Entering their 10th season

[micsmith]

The following seem to me to be the only players worth considering that are entering their tenth season, in 2006, and thus would make them eligible for the Hall:

Todd Helton
Miguel Tejada
Bartolo Colon
Richie Sexson

I know both fell off a little last year, but Helton and Tejada seem every bit on their way to the Hall so far. I'm a little bit skeptical about Colon. Even though he has the Cy Young Award, and I believe he is the winningest pitcher since 2000, and among the top three since 1998, I don't think he'll play enough years to rack up some impressive career stats. Sexson has enough power that he could reach 500 home runs, or he could end up like Dave Kingman.

What are your thoughts on these 4 players, and are there any others entering their tenth year that ares shaping up to be considerations for the Hall?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If Helton makes the HoF, I'll fricking vomit. He's a slightly better version of Ryan Klesko...:grouchy

[micsmith]

I always wonder how voters perceive the Coors factor. I mean, everybody knows it helps hitters, but that didn't stop the voters from giving Larry Walker the MVP in 1997. Larry Walker is one of only a handful of 3-4-5 guys (lifetime .300 batting average, .400 on base percentage, and .500 slugging percantage), and every other eligible retired player with those lifetime averages is in the hall. Of course we all know Walker would not have achieved this without Coors, but again, voters still gave him the MVP. And it seems like most think that Helton is better than Walker. Helton seems like the most likely of the four players I mentioned to make it to the Hall, because I think people tend to lose sight of park effects, but they always have the raw stats to look at. And if you don't take into account the Coors park effects, then his stats are awfully impressive.

[digglahhh]

I'm not willing to just dismiss Helton as a complete product of Coors. I know the splits, but he has great discipline and is a very good pure hitter. He is also, an awesome defensive 1B, for whatever that's worth. I think the Larry Walker experiment will tell us a lot about Helton's eventual chances.

I'm not big on Bartolo at all.

I think Tejeda is overrated, but based on positional arguments he could finish with a pretty good case.

Sexson, is a quality player and often overlooked as a potent offensive force, but the Hall is not in the realm of possibility. He has done nothing to make himself standout from a host of other quality players and sluggers at his position.

[Mike D.]

I'd say none of the four seem all that likely...Sexson would NEED 500 homers, and even then he'd probably only be a "maybe". I agree that Colon might not put up the longevity, and to this point, he hasn't had enough of a peak to put him in, most likely. Helton and Tejada could have a shot if they keep going at their current paces. I'd say Helton is probably a better shot than Tejada at this point, although a lot depends on how voters look at Coors. If Helton is borderline WITH Coors, he won't make it, if he's a statistical lock before you take ballpark into effect, he might still get in.

[dgarza]

Todd Helton - I'm OK with him, at this point

Miguel Tejada - I think he's very close, probably 1 or 2 Tejada-esque years would do it for me

Bartolo Colon - needs more time, Jack Morris has a lower ERA

Richie Sexson - right now, he's not doin' it for me

Magglio Ordonez - no, not now, I think lost his chances?

David Ortiz - Last few look good, but, for me, it's too soon

Jose Vidro - I don't think so

Keith Foulke - no

[digglahhh]

Walker though was also a five tool player, gold glove outfielder and a good and smart baserunner. Helton is a vacuum at first, but that's relatively insignificant, ask Keith Hernandez.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I always wonder how voters perceive the Coors factor. I mean, everybody knows it helps hitters, but that didn't stop the voters from giving Larry Walker the MVP in 1997. Larry Walker is one of only a handful of 3-4-5 guys (lifetime .300 batting average, .400 on base percentage, and .500 slugging percantage), and every other eligible retired player with those lifetime averages is in the hall. Of course we all know Walker would not have achieved this without Coors, but again, voters still gave him the MVP. And it seems like most think that Helton is better than Walker. Helton seems like the most likely of the four players I mentioned to make it to the Hall, because I think people tend to lose sight of park effects, but they always have the raw stats to look at. And if you don't take into account the Coors park effects, then his stats are awfully impressive.
Walkwer was the better player. Walker was actually good before Coors. He was an excellent player in Montreal. Helton is quite literally a slightly better version of Ryan Klesko. I've compared their career road stats per 162 games:


Helton: .297/.397/.518, 88 R, 170 H, 44 doubles, 26 HR, 90 RBI, 3 SB
Klesko: .280/.372/.520, 84 R, 149 H, 35 doubles, 29 HR, 99 RBI, 8 SB

They seem pretty even to me with Helton having a slight edge. So if Helton is a HoF candidate is Klesko a HoF candidate as well?

[digglahhh]

For what its worth, micsmith stated that every retired player with a career .300/.400/.500 line who is eligible is in. With a normal home advantage Helton would have those numbers. I know much can be made of era and all as well, but that is why I said Walker will be a big test case.

[micsmith]

Bartlo Colon looks to have over 2000+ IP, 1500+ Ks, and 150+ Wins in his first ten years, which is pretty good. If he had only started younger (I think he was 24 when he was a rookie), then he might be prjected to pitch for 20 seasons. But that's kinda doubtful. His high ERA is the thing that makes me think he won't be able to keep up his success, especially if the Angels' offense declines or he goes to another team with a weak offense. Nevertheless, he has two 20-win seasons, a couple of all-star games, and a pretty impressive winning percentage. He's an outside shot at this time.

Richie Sexson: reminds me of Jim Thome - Home Runs and Strikeouts
Through 9 seasons, Sexson has had 3623 AB with 239 HR and 973 Ks; Through 10 seasons, Thome had 3634 AB with 233 HR and 1053 Ks. Sexson had more RBIs at this point, but Thome was better in virtually every other category.

[Pine Tar]

If Helton makes the HoF, I'll fricking vomit. He's a slightly better version of Ryan Klesko...:grouchy
Even without Coors, Helton's numbers are very impressive.

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Home 647 2326 582 871 203 17 168 565 410 273 22 10 .374 .468 .693 1.161
Away 632 2234 342 664 170 7 103 350 363 349 11 13 .297 .397 .518 .915

Away from Coors, he has nearly a 300 average, 400 OBP, and over 500 slugging. Hardly numbers that make me want to vomit. Certianly he isn't as good as his overall numbers look, but it seems to me that he would be on a HOF track even without Coors. And I don't care how much Coors helps a player, Helton's slugging at Coors in nearly 700 and his BA is 374! That's freakin high!

[micsmith]

I live in San Diego, so I say yes, Ryan Klesko is a Hall of Famer.
Seriously, that guy kills me.

[KCGHOST]

The only one I would consider is Helton. And that will require more examination of his Coors numbers. He may well generate sufficent counting numbers that we have to consider him. Klesko has zero chance of generating HoF caliber counting numbers.

I have always likes Walker, but injuries have prevented him from piling up the numbers you need to be an HoF RFer. The quality is there, just not the quantity.

[Mike D.]

The only one I would consider is Helton. And that will require more examination of his Coors numbers. He may well generate sufficent counting numbers that we have to consider him. Klesko has zero chance of generating HoF caliber counting numbers.


I agree on Klesko and that Helton has a shot. I mean, Coors has been around for what, 12 seasons? Are we not going to allow ANY Colorado player to ever make the HOF? In a dozen seasons, Helton is the only one who's done what he's done for this long in Coors, and as others pointed out, his road numbers are nice.


I have always likes Walker, but injuries have prevented him from piling up the numbers you need to be an HoF RFer. The quality is there, just not the quantity.

I agree...great player, but injuries kept him from putting up the numbers he'd need for HOF consideration.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Even without Coors, Helton's numbers are very impressive.

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Home 647 2326 582 871 203 17 168 565 410 273 22 10 .374 .468 .693 1.161
Away 632 2234 342 664 170 7 103 350 363 349 11 13 .297 .397 .518 .915

Away from Coors, he has nearly a 300 average, 400 OBP, and over 500 slugging. Hardly numbers that make me want to vomit. Certianly he isn't as good as his overall numbers look, but it seems to me that he would be on a HOF track even without Coors. And I don't care how much Coors helps a player, [b]Helton's slugging at Coors in nearly 700 and his BA is 374! That's freakin high![b/]
Of course it's high. It's Coors Field! Without Coors he's Ryan Klesko. A "power-hitting" first baseman with a career .518 road slugging in the juiced HR era? Tha't is simply not impressive at all.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I can't understand how few are bothered that Helton is basically Ryan Klesko on the road:

Helton: .297/.397/.518, 88 R, 170 H, 44 doubles, 26 HR, 90 RBI, 3 SB
Klesko: .280/.372/.520, 84 R, 149 H, 35 doubles, 29 HR, 99 RBI, 8 SB

Klesko is pretty much a match with Helton being slightly better. Does "slightly better than Ryan Klesko" describe a HoFer?:(

[Pine Tar]

I can't understand how few are bothered that Helton is basically Ryan Klesko on the road:

Helton: .297/.397/.518, 88 R, 170 H, 44 doubles, 26 HR, 90 RBI, 3 SB
Klesko: .280/.372/.520, 84 R, 149 H, 35 doubles, 29 HR, 99 RBI, 8 SB

Klesko is pretty much a match with Helton being slightly better. Does "slightly better than Ryan Klesko" describe a HoFer?:(

Not at all:
Klesko is sort of an anomaly:
1. his home/road spilts are almost identical. Most players get a slight bump from their home stats. Actually, his road stats are high enough to say that they are better than his home stats.
2. Klesko is probably underrated, his career adjusted OPS+ is 130.

So Helton's road averages are better than Klesko, and Klesko has either underperformed at home or overacheived on the road.

[dgarza]

Actually, his road stats are high enough to say that they are better than his home stats.

I was thinking the same thing.

So Helton's road averages are better than Klesko, and Klesko has either underperformed at home or overacheived on the road.
I also tend to think that a .017 AVG / .015 OPB difference is signifcant.

[Dasperp]

You can't just take a player's road stats to get a true picture of their talent. First of all, by doing this comparison you're giving Klesko a bunch of games in Coors and Helton none, while taking away Klesko games at Petco. Second, there definitely a hangover effect for guys who play in hitter's parks. When they get traded or go to a new team, they don't just put up the stats they did on the road. Third, if Helton takes advantage of playing in Coors more than the average Rockies player, we should reward him for it.

Another problem with your comparison is that Klesko is 3 years older and clearly in decline. Helton is still hitting very well. He's certainly not a lock, but if he can continue hitting like this for 4 or 5 more years he has a very good case.

[DoubleX]

Helton has been slipping in the past few years and I think the Coors effect for his peak might do in his chances for the Hall.

If Tejada continues, he does become a legitimate candidate. However, I have this feeling that he's somehow going to get caught up in all of the steroids mess at some point.

Sexson has no chance. He's miles behind Jim Thome and Carlos Delgado, and people don't think much of their chances right now.

I don't think Colon has much of a chance either.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You can't just take a player's road stats to get a true picture of their talent. First of all, by doing this comparison you're giving Klesko a bunch of games in Coors and Helton none, while taking away Klesko games at Petco. Second, there definitely a hangover effect for guys who play in hitter's parks. When they get traded or go to a new team, they don't just put up the stats they did on the road. Third, if Helton takes advantage of playing in Coors more than the average Rockies player, we should reward him for it.
Since Klesko has played a substantial portion of his career with the Braves in another division we are talking a few games a year at Coors, probably at most six games per season. Does anyone really believe that Helton is a "real" .374 hitter or anything close to that.


Another problem with your comparison is that Klesko is 3 years older and clearly in decline. Helton is still hitting very well. He's certainly not a lock, but if he can continue hitting like this for 4 or 5 more years he has a very good case.
This makes Helton look ever worse. The line I gave for Klesko includes the past two years which have been very poor for Klesko. I will compare them through the same age. That will move Klesko even closer to Helton. Helton is a good hitter but he is NOT a great hitter. If Helton had played for any other team we wouldn't be having this debate. Put Klesko in his prime at Coors and he would produce similar numbers to Helton.

[Naliamegod]

the only guys I can see having a shot are Helton and Tejada, and they can go either way at this point.

[ElHalo]

Walkwer was the better player. Walker was actually good before Coors. He was an excellent player in Montreal. Helton is quite literally a slightly better version of Ryan Klesko. I've compared their career road stats per 162 games:


Helton: .297/.397/.518, 88 R, 170 H, 44 doubles, 26 HR, 90 RBI, 3 SB
Klesko: .280/.372/.520, 84 R, 149 H, 35 doubles, 29 HR, 99 RBI, 8 SB

They seem pretty even to me with Helton having a slight edge. So if Helton is a HoF candidate is Klesko a HoF candidate as well?

One thing you have to remember is that, though Coors obviously boosts Rockies' players numbers tremendously, it also depresses their road numbers. The sheer difference between playing at sea level and playing at altitude means that Colorado players are never quite comfortable playing in the thick air, and always tend to have much worse road stats than they otherwise would.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

One thing you have to remember is that, though Coors obviously boosts Rockies' players numbers tremendously, it also depresses their road numbers. The sheer difference between playing at sea level and playing at altitude means that Colorado players are never quite comfortable playing in the thick air, and always tend to have much worse road stats than they otherwise would.
Interesting theory. The best way to study this theory would be to take a player that was established before joining the Rockies, played for the Rockies for several seasons, then played several seasons afterwards, then compare his road stats. Also I seriously doubt that A Rockies' player's road stats drop as much below "average" as their home stats increase above "average".

[ElHalo]

Interesting theory. The best way to study this theory would be to take a player that was established before joining the Rockies, played for the Rockies for several seasons, then played several seasons afterwards, then compare his road stats. Also I seriously doubt that A Rockies' player's road stats drop as much below "average" as their home stats increase above "average".

Obviously not; any player's offensive output is boosted overall, to a very large extent, by playing at Coors. However, I have read from players that they have a tremendous time coping with the abrupt change in altitude when they go on the road, and I remember some Rockies' fan on here a year or two ago did a statistical analysis that seemed to show that there was at least some impact.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Obviously not; any player's offensive output is boosted overall, to a very large extent, by playing at Coors. However, I have read from players that they have a tremendous time coping with the abrupt change in altitude when they go on the road, and I remember some Rockies' fan on here a year or two ago did a statistical analysis that seemed to show that there was at least some impact.
You wouldn't happen to remember where you saw the statistical analysis?

[Naliamegod]

Interesting theory. The best way to study this theory would be to take a player that was established before joining the Rockies, played for the Rockies for several seasons, then played several seasons afterwards, then compare his road stats. Also I seriously doubt that A Rockies' player's road stats drop as much below "average" as their home stats increase above "average".

This happened with Jeff Cirillo.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

This happened with Jeff Cirillo.
Cirillo is a werd case. He was actually a solid hitter before playing for the Rockies.

1996: .325 /.391 /.504 (Mil)
1997: .288 /.367 /.426 (Mil)
1998: .321 /.402 /.445 (Mil)
1999: .326 /.401 /.461 (Mil)
2000: .326 /.392 /.477 (Col)
2001: .312 /.364 /.473 (Col)

He put up essentially the same numbers in Colorado as he did in Milwaukee. :confused: I'll check his home/road splits to compare.

[Tigerfan1974]

The following seem to me to be the only players worth considering that are entering their tenth season, in 2006, and thus would make them eligible for the Hall:

Todd Helton
Miguel Tejada
Bartolo Colon
Richie Sexson

I know both fell off a little last year, but Helton and Tejada seem every bit on their way to the Hall so far. I'm a little bit skeptical about Colon. Even though he has the Cy Young Award, and I believe he is the winningest pitcher since 2000, and among the top three since 1998, I don't think he'll play enough years to rack up some impressive career stats. Sexson has enough power that he could reach 500 home runs, or he could end up like Dave Kingman.

What are your thoughts on these 4 players, and are there any others entering their tenth year that ares shaping up to be considerations for the Hall?

I think Tejada has the most notable career so far, but none are HoF worthy, at least not yet, IMO.
They all need to have a more impressive 2d half of their career.

[Brad Harris]

Not that they have a chance, but here are some other "10th season" players:

Sean Casey
Paul Konerko
Kevin Millwood

[Ubiquitous]

The Coors field road effect has been looked into and from what I remember there was something to it. I think BPro took a look at it.

But lets say it doesn't exist and simply look at what home/road splits do.
Two players one at an extreme park one at a neutral park. Player A gets 6 of his games at the neutral park while player B gets 6 games at the extreme park. Its a 12 game swing that gets even worse if you move to a pitchers park. 6 games out of 81 is 7.5% and 12 out of 81 is 15%. Those are big swings.

We've talked about it before but home/road splits are the end all be all that a lot people think they are when talking about stat adustments for parks.

[digglahhh]

I agree Ubiq (it seems we are agreeing now way more often than in the past, for whatever reason that is). The "home park" encompasses more than just neutral home/road splits. Your "home park" is not just the park you hit in, it also speaks to your team in general, possibly not having to hit againt a good staff, or getting to hit a lot against a poor one, etc. This is especially relevant with within a division because of the imbalanced schedule. Take this somewhat extreme example, I posted a while back on the stats forum.


...In 2001, the Oakland A's pitching staff had a combined 121 ERA+, Jason Giambi and his 202 OPS+ didn't have to hit against any of those guys. A-Rod's (164 OPS+) Rangers has combined ERA+ of 78.

That is a 43% difference in pitcher effectiveness against the league. Giambi was 38% more effective against the league than A-Rod, offesively. Giambi gets 17 games to hit against those pitchers, A-Rod gets none. A-Rod has to face the A's staff 17 times, Giambi, none.

So, the 38 OPS+ difference between the two probably wouldn't disappear no matter what, the difference is really large. But remember, Giambi gets about 70 PAs against the worst staff in the league and none against the best. A-Rod gets 70 against the best and none against the worst.

Of course, Giambi's OPS is adjusted upwards in the OPS+ calculation because of his park and A-Rod's was adjusted downward.

But that brings to light another one of my favorite questions, when PFs want to contextualize the run scoring environment how much of those calculations are a product of the balloparks and how much are a product of the players who play there? There is a double effect going on, Oaklands park made the pitchers look good, but at the same time Oakland's good pitching made the park look like a pitchers park. There's overlapping spheres of influences here. Look at Cleveland as their team improved in the 90's and how their park factor changed... I know that the PF only takes into account what an individual team did at home compared to on the road so this isn't as drastic as it seems, but when you have multiple good pitchers who pitch better at home, or good hitters who do the same, this effect can snowball.

[digglahhh]

Just for the record here are some of A-Rod's splits against some of the pitchers on Texas that season that A-Rod didn't get to hit against. ABs in parenthesis

K. Rogers (19) 526/625/1421
J. Duscherer (5) 600/627/1200
J. Benoit (9) 222/300/556
R.A. Dickey (3) 667/667/1000
F. Cordero (5) 600/600/1000
D. Kolb (2) 500/500/2000
R. Helling (23) 217/296/261
D. Davis (4) 000/429/000

Most are small sample size.

I didn't do the same for Giambi one, because I'm supposed to be doing work, and two because he wasn't the player after Oakland that he was while there, so it might look skewed anyway.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Helton is NOT a HoFer. :rolleyes:

[Brooklyn]

But that brings to light another one of my favorite questions, when PFs want to contextualize the run scoring environment how much of those calculations are a product of the balloparks and how much are a product of the players who play there? There is a double effect going on, Oaklands park made the pitchers look good, but at the same time Oakland's good pitching made the park look like a pitchers park. There's overlapping spheres of influences here. Look at Cleveland as their team improved in the 90's and how their park factor changed... I know that the PF only takes into account what an individual team did at home compared to on the road so this isn't as drastic as it seems, but when you have multiple good pitchers who pitch better at home, or good hitters who do the same, this effect can snowball.

Excellent post. this more or less sums up my concern with creating park factors, and thus using park adjusted stats. I'm not saying it isn't useful, but it certainly isn't perfect.

I don't like that park factor can be different year in and year out. I have limited understanding of how pf is calculated, but I do understand that it is a 3-year average (which is better than a 1-year average), but should the park effect really change that drastically from year to year? I can see it changing if the dimensions of the park is changed, or if the way the game is played changes (i.e. the increase in power in the 90's would change which parks are hitters parks vs. the 80's), or even if other teams moved or changed their parks (since it is all relative), but most changes from year to year are more statistical anomalies.

Look at Coors, for example. The park factor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/COL/attend.shtml) was 120 in 2004. In 2000, the park factor was 131 (side note: I don't know enough about these numbers to know if they already reflect the 3-year average, or if they need to be further adjusted, by my point should still be valid). If someone put up the exact same numbers in 2000 vs. 2004, they would look almost 10% better in 2004, because the park factor was less. There can't really be that big of a difference in 4 years.

Continuing this, look at Helton in those 2 years. In 2000, his OPS was 1162 and OPS+ was 158. In 2004, his OPS was 1088 and his OPS+ was 159. Was his OPS really relatively better in 2004? the fields were the same. While some of the competition was different, you have to believe it was mostly the same. I think this is a good example that OPS+ doesn't really work - I'd take his 2000 over 2004, and I don't think it is really that close.

Or look at Helton's 2003 and 2004. He had the exact same OPS in both years, but his 2004 OPS+ was 168, vs. 159 in 2004. There can't be that much of a difference in league and park effect in just one year.

[dgarza]

Any thoughts on David Ortiz (also entering his 10th year)?
He didn't have the best start for a career, but if he continues to do what he has been doing for the last 3 years, he'll be in good shape. I know alot of people expect alot out of DHs, but I hope his DHing doesn't hurt his chances.