Hall of Fame Voting: This Year, Next Year, and Beyond

[Guest Edgy DC]

How about adjusting for ballpark and era?

[seawolf17]

Which you have to do in this case. Plus, you can't compare Reggie and Juan Gonzalez on all the other stuff; Reggie was larger than life everywhere he played, and Juan Gonzalez was... well, a Duck.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I've also never been too keen about isolating peak value. Being above average for long stretches at the beginning and end of your career has value too.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Taken from the thread on Dr. James Andrews. Will Carroll makes a good case for him.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3024441

[Valadius]

I just picked Reggie at random, but let's throw another one out there. This time, I've picked a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer, who's the exact same age, so we're comparing them during the same exact seasons: Ken Griffey, Jr., who was considered by many to be the best player in baseball during the majority of Juan Gone's career.

Gonzalez, 1991-2003
424 HR
1368 RBI
1866 hits
1027 R
374 2B

Griffey, 1991-2003
443 HR
1243 RBI
1781 hits
1119 R
331 2B

Now obviously Juan Gone wasn't as good as Griffey was, all-around. Gonzalez didn't have Griffey's speed or defensive ability. But during the same timeframe, facing for a majority of the time the same pitchers in the same league and the same division, Gonzalez compares very favorably to Griffey.

[seawolf17]

Very good comparison; this is where continuing his career and not being surly will push Griffey in, whereas Gonzo is still going to fall short.

[metsmarathon]

griffey's 89-01 were better years, plus add in about 15 stolen bases per year to gonzo's 2-3, plus 40 walks or so and 30 fewer k's

gonzo's best ops+ was 169. griffey bettered that twice.
gonzo's second best ops+ was 150. griffey bettered that five times.

[nymr83]

yeah, griffey is a far better player, you cherry-picked your stats a bit too much and ignored very important ones...
Griffey has a .374 career OBP to Gonzo's .343 and Griffey maintained that much higher rate while accumulating 2000 (and counting) more at-bats.

For what its worth Gonzo is 120th on the career OPS+ list, Griffey jr. is 78th.

I don't think Gonzalez is definitely not a hall of famer, but its hard to convince me that he definitely is one... for a guy that was a very good but not great hitter he has too many negatives... inability to stay on the field and easy defensive position being the biggest.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Using Valadius' cherry picked stats and continuiing them from 2004 to the present:

Gonzalez (2004-2007)
HR 5
HIts 35
Runs 17
RBI 17
2B 4

Griffey, Jr. (2004-2007)
HR 112
Hits 478
Runs 274
RBI 317
2B 91

Now, Let's look at some number that truly count when considering HOF induction:

Gonzalez (Career Totals)
Hits 1936
HR 434
Runs 1061
RBI 1404
TB 3676
SB 26
AVG .295
SLG .561
OPS .904

Griffey, Jr. (Career - still active)
Hits 2558
HR 593
Runs 1545
RBI 1701
TB 4884
SB 184
AVG .290
SLG .554
OPS .928

Their peaks may have been similar, but griffey has longevity on his side. Griffey was also a far better defensive player and better all around player.

[nymr83]

]Their peaks may have been similar, but griffey has longevity on his side. Griffey was also a far better defensive player and better all around player.

I'd suggest that Griffey's peak was better. his 5 best OPS+ years were 172, 170, 164, 155, 153. Gonzo's were 169, 150, 149, 147, 141.

Gonzalez really doesn't measure up to Griffey at all.

[metsmarathon]

in my spare time, i've been kind of building an uber table of hall of famers and near hall of famers and some of their statistics. for now, i've been focusing on baseball prospectus' wins above replacement player, adjusted for all time - WARP3.

my work isn't quite done yet, as i want to go in and separate out the hofers by how they got in - first ballot, subsequent years, and veterans committee - and then use this to compare newly eligible players to judge their merit on precedence.

the early results are that there are a number of players in the hall from the dead ball era that drag down the aggregate ("hey, he batted over .300 for his career - he MUST be a hall of famer!").

anyways, what i'm doing is looking at not only the cumulative career wins above replacement, but also for each player's 5-year peak (i'm also considering doing a 3-yr peak and 7-yr peak).

25% of all hall of famers have accrued fewer than 86 WARP3 for their career
25% of all hall of famers have accrued fewer than 38.5 WARP3 for their 5-yr peak

juan gone has 80.9 WARP3 total and 34.5 5-yr peak WARP3. juan gone does not compare favorably in this regard.

griffey, for the record, has 138 and 52. both are in the top 25% of hall of famers, and rather close to jimmie foxx (131, 53.5) and george brett (138, 49.5)
reggie jackson (124, 42.3) is above the median for career (106.5) and below median for his 5-yr peak (49)

and since he's been mentioned, jim thome sits at 109, 44.5, comparatively just about an average hall of famer.

i'd do this for win shares as well as WARP3, but to date i've yet to find a free source of win shares through baseball history. (any suggestions?)

...edit...
oh yeah, i'm treating pitchers and hitters as separate populations, despite babe ruth's terrific attempt at intermingling. for my purposes, he counts as a hitter, and besides, it doesn't really change all that much anyways if i were to split off his pitching years.

[Valadius]

I am a firm believer in assessing players in two ways for the Hall of Fame:

1. Accumulated statistics (career totals)
2. Peak performance (ideally 10 seasons)

I've come across the cases of Hack Wilson and Chick Hafey. Both are Hall-of-Famers, but they had abbreviated careers. One drank himself out of baseball and the other was derailed by injury.

In Hafey's case, he suffered from what Lawrence Ritter and Donald Honig, in their book, The 100 Greatest Baseball Players of All Time, call "Smokey Joe Wood Syndrome". They defined this as, to quote Hafey's Wikipedia article, "where a player of truly exceptional talent but a career curtailed by injury should still, in spite of not having had career statistics that would quantitatively rank him with the all-time greats, be included on their list of the 100 greatest players." I think this argument really ought to get more consideration.

The way measurements and formulas are weighted is predominantly in favor of players with longer careers. However, some great players can't help that their bodies might deteriorate faster than others. It happens.

Therefore, I would like to make the case that, failing that a player doesn't accumulate large enough numbers to initially satisfy induction, that you apply both the Ralph Kiner Exception and the Smokey Joe Wood Exception, meaning that if a player has 10 exemplary full seasons under his belt, preferably in a row, he should get in. If for 10 years he was considered one of the best in baseball, he should get another look.

So, since Juan Gonzalez put up incredible numbers in at least 10 full seasons, and since he ended up suffering from Smokey Joe Wood Syndrome, I think he ought to get in.

[metsmarathon]

well, i don't think that juan had too many full seasons, let alone 10...

[nymr83]

Juan has, at most, 8 full seasons (ranging from 133 to 155 games played) and i'm pretty hesitant to call the 133 and 134 game years "full seasons" though i'm not sure where i'd place the cutoff.

injury might not be entirely your own fault, but its still part of your career and your inability to stay healthy needs to be taken into account just like everything else.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Enshrine Pete Reiser!

[Valadius]

Ok, how about this.

If Albert Pujols were to suffer some kind of injury that never let him play as well again, and he played three more full seasons and retired, would you vote him in? I would. His first 7 seasons have been absolutely monstrous.

[nymr83]

Pujols 7 years have produce OPS+ numbers ranging from a LOW of 155 to a high of 189. Gonzalez's highest is only 169 and his 7th highest is only 131, and thats with the benefit of knocking out his bad years.

Pujols is leaps and bound ahead ofGonzalez and could potentially finish in the same sentence as Ruth, Williams, and Bonds... so yeah 3 more years and i'd put him in the hall...he's the Koufax of hitters...that argument doesnt work for Gonzalez.

[Frayed Knot]

Valadius wrote: Ok, how about this. If Albert Pujols were to suffer some kind of injury that never let him play as well again, and he played three more full seasons and retired, would you vote him in? I would. His first 7 seasons have been absolutely monstrous.

He wouldn't be eligible to even get to a vote.

[metsmarathon]

gonzo		pujols
games	OPS+	Games	OPS+
155	134	161	158
154	149	161	167
144	141	158	158
142	121	157	155
140	169	157	189
140	147	154	175
134	150	143	180
133	131
115	113
107	104
90	135
82	123
70	94
33	102
25	131
24	34
1	-100

pujols has six "complete" seasons under his belt. gonzo had a total of, what, two?

[nymr83]

i was going to give him the benefit of the doubt at 140...but yeah theres really no comparison between these players and gonzalez really couldn't keep himself on the field

[Valadius]

Frayed Knot wrote: ="Valadius"]Ok, how about this. If Albert Pujols were to suffer some kind of injury that never let him play as well again, and he played three more full seasons and retired, would you vote him in? I would. His first 7 seasons have been absolutely monstrous. He wouldn't be eligible to even get to a vote.

Of course he would. You're eligible after you've played in 10 seasons. And it doesn't have to be 10 complete seasons - a cup of coffee would technically count, but depending on how good you were in other years, it's up to the Screening Committee to deem you worthy.

[Frayed Knot]

"If Albert Pujols were to suffer some kind of injury that never let him play as well again"

I originally read this as "never play ... again" -- and then missed the tack on about him staying on for another 3 years.
So yes, in that case he would be eligible.

But if that occured would he get voted in? .... Dunno, it might depend on how bad those last 3 years were.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It would still not be a good comparison to Gonzalez.

I don't know why Vlad is trying to open up all of these hypothetical side doors.

[Valadius]

I just think that the process by which players are judged for the Hall of Fame is weighted too much towards quantity and not enough towards quality is all. There can be multiple ways to define greatness.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think they are looking for a high quantity of high quality.

It's hard to find a measure of greatness that makes Juan Gonazalez a peer of Albert Pujols.

[Valadius]

I didn't bring up Albert Pujols as another example for why I think Juan Gone deserves enshrinement, but just as another "what if?"

Now I want to make the case for another player who had a shortened career - Dick Allen.

He had a career OPS+ of 156 - tied for 20th all-time with Willie Mays, ahead of Hank Aaron, Joe DiMaggio, Frank Robinson, Honus Wagner, and Mike Schmidt.

He led his league in OPS 4 times. It looks like he's the only eligible retired player to have done that and not be in the Hall of Fame.

From 1964 to 1974, he was a monster at the plate. During this time, his OPS+ was:

1964 - 162
1965 - 145
1966 - 181
1967 - 174
1968 - 160
1969 - 166
1970 - 146
1971 - 151
1972 - 200
1973 - 177
1974 - 165

I think he satisfies the Ralph Kiner Exception by having at least 10 exemplary seasons.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Bill James has looked closely at Dick Allen's career. His conclusion is that the guy's case looks OK on numbers alone, but then is knocked below the threshold by the fact that he was a negative and divisive personality --- usually well documented --- on most of the teams he played for.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Dick Allen was a tremendous hitter, but as Edgy points out, he reportedly had a hard time getting along with teammates, opponents, and the press. If a player alienates enough of the press core during their playing days, it will often come back to haunt them when it's time for HOF balloting.

[Valadius]

I disagree with Bill James. Being an ass ought not exclude you from the Hall of Fame if you were that good of a player.

[Valadius]

Can someone please explain to me why the hell Ted Simmons is not in the Hall of Fame?

Comparing his stats with the catchers currently in the Hall of Fame, it's absolutely ludicrous that he's not in yet.

He hit .285 with 248 HR and 1389 RBI. He had 2472 hits, 1074 runs scored, and 483 doubles. He batted over .300 seven times, and was an All-Star eight times.

Put in a group with the 13 catchers currently in the Hall, Simmons is:

5th in runs scored
1st in hits
1st in doubles
5th in home runs
2nd in RBI
6th in batting average
5th in games caught
7th in fielding percentage

Seriously, what the hell?