Robby Alomar - HOFer?

[hudsonharden]

Since Roberto Alomar is arguably the best second baseman in the American League (with the possible exception of Bret Boone), is he already a proven HOFer?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Supporters of Alomar need to follow what happens with Ryne Sandberg in the voting. Sandberg got about 50% of the vote in his first year on the ballot this year. While many here believe Sandberg should have gotten in on the first ballot, he did score a solid amount for his first year, and should get in within a couple seasons, certainly before the Ripken/Gwynn/McGwire super ticket of 2007.

As Sandberg's voting goes, so will go Alomar's. If, that is, he were to retire this year. 3000 hits will get him in on the first ballot.

[TrueDodgerFan]

Originally posted by hudsonharden
Since Roberto Alomar is arguably the best second baseman in the American League (with the possible exception of Bret Boone), is he already a proven HOFer?

Not sure I'd agree with him being the best now... seems like there's a guy with the Yankees who's pretty good too. But, Alomar definitely was the dominant 2nd baseman in the 90's. I'd like to think he'd be a shoe in based on his past achievements.

[Baseball Guru]

IMO he is but as CCN points out, not a first ballot HOF if he were to end his career this season....

His #'s are comparable to Sandberg...

That said, he isnt gong to retire this season and if he averaged 150 hits the next 2 seasons after this one is finished he will get to 3000 hits so he will be a 1st ballot with 3000+ hits....

Ok, actually after reading my post and CCN's, I guess it would have been easier to just say: "What he said" :D

Ok, I agree with CCN's post:waving

[J W]

In my book he's in without hesitation, but, as noted second baseman have been having trouble on the ballot lately. I expect him to get 3000 hits, and I think he's got an outside shot at 3500 depending on how long he wants to play the game.

I'm interested in finding out how he ranked year-by-year as a second baseman. Right now I don't expect him to be that high, but I'd bet at least seven years he was the best second baseman in his league.

[hudsonharden]

Originally posted by TrueDodgerFan
Not sure I'd agree with him being the best now... seems like there's a guy with the Yankees who's pretty good too. But, Alomar definitely was the dominant 2nd baseman in the 90's. I'd like to think he'd be a shoe in based on his past achievements.

Soriano hasn't played long enough to establish himself as the best at his position.

[tearforamariner]

Originally posted by hudsonharden
Soriano hasn't played long enough to establish himself as the best at his position.

His stats don't stand up as it is. He might be the second best in the game today, after Boone.

[Zito75]

I've always looked at Alomar as great player, not an oustanding player. I'll always remember him spitting on Hirshbeck. I don't think he lead the league in enough offensice categories to get in. I don't see any MVPs or rings. Then again, Ozzie Smith is in the HOF because of his defense. I say no to Alomar. That's my 2 cents.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Zito75
I don't see any....rings.

Are you kidding?

Roberto Alomar has, not just one, but two World Championship rings from the 1992-93 Blue Jays teams he led to the Series. Not only did he bat .347 in those two series, but he also won the MVP Award for his performance in the '92 ALCS. He was, unquestionably, the best player on those teams.

[Eddie Collins]

he should definitely make it

[Cougar]

He will be in. Maybe first ballot, maybe 2nd or 3rd, but no longer.

[The Commissioner]

If he retired today, he has already proven that he is a Hall of Famer. His fielding prowess combined with a career .300 BA pretty much guarantees him a spot. Add his base stealing totals, his 1000+ BB, and his 1100 +RBI to that the fact that he is on the verge of having 1500 runs scored, 4000 total bases, and could potentially collect 3000 hits and I can't see how he can not be enshrined.

[tonypug]

Four years ago it appeared Roberto Alomar was headed for The Hall Of Fame. What are his chances now that his play has deteriated so fast. Will the voters be able to focus on the number of good years he had or will his recent play over shadow that.Also does he have to reach 3,000 hits to get in?

[julusnc]

Roberto Alomar is in the decline phase of his career and will probably never have another all-star calibur year.

Alomar will be remembered as a premier second baseman of his generation.A switch hitter, great baserunner, a .300 hitter with little power, and a player that spit in the face of a umpire.

Alomar is a Hall of Fame second baseman but his fast decline phase and spitting incident has driven his stock down and it will take about 3-5 years after being eligible.

[DoubleX]

Alomar will get in. He was such a good all-around secondbasemen for so long that I think it would be hard to pass on him. However, I remember people feeling the same way about Ryne Sandberg in his prime, but when the time came for election he was so far removed from his best years (due to the comeback) that it hindered his election for a few years. I think Alomar's well-publicized decline could hamper his candidacy for the first few years. But he'll get in, the bigger question will be what hat he'll be wearing, given that he's never spent more than 5 seasons anywhere. The Blue Jays seem like the best choice, but who knows.

[The Commissioner]

Roberto Alomar is absolutely a Hall of Famer. Anyone that lets the twilight of his career tarnish his overall status as one of the all-time great secondbasemen in baseball history, deserves to have his voting privileges revoked.

[edclinch]

If Alomar acquits himself as a class act his last years, much as Tim Raines did as a 37-42 year old, both his numbers and his overall reputation should earn him a spot in the Hall of Fame.
He has a lot of hits and I think needs the 3,000 hits, unlike Rock, who both will deserve HOF votes for a few reasons:
1) Raines had 808 SBs to Alomar's current 474
2) Raines had a lifetime .385 OBP to Alomar's current .371 OBP
3)Raines has a stellar rep, and is exemplary for overcoming cocaine at the beginning of his career and Lupus at the end, plus being around long enough (despite the serious disease) to play with his son, Jr.

If Alomar can last a few more seasons like Raines did, and even put together another .300 year despite overall lower batting averages and health problems, and help lead a few teams to world series or division titles,I think he will get in the Halll of Fame.

[DoubleX]

Both Raines and Alomar are deserving of the Hall, but I think Alomar will have an easier time getting by the writers than Raines will. I foresee and fear a long and tedious campaign for Raines, perhaps similar to that of Bert Blyleven. I hope I'm wrong because that would be a very unfortunate injustice and slight to a player that would have been the greatest of his kind if not for Rickey Henderson.

[mac195]

Alomar will probably go first ballot, 3 years tops.

[leecemark]

--I think the combination of the spitting incidence and his nomadic and unproductive late career (well the nomadic part apllies to his whole career) pretty much preclude his making it on the first ballot. He was too good in his prime and has compiled too big of numbers for a 2B to not make it eventually.
-- I expect his route to be very similar to Sandberg's. Ryne was as good or better and didn't have the negatives Alomar has to overcome.
--What does everyone think of Biggio's chances? I think he has edged past Alomar over the last couple years, but might not look as good to the average voter. If they hit the ballot at the same time will they hold each other back? If they both call it quits after this year (unlikely, but possible) can they make it together? If not, which will make it first?

[tonypug]

Today the St. Pete Times ran a story entitled Alomar might not need 3,000 hits to make the Hall.It focused on Alomars productive years and downplayed the last few years as being due to injury. Of course Alomar is now a home team member having recently signed with the Rays, so it may be a little slanted. So far everyone agrees he will get in, the real question being will it be on the first ballot. Does he have to do anything more, or is what he has already done sufficient?

[DoubleX]

A couple of years ago I would have said Alomar would definitely get in before Biggio and that Biggio would have a difficult time getting in at all. I'm starting to change my stance on that now. It's tough to predict how things will play out down the road, but Biggio seems to have really endeared himself as a fan favorite and gritty, team-oriented, and likeable player. I think Biggio's chances will be helped from playing his whole career with one team and with Jeff Bagwell (who has endeared himself for the same reasons as Biggio). The two seem to go together and I think they help each others Hall candidacies, if that makes any sense. Anyway, I'm not so concerned about Biggio making it at this point, I more concerned about another middle infielder, Barry Larkin.

[cubbieinexile]

I have a feeling that all the middle infielders that are not part of the big three are going to have a hard time getting in.

Barry Larkin, Craig Biggio, and Roberto Alomar.

I'm thinking that it will take at least 5 years of elections before any of them get in. Even then none might get in. I think that for at least two of them it will go to the VC or at the very least past a decade of elections.

Those three guys don't have the numbers of the newer guys and they don't have the publicity of the older guys. Ryne had Chicago and WGN/Harry Caray to pump him up, Whitaker was in Detroit and had no one to pump him up. One takes a few years to get in and the other falls off the ballot.

[J W]

If Alomar acquits himself as a class act his last years, much as Tim Raines did as a 37-42 year old, both his numbers and his overall reputation should earn him a spot in the Hall of Fame.
He has a lot of hits and I think needs the 3,000 hits, unlike Rock, who both will deserve HOF votes for a few reasons:
1) Raines had 808 SBs to Alomar's current 474
2) Raines had a lifetime .385 OBP to Alomar's current .371 OBP
3)Raines has a stellar rep, and is exemplary for overcoming cocaine at the beginning of his career and Lupus at the end, plus being around long enough (despite the serious disease) to play with his son, Jr.

If Alomar can last a few more seasons like Raines did, and even put together another .300 year despite overall lower batting averages and health problems, and help lead a few teams to world series or division titles,I think he will get in the Halll of Fame.

Tim Raines was a corner outfielder. Alomar was a second baseman. That alone is enough to push Alomar ahead of Raines in my book, even today.

For the record, I endorse Raines for the HOF as well.

I think the spitting incident is fading in people's emotional memory... kind of like the George Brett pine-tar thing. We'll all remember the footage of course, but by the time his candidacy rolls around, I think the voters will be looking at his on the field credits.

And, if he doesn't get his 3000 hits... it'll probably take him a couple years to get inducted, as it did Ryne Sandberg.

[J W]

I have a feeling that all the middle infielders that are not part of the big three are going to have a hard time getting in.

I don't think either Garciaparra or Jeter have cemented a spot in Cooperstown yet. I'm pretty sure Jeter will finish his career off quite nicely, but Nomar has injury problems I'd be concerned about if I were in his corner.

[rich]

I have never seen a second baseman with the range of Alomar.

[cubbieinexile]

I don't think either Garciaparra or Jeter have cemented a spot in Cooperstown yet. I'm pretty sure Jeter will finish his career off quite nicely, but Nomar has injury problems I'd be concerned about if I were in his corner.


Not saying that the Big Three are a lock or even on their way to the Hall. Just that when people looks at the big threes numbers and then look at other middle infielders who played their prime before the big three, the other guys are going to look like they came up short.

[tonypug]

You almost have to put A Rod in a class by himself. It's not fair to compare middle infielders to A Rod. His power numbers are not typical.

[Brad Harris]

Alomar is one of the ten greatest second basemen in major league history.

If he retired today, he'd deserve the Hall of Fame. Regardless of what else he does on the field, he'll deserve the Hall of Fame.

He ought to be elected the first time he's eligible.

Any voters who feel otherwise should be tarred, feathered and beat like the San Diego Chicken's red-wattled stepchicklet.

[RuthMayBond]

--What does everyone think of Biggio's chances? I think he has edged past Alomar over the last couple years, but might not look as good to the average voter. If they hit the ballot at the same time will they hold each other back? If they both call it quits after this year (unlikely, but possible) can they make it together? If not, which will make it first?They both have a 116 OPS+ (at this point), Biggio's Range Factor is a little bit better, Alomar was a little better stealing bases. Biggio has led his league in PO & A more, and did play catcher.

[iPod]

I'd support Robby Alomar, but really, if you think about it, Alomar's not that different from Lou Whitaker, who I wouldn't support. Both were gold glove AL 2nd baseman with power that was considered good for an infielder, with OPS+ values within 1 point of each other (Alomar 116, Whitaker 117). Alomar's batting average, speed, and better showing in awards (like MVP placings, all-star selections, gold gloves) put him over the top in my book, with Whitaker coming up short. But really, they're not all THAT different.

[J W]

Well, a good argument can be made that Whitaker is among the dozen best players at his position:

Collins, Frisch, Gehringer, Hornsby, Lajoie, Robinson... Herman?
.
.
.
.
.

Alomar, Biggio, Carew, Morgan, Sandberg... Whitaker? Grich?

So no, they aren't that different, even though Alomar winds up on top. I personally would feel fine if Whitaker was in the HOF.

*EDIT* sorry, I had to do it RMB :p

[RuthMayBond]

Well, a good argument can be made that Whitaker is among the dozen best players at his position:

Collins, Frisch, Gehringer, Hornsby, Lajoie, Robinson... Herman?

Alomar, Biggio, Carew, Morgan, Sandberg... Whitaker? Grich?

So no, they aren't that different, even though Alomar winds up on top. I personally would feel fine if Whitaker was in the HOF.Couldn't you put Frisch any higher or Morgan any lower? :laugh

[julusnc]

Top 10 Second Basemen as voted on by Baseball Fever members in 2004 totals

*Poll Thread Starter Leecemark



--The final tally for the secondbase man voting

1. Rogers Hornsby 140
2. Eddie Collins 133
3. Joe Morgan 110
4. Nap Lajoie 107
5. Charlie Gehringer 73
6. Jackie Robinson 70
7. Frankie Frisch 39
8. Ryne Sandberg 37
9. Roberto Alomar 25
10. Craig Biggio 23

Others receiving more than one vote; Joe Gordon, Bobby Grich and Rod Carew.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm not sure how you pro-rate Carew, with his play at 1B

[Cougar]

Alomar's not making the HOF would be a travesty. That said, based on Sandberg's experience it wouldn't be a shock at all if Robby had to wait a ballot or two to get in.

[Brad Harris]

Not saying that the Big Three are a lock or even on their way to the Hall. Just that when people looks at the big threes numbers and then look at other middle infielders who played their prime before the big three, the other guys are going to look like they came up short.

The three deserving middle infielders nearing retirement - Alomar, Biggio and Larkin - will all appear on a BBWAA ballot a decade before Garciaparra, Jeter or Rodriguez ever do. That trio's accomplishments won't loom as large in the background as some people believe.

And though I'm not campaigning for them, Lou Whitaker or Willie Randolph would certainly not be the worst second baseman in the Hall. Bobby Grich was better than either, however.

[Cougar]

Grich had a higher peak than Whitaker or Randolph, but may not have had better careers.

I would rank them Whitaker, Grich, Randolph myself. Willie can't hang with the other two because of his lack of power.

Whitaker and Grich's career OPS's are actually very close; Grich has .795 and Whitaker has .789. That's not a significant difference, and at that point durability and longevity has to come into play.

[HackWilson]

Roberto Alomar is in the decline phase of his career and will probably never have another all-star calibur year.

Alomar will be remembered as a premier second baseman of his generation.A switch hitter, great baserunner, a .300 hitter with little power, and a player that spit in the face of a umpire.

Alomar is a Hall of Fame second baseman but his fast decline phase and spitting incident has driven his stock down and it will take about 3-5 years after being eligible.
Your full of crap, he was batting .300 this year untill arizona went and traded him.

[leecemark]

--Well he was hitting 300 for 100 AB, but that doesn't change the fact he has been in serious decline for the past three seasons. He ended up at .263, with weak secondary numbers. His lines for the past three seasons:
266/331/376, OPS+ 91
258/333/349, OPS+ 81
263/321/392, OPS+ 81
--He has also had range factors below league average the past 4 seasons. He was a great player and is a deserving Hall of Famer. He really doesn't have anything left though. Its only his reputation that allowed him to land a job in MLB this year. Maybe if he's lucky that will be enough to keep him in somebody's lineup and get his 3,000 hits (although that would also take some luck in the health department). I don't think he needs 3,000 for the Hall, or would be any more worthy if he did get there, but that would get him elected first ballot. Without 3,000, he is more likely to need several tries.

[Brooklyn]

What is Alomar's role with TB this year? Is he supposed to be the starting second basemen?

If so, and if he stays healthy, I can't see him not getting to 3,000. He has 2724 hits, so even with off years he is only 2 years away. Of course with one off year, his chances of getting enough at bats in 2006 would be less, but I'm having a hard time seeing him not getting to 3000.

I think right now Biggio and Alomar are pretty much equal for their careers. Biggio has a pretty good shot at 3,000 too, just really needs to stay healthy and somewhat productive for the next three years. Biggio has better black ink and grey ink then Alomar. The rest of their stats are pretty close. Biggio has 100 more runs but 140 less RBI, 60 mor double, 29 less triples, 24 more HRs and 100 less hits. The only real difference is batting average - biggio .286 to Alomar .300, their OBP, SLugging, OPS+ are almost identical. Alomar also has 80 more SB.

Alomar has 12 All-star games to Biggio's 7 and 10 GG to Biggio's 4. Alomar has 6 top-10 MVPs to Biggio's 3.

These two players also have each other as their most similar. I think if their careers ended today, I'd give Alomar the slight nod over Biggio, but they both should be in. However, the way their careers are trending, I wouldn't expect to see Biggio as the better candidate by the time they both retire.

It is interesting the Alomar has better marquis name recongintion than Biggio, so it will be interesting to see how the voters distinguish the two

[leecemark]

--I think he is definately a Hall of Famer. Really everybody who is clearly a Hall of Famer should also be a first ballot guy, because either you are or aren't. If you are going to vote for a player the only legitimate reason not to vote for them their first year is because you already have a full ballot. In the real world, however, I expect it will take him 2-3 tries. He doesn't have anything going for him that Sandberg didn't and is probably less popular. Ryno had to wait longer than he should have and the same will likley be true for Roberto.

[ElHalo]

Mark,

In my view, the first ballot thing is baseball's way of making a tier system. First tier guys go in on the first ballot, and the lower your tier, the longer it'll take you get in. Guys who are dead locks, but aren't really in the top tier (Alomar certainly fits that criteria) should, in my view, have to wait a few ballots to get noticed.

[torez77]

How much do you think Robbie's subpar performances his last 3 seasons will delay his entrance into the Hall?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

How much do you think Robbie's subpar performances his last 3 seasons will delay his entrance into the Hall?

Not too much. When voters vote they usally tend to remember a player's greatness not his poor seasons at the end of their career. No one remembers what Mickey Mantle did in 1968 or Willie Mays did in 1973, right?

[leecemark]

--I remember Mays in 73 all too well. It was the saddest thing I've ever seen in baseball. That said, it doesn't affect my evaluation of him at all. He did enough to be entitled to stagger through one too many seasons without criticism or career demerits. Now if it 5-6 too many seasons, ala Pete Rose, that does lower my evaluation of their career.
--Alomar and the teams that employed had reason to believe he still had some good ball left. They were wrong, but those seasons are best ignored when ranking Alomar.
--EH, I understand how the vote works in practice, but it really isn't designed that way. It is supposed to be a simple "yes this player is a Hall of Famer" or "no he isn't".

[mac195]

How much do you think Robbie's subpar performances his last 3 seasons will delay his entrance into the Hall?

I was thinking that they will probably keep him from going first ballot. But I notice that by stopping now, he retires with a .300 average. That factor alone might be enough to get him to 75% quickly.

[torez77]

Not too much. When voters vote they usally tend to remember a player's greatness not his poor seasons at the end of their career. No one remembers what Mickey Mantle did in 1968 or Willie Mays did in 1973, right?

Well, Alomar is no Mantle or Mays!
Still, without putting too much emphasis on the last 3 years and looking at his entire career, his performance above all modern-day 2B-men is such that it's enough to make him a first-ballot HOFer IMO.

[The Commissioner]

--EH, I understand how the vote works in practice, but it really isn't designed that way. It is supposed to be a simple "yes this player is a Hall of Famer" or "no he isn't".

Absolutely. Just becasue the writers may have turned it into some form of tier system doesn't make it right.

[Cougar]

Alomar should be first ballot easily, as of the top dozen second basemen of all time.

He may need a few ballots, though, with the uninspiring finish to his career, the spitting incident, the unusually nomadic career for an elite player, etc.

[J W]

My opinion is first-ballot HOFer (of course, since I don't give the ballot-number system much credit).

But I'll vote that he waits a couple years like Sandberg.

[STLCards2]

In a perfect baseball world, if a guy deserves to be in the Hall, he would get elected his first year every time. A guy is either a Hall of Famer or not. Just because Alomar isn't Horsby, doesn't mean he shouldn't be elected his first ballot. If you feel like a guy is deserving, than vote him in. If you don't, than don't.

[RuthMayBond]

Alomar should be first ballot easily, as of the top dozen second basemen of all time.If only that worked for 3B & catchers :laugh

[jrbdmb]

Shouldn't the fact that Alomar is retiring before the coming "glut" of potential HOFers (Johnson / Clemens / Maddux / Martinez / Bonds / Piazza / Griffey / Sosa / IRod / etc. etc.) help his chances?

Right now I'm guess he'll be on the 2010 ballot with Edgar Martinez (maybe HOF) and Robin Ventura (no way). My guess is he gets in as the best candidate on the 2010 ballot.

Edit - Barry Larkin (maybe) is also on the 2010 ballot. I would put Alomar ahead of both Larkin and Martinez, YMMV.

[abacab]

I would rank Alomar and Larkin just about dead even. That 2010 ballot just got a lot more interesting.

[NOMAR22]

Roberto Alomar was a great 2B

Career avg.300 G-2,379, AB-9,073,R-1,508,Hits-2,724,2B-504,3B-80,HRS-210
Rbis-1,134,SB-474
6 times 100 runs,6 times over 75 Rbi's,2 times over 100 Rbis 6 times over 180 hits,9 times BA over.300,5 times BA over.320,10 gold gloves,4 silver slugger.

Roberto Alomar in my opinion is a Hall of Famer.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

NOMAR,

What's up with bringing back all these old threads? ;)

[NOMAR22]

NOMAR,

What's up with bringing back all these old threads? ;)

Is it illegal?

[125osprey]

Robbie should go in to the Hall of Fame wearing a Blue Jay cap. He was a great player. He'll make it if the electors give him a fair evaluation, and don't, because of the Hirschbeck incident, deny him entry (like Dick Allen or Albert Belle).

[RedSoxVT92]

Great defensive 2nd baseman. Has 10 Gold Gloves most by a 2nd baseman ever. Also has a career .300 average and only 276 hits off of 3000 including 4 silver sluggers. The 12 time All Star defientley deserves to be honored in cooperstown.

[RuthMayBond]

Not sure I'd agree with him being the best now... seems like there's a guy with the Yankees who's pretty good too. Who in the world are we talking about?

[dl4060]

Who in the world are we talking about?


That post was from 03'.

[caribeño]

Besides his all around playing , and his intelligence , Roberto must be easily one of the best second basemen ever . I lost the count on how many times i saw him on ESPN highlights of the game . :clapping

[J W]

In my book he's in without hesitation, but, as noted second baseman have been having trouble on the ballot lately. I expect him to get 3000 hits, and I think he's got an outside shot at 3500 depending on how long he wants to play the game.

Oops. :laugh

Still doesn't change my opinion.

Supporters of Alomar need to follow what happens with Ryne Sandberg in the voting. Sandberg got about 50% of the vote in his first year on the ballot this year. While many here believe Sandberg should have gotten in on the first ballot, he did score a solid amount for his first year, and should get in within a couple seasons, certainly before the Ripken/Gwynn/McGwire super ticket of 2007.

As Sandberg's voting goes, so will go Alomar's.

...and Sandberg was elected on his third try. If Alomar shares a similar fate--well, Sandberg should've been first ballot--most of us Alomar supporters would live with it I think.

[Taco De Muerte]

Career 125.2 WARP3, four seasons of over 10, two other seasons of over 9, and three other seasons of 7.5 or better. He does well in counting stats - 376 Career winshares, 7th all-time among 2B. 1,508 runs, better than all but 7HOF 2B. 2,724 hits, better than all but 7 HOF 2B. 504 2B, better than all but 4HOF 2B. 210 HR, better than all but 5 HOF 2B. 474 SB with an 80% success rate, more SB than all but 5 HOF 2B. 116 OPS+, better than all but 9 HOF 2B. And in several of those categories one of the player's with better numbers is Paul Molitor, who only played 400 games at 2B (but for some reason baseballreference.com lists him with HOF 2B).

Also, a Solid post-season performer - Posted a 313/.448/.381 line through 58 games, and a member of two WS Champions. Also, a good defender at a premium defensive position.

He's easily one of the 10 best 2B ever - He should easily get in.

[abacab]

There's no real argument against Alomar. He'll have no trouble getting elected, possibly on his first ballot.

[538280]

I agree he's easily a HOFer. He's not as good as Biggio though. He's also not so easily one of the top 10 2B (I have him right at #10). Here's my top 20 2B:

1.Joe Morgan
2.Eddie Collins
3.Rogers Hornsby
4.Jackie Robinson
5.Nap Lajoie
6.Charlie Gehringer
7.Bobby Grich
8.Craig Biggio
9.Rod Carew
10.Roberto Alomar
11.Ryne Sandberg
12.Lou Whitaker
13.Willie Randolph
14.Frankie Frisch
15.Joe Gordon
16.Nellie Fox
17.Jeff Kent
18.Davey Lopes
19.Billy Herman
20.Johnny Evers

[RuthMayBond]

john1972 votes YES, and

He's not as good as Biggio though. He's also not so easily one of the top 10 2B (I have him right at #10). Here's my top 20 2B:

1.Joe Morgan
2.Eddie Collins
3.Rogers Hornsby
4.Jackie Robinson
5.Nap Lajoie
6.Charlie Gehringer
7.Bobby Grich
8.Craig Biggio
9.Rod Carew
10.Roberto Alomar
11.Ryne Sandberg
12.Lou Whitaker
13.Willie Randolph
14.Frankie Frisch
15.Joe Gordon
16.Nellie Fox
17.Jeff Kent
18.Davey Lopes
19.Billy Herman
20.Johnny Evers
. . . look out Chris

[538280]

. . . look out Chris

I'm confused. Look out for what?

[The Dude]

1.Rogers Hornsby*
2.Joe Morgan*
3.Eddie Collins*
4.Jackie Robinson*
5.Rod Carew*
6.Nap Lajoie*
7.Charlie Gehringer*
8.Craig Biggio
9.Ryne Sandberg*
10.Roberto Alomar*

I must be crazy too.:crazy

[BoSox Rule]

This is a real question?

[RuthMayBond]

I'm confused. Look out for what?Look out for john1972

[Joltin' Joe]

He's a no brainer HOFer. The only chink in his armor is the spitting incident.

[RedSoxVT92]

Yes he is no doubt a HOFer. One of the best defensive 2nd Baseman ever with the most gold gloves at 2nd of anybody. Could swing the stick too. Almost has 3000 hits with a career .300 average, and has 4 silver sluggers. This 12 time all star is a sure fire hall of famer.

[JVN]

I think Alomar and Biggio are very close, but would select Alomar as the better 5-tool player.

[STLCards2]

Let me get this straight. Sockeye just selected Chili Davis as one of the 150 greatest players of all time, but voted "no" on Alomar being a Hall of Famer? Some explanation is needed. I know Alomar is no Adrian Beltre or anything. :crazy

[KCGHOST]

I don't see much doubt about him getting in, but we will see.

[leecemark]

--Sockeye actually thinks Chili Davis is better than that. Chili is a holdover from his top 100 group. Apparently Davis is almost as good as the imortal Harold Baines:D .

[julusnc]

I like chili better with crackers :laugh

[julusnc]

Roberto Alomar is a slamdunk HOFer.

[Taco De Muerte]

I agree he's easily a HOFer. He's not as good as Biggio though. He's also not so easily one of the top 10 2B (I have him right at #10). Here's my top 20 2B:

1.Joe Morgan
2.Eddie Collins
3.Rogers Hornsby
4.Jackie Robinson
5.Nap Lajoie
6.Charlie Gehringer
7.Bobby Grich
8.Craig Biggio
9.Rod Carew
10.Roberto Alomar
11.Ryne Sandberg
12.Lou Whitaker
13.Willie Randolph
14.Frankie Frisch
15.Joe Gordon
16.Nellie Fox
17.Jeff Kent
18.Davey Lopes
19.Billy Herman
20.Johnny Evers

Personally I would take alomar over those two that I highlighted. Also, I agree that biggio is better than alomar.

[yankillaz]

Alomar is a sure fire HOF'er. And i'd pick him before any other contemporary, even Biggio.

[Francoeurstein]

--Sockeye actually thinks Chili Davis is better than that. Chili is a holdover from his top 100 group. Apparently Davis is almost as good as the imortal Harold Baines:D .

Sockeye, sockeye, sockeye... Whatever will we do with you???:p

[holyroman]

Alomar is a sure fire HOF'er. And i'd pick him before any other contemporary, even Biggio.

Biggio has better numbers and is still going. he has 9 doubles already this year.

[Chisox]

Biggio has better numbers and is still going. he has 9 doubles already this year.
You know, I think this one of those tradionalist vs. statistician arguements.
All throughout his prime, I was convinced I was seeing the best 2B of my life-time, and the stats backed it up. If I had to pick a 2B of the '90s, I would have picked Alomar without even thinking about it. However, the more time Biggio plays, I just might have to come to the conclusion that Biggio has been more valuable than Alomar overall.

[holyroman]

You know, I think this one of those tradionalist vs. statistician arguements.
All throughout his prime, I was convinced I was seeing the best 2B of my life-time, and the stats backed it up. If I had to pick a 2B of the '90s, I would have picked Alomar without even thinking about it. However, the more time Biggio plays, I just might have to come to the conclusion that Biggio has been more valuable than Alomar overall.
very logical and honest post. you're part of what makes this site great. i keep coming back and reading (even if i don't post that often) there are some people that really know there baseball on this site. and every one holds each other to backing up there argument logically and even statistically.


The way I see it was maybe in his prime Alomar coould make some flashier or tougher plays. not to downgrade biggio's defense he has always been more than adequate there. but value to me is key and as a leadoff man biggio was one of if not the best in the 90's also. And when you add in that he is still driving in and scoring runs at a great rate he has been very valuable to the astros franchise for a long time.
but boy am i a "homer" i won't deny it

[538280]

I said this on another thread, but I'll mention it again here. Biggio, like Bill James says, has the best "little stats" of any player in history. He gets hit by a ton of pitches, almost never grounds into a double play, steals bases at a great percentage, and is always willing to advance the runner with a sac hit. No player in history is underrated more by the basic RC formula (H+BB)(TB)/(AB+BB) than Biggio. When you switch to the more advanced RC formula, it gives a MUCH better idea of the offensive greatness of Craig Biggio. OPS+ doesn't even come close to measuring his true offensive value, and that, park effects, and longevity is why he has been a better player than Alomar.

The eyewitness opinions....Sure, Alomar may be more fun to watch, for the simple reason he made lots of flashy plays in the field. But, statistical metrics have shown Alomar to have been somewhat overrated with the glove. According to them he didn't have true awesome range, and that actually may have allowed him to make so many visually impressive plays. They do show Alomar to have a defensive advantage over Biggio, but generally not enough to offset Biggio's hitting.

[csh19792001]

I said this on another thread, but I'll mention it again here. Biggio, like Bill James says, has the best "little stats" of any player in history. He gets hit by a ton of pitches, almost never grounds into a double play, steals bases at a great percentage, and is always willing to advance the runner with a sac hit. No player in history is underrated more by the basic RC formula (H+BB)(TB)/(AB+BB) than Biggio. .

See: Eddie Collins. :)

[538280]

See: Eddie Collins. :)

Or Joe Morgan :)

[csh19792001]

Or Joe Morgan :)

Absolutely. :) Those are probably the three premier guys- just a coincidence they were all second baseman??? :noidea Jackie should do well there too.

How many are more undervalued than Collins by OPS+? It doesn't factor in that Collins was impossible to strike out, and his 512career sacrifice hits are completely negated. Think of how many games were decided by a key sac in the late innings. It doesn't show up in his production, of course.

Yet Collins still comes out with a 141 career OPS+- in a career that spanned 4 decades.

[john1972]

I said this on another thread, but I'll mention it again here. Biggio, like Bill James says, has the best "little stats" of any player in history. He gets hit by a ton of pitches, almost never grounds into a double play, steals bases at a great percentage, and is always willing to advance the runner with a sac hit. No player in history is underrated more by the basic RC formula (H+BB)(TB)/(AB+BB) than Biggio. When you switch to the more advanced RC formula, it gives a MUCH better idea of the offensive greatness of Craig Biggio. OPS+ doesn't even come close to measuring his true offensive value, and that, park effects, and longevity is why he has been a better player than Alomar.

The eyewitness opinions....Sure, Alomar may be more fun to watch, for the simple reason he made lots of flashy plays in the field. But, statistical metrics have shown Alomar to have been somewhat overrated with the glove. According to them he didn't have true awesome range, and that actually may have allowed him to make so many visually impressive plays. They do show Alomar to have a defensive advantage over Biggio, but generally not enough to offset Biggio's hitting.

Obviously my opinions may be a little offensive to some on these boards. But if you're one of the many who claim Biggio was better than Alomar, you may know statistics but you sure as heck don't know baseball. Quite simply, baseball is not all about statistics. Any fool should be able to recognize this but in our age of scientific obsession our perceptions are limited. Statistics measure averages and not necessarily aptness to succeed in any given situation. Go ahead and compile all the footage from Alomar and Biggio's play in the playoffs then tell me who was the better player.

Since your a Morgan fan it amazes me you would prefer Biggio over Alomar. I seem to recall Morgan being quite confident Alomar was the better player. In fact, no other secondbaseman in history compared most favourably with Morgan's skill sets than Alomar.

[starkeeper]

Living close to the Toronto area I got to see Alomar play quite often while in his prime. He gave us many years of exciting baseball, was a part of bringing the World Series north of the border, and I would have loved to see him go into the Hall of Fame. However, I believe that character should be a part of a Hall of Famer's prerequisite and Robbie really blew it when he spit on that umpire. Based on all statistical and era dominant criteria Alomar is a slam dunk in my opinion. He showed an arrogant lack of respect for the game with the "spitting incident" and as a result should not be inducted.

[iPod]

Obviously my opinions may be a little offensive to some on these boards. But if you're one of the many who claim Biggio was better than Alomar, you may know statistics but you sure as heck don't know baseball. Quite simply, baseball is not all about statistics. Any fool should be able to recognize this but in our age of scientific obsession our perceptions are limited. Statistics measure averages and not necessarily aptness to succeed in any given situation. Go ahead and compile all the footage from Alomar and Biggio's play in the playoffs then tell me who was the better player.

Since your a Morgan fan it amazes me you would prefer Biggio over Alomar. I seem to recall Morgan being quite confident Alomar was the better player. In fact, no other secondbaseman in history compared most favourably with Morgan's skill sets than Alomar.

Sort of ironic, because most people who claim Alomar over Biggio do so by pointing to the stats.

[538280]

Obviously my opinions may be a little offensive to some on these boards. But if you're one of the many who claim Biggio was better than Alomar, you may know statistics but you sure as heck don't know baseball. Quite simply, baseball is not all about statistics. Any fool should be able to recognize this but in our age of scientific obsession our perceptions are limited. Statistics measure averages and not necessarily aptness to succeed in any given situation. Go ahead and compile all the footage from Alomar and Biggio's play in the playoffs then tell me who was the better player.

Baseball is not all statistics. I realize that. But, I would think Biggio, not Alomar, is the one underrated by statistics. Biggio is a team leader, does the famed "little things", like steal bases, bunt, sacrifice, and be a team leader. Alomar hasn't really been a bad influence, but there were some incidents in Baltimore where teammates thought his effort was questionable. From Baseball Library:

"Alomar showed a considerable lack of motivation in Baltimore. Many observers noted that some of Alomar's Oriole teammates were miffed at Roberto's unwillingness to run hard to first after hitting a ground ball."

And let's not forget about the spitting incident either.

Then when Roberto went to New York, he was a major dissapointment, probably the biggest one of my lifetime. Biggio has retained his job through what he has always mastered-hard work and hustle. It's Biggio who resembles Morgan, not Alomar.

The people who favor Alomar mostly use the statistics, but they don't pay attention to what really wins the games. Alomar has the better traditional stats-BA, hits, runs, RBIs, but when put their statistics through a real model like the advanced RC formula, you see Biggio's little stats like sac hits, walks, and hit by pitch make him the more valuable player. Also, park effects are something that has to be considered.

Since your a Morgan fan it amazes me you would prefer Biggio over Alomar. I seem to recall Morgan being quite confident Alomar was the better player. In fact, no other secondbaseman in history compared most favourably with Morgan's skill sets than Alomar.

Alomar vs. Morgan? Little Joe would crush Alomar, it's not even close. They have similar numbers, but Joe played in the much tougher offensive environment, and Joe was a hard working team leader like Biggio, not a player who gave sometimes questionable effort like Alomar. And I like Morgan the player, not Morgan the announcer, who seems to constantly make a fool of himself (though he is better than the Fox boys).

[STLCards2]

Baseball is not all statistics. I realize that. But, I would think Biggio, not Alomar, is the one underrated by statistics. Biggio is a team leader, does the famed "little things", like steal bases, bunt, sacrifice, and be a team leader. Alomar hasn't really been a bad influence, but there were some incidents in Baltimore where teammates thought his effort was questionable. From Baseball Library:

"Alomar showed a considerable lack of motivation in Baltimore. Many observers noted that some of Alomar's Oriole teammates were miffed at Roberto's unwillingness to run hard to first after hitting a ground ball."

And let's not forget about the spitting incident either.

Then when Roberto went to New York, he was a major dissapointment, probably the biggest one of my lifetime. Biggio has retained his job through what he has always mastered-hard work and hustle. It's Biggio who resembles Morgan, not Alomar.

The people who favor Alomar mostly use the statistics, but they don't pay attention to what really wins the games. Alomar has the better traditional stats-BA, hits, runs, RBIs, but when put their statistics through a real model like the advanced RC formula, you see Biggio's little stats like sac hits, walks, and hit by pitch make him the more valuable player. Also, park effects are something that has to be considered.



Alomar vs. Morgan? Little Joe would crush Alomar, it's not even close. They have similar numbers, but Joe played in the much tougher offensive environment, and Joe was a hard working team leader like Biggio, not a player who gave sometimes questionable effort like Alomar. And I like Morgan the player, not Morgan the announcer, who seems to constantly make a fool of himself (though he is better than the Fox boys).

I know this had nothing to do with Alomar, but speaking of Morgan the announcer...

the other day on Sportcenter Morgan claimed that balls being wound tighter is the reason homeruns have increased the past couple of years tcompared to 5-6 years ago.:eek: :eek: :eek: (He also claimed Sandy Kohfax was the best pitcher ever)

Almost as bad as when Joe Buck admitted the other day that he had never heard of Pud Galvin or Dazzy Vance.:eek: :eek: :eek:

No, I am not making these up.

[SABR Matt]

Of course...even once you've accounted for the "little stats"...Biggio doesn't come close to being as good a player as James insists (35th all time?? come on now billy...let's get real here), but certainly, both Biggio and Alomar are HOF second basemen...though neither cracks my top ten at the position.

[538280]

(He also claimed Sandy Kohfax was the best pitcher ever)


I can't defend the first comment, but I actually saw the part when he said Koufax was the best ever, and to defend Joe, I just think when a former player says that it means something different than when we say it. I don't think Joe was saying that in respect to statistical value (i.e. longevity, historical context), I think he meant it more in a context of "Koufax was the greatest I ever saw", which means of course he was only referring to peak performance, in which case calling Koufax the best ever is a reasonable choice.

[538280]

Of course...even once you've accounted for the "little stats"...Biggio doesn't come close to being as good a player as James insists (35th all time?? come on now billy...let's get real here), but certainly, both Biggio and Alomar are HOF second basemen...though neither cracks my top ten at the position.

I agree James overrates Biggio (have him in the 70s, not even close to 35th, which I agree is unreasonable). He also has him ahead of Nap Lajoie, which is just as bad. I have Biggio ahead of Alomar though by about 10 spots in my top 100 players.

[SABR Matt]

I have Robby Alomar 114th right now and Biggio 135th. Either I'm missing something huge or Alomar and Biggio are both overrated by a bunch of people. It's probably a little of both. :\

[SABR Matt]

And...Biggio over Lajoie = BWWWWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...

*gasp*

HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...

*choke**gurgle**cough*

HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA....

*wheeze*

HELP!

[csh19792001]

I can't defend the first comment, but I actually saw the part when he said Koufax was the best ever, and to defend Joe, I just think when a former player says that it means something different than when we say it. I don't think Joe was saying that in respect to statistical value (i.e. longevity, historical context), I think he meant it more in a context of "Koufax was the greatest I ever saw", which means of course he was only referring to peak performance, in which case calling Koufax the best ever is a reasonable choice.

I haven't read through this thread, but I assume you're talking about when they asked Joe Morgan about Maddux's place among the alltime greats.

I believe he said "For me, when you're talking about the greatest pitchers, the list always starts with Koufax".

This isn't surprising at all, for a guy who faced Koufax in his prime. As I said earlier, I heard Mays and Don Sutton say Koufax was the greatest pitcher they ever saw, and I'm sure there are many, many Hall of Fame (and non HOF) players/pitchers who saw Sandy in his prime and agree with Joe Morgan and Mays completely.

[john1972]

Baseball is not all statistics. I realize that. But, I would think Biggio, not Alomar, is the one underrated by statistics. Biggio is a team leader, does the famed "little things", like steal bases, bunt, sacrifice, and be a team leader. Alomar hasn't really been a bad influence, but there were some incidents in Baltimore where teammates thought his effort was questionable. From Baseball Library:

"Alomar showed a considerable lack of motivation in Baltimore. Many observers noted that some of Alomar's Oriole teammates were miffed at Roberto's unwillingness to run hard to first after hitting a ground ball."

And let's not forget about the spitting incident either.

Then when Roberto went to New York, he was a major dissapointment, probably the biggest one of my lifetime. Biggio has retained his job through what he has always mastered-hard work and hustle. It's Biggio who resembles Morgan, not Alomar.

The people who favor Alomar mostly use the statistics, but they don't pay attention to what really wins the games. Alomar has the better traditional stats-BA, hits, runs, RBIs, but when put their statistics through a real model like the advanced RC formula, you see Biggio's little stats like sac hits, walks, and hit by pitch make him the more valuable player. Also, park effects are something that has to be considered.



Alomar vs. Morgan? Little Joe would crush Alomar, it's not even close. They have similar numbers, but Joe played in the much tougher offensive environment, and Joe was a hard working team leader like Biggio, not a player who gave sometimes questionable effort like Alomar. And I like Morgan the player, not Morgan the announcer, who seems to constantly make a fool of himself (though he is better than the Fox boys).

Man, people just don't get it. First off, HBP is not a reliable tool to be considered effectual in many circumstances. Does Biggio have control over getting hit by a pitch. If anything his propensity to be hit by pitches is what has made him so effective at the plate; he stands so close giving him tremendous plate coverage and able to pull outside pitches. Secondly, Alomar was renouned for being able to sacrifice runners over with bunting and putting the ball in play. Alomar's bunting ability would put Biggio's to shame.

As far as being a leader goes, leaders perform well in the playoffs, period. Compare Morgan's and Biggio's records to Alomar's.

About Morgan destroying Alomar, not a chance. Please consider that Alomar would have performed well in the 70's as he was the type of player who excelled in that era. Alomar performing in the juiced era if anything reduced his perceivable value as a ballplayer. Everyone around him were jacking shots left and right raising the OPS average league-wide, thus reducing the chance for a single player to perform with distinction. If Joe played in the 90's I would bet there would be a very different view of him as a player. Playing in the 70's helped Joe, not hurt him.

I will agree though about his poor attitude. It is the sole reason we are even having this debate; if he had an attitude comparable to Biggio's he'd easily have over 3000 hits. The guy just didn't give it his all too often.

[538280]

Man, people just don't get it. First off, HBP is not a reliable tool to be considered effectual in many circumstances. Does Biggio have control over getting hit by a pitch. If anything his propensity to be hit by pitches is what has made him so effective at the plate; he stands so close giving him tremendous plate coverage and able to pull outside pitches. Secondly, Alomar was renouned for being able to sacrifice runners over with bunting and putting the ball in play. Alomar's bunting ability would put Biggio's to shame.

Why shouldn't the HBP count? It doesn't matter why Biggio gets hit by so many pitches, all that matters is that he does, and those HBPs have lots of value to his team. They're just as good as a walk, and we all know walks (and HBP) lead to baserunners and baserunners lead to runs. HBP should count as a part of offensive contribution just like everything else.

I didn't see Alomar regularly, I can't comment on his bunting skills. But, I do know I have heard annoncers and such talk about how Craig Biggio is a good bunter. I have never heard the same for Alomar. That doesn't mean Biggio is neccesarily the better bunter, he could not be.

As far as being a leader goes, leaders perform well in the playoffs, period. Compare Morgan's and Biggio's records to Alomar's.

What? Since when is postseason performance a good indicator of leadership qualities? I'm missing the connection here.

About Morgan destroying Alomar, not a chance. Please consider that Alomar would have performed well in the 70's as he was the type of player who excelled in that era. Alomar performing in the juiced era if anything reduced his perceivable value as a ballplayer. Everyone around him were jacking shots left and right raising the OPS average league-wide, thus reducing the chance for a single player to perform with distinction. If Joe played in the 90's I would bet there would be a very different view of him as a player. Playing in the 70's helped Joe, not hurt him.

That's not true at all. League strength is something we talk about all the time here, I think the 70s were probably the strongest league we've ever had, because of a variety of factors (other sports weren't as well developed, African Americans were playing more than ever, plus other reasons I've been over a million times). To claim it was harder for Alomar to separate because this era is "juiced" is not a valid claim. Morgan hit more HRs in the 70s than Alomar did in the 90s, I think that's a good way to sum up their power hitting. Morgan has a 133 OPS+, Alomar is at 116.

[john1972]

Why shouldn't the HBP count? It doesn't matter why Biggio gets hit by so many pitches, all that matters is that he does, and those HBPs have lots of value to his team. They're just as good as a walk, and we all know walks (and HBP) lead to baserunners and baserunners lead to runs. HBP should count as a part of offensive contribution just like everything else.

I didn't see Alomar regularly, I can't comment on his bunting skills. But, I do know I have heard annoncers and such talk about how Craig Biggio is a good bunter. I have never heard the same for Alomar. That doesn't mean Biggio is neccesarily the better bunter, he could not be.



What? Since when is postseason performance a good indicator of leadership qualities? I'm missing the connection here.



That's not true at all. League strength is something we talk about all the time here, I think the 70s were probably the strongest league we've ever had, because of a variety of factors (other sports weren't as well developed, African Americans were playing more than ever, plus other reasons I've been over a million times). To claim it was harder for Alomar to separate because this era is "juiced" is not a valid claim. Morgan hit more HRs in the 70s than Alomar did in the 90s, I think that's a good way to sum up their power hitting. Morgan has a 133 OPS+, Alomar is at 116.

I wasn't arguing that Alomar was comparable to Morgan in hitting home runs. That wasn't a big part of Alomar's game. My point was that during Alomar's career the league averaged a SLG% of .417, a 33 point difference from Morgan's time. I am arguing that since Alomar's slugging focused on a mix of extra-base power, the surge of homerun hitting prowess during that era drowned out much of Alomar's advantage in slugging. Therefore it is my contention that if Morgan played in the 90's his slugging advantage would have inevitably reduced faced with more prominent slugging hitters league-wide. Do you believe Morgan would have maintained his SLG+ numbers in the 90's. Aside from the fact Morgan was a better OBP man though an inferior contact hitter to Alomar, the reason for the large difference between their OPS+ figures is likely due to the large gap in slugging abilities between the two eras. Both AVG and OBP average figures are comparable between the eras.

[538280]

I wasn't arguing that Alomar was comparable to Morgan in hitting home runs. That wasn't a big part of Alomar's game. My point was that during Alomar's career the league averaged a SLG% of .417, a 33 point difference from Morgan's time. I am arguing that since Alomar's slugging focused on a mix of extra-base power, the surge of homerun hitting prowess during that era drowned out much of Alomar's advantage in slugging. Therefore it is my contention that if Morgan played in the 90's his slugging advantage would have inevitably reduced faced with more prominent slugging hitters league-wide. Do you believe Morgan would have maintained his SLG+ numbers in the 90's.

This is ridiculous. 2Bs/3Bs are not as good as HRs. Yes, HRs were not a big part of Alomar's game, yes he was more about extra base power. Morgan was more about HRs, and HRs are better than 2Bs and 3Bs. Projecting him to the modern era, Morgan would probably hit about 35 HRs in his best years and 20-25 in a normal season. Alomar hit about 25 in his best years and was usually at 10-15. Alomar did have more 2Bs and 3Bs, but they aren't as good as HRs and thus Alomar wasn't the power hitter Morgan was. I do believe he would have maintained his SLG+ in the 90s, because he, like the rest of the league, would hit more HRs.

[geezer]

Alomar is no doubt a sure Hall of Famer, and anybody that thinks he shouldnt get in, knows nothing about baseball.

[RuthMayBond]

the other day on Sportcenter Morgan claimed that balls being wound tighter is the reason homeruns have increased the past couple of years tcompared to 5-6 years ago.:eek: :eek: :eek: (He also claimed Sandy Kohfax was the best pitcher ever)

Almost as bad as when Joe Buck admitted the other day that he had never heard of Pud Galvin or Dazzy Vance.:eek: :eek: :eek:

No, I am not making these up.And these are the "experts" we rely on, sometimes for eyewitness accounts

[abacab]

Why would Joe Buck have heard of Dazzy Vance or Pud Galvin? Vance pitched 80 years ago. Galvin pitched 120 years ago. Does Buck claim to be a baseball historian?

[538280]

Why would Joe Buck have heard of Dazzy Vance or Pud Galvin? Vance pitched 80 years ago. Galvin pitched 120 years ago. Does Buck claim to be a baseball historian?

He's not a historian, but if I know who Vance and Galvin are, shouldn't the man who announces baseball to the public know?

Joe Morgan isn't a very good annoucer, but he's the best ever in comparison with Buck and McCarver.

[abacab]

He's not a historian, but if I know who Vance and Galvin are, shouldn't the man who announces baseball to the public know?


No, not really. I don't see what knowledge of pitchers who were older than my great-grandparents has to do with understanding of modern baseball. It'd be one thing if Buck had never heard of Bob Feller or Warren Spahn or Grover Alexander. Dazzy Vance is a pretty obscure reference. Pud Galvin... what would I call him, mega-obscure? Galvin was pretty much forgotten twenty years after his career ended, he died in 1902, and it took Lee Allen going through boxscores to identify Galvin as a 300-game winner. I would never expect anyone involved in the game to know anything about Galvin.

[538280]

No, not really. I don't see what knowledge of pitchers who were older than my great-grandparents has to do with understanding of modern baseball. It'd be one thing if Buck had never heard of Bob Feller or Warren Spahn or Grover Alexander. Dazzy Vance is a pretty obscure reference. Pud Galvin... what would I call him, mega-obscure? Galvin was pretty much forgotten twenty years after his career ended, he died in 1902, and it took Lee Allen going through boxscores to identify Galvin as a 300-game winner. I would never expect anyone involved in the game to know anything about Galvin.

Still, though, Buck is the guy who annouces baseball to the public, and I'd think anyone who tells the public about baseball should know quite a bit about the game's history. I just think anyone who has some interest in baseball history should know those two names. Maybe I'm setting the bar too high, but I just think that anyone in a position like that should know at least as much as the average History/HOF Talk poster here on BBF, or at least half of what I know (since Buck is probably three times my age).

[baseballPAP]

I have to agree with you Chris. I expect my announcers to have at least a good working knowledge of baseball history. Galvin I can maybe let slide, but Vance it tough to excuse. I'm even harder on a teams home announcer....for example, I'd expect a Cards announcer to not only know who Chick Hafey is, but to know that he had eye problems, a great throwing arm and a tendency to hit to the opposite field. I'm willing to bet the Buck doesn't know anything further than the name. I've never had as much of a problem with McCarver, but just like Morgan, he proves his "skills" every time I'm punished by having to listen to a game he does.

As to the point in question....Alomar vs. Biggio might just be a great thread. Personally, Alomar falls short mostly on longetivity, and also on a little boost I give Biggio for making the successful positional transistions he has.
I have Biggio 7 and Alomar 9, sandwiching Rod Carew.

[SABR Matt]

I have Carew 5th, Gehringer 6th, Robinson 7th (upwardly adjusted from the 11th ranking he actually has by the GI method due to missing NeL time), Frisch 8th, Grich 9th, Bid McPhee 10th, Biggio 11th and Alomar 13th (sandwiching Sandberg).

[csh19792001]

Still, though, Buck is the guy who annouces baseball to the public, and I'd think anyone who tells the public about baseball should know quite a bit about the game's history.

Buck is a stuffed shirt- he's there for his voice and panache, and he's not a baseball historian/expert.

If you want a genuine historian calling the game, you should have Gammons announcing. Few people in the world know as much about the current game of baseball as Gammons, and he also has an outstanding working knowledge of the history of the game.

[csh19792001]

I would never expect anyone involved in the game to know anything about Galvin.

Exactly. Certainly not Joe Buck, and probably not even Joe Morgan.

[538280]

Buck is a stuffed shirt- he's there for his voice and panache, and he's not a baseball historian/expert.

If you want a genuine historian calling the game, you should have Gammons announcing. Few people in the world know as much about the current game of baseball as Gammons, and he also has an outstanding working knowledge of the history of the game.

Gammons is good. He's probably the best ESPN guy, though I still like to turn on the TV and see Joe Morgan announcing, for the simple reason it's nice to see one of the top 20 players of all time up there announcing a game.

[abacab]

So five people voted "no". What possible case can there be against Alomar?


He didn't have 3000 hits.
He spit in an umpire's face once.
He didn't hit as many homers as Dave Kingman.
????

[geezer]

So five people voted "no". What possible case can there be against Alomar?


He didn't have 3000 hits.
He spit in an umpire's face once.
He didn't hit as many homers as Dave Kingman.
????


Some people just dont know about baseball abacab (so there a hole into somewhere)

[Chisox]

Sort of ironic, because most people who claim Alomar over Biggio do so by pointing to the stats.
Actually, I think that's kind of backwards. My stats say that Alomar was better until recently. That's why I think I might have to reverse Alomar/Biggio (#5Alomar, #7Biggio) soon.

[SABR Matt]

You have Alomar ahead of Gehringer?

(you can't possibly have him ahead of Morgan/Lajoie/Collins/Hornsby...or if you do, you're sadly mistaken)....I'd just love to see you attempt to make the case that Alomar is better than any of the five 2B I've listed here...Gehringer included.

[Chisox]

You have Alomar ahead of Gehringer?

(you can't possibly have him ahead of Morgan/Lajoie/Collins/Hornsby...or if you do, you're sadly mistaken)....I'd just love to see you attempt to make the case that Alomar is better than any of the five 2B I've listed here...Gehringer included.

My top 7
Gehringer
Collins
Lajoie
Morgan
Alomar
Hornsby
Biggio

I rate seasonal (true seasonal, not per game) play equal to total and dominance, and that's the main reason Hornsby rates lower. He rates #1 on offense, but looking at defense (I have Alomar A LOT higher than you there) and I believe the talent in the NL during Hornsby's prime was basically minor league level, I've got Alomar ever so slightly ahead. Yes, I know I'm in the VAST minority (probably the only one) who does that, but I still do it.
BTW, just to note: Power means a lot to my system, and my percentages is divided by outs. Hornsby's #1 on face-value offense, but downgraded a ton based on quality and defense adjustments. I also only factor in career, so peak means nothing to me. I also factor in post-season, and since Alomar's statistically the best post-season 2B of all-time, that means something to me, as well.

[leecemark]

--I'm pretty sure you are alone in ranking Gehringer #1 as well as ranking Alomar ahead of Hornsby (john1972 will love you, but even he has his hero below Hornsby). Are you trying to challenge Burgess for most eccentric rankings? You got your work cut out for you there:laugh .

[RuthMayBond]

--Are you trying to challenge Burgess for most eccentric rankings? You got your work cut out for you there:laugh .Well now, there's always sockeye. Or you could study the proverbs of ElHalo

[Chisox]

--I'm pretty sure you are alone in ranking Gehringer #1 as well as ranking Alomar ahead of Hornsby (john1972 will love you, but even he has his hero below Hornsby). Are you trying to challenge Burgess for most eccentric rankings? You got your work cut out for you there:laugh .
I just call 'em like I see 'em.:dance ;)

[john1972]

My top 7
Gehringer
Collins
Lajoie
Morgan
Alomar
Hornsby
Biggio

I rate seasonal (true seasonal, not per game) play equal to total and dominance, and that's the main reason Hornsby rates lower. He rates #1 on offense, but looking at defense (I have Alomar A LOT higher than you there) and I believe the talent in the NL during Hornsby's prime was basically minor league level, I've got Alomar ever so slightly ahead. Yes, I know I'm in the VAST minority (probably the only one) who does that, but I still do it.
BTW, just to note: Power means a lot to my system, and my percentages is divided by outs. Hornsby's #1 on face-value offense, but downgraded a ton based on quality and defense adjustments. I also only factor in career, so peak means nothing to me. I also factor in post-season, and since Alomar's statistically the best post-season 2B of all-time, that means something to me, as well.

Finally someone is willing to address the very real and serious issue of lack of quality pre WW2. The secondbaseman who are rated highly from these days are so because they were able to compile over-inflated stats due to playing in a highly talent reduced environment, not to mention the fact that in those days secondbasemen were considered the thirdbasemen of today. It is my belief that if people continue to maintain their standards in evaluating players, people like Hornsby will ALWAYS be considered the greatest secondbaseman which is simply ludicrous. The guy probably would have been stuck at first if playing today.

The true greats at secondbase were guys like Morgan, Robinson, and Alomar, and to a lesser extent Biggio. These are the guys that revolutionized the position in to what it needs to be: a position manned by a highly capable defender who can supply solid offense.

And I like your mention of Alomar being the greatest post-season performer of all the greats at secondbase. That demonstrates true leadership in my opinion.

[SABR Matt]

While it is true that the league was not as strong in the 20s and 30s as it is today...most attempts to objectively quantify "how much weaker" have converged on approximately 7-12% weaker...not the gargantuanly weak conditions you guys are claiming.

The 1930s NL was especially thin, but not so ludicrously thin that you could really claim that there couldn't have been a legitimately great player in that period.

And to the claim that Hornsby would have been stuck playing first base I would suggest that (a) you watch Alfonso Soriano attempt to play second base (or Jeff Kent or any of several other offensively gifted middle infielders who can't field to save their lives) and (b) Hornsby was not THAT bad defensively...pretty bad compared to other top second basemen...but certainly not replacement level bad.

[leecemark]

--Who is saying there couldn't be legitimately great players pre-WWII? Of course there were. However, 7-12% is a very significant difference. Chop 10% off Hornsby BA and he is still a tremendous hitter (probably still the bets hitting 2B), but with a .320 BA instead of a .350 his rep would drop with many. Trim 10% off his OPS+ and he is still #1 at 2B, but the gap is not so large it can't be bridged by a better defender and baserunner like Morgan.

[538280]

Finally someone is willing to address the very real and serious issue of lack of quality pre WW2. The secondbaseman who are rated highly from these days are so because they were able to compile over-inflated stats due to playing in a highly talent reduced environment, not to mention the fact that in those days secondbasemen were considered the thirdbasemen of today. It is my belief that if people continue to maintain their standards in evaluating players, people like Hornsby will ALWAYS be considered the greatest secondbaseman which is simply ludicrous. The guy probably would have been stuck at first if playing today.

The true greats at secondbase were guys like Morgan, Robinson, and Alomar, and to a lesser extent Biggio. These are the guys that revolutionized the position in to what it needs to be: a position manned by a highly capable defender who can supply solid offense.

Oh believe me, we talk about that stuff all the time. I am certainly in favor of LQ adjustments, one of the most vocal members here for that. But, it is inappropriate to claim that there can't be a truly great player before WWII. I do agree they deserve a discount though.

And I like your mention of Alomar being the greatest post-season performer of all the greats at secondbase. That demonstrates true leadership in my opinion.

I still don't get the connection. How does postseason performance equal leadership?

[Chisox]

Oh believe me, we talk about that stuff all the time. I am certainly in favor of LQ adjustments, one of the most vocal members here for that. But, it is inappropriate to claim that there can't be a truly great player before WWII. I do agree they deserve a discount though.
I know this isn't directed at me, but I'll reply, none-the-less.
I don't think the AL of the '20s was too weak, but I really believe the NL was horribly weak--in my mind the worst in the modern era.

I still don't get the connection. How does postseason performance equal leadership?
I have absolutely no answer to that. I factor in post-season performance because it does help a team win a championship. The player's team may not make it, but that player was still producing. I only use it when two players are very close (in my judgement) and the difference in post-season play is rather large for the one behind.

[Chisox]

--Who is saying there couldn't be legitimately great players pre-WWII? Of course there were. However, 7-12% is a very significant difference. Chop 10% off Hornsby BA and he is still a tremendous hitter (probably still the bets hitting 2B), but with a .320 BA instead of a .350 his rep would drop with many. Trim 10% off his OPS+ and he is still #1 at 2B, but the gap is not so large it can't be bridged by a better defender and baserunner like Morgan.
I agree with all of that.

[538280]

I know this isn't directed at me, but I'll reply, none-the-less.
I don't think the AL of the '20s was too weak, but I really believe the NL was horribly weak--in my mind the worst in the modern era.

I think both leagues in the 20s were weak, but I would agree the AL was stronger. The 20s NL actually had a smaller standard deviation between performances though.


I have absolutely no answer to that. I factor in post-season performance because it does help a team win a championship. The player's team may not make it, but that player was still producing. I only use it when two players are very close (in my judgement) and the difference in post-season play is rather large for the one behind.

I agree post season performance should count for something, and Alomar gets his due credit. But, I don't see how that makes him a team leader.

[SABR Matt]

The 20s NL had no dominant team...that completely explains the smaller standard deviation of performance. It does not suggest that the AL was the weaker league.

My own experiments with the skew of the run scoring distribution (run scoring on a game by game basis using game logs) suggest that the 1920s and especially early 1930s NL may have been sub-minor-league in quality.

[leecemark]

--Elevating your game when it counts most is a type of leadership isn't it? Alomar doesn't seem to have been a leader in the clubhouse, but he did lead by example - which may be more important. I'd think Reggie Jackson's biggest fan would be on board with that concept.
--Of course, there is a debate over whether "clutch performances" exist, but I think its silly to say some players don't thrive on a bigger stage. If you have A great postseason (or a terrible one) that can just mean you were hot or lucky. If you get alot of postseason play and consistently excell then that seems like evidence that you are a player who is able to focus better in the spotlight.

[john1972]

Just to keep things in perspective, here is a compilation of the top secondbaseman in history according to some of the most rational, objective sabremetrics in existence:

And now, here is the list of the top 20 second basemen of all-time (read: not the Hall of Fame second basemen), according to the same metrics:


Name Career WARP3 Peak WARP3 JAWS BRAR BRAA FRAA

Joe Morgan 163.0 82.7 122.9 1010 688 9

Eddie Collins 160.6 79.2 119.9 1011 671 34

Rogers Hornsby 150.5 87.9 119.2 1090 838 -99

Nap Lajoie 156.2 79.3 117.8 878 573 157

Roberto Alomar 133.4 75.4 104.4 736 431 31

Charlie Gehringer 131.4 74.1 102.8 647 363 91

Ryne Sandberg 117.4 74.1 95.8 537 254 137

Rod Carew 122.7 68.2 95.5 828 526 17

Bobby Grich 119.4 69.9 94.7 575 334 85

Craig Biggio 117.8 66.3 92.1 715 382 -130

Lou Whitaker 120.4 58.2 89.3 624 331 28

Frankie Frisch 114.8 62.8 88.8 467 166 149

Bobby Doerr 108.1 66.2 87.2 418 180 176

Billy Herman 104.8 68.0 86.4 487 234 80

Willie Randolph 108.3 54.3 81.3 500 224 58

Jackie Robinson 89.0 72.5 80.8 487 326 111

Tony Phillips 96.4 59.1 77.8 504 238 42

Joe Gordon 86.6 67.1 76.9 410 216 8

Red Schoendienst 92.4 55.6 74.0 283 1 163

Nellie Fox 89.0 56.7 72.9 276 -38 78


source:http://www.baseballdigestdaily.com/bullpen/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=80&Itemid=39

Of course adjustments need to made for Jackie Robinson and Biggio is still playing.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Second basemen who hit 300 with walks and power get in the HOF. There are very few 2B who hit .300 for a career that aren't in the HOF; Buddy Myer is the only one that comes to mind.

[Cougar]

Second basemen who hit 300 with walks and power get in the HOF. There are very few 2B who hit .300 for a career that aren't in the HOF; Buddy Myer is the only one that comes to mind.


And Myer should be.

[Alibi Ike]

I can't defend the first comment, but I actually saw the part when he said Koufax was the best ever, and to defend Joe, I just think when a former player says that it means something different than when we say it. I don't think Joe was saying that in respect to statistical value (i.e. longevity, historical context), I think he meant it more in a context of "Koufax was the greatest I ever saw", which means of course he was only referring to peak performance, in which case calling Koufax the best ever is a reasonable choice.

The irony here is that Morgan thinks that only former players are qualified to comment on the ability of any player.

I also highly doubt that someone like Morgan, who has such an aversion to number crunching, would know peak performance from the peak of Mt. Everest.


But back to Alomar. I can't imagine him not being in the HOF, but like you mentioned earlier, its also hard to forget his tenure with the Mets. That seemed to have an ill effect on the perception his career rivaling Gary Carter's time with the Giants.

[switch_hitter]

I have a question: should the (minority) consensus top ten or twelve guys at each position be in the Hall, JUST because of that? (Especially as these lists tend to fluctuate after 6-8 or so). I mean, Alomar's counting stats were nice (though not quite to milestone numbers), but so were/are several other players who aren't necessarily Hall-worthy or are/may have problems like Larry Walker, Bernie Williams, Mike Mussina, Jim Rice, Albert Belle, even Andre Dawson and quite a few others. He had a relatively shorter career than some and he played second base so there is a positional adjustment but...he just doesn't strike me, you know, like some players do. That is purely subjective, I know, and I never really did see him play or anything so I will accede to being naive of his wares. I've read through his justifications on these boards, and it would not sit uneasy with me if he doesn't make the Hall, and I can honestly say that if I had a vote, as in the poll, I would say nay.

I guess my post boils down to this: a poster remarked earlier that those who vote against Alomar 'don't know baseball' or something like that; well, since I have been deemed as among the ignorant, please enlighten me.

[john1972]

I have a question: should the (minority) consensus top ten or twelve guys at each position be in the Hall, JUST because of that? (Especially as these lists tend to fluctuate after 6-8 or so). I mean, Alomar's counting stats were nice (though not quite to milestone numbers), but so were/are several other players who aren't necessarily Hall-worthy or are/may have problems like Larry Walker, Bernie Williams, Mike Mussina, Jim Rice, Albert Belle, even Andre Dawson and quite a few others. He had a relatively shorter career than some and he played second base so there is a positional adjustment but...he just doesn't strike me, you know, like some players do. That is purely subjective, I know, and I never really did see him play or anything so I will accede to being naive of his wares. I've read through his justifications on these boards, and it would not sit uneasy with me if he doesn't make the Hall, and I can honestly say that if I had a vote, as in the poll, I would say nay.

I guess my post boils down to this: a poster remarked earlier that those who vote against Alomar 'don't know baseball' or something like that; well, since I have been deemed as among the ignorant, please enlighten me.

Nah, just remain ignorant. It's easier that way. Let's just say, statistics aside, there wasn't a single thing Alomar was incapable of on the field. The only other secondbaseman in history who rivals him in this regard is Joe Morgan. Sandberg had limitations in some areas, Biggio I believe has been limited by average defense and being strictly a pull hitter. The greats from the early days I can't comment on. Perhaps Jackie Robinson was as multi-dimensional as Alomar. The Hall of Fame needs to include players that were "the complete package" who accumulated the minimum qualification of stats.

[RuthMayBond]

Nah, just remain ignorant. It's easier that way.Easier than you being civil

<Let's just say, statistics aside, there wasn't a single thing Alomar was incapable of on the field. The only other secondbaseman in history who rivals him in this regard is Joe Morgan.>

Where are you getting this from?

<Sandberg had limitations in some areas>

Such as?

<The greats from the early days I can't comment on.>

Then maybe you should not remain ignorant about Collins, Lajoie and Gehringer

[csh19792001]

I think both leagues in the 20s were weak, but I would agree the AL was stronger. The 20s NL actually had a smaller standard deviation between performances though.


There is no comprehensive evidence to suggest that the AL was stronger than the NL, Chris. Hornsby ranks #3 alltime by Schell's derivations on offense alone, and #2 alltime after a positional adjustment is made. Schell also compares/contrasts his results to that of Win Shares, TPR, and Pete Palmer's Adjusted Batting Wins on pages 210-216.

People are so used to looking at the numbers of the top handful of players to gauge league strength. They see Gehrig, Ruth, Grove and others, and we don't see guys like that in the NL. Perhaps it's because the average player was stronger in the NL during the 20's and 30's. At least, that's what the best available evidence suggests.

[csh19792001]

Nah, just remain ignorant. It's easier that way. Let's just say, statistics aside, there wasn't a single thing Alomar was incapable of on the field. The only other secondbaseman in history who rivals him in this regard is Joe Morgan.

But how was Lajoie not the complete package? Which baseball skill/tool did he lack?

Also, if we're talking about incredibly well rounded second baseman, we'll have to consider Charlie Gehringer (talk about underrated). He was known for doing everything extremely well (which not coincidentally earned him his moniker).

[csh19792001]

Then maybe you should not remain ignorant about Collins, Lajoie and Gehringer

Oops. Hadn't seen this. You beat me to it, Jeff. ;)

[Fuzzy Bear]

But how was Lajoie not the complete package? Which baseball skill/tool did he lack?

In some quarters, Lajoie is portrayed as a poor fielder whose bat carried his glove. I don't believe that this is true, but middle infielders who are great hitters often get stuck with that tag. There are many top hitting middle infielders whose defensive stats are better then their defensive reps.

[leecemark]

--According to some metrics Lajoie was the most dominating defender ever. I think that greatly overstates the case, but he was at least a good defensive player. His plate discipline was nothing special, but nobody cared about that when he was playing. His real weakness in his own time was his lack of speed. He wasn't Edgar Martinez or anything, but he wasn't an especially good baserunner at a time when baserunning was at a premium.

[csh19792001]

--According to some metrics Lajoie was the most dominating defender ever. I think that greatly overstates the case, but he was at least a good defensive player. His plate discipline was nothing special, but nobody cared about that when he was playing. His real weakness in his own time was his lack of speed. He wasn't Edgar Martinez or anything, but he wasn't an especially good baserunner at a time when baserunning was at a premium.

Where did you read quotes/info on his baserunning skill (or lack thereof)? I was looking on Proquest but haven't yet found anything on his speed or baserunning, per se.

He did manage to steal 380 bases in his career- not a ton for that era, but still well above what the average player would have done in the same number of games. He also had a ton of extra base hits, and undoutedly a good number of them were earned through good baserunning.

You don't need great plate discipline if you both hit for an outstanding average with outstanding power (especially for a guy coming from a position on the defenisive end of the spectrum). If you can't hit the ball consistently hard and/or for actual hits, you need to rely on walks. Lajoie wasn't the Jimmy Wynn type who couldn't hit for a respectable average and needed to rely on walks, though. And as you said, the skill of plate discipline was far less valued (and less valuable) in his time, anyway, with pitching dominating and homeruns non existent.

Lajoie wasn't great at everything, but almost nobody has been. The point I was trying to make is that he was very well rounded, and had no real weaknesses as a player. I believe he could "do literally anything on a ballfield" in the same way that Alomar could (that was the original statement I was responding to).

[leecemark]

--Nap Lajoie was not an average player though. He was on base alot (roughly 4,000 time with over 3,000 of them firstbase) in a time when everybody was running all the time. 380 stolen bases is not a good total for a player like Lajoie in that era (not that there were many players like Lajoie;) ). Although CS weren't kept for most of his career I'd be surprised if he didn't have at least 300 of them (and I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 400).
--I don't mean to unduly criticize Nap though. He is one of the true elite players of the deadball era. I see it as;
1) Honus Wagner
2) Ty Cobb
3) Tris Speaker
4) Eddie Collins
5) Nap Lajoie
--------significant dropoff
6) Sam Crawford

[csh19792001]

--Nap Lajoie was not an average player though. He was on base alot (roughly 4,000 time with over 3,000 of them firstbase) in a time when everybody was running all the time. 380 stolen bases is not a good total for a player like Lajoie in that era (not that there were many players like Lajoie;) ). Although CS weren't kept for most of his career I'd be surprised if he didn't have at least 300 of them (and I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 400).
--I don't mean to unduly criticize Nap though. He is one of the true elite players of the deadball era. I see it as;
1) Honus Wagner
2) Ty Cobb
3) Tris Speaker
4) Eddie Collins
5) Nap Lajoie
--------significant dropoff
6) Sam Crawford

300 sounds high, but then, the SB percentages from that era (even from the stars) were generally atrocious, by today's standards. The entire approach to the game was different. I don't think Lajoie was very fast, but I think he was above average in terms of speed (and probably also baserunning ability). He was regarded, with Wagner, as the best athlete in baseball in his prime.

Also, I know you're a big Crawford fan so the "signficant dropoff" thing is surprising. I don't see a big difference there, and I think Crawford is extremely overlooked and underrated, while Nap gets his due press (and perhaps more). In terms of both a seasonal and career basis, Nap doesn't come out looking that much better, really. Could just be differing semantic interpretations of "significant", though.

[538280]

There is no comprehensive evidence to suggest that the AL was stronger than the NL, Chris. Hornsby ranks #3 alltime by Schell's derivations on offense alone, and #2 alltime after a positional adjustment is made. Schell also compares/contrasts his results to that of Win Shares, TPR, and Pete Palmer's Adjusted Batting Wins on pages 210-216.

People are so used to looking at the numbers of the top handful of players to gauge league strength. They see Gehrig, Ruth, Grove and others, and we don't see guys like that in the NL. Perhaps it's because the average player was stronger in the NL during the 20's and 30's. At least, that's what the best available evidence suggests.

Chris, I can't believe you'd accuse me of all people of looking at the top level players to gauge league strength. Maybe you are right about the 20s NL being the stronger league, but the general perception at the time wasn't like that, and Matt's system he introduced has the AL being better.

Schell's work seems sound for the most part, but I don't think he deserves to be the final word on the issue. Neither league was strong anyway.

[leecemark]

--Crawford and Lajoie were similar hitters, but Lajoie did it while playing secondbase while Crawford did it from RF. That is a significant difference to me. Still being the 6th best player from a 20 year period of history is not meant as a slight to Wahoo Sam. Amoung all players I see Lajoie in the top 25 and Crawford in the top 40. To get back to the topic of this thread Alomar is a top 100 kind of guy IMO (although if I actually listed that far he'd likely be somewhere in the 80s.

[baseballPAP]

Crawford might well have been one of the top 10 players if he'd have come around 15 years later. I have read on many occasions how the ball jumped off his bat, longer and harder than almost anyone of his time. He hit a ton of triples for a guy supposedly blessed with average speed at best, which would suggest a lot of balls over the heads of OFers into the depths of those monster ballparks. He even adapted his game more to Cobb's style when he came around, stealing more bases at 31 and 32 than he did at any point in career in 3 years! Of course, thats a little odd, considering he and Cobb supposedly hated each other.

Is there a good biography of Crawford out there somewhere?

[538280]

Crawford might well have been one of the top 10 players if he'd have come around 15 years later. I have read on many occasions how the ball jumped off his bat, longer and harder than almost anyone of his time. He hit a ton of triples for a guy supposedly blessed with average speed at best, which would suggest a lot of balls over the heads of OFers into the depths of those monster ballparks. He even adapted his game more to Cobb's style when he came around, stealing more bases at 31 and 32 than he did at any point in career in 3 years! Of course, thats a little odd, considering he and Cobb supposedly hated each other.

Is there a good biography of Crawford out there somewhere?

I don't think Cobb and Crawford hated each other. I've always thought that at first Crawford hated him (probably because of jealosy more than anything else), but later they got along and became friends. I think the hatred for Cobb came more from the outside than from the Tiger team. I don't pretend to be a Ty Cobb expert though, I could be wrong, that's just the impression I always got.

I don't know of any Crawford biography. It seems we're so short on good biographies for players. There are literally probably five dozen on DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, but then we have players like Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins and Crawford who just don't seem to get any. I actually think Speaker finally got one recently, but I can't think of the title or the author.

Modern players have been greatly overlooked with biographies too. Does anyone know any great bios out there of Willie Mays or Hank Aaron? There are probably some, but it just seems the oldies have gotten much more attention. Joe Morgan? Mike Schmidt? Reggie Jackson? Rickey Henderson? Don't those guys deserve a biography? Yet they haven't gotten one...

[leecemark]

--Crawford was an easy going kind of guy who at least tolerated Cobb. Many of young Tyrus' teamates had no use for him and he returned the feeling. Crawford and Cobb and traded positions, with the slower Crawford manning CF for 3 years, because Cobb and LFer Marty McIntyre hated each other so much they couldn't even take the field side by side. Crawford had to be the buffer between Rfer Cobb and LFer McIntrye just to avoid bloodshed:eek: .

[csh19792001]

I don't think Cobb and Crawford hated each other. I've always thought that at first Crawford hated him (probably because of jealosy more than anything else), but later they got along and became friends. I think the hatred for Cobb came more from the outside than from the Tiger team. I don't pretend to be a Ty Cobb expert though, I could be wrong, that's just the impression I always got.

I don't know of any Crawford biography. It seems we're so short on good biographies for players. There are literally probably five dozen on DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, but then we have players like Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins and Crawford who just don't seem to get any. I actually think Speaker finally got one recently, but I can't think of the title or the author.

Modern players have been greatly overlooked with biographies too. Does anyone know any great bios out there of Willie Mays or Hank Aaron? There are probably some, but it just seems the oldies have gotten much more attention. Joe Morgan? Mike Schmidt? Reggie Jackson? Rickey Henderson? Don't those guys deserve a biography? Yet they haven't gotten one...

The Speaker book (which is very good) was written by Timothy Gay.

Tris Speaker: The Rough-and-tumble Life of a Baseball Legend (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0803222068/102-3807193-7164116?v=glance&n=283155)

There are bios in the works on both Eddie Collins and Pete Alexander (how ridiculously overdue those two will be).

I totally agree- the shortage of biographies of many of the alltime greats is incredible. If Sam Crawford has a bio it's news to me. Even a guy like Frank Robinson doesn't get a book.

[csh19792001]

Crawford might well have been one of the top 10 players if he'd have come around 15 years later. I have read on many occasions how the ball jumped off his bat, longer and harder than almost anyone of his time. He hit a ton of triples for a guy supposedly blessed with average speed at best, which would suggest a lot of balls over the heads of OFers into the depths of those monster ballparks. He even adapted his game more to Cobb's style when he came around, stealing more bases at 31 and 32 than he did at any point in career in 3 years! Of course, thats a little odd, considering he and Cobb supposedly hated each other.


This is right on the money. Crawford had the natural power and (obviously) abiliity to be an elite homerun hitter. He still has the alltime record for inside the park homeruns, with 51, and his number of triples speak for themselves (more than Cobb with almost 3,000 fewer than Cobb. Both guys played in one of the worst parks for left handed power hitters, to boot.

You guys might not know this, but Ty Cobb was largely responsible for getting Crawford into the Hall of Fame. Certainly his most ardent supporter, and they didn't hate each other.

One of the most interesting writeups I've ever come across on Sam Crawford is in the new Bill James Abstract on pages 795-796.

"Ty Cobb said when Crawford was elected to the Hall of Fame that Crawford would have hit 40 homeruns a year with the lively ball. This is a reasonable statement in my opinion, although my translation method does not show him hitting 40 home runs in any season. None of us really knows what Crawford's stats would have been in the lively ball era, but it does seem to me that if Cy Williams could hit 40 homeruns in the Babe Ruth era, Sam Crawford sure as hell could have, under the right conditions."

Incidentally, I saw on Baseball Tonight the other night that Albert Pujols became the only other player to reach 16 homeruns in his first 30 games since Cy Williams did it in 1923 (courtesy of the Baker Bowl for the most part, no doubt).

Anyways, transposed onto a 1919-37 offensive context, Bill James has Crawford with 494 career homeruns, FOURTEEN 100 RBI seasons (including 167 in 1930), and nearly 2,000 career RBI. What would his SLG% be? How about total bases? Even though his skills would be the same, he'd almost certainly have been a lot more valuable just by virtue of the homerun becoming a part of the game.

[abacab]

I have a question: should the (minority) consensus top ten or twelve guys at each position be in the Hall, JUST because of that? (Especially as these lists tend to fluctuate after 6-8 or so). I mean, Alomar's counting stats were nice (though not quite to milestone numbers), but so were/are several other players who aren't necessarily Hall-worthy or are/may have problems like Larry Walker, Bernie Williams, Mike Mussina, Jim Rice, Albert Belle, even Andre Dawson and quite a few others. He had a relatively shorter career than some and he played second base so there is a positional adjustment but...he just doesn't strike me, you know, like some players do. That is purely subjective, I know, and I never really did see him play or anything so I will accede to being naive of his wares. I've read through his justifications on these boards, and it would not sit uneasy with me if he doesn't make the Hall, and I can honestly say that if I had a vote, as in the poll, I would say nay.

I guess my post boils down to this: a poster remarked earlier that those who vote against Alomar 'don't know baseball' or something like that; well, since I have been deemed as among the ignorant, please enlighten me.

Since you asked a good question, here's a real answer that doesn't insult you. Alomar didn't hit any magic numbers, partially because he had several different skills. Ten Gold Gloves, about 2500 hits, almost 500 stolen bases, all from the same player. The other players you named were/are outfielders - they're expected to put up better numbers. You can't really compare them to Alomar. Alomar's numbers put him among the best ever at his position. If he'd put up the same numbers but had been a LF, then no, he probably wouldn't be a Hall of Famer. But, Alomar played second base, and played it very well. He had several seasons (92, 93, 99, 01) when he would have been a legitmate MVP, although he never won it. In summary, there's no one thing about Alomar that you point to and say "That's it, that makes him a Hall of Famer." It's all the little things on his resume, you add it all up and he emerges as an all-time great.

[baseballPAP]

--Crawford was an easy going kind of guy who at least tolerated Cobb. Many of young Tyrus' teamates had no use for him and he returned the feeling. Crawford and Cobb and traded positions, with the slower Crawford manning CF for 3 years, because Cobb and LFer Marty McIntyre hated each other so much they couldn't even take the field side by side. Crawford had to be the buffer between Rfer Cobb and LFer McIntrye just to avoid bloodshed:eek: .
Thanks Mark...thats the story I was thinking of.... just got my OFers backwards :)

[baseballPAP]

Since you asked a good question, here's a real answer that doesn't insult you. Alomar didn't hit any magic numbers, partially because he had several different skills. Ten Gold Gloves, about 2500 hits, almost 500 stolen bases, all from the same player. The other players you named were/are outfielders - they're expected to put up better numbers. You can't really compare them to Alomar. Alomar's numbers put him among the best ever at his position. If he'd put up the same numbers but had been a LF, then no, he probably wouldn't be a Hall of Famer. But, Alomar played second base, and played it very well. He had several seasons (92, 93, 99, 01) when he would have been a legitmate MVP, although he never won it. In summary, there's no one thing about Alomar that you point to and say "That's it, that makes him a Hall of Famer." It's all the little things on his resume, you add it all up and he emerges as an all-time great.
See Larkin, Barry.

Much the same case as Alomar, except without the character flaws.

[switch_hitter]

Since you asked a good question, here's a real answer that doesn't insult you. Alomar didn't hit any magic numbers, partially because he had several different skills. Ten Gold Gloves, about 2500 hits, almost 500 stolen bases, all from the same player. The other players you named were/are outfielders - they're expected to put up better numbers. You can't really compare them to Alomar. Alomar's numbers put him among the best ever at his position. If he'd put up the same numbers but had been a LF, then no, he probably wouldn't be a Hall of Famer. But, Alomar played second base, and played it very well. He had several seasons (92, 93, 99, 01) when he would have been a legitmate MVP, although he never won it. In summary, there's no one thing about Alomar that you point to and say "That's it, that makes him a Hall of Famer." It's all the little things on his resume, you add it all up and he emerges as an all-time great.


I can accept that. And thanks for answering my post in a just manner.

I guess because Sandberg doesn't strike me so singularly (great player, but I think he got in largely because he broke Morgan's all-time HR record, which Kent has done and will probably justify his Hall selection, of which I am also dubious), it also colors my perception of Alomar. However, my time spent (mostly reading) on this site has expanded my evaluations, so as always, they are subject to change.

[Raffy15]

Hey guys,this is my first post here.Robbie Alomar is my favorite player of all time.As you guys know he retired right before the 2005 MLB season.I'm just wondering what the chances are of Robbie making the hall.It would really be cool if i could witness his hall of fame induction.He has 2724 hits,10 gold gloves,over 1500 runs scored,and about 1100 rbis.

Those credentials sound pretty good to me,but what do you guys think?Will he make the hall as a 1st,2nd,or even a later ballot?Will the spitting thing affect his chances?Will his very slow finish hurt his credentials?You guys are experts so i would really appreviate your honest opinions.

I'm only 14 years old and only saw robbie play for 6 years.Are there any highlights of Robbie that i never heard of.You guys have probably watched baseball longer than me so could you tell me about roberto alomar plays and stuff?I would really like it if you could give me some past memories of Robbie.

I declare this the official Roberto Valazquez Alomar tribute thread.Thanks in advance guys!

[RuthMayBond]

Hey guys,this is my first post here.Robbie Alomar is my favorite player of all time.As you guys know he retired right before the 2005 MLB season.I'm just wondering what the chances are of Robbie making the hall.It would really be cool if i could witness his hall of fame induction.He has 2724 hits,10 gold gloves,over 1500 runs scored,and about 1100 rbis.

Those credentials sound pretty good to me,but what do you guys think?Will he make the hall as a 1st,2nd,or even a later ballot?Will the spitting thing affect his chances?Will his very slow finish hurt his credentials?You guys are experts so i would really appreviate your honest opinions.

I'm only 14 years old and only saw robbie play for 6 years.Are there any highlights of Robbie that i never heard of.You guys have probably watched baseball longer than me so could you tell me about roberto alomar plays and stuff?I would really like it if you could give me some past memories of Robbie.

I declare this the official Roberto Valazquez Alomar tribute thread.Thanks in advance guys!Ask john1972

[Raffy15]

Who is john1972?

[EvanAparra]

He'll be here soon I expect.

[brett]

Alomar deserves to get in, but he is not as great as some make him out to be. I think he is an overrated, but still "plus" defensive player and offensively he would be right on the HOF border even if he received no plus for defense or positioning. He is not comparable to Mazeroski or Frank White as a defensive second baseman.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Alomar deserves to get in, but he is not as great as some make him out to be. I think he is an overrated, but still "plus" defensive player and offensively he would be right on the HOF border even if he received no plus for defense or positioning. He is not comparable to Mazeroski or Frank White as a defensive second baseman.

*GASP!* Blasphemy to john! He'll have at you! :eek:

[Raffy15]

^Brett i appreciate your opinion on robbie.That is what i want this thread to be all about,brutal honesty.So you say Robby should get in.I know he has 10 gold gloves which is tops at his position all time.Do the gold gloves count for anything and i'm just curious why you think he is overated defensively.

[Raffy15]

Thanks for combining the thread.

[brett]

First off, fielding percentage is not that big a deal. The difference between the league average and the league's best (say .979 to .984) is only about 1 error per season.

Range factor is not perfect, but it can be used as a guide. Relative range factor is a little better, but in an ideal world you need to know something about the makeup of a player's pitching staff.

Mazeroski make 5.57 plays (total chances) per game versus a league average of 4.71.

White made 5.11 per game versus 4.63 for the league.

I am not going to use those as absolutes, but as guides to help figure out where Roberto fits in.

He had 4.73 TC per game versus a league average of 4.40.

Roberto therefore made 12.15 more total chances than an average second baseman per 162 games.

White made 16.79 more

Maz made 18.26 more.

BIGGIO was about +16.4 per 162.

Sandberg was +22.8

Whitaker was +12.71

Willie Randolph was +21.13

Alfonso Soriano was +11.05 and this is probably about the level where he would be 0 or less on a per 9 inning basis-but you don't lift Soriano (or Alomar) for a pinch hitter.

Alomar simply is near the bottom here for quality full time 2basemen and unless someone can explain why he would have different numbers here-huge strikeout or flyball pitching staffs-then it doesn't follow that he was a great defensive player. What's more, with the increase in offense in his period, saving 12 plays per 162 games meant even less than it did in the 60s/70s or 80s.

In only 1 of his gold glove seasons did he top 5.0 TCs per game. White was 5.11 for his career.

His relative fielding percentage by the way is not great. He made about 1 fewer error per 162 than average versus about 2 fewer for White and almost 3 fewer for Mazeroski and Sandberg.

Now Alomar DID play for several high strikeout pitching staves. This could conceivably accounted for a 5% or even a little more reduction in total chances which if he had had, he could be near the top of this pack, although Biggio played for some comparable big strikeout staves and his range factor does not really correlate to his teams Ks. In 95, Houston had over 1000 Ks, and he had a 5.0+ RF. Bobby Grich played for some big K teams and had 5.0++ RF.

What it really comes down however is this, a good defensive second baseman in the 90s simply did not outperform the league by much, and that outperformance simply did not translate into game value the same way it did in earlier periods.

He's still a plus for position, and a plus for fielding (and over a long time period).

Honestly, though, I have Alomar a little under Sandberg as an all around player-comparable on defense and position, and with Sandberg a better time period relative offensive player by a small margin. Biggio is a tad under Alomar offensively, but still over the border in large part due to HBP.

Barry Larkin would also be close to Alomar in terms of the Hall.

[Raffy15]

^Brett,that was a phenomenal post.Well done.So you are saying robbie is a slam dunk hall of famer right?Damn,i love these threads.I was reading some of the previous pages and i never thought i would say this but,I think john1972 is a bigger alomar fan than i am.When will john get here anyway?

[Brad Harris]

Biggio cracks my top ten and I believe Alomar probably does also.

-Hornsby
-Morgan
-Collins
-Lajoie

-Gehringer
-Sandberg

-Frisch
-others

I'd insert Biggio between the first two groups and Alomar between the second two.

[DoubleX]

Biggio cracks my top ten and I believe Alomar probably does also.

-Hornsby
-Morgan
-Collins
-Lajoie

-Gehringer
-Sandberg

-Frisch
-others

I'd insert Biggio between the first two groups and Alomar between the second two.

No Jackie Robinson or Rod Carew? I also tend to put Bobby Grich ahead of Frankie Frisch.

[538280]

I also tend to put Bobby Grich ahead of Frankie Frisch.

I have yet to see someone persuade me why Frisch is better than Lou Whitaker. I see Grich as a lot better than Frisch.

[brett]

To put numbers on it, Alomar comes out +64 offensive game equivalents above the league average for all players (not 2Basemen). Ripken is +38. George Brett is +89, Biggio +63, Sandberg +76, Larkin +44. Unless a guy is a bad fielder, +50 seems to be a strong indicator of being in the hall. Some players are over +50 and not in. Santo is +58. Bando is +46. Stan Hack is +55. Frank Howard is +63 but is a below average player at a - position.

Basically, take a player with Frank Howard's offense, and turn him into a somewhat + defensive SECOND BASEMAN for a long time and you have a guy who should be in for sure.



^Brett,that was a phenomenal post.Well done.So you are saying robbie is a slam dunk hall of famer right?Damn,i love these threads.I was reading some of the previous pages and i never thought i would say this but,I think john1972 is a bigger alomar fan than i am.When will john get here anyway?

[Raffy15]

Wow!!!!92% of you guys think roberto alomar is a hall of famer.That sounds like a slam dunk hall of famer to me.Now,do you think robbie was one of the best 5 tool players of all time?

[brett]

Probably not. He didn't have "cleanup" level power. He only had a .371 OBP and just at .300 BA when it was more common. As a second baseman he could field but did he have a good arm relative to all players? He was an excellent baserunner but he still did not run on demand-he picked his spots. He might have been able to steal 700+ but his rate would have dropped.

I would prefer to look at the 5 tools this way: 1) Low outs and High OB% and patience-pitches per plate appearance, as well as being able to do thigs with the bat in situations, 2) Cleanup level power, 3) Plus fielding, 4) Not a defensive liability in situations ie an outfielder with an arm that cost his team bases and 5) Overall baserunning.

Larry Walker is a great example of a 5 tool guy. He could hit homeruns, he was a disciplined hitter, he was a great fielder and base runner. In fact, he was considered to be perhaps the best defensive RFielder, the best pure all around baserunner, and he was leading the league in OPS.

So I guess a 6th tool for me would be "health". If a player gets injured every year his team will suffer.

Still, you could bat Alomar 1, 2 3 or even 4 in a pinch.

Wow!!!!92% of you guys think roberto alomar is a hall of famer.That sounds like a slam dunk hall of famer to me.Now,do you think robbie was one of the best 5 tool players of all time?

[jalbright]

Wow!!!!92% of you guys think roberto alomar is a hall of famer.That sounds like a slam dunk hall of famer to me.Now,do you think robbie was one of the best 5 tool players of all time?

I doubt it, but that may be because of how I define "one of the best". I'd say "one of the best" has to be at least top twenty or twenty-five, and when you've got Mays, Aaron, DiMaggio, Cobb, Wagner, Jackie Robinson, Joe Morgan, Eddie Collins, Oscar Charleston, Pop Lloyd, Torriente, Mantle ahead of him before I start really analyzing it, it's hard to say yes.

Jim Albright

[RuthMayBond]

^Brett i appreciate your opinion on robbie.That is what i want this thread to be all about,brutal honesty.So you say Robby should get in.I know he has 10 gold gloves which is tops at his position all time.Do the gold gloves count for anything and i'm just curious why you think he is overated defensively.Kind of funny that a guy who is wondering about Gold Gloves has your nickname :laugh

[Raffy15]

^Huh?Are you talking about my second favorite player ,rafael furcal?How would i be able to find video of roberto?And do you guys think he will get in on the 1st,2nd,3rd,or 4th ballot?

[Brad Harris]

Wow!!!!92% of you guys think roberto alomar is a hall of famer.That sounds like a slam dunk hall of famer to me.Now,do you think robbie was one of the best 5 tool players of all time?

No. But thanks for playing! *ding* ;)

[Raffy15]

^Okay????Robbie won 2 championships you know.

[SamtheBravesFan]

^Okay????Robbie won 2 championships you know.

So did Mike Mordecai. That doesn't make him a five-tool player. ;)

[Raffy15]

did mike mordecai have 2724 hits,1510 runs,1100+ rbi,474 stolen bases and 2 world series?Are you against robbies hall induction?Its okay if you are.I'm just asking.

[SamtheBravesFan]

did mike mordecai have 2724 hits,1510 runs,1100+ rbi,474 stolen bases and 2 world series?Are you against robbies hall induction?Its okay if you are.I'm just asking.

No, I'm not against Alomar being in the Hall. Far from it. What I was poking fun at was that I thought you said that Roberto Alomar was a great "five-tool" player because he was on two championship teams.

So I pointed out another player who was on two championship teams but wasn't a "five-tool" player at all.

[Raffy15]

Do the majority of you guys think he will be a 1st,2nd,or 3rd ballot inductee?Will robby go through what sandberg went through?

[Raffy15]

I checked rynos stats and in my mind,robby had a vastly superior career.Robby had the edge in almost everything except homers.

[brett]

As a hitter (excluding base running) Ryne Sandberg produced .497 bases per plate appearance while the league adjusted average was .459. He therefore produced about 108% of the adjusted average hitter.

Alomar produced about .499 bases per plate appearance versus a league average of .473 for a rate of about 105% of the league average.

The problem is that in OPS+ his 15 point BA advantage shows up twice-both in OB% and SLG%. He still had only a slightly higher OPS+ (116 to 114) but did it for about 10% more plate appearances.

Since Sandberg was +8% on the league and Alomar was +5%, in my book that outweighs Alomar playing 10% longer, however, ot is very possible that Alomar was +8% through 9000 PA's.

Alomar has an edge on steals, but Sandberg played in an era with fewer runs (about .5 fewer runs per game). Sandberg comes out slighlty better on offensive VALUE in my book.

I checked rynos stats and in my mind,robby had a vastly superior career.Robby had the edge in almost everything except homers.

[Raffy15]

But brett,who do you think was the better player taking into acount hitting,fielding,base running,range,arm strength,baseball smarts,bigger impact on the game,highlight plays,and win shares?Answer all parts of this question.

[Raffy15]

So,is it anonymous that everyone thinks roberto will get in?

[dgarza]

It's not even unanimous by this poll.

[Raffy15]

I meant the majority of you guys think he is in.Dgarza,don't be a ****.

[dgarza]

I meant the majority of you guys think he is in.Dgarza,don't be a ****.
Do you mean to say "ass"?

[Edgartohof]

I say that he deserves to be in the Hall. Do I think he will make it? I do.

He was a very good hitter for his position for a long time, was very good defensively (has a bit of hardware to back it up), and he was very good on the basepaths, with almost 500 SB's, at an 80% clip.

[brett]

I think Sandberg played in a very weak league. Personally, I think that the 80s were weak all around. Players who could have hit for power simply did not, because the (wrong) conventional wisdom was that hitting .300 was a special art. Contact hitters were afraid to try to hit homeruns because they thought their average would go down. Remember Tony Gwinn started to turn on a few late in his career and his average went up. Late in the 80s several players discovered that they could try to hit for power, and not hurt their average or overall production. Players swings changed around this time (really started in '94).

I'll also say that I really don't know how great Alomar or Sandberg were on defense. I thought Alomar was great when I saw him. I thought Sandberg was great. Only after I came to this site did I start to consider that they might be overrated on defense-just because so many people said so-but maybe its just propoganda.

Alomar was a little better player. If he hadn't hung around for 2 poor years, he would have had much better relative percentages that Sandberg-but Sandberg retired for 2 years in the middle of his career. If he hadn't retired, he could have put up 3000 hits and 300 home-runs and maybe 500 steals.

Alomar was a little better, but Sandberg was just as valuable for his time period. Put Alomar in the same period, and he would have been considered a little better. All things considered, I have to put Sandberg as a slightly more valuable regular season player, and Alomar probably makes it about even given his post season. They are truly close.

Then again, the 90s were thinned out by expansion.

But brett,who do you think was the better player taking into acount hitting,fielding,base running,range,arm strength,baseball smarts,bigger impact on the game,highlight plays,and win shares?Answer all parts of this question.

[RuthMayBond]

^Okay????Robbie won 2 championships you know.And all by himself :D

[Raffy15]

Huh,interesting.I always thought robbie was a far superior player to sandberg.I never knew sandberg retired for 2 years and then came back.Robbie won 2 championships and sandberg didn't win any.Wasn't robbie the most valuable player in the world series?Did you see the huge hr he hit against eck?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Huh,interesting.I always thought robbie was a far superior player to sandberg.I never knew sandberg retired for 2 years and then came back.Robbie won 2 championships and sandberg didn't win any.Wasn't robbie the most valuable player in the world series?Did you see the huge hr he hit against eck?
If I'm not mistaken, Pat Borders and Paul Molitor were the WS MVPs when the Jays won back to back. I know Borders did get one.
Raffy, can you please use the space button between sentences? It'll make it easier to read your posts.

[Raffy15]

Go to baseball reference.com and scroll down. You will see he won ws mvp. I don't think pat boreders ever won.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Go to baseball reference.com and scroll down. You will see he won ws mvp. I don't think pat boreders ever won.
Borders was voted Sporting News WS MVP in 1992.

[Raffy15]

Oh,sorry robby was the 1992 alcs mvp and the all star game mvp in 1998. Thats impressive.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Oh,sorry robby was the 1992 alcs mvp and the all star game mvp in 1998. Thats impressive.
It is impressive, but awards for short time periods such as single games or series only hold so much weight.
That being said, I see Alomar as a second-ballot HOF'er. His decline was pretty harsh, and he didn't reach any milestones, which are highly valued by the voters.

[Raffy15]

But you still think he will get in no doubt right?

[ChrisLDuncan]

It is impressive, but awards for short time periods such as single games or series only hold so much weight.
That being said, I see Alomar as a second-ballot HOF'er. His decline was pretty harsh, and he didn't reach any milestones, which are highly valued by the voters.


Yeah I revoke my no vote, but I'd say he gets in on the fourth or fifth ballot, his D was top notch.

[The Toy Cannon]

I think he should get in. A .300 hitter with excellent plate discipline, a terrific baserunner and outstanding defensive second baseman.

[TomtheTerrific]

Yeah, of course roberto will get in to the hall. How can he not? Had 2700 hits ,1500 runs, 470 sbs. Hall of famer,no doubt.

[MyDogSparty]

I voted yes and when I submitted my vote I was shocked to see that 90% of the people out there are in agreement. Wow, that's a lot higher than I thought. I figured the numbers would be closer to 75%. Good for Robbie.

[TomtheTerrific]

Robbie deserves everything he gets because he really is a good guy who made some mistakes like we all do. My question is,will he get booed when he makes his induction speech and what cap will he wear?

[TomtheTerrific]

Wow!!90 % think robbie will make it.

[TomtheTerrific]

I wish robbie got 3000 hits. Oh well.

[tonypug]

I am surprised that there is doubt that Alomar would be elected. His record certainly stands up. His one moment of indescretion, when weighed against things other candidates have done or are suspected of doing is minor Was he wrong, yes and that has been dealt with.

[TomtheTerrific]

So your a yes vote for robby? He played for 7 different teams but i think he will get in as an indian for some odd reason. What you think?

[tonypug]

So your a yes vote for robby? He played for 7 different teams but i think he will get in as an indian for some odd reason. What you think?
I am not a fan of Alomar per se, but i do think he should be voted into the HOF. I believe MLB has the final say as to what team a player gets inducted for. So it is really hard to say what their reasoning will be.

[TomtheTerrific]

Yeah,he could also get in as a blue jay.

[tonypug]

Yeah,he could also get in as a blue jay.
The important thing is that he gets in. When Roger Clemens gets in if he ever really retires it will be interesting what uniform he will be wearing.

[TomtheTerrific]

Alomar had his great seasons with the indians.

[abacab]

Alomar will wear a Blue Jays cap on his plaque, because that's where he won his only WS titles, and more importantly because he'd be the first Blue Jay in the Hall.

[tonypug]

Alomar will wear a Blue Jays cap on his plaque, because that's where he won his only WS titles, and more importantly because he'd be the first Blue Jay in the Hall.
You are right, that sealed the deal. Mlb is very mindful oh having all the teams represented in the HOF.

[TomtheTerrific]

Ok sure. I could see robbie getting in as a blue jay. He would be the 1st one in? Wow. Don't you guys think he had better stats as an indian?

[RuthMayBond]

Ok sure. I could see robbie getting in as a blue jay. He would be the 1st one in? Wow. Don't you guys think he had better stats as an indian?For three entire years. Dude should not have been such a nomad

[TomtheTerrific]

Whats wrong with being a nomad?!?!

[RuthMayBond]

Whats wrong with being a nomad?!?!It's not as good as being a Nomar

[Captain Cold Nose]

It's not as good as being a Nomar
Who's becoming a nomad, especially if the Dodgers don't resign him.

[RuthMayBond]

Who's becoming a nomad, especially if the Dodgers don't resign him.But BBF heard his new nickname here first

[TomtheTerrific]

Alomar should have stayed with toronto.

[tonypug]

Vey few HOF inductees in the coming years are going to be one team players.

[TomtheTerrific]

Ripken and Gwyn played for the same team. why didn't toronto want to keep alomar?

[tonypug]

Ripken and Gwyn played for the same team. why didn't toronto want to keep alomar?
They are going to be the exception rather then the rule. The real question is why the San Diego Padres didn't want to keep Alomar.

[TomtheTerrific]

Yeah,but san diego got fred mcgriff in exchange for alomar right?

[tonypug]

Yeah,but san diego got fred mcgriff in exchange for alomar right?
Thats true Alomar and Joe Carter for McGriff and Tony Fernandez. Five years in Toronto I believe was his longest stay.

[TomtheTerrific]

fernandez was good too. Of course,not as good as robbie.

[tonypug]

fernandez was good too. Of course,not as good as robbie.
That was one of those trades that both teams were winners.The only downside for Alomar was his last few years were less then spectacular. A lot of voters may look down on those last years.

[TomtheTerrific]

Yeah,but he was an mvp contender every year.

[TomtheTerrific]

Wow,i didn't think this many people would vote for robbie. impressive. Would you guys take alomar over joe morgan overall?

[PJ-34]

I would rather see Joe in the HOF rather than Roberto, but not by much.

[jalbright]

Wow,i didn't think this many people would vote for robbie. impressive. Would you guys take alomar over joe morgan overall?
I'm sure I know 538280's answer, and I concur: as good as alomar was, he was no Joe Morgan. Joe's at least among the guys who deserves to be discussed for the #1 second baseman of all time, and Robbie's a cut below that, though still a very deserving HOF caliber 2B.

Jim Albright

[TomtheTerrific]

Joe morgan was overated and robbie was by far the better defender. Joe played in a scary good line up which inflated his stats too.

[abacab]

Joe morgan was overated and robbie was by far the better defender. Joe played in a scary good line up which inflated his stats too.

Playing in a great lineup caused Morgan to walk 120 times a year? :confused:

Alomar was the better fielder, but Morgan had a lot more power. Morgan was also probably the best player in the game over a five-year period (72-76). Alomar definitely can't make that claim.

[TomtheTerrific]

Morgan was better than bench and seaver? Don't think so. Also,who was better than alomar during the early to mid 90s? I can't think of anyone.Alomar and Griffey were the best.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Morgan was better than bench and seaver? Don't think so *******. Also,who was better than alomar during the early to mid 90s? I can't think of anyone.Alomar and Griffey were the best.
Watch the insults, Tom.

[abacab]

Morgan was better than bench and seaver? Don't think so.

Over those five years I listed, yes, I think he was. If you pick any other five-year period, that might not be true.

Also,who was better than alomar during the early to mid 90s? I can't think of anyone.Alomar and Griffey were the best.

How about Frank Thomas, Barry Bonds, and Greg Maddux?

[TomtheTerrific]

I'm talking about the all around best players. Could frank thomas play sparkling defense? NO. Greg Maddux was great,but i think there were a couple better pitchers. Barry Bonds,you have a case for but robbie won championships so he was better than barry then.

[AlecBoy006]

You see the votes, and I voted yes. Man, that guy had a glove. Too bad he spat in the face of an umpire.

[abacab]

I'm talking about the all around best players. Could frank thomas play sparkling defense? NO. Greg Maddux was great,but i think there were a couple better pitchers. Barry Bonds,you have a case for but robbie won championships so he was better than barry then.

This post made me laugh out loud. You are trying so darn hard to make a case for Alomar, it's cute. Sure buddy, you got me, Alomar was the best. :crazy

[jalbright]

I'm talking about the all around best players. Could frank thomas play sparkling defense? NO. Greg Maddux was great,but i think there were a couple better pitchers. Barry Bonds,you have a case for but robbie won championships so he was better than barry then.
Well, Tom, if that's what you meant, you should have said so in the first place. Yes, sometimes a guy can be good all around but not the best player. Alomar didn't have the bat to get him close enough to some sluggers to make a greater contribution to his teams' ability to win than those sluggers did when all facets of the game are considered. That's not exactly a weakness for a middle infielder who's adept with the glove. The bottom line to me is Joe Morgan had a far superior bat to Alomar, could run the bases and steal with anyone, and at his best was at the very least a good defensive second baseman. Alomar's superiority with the glove isn't enough to erase Joe's edge at the plate. Sorry.

Jim Albright

[partydude1377]

Should Roberto Alomar be inducted into the Hall of Fame????

I vote yes, and here is why......

Roberto Alomar
There are 17 2nd Basemen currently in HOF.

Hits-2724(Would rank 7th out of 18)
Avg-.300(Would rank 9th out of 18)
OBP-.371(Would rank 9th out of 18)
SLG-.443(Would rank 8th out of 18)
RBI-1134(Would rank 9th out of 18)
Runs-1508(Would rank 7th out of 18)
HRs-210(Would rank 5th out of 18)
SBs-474(Would rank 4th out of 18)

Won 10 Gold Gloves, which is the most by any 2nd basemen in history.
12 Time All-Star.
Won 4 silver sluggers, which is tied for 2nd place among 2nd basemen.

It seems to me that the Hall of Fame would only get better if Alomar was inducted. As he is midpack in most stats and above average for a snd basemen in hits, homeruns, runs, and stolen bases.

Feel free to discuss.

[PVNICK]

I personally didn't like him or his reputation but that aside a middle infielder with those offensive numbers and a glove that by the numbers (RF/9) is average and by reputation is phenomenal cannot be denied.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Career .300 hitter, all-star, gold gloves, played and greatly contributed on some WS winners. He may not get in first ballot but he won't last much longer.

[J W]

He's likely not going to be a 1st ballot HOFer based mostly on his spitting incident... but considering some of the recent 1st ballot enshrinees (Ozzie Smith, Kirby Puckett) he should have his ticket punched as soon as he gets to the turnstyle.

[Freakshow]

Another interesting question is which one of the 2010 newly eligible players should go into the Hall first? To me, it's between Alomar and Barry Larkin. Although others may favor Edgar Martinez or Fred McGriff. Or darkhorse candidates Robin Ventura and Andres Galarraga.

[J W]

I would say Alomar and Larkin should go in the same year -- as in, year one -- since they are both HOF players in my book with little doubt.

Martinez and McGriff are more on the borderline and I'm interested to see how the voters will view them. Ventura I believe will get a raw deal -- although it wouldn't be a felony to throw him out of the discussion. Galarraga's not on my radar although he may get more love than Ventura.

All in all, 2010 looks like a pretty good class...

[jalbright]

merge time for Robbie threads