Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The first three were absolutely no-brainer first ballot hall of famers and the last one is getting less than 10 percent of the vote.
I'm not arguing against you.. Just.. It's totally perception with him and.. I think perhaps if he'd had the bad years first.. that perception would change.
Entering the league at 19 and then only having basically a 10 year career weighs against him some as well.
But.. outside of him.. I just found a reason for not wanting Clemens or Bonds to get in..
With regard to my defense of Andruw Jones, I saw an interesting statistic today that I will need to verify to be sure that it is true but the statistic quoted is this: there are 4 players in MLB history that have won 10 gold gloves and hit 400 home runs:
Willie Mays
Mike Schmidt
Ken Griffey Jr.
Andruw Jones
The first three were absolutely no-brainer first ballot hall of famers and the last one is getting less than 10 percent of the vote.
Well, yes. That is because the first three which you list above are indeed no brainers. Mays compiled 156.4 WAR, the third highest total of any position player. Schmidt is at 106.8, the 19th highest total and Griffey clocks in at 83.8, the 35th highest total.
Jones on the other hand compiled 62.8 WAR, tied with Ken Boyer for the 105th best total. Do you think Ken Boyer is a Hall of Famer? Jones does not belong in the same conversation when Mays, Schmidt and Griffey are being discussed.
You just wind up with a distorted picture when you select certain stats (Soandso is one of only four players with 35 doubles, ten triples, 20 home runs and 25 stolen bases in one season! Which means a lot less when you find out that Soandso batted .240 with an OBA of .298 while putting up those gimmick numbers.)
Mostly though Jones is one of those players who looked like a Hall of Famer before he turned 30, but as with so many before, Jones didn't seal the deal, his game crashed. Of his 62.8 career WAR, only 4.7 of it came in his final six seasons. That puts him in a class with guys like Fred Lynn, Will Clark, Dave Parker, Doc Gooden, Brett Saberhagen and others who looked like future Hall members mid career, but like Jones, couldn't sustain the performance level past the age of 30.
Well, yes. That is because the first three which you list above are indeed no brainers. Mays compiled 156.4 WAR, the third highest total of any position player. Schmidt is at 106.8, the 19th highest total and Griffey clocks in at 83.8, the 35th highest total.
Jones on the other hand compiled 62.8 WAR, tied with Ken Boyer for the 105th best total. Do you think Ken Boyer is a Hall of Famer? Jones does not belong in the same conversation when Mays, Schmidt and Griffey are being discussed.
You just wind up with a distorted picture when you select certain stats (Soandso is one of only four players with 35 doubles, ten triples, 20 home runs and 25 stolen bases in one season! Which means a lot less when you find out that Soandso batted .240 with an OBA of .298 while putting up those gimmick numbers.)
Mostly though Jones is one of those players who looked like a Hall of Famer before he turned 30, but as with so many before, Jones didn't seal the deal, his game crashed. Of his 62.8 career WAR, only 4.7 of it came in his final six seasons. That puts him in a class with guys like Fred Lynn, Will Clark, Dave Parker, Doc Gooden, Brett Saberhagen and others who looked like future Hall members mid career, but like Jones, couldn't sustain the performance level past the age of 30.
Using a combination of Gold glove awards and HRs isn't really cherry-picking all that much. You are using WAR as your stat of choice and there are plenty of people who don't think WAR is an accurate assessment of a player's value. WAR would try to tell you that Alex Gordon is still a good player (2.4 WAR in 2018), despite his .245\.324\.370\.694 line as a corner outfielder.
Using a combination of Gold glove awards and HRs isn't really cherry-picking all that much. You are using WAR as your stat of choice and there are plenty of people who don't think WAR is an accurate assessment of a player's value. WAR would try to tell you that Alex Gordon is still a good player (2.4 WAR in 2018), despite his .245\.324\.370\.694 line as a corner outfielder.
The difference between WAR and looking at selected stats is that WAR was designed to express in a single digit, the value of everything that a player does on the field, batting, baserunning and defense. Further, unlike raw stats, WAR makes conditional adjustments to balance evaluations when the players being compared played in different parks or different eras.
WAR is a stat of choice not because it is perfect or unassailable, but because even with flaws, it is vastly superior to looking at raw data totals. If you know of a superior method, please inform us and tell us how it is better.
Finally, WAR helps Jones a great deal because so much of his WAR value comes from his defense, 24.5 of his overall WAR is defense.
Using a combination of Gold glove awards and HRs isn't really cherry-picking all that much. You are using WAR as your stat of choice and there are plenty of people who don't think WAR is an accurate assessment of a player's value. WAR would try to tell you that Alex Gordon is still a good player (2.4 WAR in 2018), despite his .245\.324\.370\.694 line as a corner outfielder.
Gold Gloves are unfortunately not very helpful for determining much. For starters, they tend to be decided on reputation as much as anything else, and it’s not unusual for the same player to win GGs multiple years in a row regardless of how good they were. See Jim Kaat and Greg Maddux for examples.
In addition, they often go to someone who hits well in addition to being a (sometimes) decent fielder, and there’s no guarantee that the best fielder at the position will win. In fact, some pretty horrid fielders have won several of them, though they could hit. Consider that Derek Jeter, who was a poor fielding SS by any advanced metrics you choose, won five of them. Consider that Steve Garvey, a ghastly fielding 1B with the range of a statue and no arm to speak of, won four of them. And if these don’t convince, consider that Rafael Palmeiro won a GG at 1B in 1999 when he played a grand total of 28 games at the position — and 128 games as a DH!
Grandstander’s points about WAR are excellent — no need for me to elaborate.
Gold Gloves are unfortunately not very helpful for determining much. For starters, they tend to be decided on reputation as much as anything else, and it’s not unusual for the same player to win GGs multiple years in a row regardless of how good they were. See Jim Kaat and Greg Maddux for examples.
In addition, they often go to someone who hits well in addition to being a (sometimes) decent fielder, and there’s no guarantee that the best fielder at the position will win. In fact, some pretty horrid fielders have won several of them, though they could hit. Consider that Derek Jeter, who was a poor fielding SS by any advanced metrics you choose, won five of them. Consider that Steve Garvey, a ghastly fielding 1B with the range of a statue and no arm to speak of, won four of them. And if these don’t convince, consider that Rafael Palmeiro won a GG at 1B in 1999 when he played a grand total of 28 games at the position — and 128 games as a DH!
All that you say above has been true, but recently it has become less frequent. I have noticed that in the past few seasons, the GG awards are in close alignment with the advanced metrics for defense.
There are rival computations out there among the advanced stuff, Baseball Reference employs one method for calculating WAR, Fangraphs employs a modified version of that formula, and Baseball Prospectus has a non WAR formula which they call Fielding Runs Above Average. Most of the time the three systems are in fairly close agreement, there aren't any cases where someone who ranks 5th best in one system, ranks 20th in another. Typically they are a few spots apart with the occasional aberration here and there. If one system says Brandon Crawford was #1 in a particular year, another says that he was # 3, and the third system has him at # 2, then it is a fairly safe assumption that Brandon Crawford was at or near the top in defending his position. Crawford won three consecutive Gold Gloves and they align perfectly with his best defensive WAR seasons.
I was further encouraged to see GG recognition go to the Rays Kevin Kiermaier, a so-so bat on a low profile team. It happened because not only did he often look spectacular out there, but he started putting up eye popping defensive WARs (5.0 in 2015, that is enormous...five wins above replacement level simply with his glove) I doubt that Kiermaier would have rated a second look from anyone back in the days you describe above.
It is apparent that the voters have finally started taking the advanced metrics into account when deciding on the GG awards
Elected: Mariano Rivera, Roy Halladay, Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina.
Rivera is the first to get 100% of the BBWAA vote. Mussina just snuck over the line at 76.7%. Martinez elected in his final regularly eligible year.
All very deserving. Congratulations!
Fred McGriff got as far as 39.8% in his last try. Probably will get in soon via the Vets Committee.
Larry Walker got a huge jump to 54.6% from 31.4% last year. This is his 9th try, and he’ll have to duplicate it to get in on his last try. Could happen, but don’t bet the rent on it as a certainty. If he doesn’t make it next year, he should do well with the Vets Committee. He belongs in.
Curt Schilling got to 60.9% with Bonds and Clemens right behind. They and Walker will be the four highest percentage holdovers next time.
Derek Jeter will surely get in next year in his first try.
In reference to Curt Schilling I had to put this out there. Don't necessarily agree with it, but thought this was kind of a funny tweet by his nemesis Mitch Williams.
[I"]He was a great postseason pitcher,when they add a wing to the Hof for that, he’s a 1st ballot guy. 216 wins in 22 yrs? That’s a Hof-er?"[/i]
In reference to Curt Schilling I had to put this out there. Don't necessarily agree with it, but thought this was kind of a funny tweet by his nemesis Mitch Williams.
[I"]He was a great postseason pitcher,when they add a wing to the Hof for that, he’s a 1st ballot guy. 216 wins in 22 yrs? That’s a Hof-er?"[/i]
Schilling had some injuries that limited his overall numbers. Likewise, I think a decent portion of baseball fans and voters have hopefully moved past Wins being a stat that they really focus on with regard to evaluating how good a pitcher was and how HOF-worthy the pitcher might be. Wins is partially a product of the pitcher's ability but also depends a lot on the team around him (his team's ability to score runs, how good his team's fielding is, his team's bullpen, etc.).
His vote is being surpressed because of his political beliefs and his abrasive personality. I kind of wish that he would just shut up sometimes but the guy that I saw on the mound was a stud and an absolute ace\#1 starter. When he was healthy, I believe that he actually was a better pitcher than the two starting pitchers who were voted in: Mussina & Halladay. I definitely think he was better and more dominant than Mussina, though I recognize that some might argue that Halladay was better.
Schilling pitched until he was 40 years old, throughout the steroid era and had a career WHIP of 1.13 and BB/9IP of 2.0. He was a stud and should eventually get in the HOF.
Schilling had some injuries that limited his overall numbers. Likewise, I think a decent portion of baseball fans and voters have hopefully moved past Wins being a stat that they really focus on with regard to evaluating how good a pitcher was and how HOF-worthy the pitcher might be. Wins is partially a product of the pitcher's ability but also depends a lot on the team around him (his team's ability to score runs, how good his team's fielding is, his team's bullpen, etc.).
His vote is being surpressed because of his political beliefs and his abrasive personality. I kind of wish that he would just shut up sometimes but the guy that I saw on the mound was a stud and an absolute ace\#1 starter. When he was healthy, I believe that he actually was a better pitcher than the two starting pitchers who were voted in: Mussina & Halladay. I definitely think he was better and more dominant than Mussina, though I recognize that some might argue that Halladay was better.
Schilling pitched until he was 40 years old, throughout the steroid era and had a career WHIP of 1.13 and BB/9IP of 2.0. He was a stud and should eventually get in the HOF.
I agree with your part about his political stuff.. I'd also add in that he played on some crappy, crappy Phillies teams in the 90's.
Halladay without question was better.. During the regular season. Schilling moreso in the playoffs, but.. Then again.. I mean, hard to get more dominant than a no-hitter. It's just Schilling had more opportunities in the playoffs.
That's the other knock on Schilling. Does someone who is very good in the regular season, but perhaps just below HoF, or at least borderline, but has astounding post-season numbers.. Does that push them over the top? To me, in this situation at least.. Yes.
I would put Halladay in over Schilling. But.. I do think both deserve to be there.
Schilling's ... vote is being supressed because of his political beliefs and his abrasive personality. I kind of wish that he would just shut up sometimes...(some snips added)
I suspect the biggest problems are two:
1. He didn't hit any major counting stat milestones, and a fair bit of his case is sabermetrics based.
2. Even so, his vote total was rising steadily until he shot his mouth off in support of the notion that killing journalists was an understandable position. Given that the folks who vote on the BBHoF are, you know, sportswriters, that's decidedly not a smart thing to do. The feeling by some is that this is a problem under the Character Clause.
I definitely think he belongs in the HoF on merit, but if a voter feels there are more than ten deserving candidates (the ballot limit) and decides to hold off on voting for Schilling until the number drops below ten, I guess I can see the argument. Depends on how the CC should be interpreted, I guess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
