Julio Franco: Put Him in the Hall

[JimAbbott]

Based on longevity, 2566 hits, .300 life avg and countless records for oldest player

[EvanAparra]

Puleeeeeeeeese........ Lets throw out all time greats like Greenberg and Koufax but put in Franco because hes old?

[grey eagle]

"Countless records for oldest player"? Let's let Jumbo Brown in for "countless records for heaviest player".

[Dodgerfan1]

"Countless records for oldest player"? Let's let Jumbo Brown in for "countless records for heaviest player".

Shanty Hogan had to be one of the FATTEST major leaguers.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I wouldn't be upset if he is put in the Hall, I'm one of the biggest Julio fans around, but he just doesn't strike me as a Hall of Famer.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Based on longevity, 2566 hits, .300 life avg and countless records for oldest player
Well at least you're consistent unlike some people. Maintaining a 300 avg this long is fairly impressive. He looks to be a below average fielder so it has to come from his offense in a hitters era. He has a career EQA of .278 in a hitters era, he has never had a 10 WARP 3 season and his highest is 8.4. He has 3 seasons with an EQA above .300 over 24 seasons. He has a .365 OBP and a .419 SLG%. For a player who's strength is longevity that's not very impressive in a hitters era. He`ll get some support and might even make it in based on the .300 BA but he doesn`t deserve it unless he can put together a few more .280 EQA seasons (which I doubt). He's a good player but not a HoFer. To put him in and bar the hall from Hank Greenburg is ridiculous. When was the last time a 1B/2B/SS made it in with a .360 OBP in a hitters era made it into the HoF without any dispute?

[Mariano_Rivera]

172 career HR with never more than 20 in a supreme HR era. Not a HoFer.

[538280]

How is Franco a below average fielder? He was a 2Bman and a SS, and not a good one, but just by those being his primary positions he should be well above average. I REALLY like Julio. I think he's awesome, I want him to play as long as he can, and I think he's a great guy. In his prime he was a very good hitter for SS/2B, but not a good fielder. I would like to see him get in, though I doubt he will and I don't really think he should, though he's not a horrible candidate.

Franco is actually every bit as good as an offensive player for rates as Ripken and Yount. He's not nearly as good as them, of course, because he wasn't as good defensively and didn't play his whole career at SS/2B, and he doesn't have as much longevity, but he did bring some very good offense from SS/2B at his best. I can't call him a HOFer, but he's a very good player.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Franco is one of my favorite players, but short of his lasting to 3,000 hits, there's no way I could advocate for him.

Still, the first 9 years of his career is clearly the first 9 years of a HOF middle infielder. At the time his knees went kaput, he was, arguably, the most underrated great player in baseball.

His career is quite truncated. He added to his batting stats after his knees went, but he moved to 1B/DH, went to Japan, etc., and did a lot of things to truncate his career. Had his health been a little bit better and had someone been sharp enough to recognize this, he could have had a career much like Paul Molitor, in which case, he'd have been a 1st ballot HOFer. He'd have had 3,000 hits. It didn't happen for him, but the way Franco has maintained his ability to his suggests that it COULD have happened for him, and SHOULD have happened for him. I don't support his induction at this time, but his case is much stronger than many people think.

[STLCards2]

Julio is not even the most deserving J. Franco to have been on the Mets' roster the past couple of years. :)

[KCGHOST]

Franco has had a fine career, but let's not go over board.

[hudsonharden]

Based on longevity

What's the precedent for that?

[DTF955]

Probably guys like Don Sutton. Which points to the 3000 hit milestone as something that would convince some people.

But now, let's suppose that this year or next (if he keeps doing well) Franco has a World Series for the ages. Key hits to win games, starts a few, makes a great play or two at first. He's either WS MVP or is close.

How would that improve him in your eyes?

I don't consider him a HOF'er yet. I am like some others who would put him in w/3000 hits, only becasue that would require some very good years over the next few years, even as a platoon player. Because, i agree, the first half of his career was looking like he could build into a HOF'er.

However, if he really shines on center stage, I would seriously have to look at his clutch performance the rest of his career, and wonder. After all, much of his career he played for lousy teams, and while he's been in the playoffs all this time with Atlanta, he hasn't been to the WS. (He did play pretty well in 2001 and 3002 for the Braves in postseason.) What are his pinch-hitting stats like for his career?

Of course, that being said, as much as I really like him, my preference would be that he be baseball's Jerome Bettis. Win a WS and if he wants to come back then, fine, but too much would have to fall right (like with a Series for the ages) for him to be aa HOF'er to me. I doubt he'll make it to 3000 hits (unless he wants to play till he's closer to 60 :-)

[The Kid]

Julio would get 3000 hits if he played full time, so i'd put him in.

[grey eagle]

Julio would get 3000 hits if he played full time, so i'd put him in.
That's absolutely ridiculous. TONS of players could probably get 3000 hits if they played full time. Let's let Moonlight Graham in - if he just got to play full-time, he would've been over 3000 for sure. The guy is almost 50 - do you think there just might be a reason he's not playing full time at this point in his career?? Come on now, let's be reasonable.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Julio would get 3000 hits if he played full time, so i'd put him in.

I believe Julio would have made it to 3,000 hits if he landed the right Molitor-esque DH job, and had not gone to Japan. He's missing a number of key years to his career. The similarities between Molitor and Franco are actually pretty striking.

Both started out as shortstops.

Both were middle infielders who had trouble finding regular positions (although Franco, initially, was better at that than Molitor).

Both had a reputation for injuries.

Both were .300 hitters with patience. (Franco had to work his way up to patience, while Molitor had it from day one.)

The divergence came when it dawned on the Brewers to make Molitor a DH full time. This is how he saved his career, turned it around, became a great player, got his BA over .300, and racked up a bodacious number of career hits. Franco was good enough to do the same, but he chose the Japan route, and that derailed his MLB career for a while.

[leecemark]

--Franco was 38 and had a 90 OP+ (.360 sLG) the last year before he went to Japan. I don't think he choose the Japan route so much as nobody was offering him a regular job. Had he stayed in the majors he would have had to taken a big pay cut and a part time job, just as he did when he returned 3 years later.

[DodgerBlue81]

Based on longevity, 2566 hits, .300 life avg and countless records for oldest player

You must like being annoying or stupid, or both.

[candy curveball cummings]

You must like being annoying or stupid, or both.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here's a list of players JimAbbott has supported for the Hall of Fame on this Forum:

Harold Baines, Julio Franco, Jim Abbott.


Now here's a list of players JimAbbott feels are undeserving:

Sandy Koufax, Hank Greenberg, Gary Carter


Somebody might want to re-think the criteria used for evaluation here.

[DodgerBlue81]

Ladies and Gentlemen, here's a list of players JimAbbott has supported for the Hall of Fame on this Forum:

Harold Baines, Julio Franco, Jim Abbott.


Now here's a list of players JimAbbott feels are undeserving:

Sandy Koufax, Hank Greenberg, Gary Carter


Somebody might want to re-think the criteria used for evaluation here.

Wow. I'm still unsure if he just does this to be annoying or if he's really that lost.

[Brad Harris]

[Franco's] career is quite truncated. He added to his batting stats after his knees went, but he moved to 1B/DH, went to Japan, etc., and did a lot of things to truncate his career. Had his health been a little bit better and had someone been sharp enough to recognize this, he could have had a career much like Paul Molitor, in which case, he'd have been a 1st ballot HOFer. He'd have had 3,000 hits. It didn't happen for him, but the way Franco has maintained his ability to his suggests that it COULD have happened for him, and SHOULD have happened for him. I don't support his induction at this time, but his case is much stronger than many people think.

Thanks, FuzzyBear!

I was really struck by the similarities here. Both men have almost identical rate stats through their age-33 season (when Molitor became a full-time DH.) Better health (i.e. not having to take the field every day) in his old age and a few wiser choices about where he was going to play could have given Franco a much more competitive case.

I shudder because I think a 3,000-hit Franco career might well challenge Lou Brock for the title of "Weakest 3,000 Hit Career in MLB History". I remember him in his prime. He was a pretty good ballplayer once upon a time.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Thanks, FuzzyBear!

I was really struck by the similarities here. Both men have almost identical rate stats through their age-33 season (when Molitor became a full-time DH.) Better health (i.e. not having to take the field every day) in his old age and a few wiser choices about where he was going to play could have given Franco a much more competitive case.

I shudder because I think a 3,000-hit Franco career might well challenge Lou Brock for the title of "Weakest 3,000 Hit Career in MLB History". I remember him in his prime. He was a pretty good ballplayer once upon a time.

I can't imagine Franco on a major league roster this year. He doesn't even hit enough to be a reserve, given that he has no defensive value, except at first base, where more offense, even from someone in his limited role, is needed.

Brock's career would have been more valuable than Franco's if both had made it to 3,000. That's because Franco's career was far more truncated, and because Brock was more consistent in his contribution; you knew what you were getting from Brock year in and year out. Personally, I think Brock gets undue slack on this board. I used to not like him, but when doing a post on another board intending to slam him, I concluded that Brock was much better than I gave him credit for. I believe that Brock was the true MVP of the 1967 National League season, and without Brock, the Cards would not have gone all the way. Brock was not a great defensive outfielder, but he wasn't BAD, either. He was an adequate left fielder; he had a fair arm, at best, and his instincts on fly balls was not good, but he covered a lot of ground and hit the cutoff man consistently. You could count on him to play the position.

Had Franco made it to 3,000 hits, he would have had to DH it for a number of seasons, and that detracts from his value. He played SS for a number of years, but there is debate as to how good a SS he was. Some say he made errors because he got to more balls, while others dispute that contention. Franco was better, defensively, at 2B, but his knees did not allow him to play the position. His BA is less impressive in his time than Brock's was in his, and he didn't steal bases like Brock. The only edge Franco had over Brock was that he managed to develop some plate discipline around 1987, to the point where his ability to draw walks went from a minus to a plus. Still, if Franco had, after the 1994 season, made better choices as to where to play, and had been able to make it to 3,000 hits, Brock would still have had the more valuable career. The truncation of Franco's career diminished its value, in actuality as well as in perception.

[Cowtipper]

We better put Mike Morgan in too, he played a long time!

[jjpm74]

We better put Mike Morgan in too, he played a long time!

Let's not exclude Charlie Hough or Tommy John either.

[Fuzzy Bear]

We better put Mike Morgan in too, he played a long time!

Let's not exclude Charlie Hough or Tommy John either.

These comments are somewhat beside the point.

Mike Morgan and Charlie Hough didn't do what HOFers do:

MORGAN
Black Ink: Pitching - 1 (818) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 39 (613) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 11.0 (701) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 12.0 (818) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

HOUGH
Black Ink: Pitching - 7 (320) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 100 (203) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 27.0 (170) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 57.5 (211) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Likewise, the discussion over Tommy John is not because he had a long career, but because he DID do a good many things that we would associate with a HOF pitcher:

JOHN
Black Ink: Pitching - 8 (285) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 137 (117) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 44.0 (53) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 111.0 (79) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Now, let's look at Julio Franco:

FRANCO
Black Ink: Batting - 5 (365) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 59 (412) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 41.9 (126) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 58.0 (315) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

These numbers tell the tale of Franco's career. He falls short of the HOF, but he was on a HOF path at one time in his career. A score of 41.9 on HOF standards is actually not bad for a borderline candidate, and, in Franco's case, those standards were racked up not by longevity, but by what he did during his very best years.

One thing I get a little peeved at is how some people get indignant for someone bringing a candidate like Franco up in a thread. I agree that Franco falls short of the HOF, and I recognize that there are no "partial" HOFers; one is either in or out. But one reason I love this particular forum on BBF is that it allows us to discuss not just the cases of retired players, but of guys still active. Are they making progress toward the HOF? What do they need to do to be a viable candidate?

A guy like Franco has, in fact, done SOME things that are the things a typical HOFer would do. He was a middle infielder who, while a middle infielder, posted batting stats consistent with middle infielders who have been elected to the HOF. He won a batting title. He was able to play at the level of a productive MLB player long after his prime. The end result, IMO, falls short, but he has a "what might have been" aspect that is relevant for discussion. These "Politics of Glory" issues are what make this forum interesting for me, and I think that some people, in voicing their irritation of people bringing up certain candidates lose sight of that aspect of HOF discussions.

[jalbright]

The main problem with the previous post's comparisons is that all but Franco are pitchers. Whether we like it or not, pitchers are judged far more on peak performance (versus career performance) than hitters are. It would be far fairer to compare Franco to other position players. That said, I don't think Julio makes it even with that approach.

[jjpm74]

One thing I get a little peeved at is how some people get indignant for someone bringing a candidate like Franco up in a thread. I agree that Franco falls short of the HOF, and I recognize that there are no "partial" HOFers; one is either in or out. But one reason I love this particular forum on BBF is that it allows us to discuss not just the cases of retired players, but of guys still active. Are they making progress toward the HOF? What do they need to do to be a viable candidate?

A guy like Franco has, in fact, done SOME things that are the things a typical HOFer would do. He was a middle infielder who, while a middle infielder, posted batting stats consistent with middle infielders who have been elected to the HOF. He won a batting title. He was able to play at the level of a productive MLB player long after his prime. The end result, IMO, falls short, but he has a "what might have been" aspect that is relevant for discussion. These "Politics of Glory" issues are what make this forum interesting for me, and I think that some people, in voicing their irritation of people bringing up certain candidates lose sight of that aspect of HOF discussions.

Looking at this particular thread, I think it's pretty clear that the original author's intent was to stir things up rather than present a viable argument in Franco's favor, or am I mistaken? I wasn't more than a guest and casual reader here when this thread was started 2 years ago.

I do agree with you that it IS good that people bring up candidates that have a reasonable argument as at least a bench warmer for the HOF. I wouldn't have started the thread about George Foster if I didn't and guys like Cowtipper regularly bring players up many people may be unfamiliar with who did have careers worth looking at.

[jalbright]

Unfortunately, some folks bring up candidates who are outlandish even by comparison to Franco--and sometimes others react to these cases where the consensus is the guy is short of the mark like Franco--like Franco was one of those truly outlandish candidates. Of course, it doesn't help if the thread is started or gets dominated by a person supporting a number of these outlandish candidates, be it through ignorance or a desire to rile people up. It's a free board, and I feel I've got to give folks some slack, and least to the point where it's clear they've hung themselves. There's no perfect solution--especially since there is a legitimate purpose to discussing cases like Franco's--it helps us delineate where we draw the line.

[Bravesfan1984]

If he got 3000 hits it would make an interesting case. He could be the first 3000 hit club member not in the HOF

[SamtheBravesFan]

If he got 3000 hits it would make an interesting case. He could be the first 3000 hit club member not in the HOF

I seriously doubt that he's going to make it into the Hall, even though his career is among the most unique ones in history. I love unique careers myself, but he didn't do enough in the rest of his career before he started putting up all the "oldest to do so-and-so" records.

[Seattle1]

Interesting proposition, very interesting. Franco.

[Brad Harris]

If he got 3000 hits it would make an interesting case. He could be the first 3000 hit club member not in the HOF
Julio Franco. Johnny Damon. Luis Gonzalez. There's a number of candidates who could fit this description. Unfortunately, I don't see 25 percent of the BBWAA being bright enough to exclude any 3,000 hit player off their ballots unless he failed a steroid test. For that reason, I'm hoping Damon and Gonzalez retire well in advance of 3,000.

[Bravesfan1984]

Julio Franco. Johnny Damon. Luis Gonzalez. There's a number of candidates who could fit this description. Unfortunately, I don't see 25 percent of the BBWAA being bright enough to exclude any 3,000 hit player off their ballots unless he failed a steroid test. For that reason, I'm hoping Damon and Gonzalez retire well in advance of 3,000.

I actually think it could be a good thing since voters may have to revaluate the role of 3000 hits and how they see players who get there

[Brad Harris]

I actually think it could be a good thing since voters may have to revaluate the role of 3000 hits and how they see players who get there
The BBWAA has proven extremely slow to adapt to changing statistical norms and it's far more likely that they'd elect some or all of these players than it is they would collectively agree they didn't belong.

[Bravesfan1984]

The BBWAA has proven extremely slow to adapt to changing statistical norms and it's far more likely that they'd elect some or all of these players than it is they would collectively agree they didn't belong.

You are probably right which means that is to bad that they can not be more open.