
really say). I already feel like I’m stretching setting McGriff as the minimum
for first basemen, and Delgado is
definitely a step down.
No
Jermaine Dye: A
corner outfielder with a 111 OPS+ in less than 6500 at bats. 20.3 WAR. A solid
career, but no.
No
Darin Erstad: Erstad
was better than I remembered, thanks to strong defense. But even then, he still
falls short. 32.3 WAR. His 93 OPS+ is only better than 6 Hall of Famers, and
none of them played in as few games. Even Phil Rizzuto, who matched his 93 OPS+
and played in only seven more games, can at least fall back on missing three
prime years to World War II.
No
Cliff Floyd: Again,
better than I thought, with 25.9 career WAR. But that’s still far short of meriting Hall consideration for a
corner outfielder. Also, it’s worth noting that his best 7 seasons totaled 25
WAR, meaning the other ten seasons of Floyd’s career were basically at
replacement level.
No
Nomar Garciaparra: Man,
was he good when he was healthy. His 124 OPS+ is fourth all-time for qualified
shortstops, with one of the three ahead of him being Hanley Ramirez, who seems
to be moving off the position for good starting in 2015. The catch is that he
only had 6116 plate appearances. The only Hall shortstop with fewer was Hughie
Jennings, who played from 1891 to 1918. He probably would have needed at least
two more mostly-healthy seasons at that rate to get into the conversation. Still,
229 home runs and a .313/.361/.521 batting line are impressive for a shortstop.
He also managed 44.2 WAR, and a Hall Rating of 90.
No
Brian Giles: Another
player that I covered recently. Like I mentioned then, with an unlimited
ballot, I’ll throw him a vote.
Yes
Tom Gordon: He’s
an interesting hybrid starter-reliever, but I don’t know that he was good
enough at either to merit induction. From 1988 to 1997, he pitched in 350 games
and made all 203 of his career starts. In that time, he went 97-90 with a 4.21
ERA, 1329 strikeouts in 1548 innings, a 1.430 WHIP, a 106 ERA, and 21.7 WAR.
That’s definitely below average. After then, he threw 560 more innings of 3.26
ERA (138 ERA+) with 144 saves and 599 strikeouts while totaling 13.2 WAR. I’m
not sure that’s noticeably better than any of the three other relievers on the
ballot, and the career as a starter isn’t enough to shift the needle very much.
No
Eddie Guardado: There
are currently four full-time relievers in the Hall (five if we throw in Dennis
Eckersley), and I find it difficult to argue that Guardado is better than any
of them, or even ballot-mate Lee Smith. In only 944.2 innings, Guardado had a
109 ERA+, and only 13.3 WAR and 187 saves.
No
Randy Johnson: I
could list facts about Randy, starting with his 4875 strikeouts, but it would
be a pale imitation of the job Jonah
Keri did over at Grantland last week, where he argued that The Big Unit was
the greatest left-handed starter of all time.
Yes
Jeff Kent: I
stand by what I wrote about Kent last year:
“Kent is an interesting case. He’s the all-time leader in
home runs by a second baseman with 377, and for the other common hitter
milestone, he has 2461 hits. Not bad. His .290/.356/.500 line means a 123 OPS+,
but unlike [Luis Gonzalez] or [Moises Alou], he actually does have some
defensive value going for him.
Well, kind of. Having that kind of production from a second
baseman is always great…but Kent wasn’t exactly a great fielder. In fact, he
negated almost all of his value from playing second base by being bad at it
(Fangraphs has his fielding at +1.2 runs, combining the two aspects). His other
benefit over the other two is that Kent had a much higher peak than either of
them, with an MVP award and three other top-10 finishes. Overall, it comes out
to a Hall rating of 103, 55.2 rWAR, and 56.6 fWAR. I think Kent is borderline,
but his hitting makes me err on the side of putting him in. I’m not really sure
why; fielding in such large sample sets is probably much more stable than I’m
giving it credit for.
Maybe part of it is assumed regression? Think of it this
way: Gonzalez is a 50-win player who was mediocre at fielding, Kent is a 50-win
player with atrocious fielding. I don’t know how bad Kent was at fielding, but
it’s a lot easy to assume he wasn’t an extreme negative than it is to imagine
that any given player wasn’t just average (given no prior knowledge). I hope
that makes sense? Also, I didn’t really see Kent field, so maybe he was awful.
Like I said, he’s borderline enough that I won’t be as upset if he falls off as
I was about Kenny Lofton.”
Maybe one day, I’ll change my mind. But with unlimited
spots, I see no reason voting for him is wrong, even if he is borderline.
Yes
Edgar Martinez: My
50 Best Players Not in the Hall piece from 2012 summed it up quite nicely:
“I think most of the problems people have with Edgar
Martinez can be counted in two categories:
1) He was “just” a designated hitter. However, since we’ve
started electing AL pitchers from the DH era (and relief pitchers), I don’t
think that you can argue that a DH is any more specialized than what’s already
going into the Hall. Besides, Paul Molitor played DH more than anywhere else.
2) Like Bagwell, he didn’t reach any milestones. This one is
silly. Despite not hitting 500 home runs, he did manage 309 homers and 514
doubles, a .312/.418/.515 batting line that makes him one of twenty players to
hit above .300/.400/.500 for his career, and a 147 OPS+ that ties him with Jim
Thome, Willie McCovey, and Willie Stargell. That’s part of the reason he
managed almost 70 WAR in his career. ”
Yes
Pedro Martinez: It’s
hard to argue against Pedro in a serious way. His 154 ERA+ leads all starters
with 1000 innings. 13th all-time with 3154 strikeouts.
Yes
Don Mattingly: Like
Nomar, the peak was good, but there just isn’t enough there. The .307/.358/.471
line and 127 OPS+ are pretty good, but less good when you realize he was a
first basemen. And he was a pretty good fielding first basemen, but not as good
as others not in like Keith Hernandez or John Olerud. And he only managed 7722
plate appearances on top of that. Actually, let me just line these up for
comparison, since I’ve advocated for both Hernandez and Olerud in the past:
Mattingly: 7722 PA, 2153 H, 588 BB, 442 2B, 222 HR,
.307/.358/.471, 127 OPS+, 33 TZR*, 42.2 WAR
Hernandez: 8553 PA, 2182 H, 1070 BB, 426 2B, 162 HR,
.296/.384/.436, 128 OPS+, 119 TZR, 60.0 WAR
Olerud: 9063 PA, 2239 H, 1275 BB, 500 2B, 255 HR,
.295/.398/.465, 129 OPS+. 97 TZR, 58.0 WAR
I’d say both are much better, even with neither yet in.
No
*Total Zone Fielding
Runs
Fred McGriff: I’ve
flip-flopped on McGriff in the past. The last thing I wrote about him was this
piece from last January, where my conclusion was “I’d vote for him, but
he’s probably my baseline for Hall of Fame first basemen, and I won’t lose
sleep if he doesn’t make it”. I think that still stands today. One other interesting
thing that someone brought up after I posted that article was that McGriff hit
better in the postseason, with a .917 OPS. That would have only been his ninth
best among his seasonal OPSes, but remember, October is a harsher hitting
environment. Using my back-of-the-napkin attempt at postseason WAR, that’s
about 2.1 batting runs. He loses some of that to positional adjustment and
defense, but still, an extra win or more in only 50 games of postseason play is
decent. It makes me feel a little better about putting him just over the
borderline.
Yes
Mark McGwire: Obviously,
he has the home runs: 583, tenth all-time. Those came at a record pace; he has
a lower AB/HR rate than any player in history, at 10.61. They also give him a
.588 slugging percentage, seventh in history. He also had a great eye, which
gave him a .394 OBP in spite of his .263 batting average. His 163 OPS+ is tied
for tenth all-time. 62.0 WAR.
Yes
Mike Mussina: Here’s
a piece where I compare him and Curt Schilling favorably with 2014 inductee
Tom Glavine. Also, as I wrote last year: “He didn’t reach either of the major
pitching milestones, but he very well could have with two more seasons (270
wins, 2813 Ks). And he went out more or less on top, plus he missed time from
the 1994-5 strike. His 123 ERA+ (3.68 ERA) over eighteen years is right in line
with players like Juan Marichal and Bob Feller. He had six top-5 finishes in Cy
Young voting as well. Also, he was a master of control: since the mound was
moved back to 60 feet, 6 inches in 1893, only one player has a higher K/BB
ratio (3.58) in over 3000 innings (Curt Schilling, 4.38). His Hall Rating is a
solid 163. At 82.7 rWAR, he’s between Fergie Jenkins and Bob Gibson (24th). His
82.3 fWAR is between Schilling and Warren Spahn (19th)”.
Yes
Troy Percival: He
did have 358 saves, but if we were just going on total, Lee Smith would go
before him. He did have a 146 ERA+, but he only threw 708.2 innings. He was
worth 17.2 WAR, 85th among relievers.
No
Mike Piazza: Again,
the other day, I made a
quick case that Piazza is the best hitting Hall of Fame catcher ever. That’s more than enough for the Hall.
Yes
Tim Raines: Raines
is 46th all-time in times on base, with 4076. Plus, his 808 steals
rank fifth overall, and his 84.7% success rate is best of anyone with 300
attempts (even lowering the threshold to 200 only leaves him second). He has a
.294/.385/.425 batting line, a 123 OPS+, and 69.1 WAR.
Yes
Curt Schilling: I
first wrote about Schilling’s candidacy way
back in January 2012, in addition to that earlier piece on him, Mussina,
and Glavine.
Yes
Jason Schmidt: Only
one starter has ever been elected to the Hall with under 2000 innings (Schmidt
has 1996.1). Unfortunately, he wasn’t on Dizzy Dean’s level (131 ERA+ to 110,
42.7 WAR to 29.6), and even he was an anomaly as far as Hall choices go.
No
Gary Sheffield: Sheffield
could hit, that’s for sure. 509 home runs, a .292/.393/.514 batting line that’s
good for a 140 OPS+… Also, that OPS+ would tie for 14th among the
Hall’s 44 corner outfielders. The big problem was his defense, which could,
most generously, be described as “indifferent” (and would more accurately be
described as “bad”). That only got him to 60.2 WAR for his career, but that would
still tie him for 24th in that group. It still got him a 114 Hall
Rating, though. I think he’d be a fine addition to the Hall, although there are
higher priority cases out there right now.
Yes
Lee Smith: Smith’s
biggest argument used to be that he was the all-time save leader, but Mariano
Rivera (652) and Trevor Hoffman (601) have blown past his 478. But saves aren’t
everything, even for relievers. Among relievers with 1000 innings, he’s ninth
in ERA+ at 132. Not bad, but it could be better (plus, if you lower the inning
cutoff to even 800 innings, he drops all the way down to sixteenth). His 8.73
K/9 rate is fifth among the 1000 inning bunch, and ninth in the 800-inning
group. His K/BB ratio (2.57) is eleventh and sixteenth, respectively. His
1289.1 innings pitched are pretty good by the modern closer standards. I’m just
not sure what to do with Smith, to be honest. He’s definitely one of the better
closers not in the Hall, but I’m not really sure that we need many more. We
have four modern closers already (Rollie Fingers, Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter,
and Dennis Eckersley), plus we’ll be probably be adding Rivera and Hoffman
soon. Six closers for the Hall seems like a decent number, and I’m not
completely sure I could argue for Smith ahead of players like Billy Wagner and
Dan Quisenberry.
No
John Smoltz: One
of the following pitching lines is Smoltz. The other two are Mike Mussina and
Schilling, who I’ve already said I would vote for:
Player 1: 270-153, 3.68 ERA, 123 ERA+, 1.192 WHIP, 3562.2
IP, 2813 K, 785 BB, 376 HR
Player 2: 216-146, 3.46 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.137 WHIP, 3261.0
IP, 3116 K, 711 BB, 347 HR
Player 3: 213-155, 3.33 ERA, 125 ERA+, 1.176 WHIP, 3473.0
IP, 3084 K, 1010 BB, 288 HR
If you can find a meaningful enough distinction in those
stat lines to say that two should be in and the third shouldn’t, please feel
free to share it with me, because I can’t (answer: Mussina, Schilling, Smoltz).
Yes
Sammy Sosa: Sosa
is the one-dimensional player that everyone thinks McGwire is. Sure, he has 609
home runs and a .534 slugging percentage. But that came with a .273 average and
a rather mediocre .344 on-base percentage. Even his speed, which netted him 234
stolen bases, was kind of canceled out by getting caught 107 times. In the end
though, he was just so good at that one thing and not really bad at anything
else. I’d vote for him, although I acknowledge he’s more borderline.
Yes
Alan Trammell: Trammell’s
ship has probably sailed, seeing as this year is his second-to-last ballot. I
feel like I compare him to Barry Larkin, who made it in his second ballot,
every year, so I’ll just be lazy and
link to this for this year. Larkin was a slightly better hitter and
baserunner. Trammell was a better fielder played a little more. Overall, they
were pretty indistinguishable.
Yes
Larry Walker: He
wasn’t the Coors Field creation that some people like to paint him as; his
OPS+, which is adjusted for home field, is 141, better than 31 out of 44 Hall
of Fame corner outfielders. So it seems we can still be impressed by his
.313/.400/.565 batting line and his 383 home runs. Add in that he had 230
stolen bases against only 76 times getting caught, a good glove, and a great
arm, and it combines for 72.4 WAR.
Yes
Totaling it all up, that’s 21 yes votes and 14 no votes.
There are probably a few yeses that I could be convinced to drop, but I have a
hard time saying that there are any less than a dozen and a half good
candidates here. Heck, I wouldn’t even begrudge someone too much for voting for
a couple of the guys that I left off, especially with this unlimited ballot.
Hopefully we see four or more players make it into the Hall for real this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment