Brushbacks and Knockdowns: The Greatest Baseball Debates of Two Centuries

[Senser81]

I've read a lot of Barra's stuff....its always interesting.

I think if you were to compare present-day baseball to 1930s-1960s baseball, I would guess that having way more teams now would increase the odds of non-HOF guys getting in to the all-star game. I would also be interested to see the midseason stats of the HOF all-stars from the 1930's-1960's...I wonder if HOF guys would just automatically be put in the All-Star game because people/media weren't as fascinated by stats.

It would also be logical to think that if each team needs one all-star rep, then having more teams would decrease the odds of the HOF players making it.

[dell71]

I've read a lot of Barra's stuff....its always interesting.

I think if you were to compare present-day baseball to 1930s-1960s baseball, I would guess that having way more teams now would increase the odds of non-HOF guys getting in to the all-star game. I would also be interested to see the midseason stats of the HOF all-stars from the 1930's-1960's...I wonder if HOF guys would just automatically be put in the All-Star game because people/media weren't as fascinated by stats.

It would also be logical to think that if each team needs one all-star rep, then having more teams would decrease the odds of the HOF players making it.

The number of teams and number of All-star slots is interesting. We have more All-Stars than ever before but also more spots per team. The '33 teams had a total of 36 All-Stars in a 16 team league, or 2.25 slots per team. The '69 teams had 59 All-Stars/24 teams - 2.45/team. This year's teams had 79 All-Stars or 2.63/team. That suggests, to me at least, that there's still plenty of room for truly great players even though we have to give at least one slot for every team. Yes, we're getting more non-HoF types in the AS game, but because of the sheer numbers we should probably be getting more guys who are.

And I don't think there's ever been a time in baseball history where the people who followed it, fans and media alike, weren't obsessed with stats. The only things that have really changed is which stats we focus on and how much access everyone has to them.

That said, I think Warner & Gooby have it about right as far as how many guys fit the bill. Sure, we could argue whether this guy or that one belongs, but I won't. The point is if we go with their number of 14 or 15 "PDG" for the '03 teams that still leaves us short of 16 or 17 per the other teams who have already made it, plus a couple more who received some serious consideration. It doesn't seem like much difference except, as noted, the teams are so much bigger.

It could be because of all the access we have to those stats, and how sophisticated we've become in analyzing them. Collectively, we're all harder graders than we ever were before. For instance, a guy like Jim Thome would've once been a guaranteed slam-dunk lock for enshrinement with 600+ career HR. Now, he'll likely still get in, probably on the first ballot, but there will be some debating about it when he becomes eligible. We'll hear things like his best 7 years of WAR are actually below average for HoF first basement (his JAWS is a bit above average for HoFers at his position).

Something else I've been thinking about that Barra, the author, quoted from an actual HoFer (one whose status as such we could debate also):

With so many good Latin and now Oriental players in the big leagues, the talent level might have been raised to a point in the last few years that it's harder than ever for anyone to rise above the pack. We might not know who the real greats are until we can look back on them ten years from now.

Ten years from now is right where we are with the '03 teams. Barra was writing without the perspective of time about the same players. He seems to have gotten the raw numbers right, but missed on some of the whos. Some of the interesting observations he made about players from both the '03 and '96 teams...

Scott Rolen: "will probably be the National League's All-Star third baseman for several years to come, but he's closer to being a young Robin Ventura than a young Mike Schmidt."

(My own question on Rolen: If Rolen is an HoFer, why not Adrian Beltre?)

Albert Pujols: "looks to be a monster at the plate, but he's a slow runner with limited range in the outfield." (AP was only in his 3rd year, got even better and moved to 1st)

Carlos Delgado: "He'd have to have at least two or three more seasons like 2003 before he could be spoken of as a candidate." (Hmmm, none quite that good, but some really nice ones followed. Enough?)

Barry Larkin: "is going to be a hard sell when it comes to the Hall of Fame because he has never done anything, well, spectacular."

Greg Maddux: "probably won't make 300 wins."

(I thought this was really interesting because GM finished '03 at 266. True, he was 37, but he was 16-11 and that was only the first year he really showed any signs of decline. Of course, he wound up with 355.)

Roger Clemens: "Of course he's going to the Hall of Fame; he's the greatest starting pitcher in baseball history."

(Hmmm...Let's suppose everything about Clemens career is on the up-and-up. Is this true?)

[Senser81]

Barra's "prediction" skills are no better or worse than yours or mine. He would do the same with football, saying in 1987 that Neil Lomax would be remembered as a better QB than Joe Montana, etc.

Sutton is an interesting case, and makes me question HOF "milestones" in general. Its odd that 300 wins is the pitching milestone, Sutton was one of the last pitchers to ever get 300 wins, yet Sutton is probably the weakest 300 win pitcher in the modern era. So how important of a milestone could that possibly be? Another thread speculates about Sabathia making 300 wins...when do we question the milestone itself?

[NAHSTE]

Barra's "prediction" skills are no better or worse than yours or mine. He would do the same with football, saying in 1987 that Neil Lomax would be remembered as a better QB than Joe Montana, etc.

Sutton is an interesting case, and makes me question HOF "milestones" in general. Its odd that 300 wins is the pitching milestone, Sutton was one of the last pitchers to ever get 300 wins, yet Sutton is probably the weakest 300 win pitcher in the modern era. So how important of a milestone could that possibly be? Another thread speculates about Sabathia making 300 wins...when do we question the milestone itself?

Let's go one further, and question the validity of the "win" as a measure of a pitcher's worth.

[dell71]

Let's go one further, and question the validity of the "win" as a measure of a pitcher's worth.

This is a tough one for me. I agree the win should not be the answer to the question of how good a certain pitcher is, but I think it should still be part of the equation for starting pitchers. It's not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th thing I look at, but I do give it a look. After all, there is something to be said for being able to leave the game, or not, having allowed less runs to cross the plate than the other pitcher(s). After all, that is essentially the definition of the job. So of course there is something to be said for being able to do that 300 times.

That said, I don't think any milestone should mean automatic enshrinement. Reaching them may not be easy, but can be attributed as much to longevity as superior talent. They're also arbitrary and can be moved at our collective discretion. At one point 400 HR was the magic number for induction, then Dave Kingman happened. Don Sutton is a perfect example of the benefits of longevity. I don't think he belongs in the HoF. He just pitched for 23 years (only one stretch of 3 to 5 years, depending on how you look at it, where he was truly one of the game's best). Unfortunately, reaching milestones is the way baseball fans have defined greatness for decades and we're only just beginning to move away from that line of thinking as a group.

[FirstTimer]

Warner just raged on the Larkin prediction...and no on Rolen in the HOF. Broke down too soon

[dell71]

Moving on to another chapter in the book, but I'll maintain the HoF theme.

Chapter 4 is entitled "Two Guys From Chicago or Why Ron Santo and Minnie Minoso Are the Two Best Players Not in the Hall of Fame."

Obviously, since that time Santo has been posthumously inducted, which leaves Minoso as the default best player not in the HoF based on the title of the chapter.

Of course, we're only talking about eligible players, so keep Ken Griffey Jr. and others not yet on the official ballot in your back pocket.

Also, for the sake of argument, let's reverse fields on the guys with seemingly the strongest connections to 'roids: Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro. The reason being that even the guys in the BBWAA who aren't voting for them admit the on-field accomplishments of these guys would easily be enough. Sure, there may be some debate on Big Mac and Palmeiro, but let's keep them out of this one all the same.

I'm almost positive none of you will agree with Minoso as the top choice, but take a look at his numbers if you wish to confirm your thoughts on the matter:

Minnie Minoso

A baseball blogger posted an interesting list on the subject earlier this year based on a poll of people who frequent the site. They came up with an interesting #1. If nothing else, it's useful to make sure you're not forgetting someone before you spout off on the subject.

Baseball Past and Present, The 50 Best Baseball Players Not in the HoF

So, Minoso the top guy? If not, who? Is he even in your top 10?

Go.

[Senser81]

Moving on to another chapter in the book, but I'll maintain the HoF theme.

Chapter 4 is entitled "Two Guys From Chicago or Why Ron Santo and Minnie Minoso Are the Two Best Players Not in the Hall of Fame."

Obviously, since that time Santo has been posthumously inducted, which leaves Minoso as the default best player not in the HoF based on the title of the chapter.

Of course, we're only talking about eligible players, so keep Ken Griffey Jr. and others not yet on the official ballot in your back pocket.

Also, for the sake of argument, let's reverse fields on the guys with seemingly the strongest connections to 'roids: Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro. The reason being that even the guys in the BBWAA who aren't voting for them admit the on-field accomplishments of these guys would easily be enough. Sure, there may be some debate on Big Mac and Palmeiro, but let's keep them out of this one all the same.

I'm almost positive none of you will agree with Minoso as the top choice, but take a look at his numbers if you wish to confirm your thoughts on the matter:

Minnie Minoso

A baseball blogger posted an interesting list on the subject earlier this year based on a poll of people who frequent the site. They came up with an interesting #1. If nothing else, it's useful to make sure you're not forgetting someone before you spout off on the subject.

Baseball Past and Present, The 50 Best Baseball Players Not in the HoF

So, Minoso the top guy? If not, who? Is he even in your top 10?

Go.

Aside from the Steroid guys and the Joe Jackson/Pete Rose things, I think the baseball HOF does a good job with its selections. Guys who I used to complain about not being in (Santo, Blyleven, Barry Larkin, Gossage) did eventually make it in.

I think its hard to have a top 10 list, because there are two types of guys not in the HOF...great players without longevity (Mattingly, Gooden, Grich), and longevity players without greatness (Raines, Lofton, Darrell Evans). I don't think its really a stretch to have Minoso amongst those players.

My top choice would be Biggio, then maybe Walker...but really there isn't many more.

[EmpireWF]

Piazza is the poster boy for the BBWoA HOF discussion about eligible guys not in.

But hey, plenty of obvious HOFers over the decades were not 1st ballot guys so the pencil neck geeks can feel like they're keeping the HOF on its toes.

[Goober]

Piazza is the poster boy for the BBWoA HOF discussion about eligible guys not in.

But hey, plenty of obvious HOFers over the decades were not 1st ballot guys so the pencil neck geeks can feel like they're keeping the HOF on its toes.

Posterboy? Maybe in Queens. I'm borderline on Piazza even being HOF worthy, let alone the top guy on the list who needs to get in.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Posterboy? Maybe in Queens. I'm borderline on Piazza even being HOF worthy, let alone the top guy on the list who needs to get in.

I'm borderline on Piazza even being HOF worthy

I'm borderline on Piazza even being HOF worthy

I'm borderline on Piazza even being HOF worthy

I'm borderline on Piazza even being HOF worthy


I don't even....

[Warner2BruceTD]

Off the top of my head, i'm most annoyed that Biggio, Walker, and Dick Allen aren't in the Hall.

Non steroid guys, of course

[FirstTimer]

Posterboy? Maybe in Queens. I'm borderline on Piazza even being HOF worthy, let alone the top guy on the list who needs to get in.

Wut?

Defend this bullshit

[Glenbino]

I think there are guys I would rather see go in ahead of him, but Piazza was easily the best hitting catcher of my lifetime and should be in the HoF without a doubt.

Apparently the Braun news hit Gooby hard enough to cause some early onset CTE symptoms.

[Warner2BruceTD]

If you want to leave Piazza out, fine, but then you also have to concede that you believe there are about two or three Hall of Fame catchers total in your opinion. Bench is the only guy clearly better.

First in HR's, SLG, & OPS+, fourth in RBI, sixth in WAR, third in WAR7, fifth in JAWS, top ten in everything else across the board.

He's the only catcher to slug over .500 and has a 45 point lead on the guy in second. .308 lifetime hitter, .377 OBA, ROY, four top 5 MVP finishes, what is there not to like?