Lance Berkman (2009 poll)

[Sockeye]

I realize this may be a bit premature but I was discussing Lance Berkman with a few friends of mine. He's 30 and in his 8th season. I would like to get some thoughts on his career thus far and if possible some insight on where you think his career totals will end up? I know this calls for a lot of speculation. So I'll be the first to throw some projections out there.

I think he could very well end up with

Games 2332
At-Bats 8102
Runs 1522
Hits 2445
Doubles 588
Triples 46
Home Runs 462
RBI's 1586
Stolen Bases 113
Walks 1522
AVG .302
OBP .416
SLG .557

[leecemark]

--Do you think every halfway decent active player is headed to the Hall of Fame?

[538280]

I suppose it is possible if he ages very well, but a huge longshot. Better shot than Beltre has, but calling him a possible HOFer is still a big stretch. Despite playing in a huge offensive era, none of his top 10 similar players through his age is in the HOF, and only one is likely to be (Bagwell).

[Sockeye]

--Do you think every halfway decent active player is headed to the Hall of Fame?

Halway decent???

Look at his 162 game averages

563 AB's 106 runs 170 hits 41 doubles 3 triples 32 home runs 110 RBI's 8 steals 106 walks .302 AVG .416 OBP .557 SLG

Nothing halway decent about those stats. Those are great statistics!!!

[Sockeye]

I suppose it is possible if he ages very well, but a huge longshot. Better shot than Beltre has, but calling him a possible HOFer is still a big stretch. Despite playing in a huge offensive era, none of his top 10 similar players through his age is in the HOF, and only one is likely to be (Bagwell).

He's the opposite actually. He didn't make the majors until age 23 and his first full season cames at age 25. But since that time the numbers he has put up are truly HOF caliber numbers. 100+ runs 4 times, 100+ RBI's 3 times, 100+ walks 3 times, over a .400 OBP in each of his 5 full seasons. A career .416 OBP and a career .557 SLG. His career OPS is .973 which is the 17th highest of ALL TIME!!

[leecemark]

--Where does it rank when we're only talking about other players best 5 years? Nowhere near 17th I'm sure. His raw OPS is also inflated my the era he is playing in and his bandbox of a park. He is 30 and has already had some injured problems. I'd say the odds are very long against him ending up in Cooperstown.

[538280]

He's the opposite actually. He didn't make the majors until age 23 and his first full season cames at age 25. But since that time the numbers he has put up are truly HOF caliber numbers. 100+ runs 4 times, 100+ RBI's 3 times, 100+ walks 3 times, over a .400 OBP in each of his 5 full seasons. A career .416 OBP and a career .557 SLG. His career OPS is .973 which is the 17th highest of ALL TIME!!

I know you've been told this a million times, but I'll say it again: You really need to learn about era adjustments.

[Sockeye]

--Where does it rank when we're only talking about other players best 5 years? Nowhere near 17th I'm sure. His raw OPS is also inflated my the era he is playing in and his bandbox of a park. He is 30 and has already had some injured problems. I'd say the odds are very long against him ending up in Cooperstown.

Well his career OPS+ is 147 and he's had an OPS+ of 152 or higher 3 times so far so your argument of the era in which he has played just went out the window. As for his injury history...he had one injury last season that caused him to miss 30 games. I would hardly call that "some injuries" Do me a favor if you are going to argue your point against me and at least do your homework.

[leecemark]

--Well that OPS+ is tied for 43rd, down from 17th in raw OPS so putting it in context does make a huge difference. If he was 43rd at the end of his career that would be the start of a nice HoF argument, but with only five full seasons under his belt and already 30 it isn't nearly as impressive. His rates are almost certain to drop. I do agree with one statement from your initial post - it is premature to bring Berkman up as a Hall of Fame candidate.

[Edgartohof]

I think he could very well end up with

Games 2332
At-Bats 8102
Runs 1522
Hits 2445
Doubles 588
Triples 46
Home Runs 462
RBI's 1586
Stolen Bases 113
Walks 1522
AVG .302
OBP .416
SLG .557

Honestly, even if he did put up these numbers (very much up to debate), I wouldn't necessarily put him into the Hall, and also, I would say that his BA will drop below .302, and his OBP would drop with it (though not by as much).

He is off to a good start this year, but as you said before, this is all VERY premature.

[vasprtsfn]

I realize this may be a bit premature but I was discussing Lance Berkman with a few friends of mine. He's 30 and in his 8th season. I would like to get some thoughts on his career thus far and if possible some insight on where you think his career totals will end up? I know this calls for a lot of speculation. So I'll be the first to throw some projections out there.

I think he could very well end up with

Games 2332
At-Bats 8102
Runs 1522
Hits 2445
Doubles 588
Triples 46
Home Runs 462
RBI's 1586
Stolen Bases 113
Walks 1522
AVG .302
OBP .416
SLG .557

Berkman is a very outstanding player, but until he has retired, it is pointless to talk about his HOF worthiness.

[Francoeurstein]

I know you've been told this a million times, but I'll say it again: You really need to learn about era adjustments.

Yeah, if he played in the 70's and posted the same stats then he would probably be inducted to the HOF.

[Sockeye]

--Well that OPS+ is tied for 43rd, down from 17th in raw OPS so putting it in context does make a huge difference. If he was 43rd at the end of his career that would be the start of a nice HoF argument, but with only five full seasons under his belt and already 30 it isn't nearly as impressive. His rates are almost certain to drop. I do agree with one statement from your initial post - it is premature to bring Berkman up as a Hall of Fame candidate.

I find it extremely ironic that you try to use lack of longevity as an argument. Since longevity obviously means little or nothing to the vast majority of people here. And lets not underrate Berkman for his lack of full seasons. He has still played 907 games in 7 seasons through the age of 29. That puts him on pace to play more than 2300 games for his career which is more than 35 of the 62 HOF outfielders.

[leecemark]

--Longevity is important, but you have to be a great player somewhere along the way to be a Hall of Famer. That is what you failed to understand regarding Beltre. Berkman has had more big years than Beltre, but he has still been something of a second tier star. That is good enough to get you to Cooperstown if you do it long enough, but Berkman has a looong way to go. Your assumption that he (and other players) will keep producing at the same level deep into their 30s is another problem with your hall projections. Most guys will decline and/or miss time with injuries during their 30s.

[Sockeye]

Honestly, even if he did put up these numbers (very much up to debate), I wouldn't necessarily put him into the Hall, and also, I would say that his BA will drop below .302, and his OBP would drop with it (though not by as much).

He is off to a good start this year, but as you said before, this is all VERY premature.

So if he ended his career with a .973 OPS you wouldn't put him in the HOF? You do realize that his OPS is higher than other stars of his era such as Alex Rodriguez, Jeff Bagwell, Chipper Jones, Ken Griffey Jr, Mike Piazza, Gary Sheffield, David Ortiz, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, etc.

Oh wait the OPS stat doesn't mean anything for him due to the era he has played in. Well do you realize his OPS+ of 147 is higher than past baseball greats such as Sam Thompson, Sam Crawford, Hack Wilson, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews, Cap Anson, Eddie Collins, Billy Hamilton, Jesse Burkett, Duke Snider, Reggie Jackson, King Kelly, Chuck Klein, Larry Doby, Bill Terry, etc

[Edgartohof]

I find it extremely ironic that you try to use lack of longevity as an argument. Since longevity obviously means little or nothing to the vast majority of people here. And lets not underrate Berkman for his lack of full seasons. He has still played 907 games in 7 seasons through the age of 29. That puts him on pace to play more than 2300 games for his career which is more than 35 of the 62 HOF outfielders.

Playing in 907 games puts him on pace for what? How does it put him on pace for anything? Do you just automatically assume every player will play until 39, 40, 41? Most don't, and those that do, many times, they play only partial seasons.

And please don't be saying things that are not true,such as your statement about longevity and the "vast majority" of us who don't care about it.

[Sockeye]

--Longevity is important, but you have to be a great player somewhere along the way to be a Hall of Famer. That is what you failed to understand regarding Beltre. Berkman has had more big years than Beltre, but he has still been something of a second tier star. That is good enough to get you to Cooperstown if you do it long enough, but Berkman has a looong way to go. Your assumption that he (and other players) will keep producing at the same level deep into their 30s is another problem with your hall projections. Most guys will decline and/or miss time with injuries during their 30s.

Players today are playing longer and with much more productivity late into their 30's than ever before. To project a sudden decline or career ending injury would be statisically inaccurate. The history of baseball does not show a sudden drop off in productivity from season to season until the players last season or two usually occuring in the very late 30's or early 40's. Slight yes, but even factoring in a slight decrease in Berkman's statisical averages which won't be seen for at least another 3-4 years still gives him a very impressive career AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ to go along with fantastic counting stats.

[BoSox Rule]

He's only played in 918 games and he's 30. He doesn't even have 3200 AB's.

[DoubleX]

Well at least this is a better choice than Adrian Beltre. Still, Berkman making it is very unlikely.

[Edgartohof]

So if he ended his career with a .973 OPS you wouldn't put him in the HOF? You do realize that his OPS is higher than other stars of his era such as Alex Rodriguez, Jeff Bagwell, Chipper Jones, Ken Griffey Jr, Mike Piazza, Gary Sheffield, David Ortiz, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, etc.

Oh wait the OPS stat doesn't mean anything for him due to the era he has played in. Well do you realize his OPS+ of 147 is higher than past baseball greats such as Sam Thompson, Sam Crawford, Hack Wilson, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews, Cap Anson, Eddie Collins, Billy Hamilton, Jesse Burkett, Duke Snider, Reggie Jackson, King Kelly, Chuck Klein, Larry Doby, Bill Terry, etc

1.) Each and EVERY player you just mentioned has played CONSIDERABLY longer than Berkman has, and

2.) If you are going to suggest that Berkman is better than any single one of those players, then I won't know what to do. I'd just have to give up.

His OPS+ may be higher NOW, but IF he plays as long as they do, it will most certainly drop - considerably.

Having a 147 OPS+ over 5+ years is good, but wait until he has that over 10-15 years and beyond, like most of the playes you just mentioned.

Berkman is a good player, one I wouldn't mind on my team, but he is young, and hasn't accomplished a whole lot yet, in part because he came in late, and he hasn't exactly dominated in the time he has played. He has exactly 6 points of Black ink, leading in doubles and RBI once. You ASSUME he will play until nearly 40, when I KNOW that most players do NOT. I'm not saying he won't, but it isn't a given that's for sure. He is a good player, who is putting up some decent numbers (definitely not eye popping - hit 40+ HR's once, his .302 BA isn't that great, so he has some power, and can take walks, but isn't THAT great at any part. Plus, he is not very good defensively, will end up either a career LF or 1B, so little or no defensive value, he may hit 400+ HR's, which will what, put him at 10th/11th out of ACTIVE players - not that great compared to his contemporaries, let alone good enough for the Hall.

I'm not saying to give up with all of your thoughts, but at least think some of them through before posting them. Really now, not every player with 150 HR's will make it to the Hall of Fame.

[leecemark]

--I am not projecting a decline or how long Berkman will play. I am saying that you projecting that he will keep his pace up is just pure speculation. I'm really not interested in speculating on a players chances at least until they've played enough years to be eligible (that would be 10;) ) and only then if they are already acheived close to enough to deserve induction.
--I can see how people might be eager to talk about a mega-star like Pujols or a unique candidate like Ichiro a little early, but why a second tier guy like Berkman? I suppose its a step in the right direction from a non-star like Beltre though.

[Edgartohof]

Well at least this is a better choice than Adrian Beltre. Still, Berkman making it is very unlikely.

Well, if his choices get better each time, by the time he gets to his 4th or 5th thread, we might get somewhere.

Here's something to think about before you do this next time:

If you have to start the post off by saying, "this might be premature, but...", you should probably rethink the whole idea.

Otherwise it will probably be shot down like the Beltre thread: 42-1

[Sockeye]

Playing in 907 games puts him on pace for what? How does it put him on pace for anything? Do you just automatically assume every player will play until 39, 40, 41? Most don't, and those that do, many times, they play only partial seasons.

And please don't be saying things that are not true,such as your statement about longevity and the "vast majority" of us who don't care about it.

In the last 15 years how many players the caliber of Lance Berkman have retired or were out of baseball before the age of 36? Answer NONE. A few here and there retire around 37, 38, 39. Most great players of this era last until at least 39, 40, or older. So there is better than a 50% chance that Berkman will play until age 40. If that happens he only needs to average less than 130 games per season to reach the 2332 games and if he averages 150 games per season for the next 5 years from the ages of 30-34 then he only needs to average less than 113 games per season for his last 6 seasons at the ages of 35-40.

[ElHalo]

--I am not projecting a decline or how long Berkman will play. I am saying that you projecting that he will keep his pace up is just pure speculation. I'm really not interested in speculating on a players chances at least until they've played enough years to be eligible (that would be 10;) ) and only then if they are already acheived close to enough to deserve induction.

That's something to talk about, I suppose. New thread time.

[Sockeye]

1.) Each and EVERY player you just mentioned has played CONSIDERABLY longer than Berkman has, and

I do hate to make you look foolish here. David Ortiz? 892 career games, the same age as Berkman while his OPS is .901 a mere 72 points lower than Berkman.

2.) If you are going to suggest that Berkman is better than any single one of those players, then I won't know what to do. I'd just have to give up.

I will not only suggest I will state very clearly that Berkman is better than David Ortiz and certainly at least on par with Jeff Bagwell, Chipper Jones, Sammy Sosa, or Rafael Palmeiro.

His OPS+ may be higher NOW, but IF he plays as long as they do, it will most certainly drop - considerably.

Generally speaking we usually see a small decrease in OPS+ with age. Not a major reduction. I'd guess maybe 5-7 points, 10 points max. That would still give him an OPS+ of between 137-142. Higher than 37 of the 62 HOF outfielders or 59.6%

Having a 147 OPS+ over 5+ years is good, but wait until he has that over 10-15 years and beyond, like most of the playes you just mentioned.

Well considering the fact that he'll be in his prime for at least another 3-6 seasons I highly doubt we'll see much of a reduction in his OPS+ over the time span. That will give him an OPS+ of around 147 after 10-13 seasons.

Berkman is a good player, one I wouldn't mind on my team, but he is young, and hasn't accomplished a whole lot yet, in part because he came in late, and he hasn't exactly dominated in the time he has played. He has exactly 6 points of Black ink, leading in doubles and RBI once. You ASSUME he will play until nearly 40, when I KNOW that most players do NOT. I'm not saying he won't, but it isn't a given that's for sure. He is a good player, who is putting up some decent numbers (definitely not eye popping - hit 40+ HR's once, his .302 BA isn't that great, so he has some power, and can take walks, but isn't THAT great at any part. Plus, he is not very good defensively, will end up either a career LF or 1B, so little or no defensive value, he may hit 400+ HR's, which will what, put him at 10th/11th out of ACTIVE players - not that great compared to his contemporaries, let alone good enough for the Hall.

If you look at Lance Berkman's career and aren't impressed by his numbers then I can't help you. You simply must not be able to comprehend what great numbers are. Do you understand what a .416 career OBP is? That is 5th among active players after only (Bonds, Helton, Thomas, Pujols) His career slugging % if .557. Again a GREAT number. That is 11th among active players. Each of the 10 players ahead of him are very serious HOF contenders. His HOF standards is already at 32 with 50 being an average HOFer. His HOF monitor is already at 61 with 100 being a "likely" HOFer. This is after only 7 seasons (5 full) Given his rate of production he needs about another 4 full seasons to pass each of those levels. That will make Berkman an above average and likely HOFer by the age of 33

I'm not saying to give up with all of your thoughts, but at least think some of them through before posting them. Really now, not every player with 150 HR's will make it to the Hall of Fame.

Don't give me advice of what to post and what not to post. You have no idea as to how well thought out and studied my positions are or how well researched I am on this topic. In fact my business depends on my ability to predict the future of current baseball players. I've been doing it for 17+ years now and have had a very high rate of success.

[ElHalo]

In the last 15 years how many players the caliber of Lance Berkman have retired or were out of baseball before the age of 36? Answer NONE.

I don't think Chuck Knoblauch got that memo...

[Sockeye]

--I am not projecting a decline or how long Berkman will play. I am saying that you projecting that he will keep his pace up is just pure speculation. I'm really not interested in speculating on a players chances at least until they've played enough years to be eligible (that would be 10;) ) and only then if they are already acheived close to enough to deserve induction.
--I can see how people might be eager to talk about a mega-star like Pujols or a unique candidate like Ichiro a little early, but why a second tier guy like Berkman? I suppose its a step in the right direction from a non-star like Beltre though.

I don't get the "second tier" guy label. There is nothing second tier about Berkman. He is one of the 10 best active players

[DoubleX]

I don't get the "second tier" guy label. There is nothing second tier about Berkman. He is one of the 10 best active players

Maybe top 20.

[Sockeye]

Well, if his choices get better each time, by the time he gets to his 4th or 5th thread, we might get somewhere.

Here's something to think about before you do this next time:

If you have to start the post off by saying, "this might be premature, but...", you should probably rethink the whole idea.

Otherwise it will probably be shot down like the Beltre thread: 42-1

I will be shocked if I'm the only one that thinks Berkman will make the HOF. In fact I'm already surprised at the voting being 6-1. I was expecting at least a 20-30% yes vote for Berkman. I was a bit surprised by Beltran going down 24-1, Beltre going down 42-1 really didn't surprise me. All I can say is there will be at least 42 surprised people on here 20 years from now. Of the 31 players I project to hit 400+ home runs and make the HOF I'm taking the players in alphabetical order The first of which was Jeff Bagwell but I didn't put a poll for that post. May go back and do so. As far as I'm concerned Lance Berkman making the HOF barring his career being cut short by a premature career ending injury is a no brainer. I'll put the odds of him making the HOF at 90%

[Sockeye]

I don't think Chuck Knoblauch got that memo...

So Chuck Knoblauch is the caliber of Lance Berkman??? LMAO

[Edgartohof]

You have no idea as to how well thought out and studied my positions are or how well researched I am on this topic. In fact my business depends on my ability to predict the future of current baseball players. I've been doing it for 17+ years now and have had a very high rate of success.

I can tell...

Beltre poll: 42-1
Berkman poll: 6-1

You're doing a helluva job - keep it up!

[Sockeye]

Maybe top 20.

Name 19 active position players better than Berkman?

[Sockeye]

I can tell...

Beltre poll: 42-1
Berkman poll: 6-1

You're doing a helluva job - keep it up!

The poll results here mean nothing. It doesn't mean the player won't make the HOF. Just means that the people here don't think they will. It's actually more important for the projected numbers to be correct than the player to make the HOF since that is a bit of a popularity contest as is this site. In my past I projected the career numbers very accurately for players such as Dave Winfield, Eddie Murray, Andre Dawson, Fred McGriff, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez, & Cal Ripken Jr. All of which I was correct when I projected them hitting more than 400+ home runs some as many as 10 years prior to the career milestone.

[DoubleX]

Name 19 active position players better than Berkman?

Sigh...Here are all the active players that I think are probably better/more valuable players than Berkman

Alex Rodriguez
Derek Jeter
Manny Ramirez
David Ortiz (so long as he's not in the field)
Miguel Tejada
Travis Hafner
Victor Martinez
Vladimir Guerrero
Eric Chavez
Mark Teixeira
Michael Young
Ichiro Suzuki
Andruw Jones
David Wright
Carlos Delgado
Bobby Abreu
Chase Utley
Miguel Cabrera
Albert Pujols
Jim Edmonds
Scott Rolen
Derrek Lee
Barry Bonds
Todd Helton

I also think a good case could be made for any of these players being ahead of Berkman:

Vernon Wells
Carl Crawford
Paul Konerko
Jim Thome
Grady Sizemore
Pat Burrell
Alfonso Soriano
Ken Griffey Jr
Carlos Lee
Jason Bay
Jeff Kent

[Edgartohof]

Name 19 active position players better than Berkman?

I'll take that on:

(not necessarily in order)
1. Albert Pujols
2. Alex Rodriguez
3. Manny Ramirez
4. David Ortiz
5. Jason Giambi
6. Vlad Guerrero
7. Travis Hafner
8. Michael Young
9. Derek Lee
10. Bobby Abreu
...Hey look, already at 10!!!
11. Brian Giles
12. Carlos Delgado
13. Miguel Cabrera
14. Mark Texeira
15. Carl Crawford
16. Derek Jeter
17. Gary Sheffield
18. Barry Bonds (we'll see how much he actually plays though)
19. Paul Konerko

May I continue...?

20. Alfonso Soriano
21. Jim Thome
22.
23.
...

I could probably go on, but I think you get the point - actually, you probably don't, but oh well.

[Edgartohof]

The poll results here mean nothing. It doesn't mean the player won't make the HOF. Just means that the people here don't think they will. It's actually more important for the projected numbers to be correct than the player to make the HOF since that is a bit of a popularity contest as is this site. In my past I projected the career numbers very accurately for players such as Dave Winfield, Eddie Murray, Andre Dawson, Fred McGriff, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez, & Cal Ripken Jr. All of which I was correct when I projected them hitting more than 400+ home runs some as many as 10 years prior to the career milestone.

WOW!!!

I bet you feel special!

Heck, if you do something enough times, you are likely to get it right SOME of the time.

[ElHalo]

So Chuck Knoblauch is the caliber of Lance Berkman??? LMAO

Berkman's had essentially six full seasons.

The first six full seasons of Knoblauch's career basically consisted of his Minnesota years. Throw in Knoblauch's base stealing and the fact that he was a Gold Glove 2Bman (through that point, at least) while Berkman is a mediocre left fielder, and yeah, I think that's a fair comparison.

[Sockeye]

Here is a nice little stat for you. OPS & OPS+ through the age of 29 compared to the OPS & OPS+ they finished their career with

Ruth
Age 29 1.20
Career 1.16

T.Williams
Age 29 1.13
Career 1.12

Gehrig
Age 29 1.08
Career 1.08

Foxx
Age 29 1.06
Career 1.04

Greenberg
Age 29 1.04
Career 1.02

Klein
Age 29 1.03
Career .922

Hornsby
Age 29 1.01
Career 1.01

DiMaggio
Age 29 1.01
Career .977

Average decrease 0.02875

Berkman
Age 29 .973
Career .944?

OPS+

Ruth
Age 29 219
Career 207

T.Williams
Age 29 196
Career 190

Hornsby
Age 29 183
Career 175

Gehrig
Age 29 182
Career 179

Cobb
Age 29 182
Career 167

Mantle
Age 29 175
Career 172

Musial
Age 29 171
Career 159

J.Jackson
Age 29 169
Career 170

Mize
Age 29 169
Career 158

Average decrease 7.55

Berkman
Age 29 147
Career 139?

[ElHalo]

Here is a nice little stat for you. OPS & OPS+ through the age of 29 compared to the OPS & OPS+ they finished their career with


For future reference, don't just go by significant figures. Listing a "1.20" OPS doesn't do anybody any favors. You've got three digits after the decimal when the first digit is "0," so why do you drop it to two after the shift to "1"?

[Sockeye]

For future reference, don't just go by significant figures. Listing a "1.20" OPS doesn't do anybody any favors. You've got three digits after the decimal when the first digit is "0," so why do you drop it to two after the shift to "1"?

Having trouble arguing it on the facts huh? I agree Berkman is rather difficult to argue against. His stats are very impressive!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Berkman's had essentially six full seasons.

The first six full seasons of Knoblauch's career basically consisted of his Minnesota years. Throw in Knoblauch's base stealing and the fact that he was a Gold Glove 2Bman (through that point, at least) while Berkman is a mediocre left fielder, and yeah, I think that's a fair comparison.

Good point...

[ElHalo]

Having trouble arguing it on the facts huh? I agree Berkman is rather difficult to argue against. His stats are very impressive!

No, it's just that your argument is so specious that it's not really worth arguing about.

If you want a short version: You're comparing Berkamn to the greatest hitters in history and expecting him to follow their career path. If you want an idea of how wrong this is, just check out their numbers: The worst OPS+ of any guy on your list through that age is Johnny Mize with 169. Berkman's at 147. You can't lay their career paths on his and expect any kind of pattern to emerge.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

No, it's just that your argument is so specious that it's not really worth arguing about.

If you want a short version: You're comparing Berkamn to the greatest hitters in history and expecting him to follow their career path. If you want an idea of how wrong this is, just check out their numbers: The worst OPS+ of any guy on your list through that age is Johnny Mize with 169. Berkman's at 147. You can't lay their career paths on his and expect any kind of pattern to emerge.
I'd rather have Johnny Mize than Lance Berkman through age 30.

[brewcrew82]

Having trouble arguing it on the facts huh? I agree Berkman is rather difficult to argue against. His stats are very impressive!

I personally believe that Berkman throughout his career has been somewhat of a dissapointment, he has put up some impressive numbers, but then a player of his "style" should do so playing in that shoebox they have in Houston.

If he was to retire in a couple of years, it would be a definate NO, the only chance I see him having for the HoF is to play until his early 40's and rack up high numbers of counting stats. By then, given his size and the fact he seems to be spending more and more time injured he's likely to have retired.

[jalbright]

Sockeye,

Berkman's numbers are not as impressive as you suppose. Look at his win shares: 91 for his top three seasons would put him 24th among left fielders per the latest Bill James Historical Abstract. Pretty good, but given that the cutoff for the Hall should be no further out than 20th, it's not enough--and his placement could be lower than 24th given that the book is a few years old now. Similarly, his best five consecutive years come in at 136, 23rd among LF in that book. He could pick it up, but even just nudging over the line on peak levels without some career numbers places him in Albert Belle territory (maybe/maybe not). Also, if these numbers are truly so worthy on the all-time scale, why hasn't he done better in black and gray ink (6 and 54, respectively--nice, but nowhere near HOF caliber without a lot more of each--and Belle wound up in at least arguable HOF territory in both those measures)?

His late start is murder on those career numbers. He doesn't even have a 1000 hits today. He's done well enough to establish a 3% chance of 500 HR in the Bill James Handbook, but that's not something to hang your hat on yet. His career projections in that book are for 2449 hits, 446 HR and a .293 average. Again, nice, but with the standards being rung up currently, not the kind of stuff that would put him anywhere above the fringe of the HOF debate.

As 528380 pointed out, his ten most similar at this age, despite the advantages to a player from today, really boasts only one guy who many people currently view as a HOFer. Which means that currently, he doesn't look like he's going to make it.

Could Lance Berkman make it? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Jim Albright

[digglahhh]

Berkman is a very good player. For him to have a real shot at the Hal; he's going to have to compile though. This is unlikely, due to the fact that he got a late start and assuming there will be some injury issues in the future.

In context I can see Berkman's numbers through the beginning of his career looking like Eddie Murray's. The thing about Murray is that he produced at a high rate for a long time consistently, but without a real pronounced peak.

If Berkman doesn't step it up, and we've seen his peak, its impressive, but not HOF impressive. He's going to have to put up a lot of productive, though not necessarily outstanding seasons.

Berkman is a great on-base guy with pretty good power. Although if you watch his home games you see that he hits a ton of cheapies, from the left side and to the opposite field, especially. So, I think the stats overstate his power a little bit.

This discussion is more premature than it is ridiculous. I think that it is highly unlikely though that Berkman is able to do what he would need to in order to make the Hall. He has been highly productive though, that's unquestionable.

But Sockeye, Berkman is not in Bagwell's zip code, really. Bagwell was probably the 4th best player of the 90's behind only Bonds, Thomas and Griffey. At no time could you make the argument that Berkman is one of the top 5 players in the game. You could make that argument easily for Bagwell for an entire decade...

[dl4060]

I don't think Chuck Knoblauch got that memo...


You have got to be kidding me. This goes along the lines of your Mike Greenwell /Jim Rice reasoning. Knoblach is miles below Berkman. Even if Berkman's OPS+ were to decline to 130 he would still be miles above Chuck. I really hope you just threw that out without thinking about it. If one takes the time to look at their career numbers there is no way anyone could make that statement.

I do not think Berkman will make the hall, but I do not think it is ridiculous to say that he might. The next few years will be critical for him. If he goes on a four year run with seasons like 2001, 2002, and 2004, and maybe wins an MVP award, then I think he has a good shot, pending his decline phase. Part of his problem is his late start, which limits what his counting numbers are at age 29. He needs to have some big years, with counting numbers like 2001 and 2002. If he can have four more like those two, and get the recognition of an MVP award, he will have something.

[BoSox Rule]

Chuck Knoblauch was better than Lance Berkman at this point in their careers.

[Brad Harris]

I don't think Chuck Knoblauch got that memo...

Or Albert Belle. Or Jose Canseco. Or Don Mattingly. Or Pedro Guerrero. Or (practically) Darryl Strawberry.

All were of comparable value as Berkman in their twenties. All (except Strawberry) hung it up by age 36. Strawberry retired a few at bats after his 38th birthday.

[Brad Harris]

Wish you'd put more options besides simply "yes" and "no". (Perhaps "likely" or "unlikely", or even "maybe".) As the poll stands, I had to vote "no."

I'd like to see Berkman go on to have a long and productive career, however, and make a strong case for himself. I just think the odds are against him - or anyone - doing that.

[Sockeye]

Sigh...Here are all the active players that I think are probably better/more valuable players than Berkman

Alex Rodriguez
Derek Jeter
Manny Ramirez
David Ortiz (so long as he's not in the field)
Miguel Tejada
Travis Hafner
Victor Martinez
Vladimir Guerrero
Eric Chavez
Mark Teixeira
Michael Young
Ichiro Suzuki
Andruw Jones
David Wright
Carlos Delgado
Bobby Abreu
Chase Utley
Miguel Cabrera
Albert Pujols
Jim Edmonds
Scott Rolen
Derrek Lee
Barry Bonds
Todd Helton

I also think a good case could be made for any of these players being ahead of Berkman:

Vernon Wells
Carl Crawford
Paul Konerko
Jim Thome
Grady Sizemore
Pat Burrell
Alfonso Soriano
Ken Griffey Jr
Carlos Lee
Jason Bay
Jeff Kent

Good players all but few are the caliber of Lance Berkman. I'll grant you Rodriguez, Ramirez, Pujols, Bonds, Helton, Guerrero, and Cabrera. As for the others.
Look at the numbers

Berkman: .302/.416/.557
Martinez: .293/.365/.463
Chavez: .275/.350/.496
Jeter: .314/.386/.461
Ortiz: .282/.366/.534
Tejada: .280/.338/.477
Hafner: .293/.388/.556
Teixeira: .282/.362/.541
Young: .297/.341/.451
Suzuki: .332/.377/.442
Jones: .267/.342/.503
Wright: .302/.371/.524
Delgado: .284/.393/.559
Abreu: .303/.411/.512
Utley: .276/.350/.496
Edmonds: .291/.384/.543
Rolen: .284/.375/.515
D.Lee: .276/.363/.501
Wells: .285/.330/.481
Crawford: .289/.320/.421
Konerko: .279/.349/.488
Thome: .281/.408/.562
Sizemore: .281/.345/.470
Burrell: .258/.358/.476
Soriano: .280/.320/.500
Griffey Jr: .293/.377/.561
C.Lee: .284/.337/.488
Bay: .295/.387/.553
Kent: .289/.354/.506

The numbers speak for itself.

[Sockeye]

I'll take that on:

(not necessarily in order)
1. Albert Pujols
2. Alex Rodriguez
3. Manny Ramirez
4. David Ortiz
5. Jason Giambi
6. Vlad Guerrero
7. Travis Hafner
8. Michael Young
9. Derek Lee
10. Bobby Abreu
...Hey look, already at 10!!!
11. Brian Giles
12. Carlos Delgado
13. Miguel Cabrera
14. Mark Texeira
15. Carl Crawford
16. Derek Jeter
17. Gary Sheffield
18. Barry Bonds (we'll see how much he actually plays though)
19. Paul Konerko

May I continue...?

20. Alfonso Soriano
21. Jim Thome
22.
23.
...

I could probably go on, but I think you get the point - actually, you probably don't, but oh well.

Again good players all but few are the caliber of Lance Berkman. I'll give you Pujols, Rodriguez, Ramirez, Bonds, Guerrero, and Cabrera. As for the others look at the number.

Berkman: .302/.416/.557
Jeter: .314/.386/.461
Ortiz: .282/.366/.534
Hafner: .293/.388/.556
Teixeira: .282/.362/.541
Young: .297/.341/.451
Delgado: .284/.393/.559
Abreu: .303/.411/.512
Crawford: .289/.320/.421
Konerko: .279/.349/.488
Thome: .281/.408/.562
D.Lee: .276/.363/.501
Soriano: .280/.320/.500
Giambi: .295/.413/.539
Giles: .299/.413/.542
Sheffield: .297/.399/.527

The numbers speak for itself!

[Sockeye]

WOW!!!

I bet you feel special!

Heck, if you do something enough times, you are likely to get it right SOME of the time.

Oh I've missed a few but I'm right about 75% of the time. The players I was wrong about in the past were Joe Carter, Matt Williams, and Albert Belle.

[Sockeye]

Berkman's had essentially six full seasons.

The first six full seasons of Knoblauch's career basically consisted of his Minnesota years. Throw in Knoblauch's base stealing and the fact that he was a Gold Glove 2Bman (through that point, at least) while Berkman is a mediocre left fielder, and yeah, I think that's a fair comparison.

This is silly. There is no comparison. Knoblauch's OPS+ for his first 6 seasons were 91, 108, 88, 117, 138, and 142. Berkman's OPS+ for his past 6 seasons is 130, 162, 152, 137, 161, and 146

Knoblauch's batted over .300 3 times in that time span with a career .306 average at that point. Berkman has batted over .300 2 times with a career average of .302.

Knoblauch had an OBP of over .400 just 2 times while Berkman has had an OBP of over .400 5 times.

Knoblauch had a SLG % of .500 or better just one time that being a high of .513 while Berkman has had a SLG of over .500 all 6 of those seasons with a low SLG % of .515.

Again there is NO COMPARISON

[STLCards2]

Again good players all but few are the caliber of Lance Berkman. I'll give you Pujols, Rodriguez, Ramirez, Bonds, Guerrero, and Cabrera. As for the others look at the number.

Berkman: .302/.416/.557
Jeter: .314/.386/.461
Ortiz: .282/.366/.534
Hafner: .293/.388/.556
Teixeira: .282/.362/.541
Young: .297/.341/.451
Delgado: .284/.393/.559
Abreu: .303/.411/.512
Crawford: .289/.320/.421
Konerko: .279/.349/.488
Thome: .281/.408/.562
D.Lee: .276/.363/.501
Soriano: .280/.320/.500
Giambi: .295/.413/.539
Giles: .299/.413/.542
Sheffield: .297/.399/.527

The numbers speak for itself!

Yes, but many of these guys have something Berkman doesn't...longevity. Thome, Sheffield, etc. Also, many have something else Berkman doesn't...defense. Jeter, Crawford, Lee etc. Berkman also has had the luxury of playing in arguably the best hitters park in baseball not in Colorodo. Nobody is saying Berkman sucks, but give him a little time before comparing him to guys who have produced for 15-20 seasons like Sheffield.

[Sockeye]

I personally believe that Berkman throughout his career has been somewhat of a dissapointment, he has put up some impressive numbers, but then a player of his "style" should do so playing in that shoebox they have in Houston.

If he was to retire in a couple of years, it would be a definate NO, the only chance I see him having for the HoF is to play until his early 40's and rack up high numbers of counting stats. By then, given his size and the fact he seems to be spending more and more time injured he's likely to have retired.

Spending more and more time injured?? In the last 5 seasons he's played 156, 158, 153, 160, and had ONE injury which required surgery during the offseason and missed most of the month of april due to it. But came back and still managed to play in 132 games. That's like saying that Derek Jeter has a history of injuries and is likely to retire earlier since he was hurt in 03 and only played in 119 games. ONE injury does not show a history of of injuries.

[Sockeye]

Sockeye,

Berkman's numbers are not as impressive as you suppose. Look at his win shares: 91 for his top three seasons would put him 24th among left fielders per the latest Bill James Historical Abstract. Pretty good, but given that the cutoff for the Hall should be no further out than 20th, it's not enough--and his placement could be lower than 24th given that the book is a few years old now. Similarly, his best five consecutive years come in at 136, 23rd among LF in that book. He could pick it up, but even just nudging over the line on peak levels without some career numbers places him in Albert Belle territory (maybe/maybe not). Also, if these numbers are truly so worthy on the all-time scale, why hasn't he done better in black and gray ink (6 and 54, respectively--nice, but nowhere near HOF caliber without a lot more of each--and Belle wound up in at least arguable HOF territory in both those measures)?

His late start is murder on those career numbers. He doesn't even have a 1000 hits today. He's done well enough to establish a 3% chance of 500 HR in the Bill James Handbook, but that's not something to hang your hat on yet. His career projections in that book are for 2449 hits, 446 HR and a .293 average. Again, nice, but with the standards being rung up currently, not the kind of stuff that would put him anywhere above the fringe of the HOF debate.

As 528380 pointed out, his ten most similar at this age, despite the advantages to a player from today, really boasts only one guy who many people currently view as a HOFer. Which means that currently, he doesn't look like he's going to make it.

Could Lance Berkman make it? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Jim Albright

So again Bill James pretty much backs up my projections. My question is this. Where does James predict him to end up in terms of OBP and SLG? My guess is pretty close to his current numbers maybe around .410 OBP and a .550 SLG? So not only do we have a player with impressive counting stats over 2400 hits and over 400 home runs. His rate statistics are extremely impressive! Here let me purpose another question to you or anyone else that cares to answer it. How many players in the history of baseball have finished their career with 2400+ hits, 400+ home runs, and a OBP of .400+ How many of those players have failed to make the HOF? Tell you what. Let me go ahead and answer that question for you. There are exactly 7 players in HISTORY that have done that. They are

Mel Ott: 2876/511/.414
Stan Musial: 3630/475/.417
Mickey Mantle: 2415/536/.421
Jimmie Foxx: 2646/534/.428
Lou Gehrig: 2721/493/.447
Babe Ruth: 2873/714/.474
Ted Williams: 2654/521/.482
Lance Berkman: 2449/446/.410?

Pretty elite company if you ask me. And you are suggesting he is only 24th best LFer of all time?? I think not!!

[Sockeye]

Berkman is a very good player. For him to have a real shot at the Hal; he's going to have to compile though. This is unlikely, due to the fact that he got a late start and assuming there will be some injury issues in the future.

In context I can see Berkman's numbers through the beginning of his career looking like Eddie Murray's. The thing about Murray is that he produced at a high rate for a long time consistently, but without a real pronounced peak.

If Berkman doesn't step it up, and we've seen his peak, its impressive, but not HOF impressive. He's going to have to put up a lot of productive, though not necessarily outstanding seasons.

Berkman is a great on-base guy with pretty good power. Although if you watch his home games you see that he hits a ton of cheapies, from the left side and to the opposite field, especially. So, I think the stats overstate his power a little bit.

This discussion is more premature than it is ridiculous. I think that it is highly unlikely though that Berkman is able to do what he would need to in order to make the Hall. He has been highly productive though, that's unquestionable.

But Sockeye, Berkman is not in Bagwell's zip code, really. Bagwell was probably the 4th best player of the 90's behind only Bonds, Thomas and Griffey. At no time could you make the argument that Berkman is one of the top 5 players in the game. You could make that argument easily for Bagwell for an entire decade...

Berkman doesn't need to be one of the time 5 players in the game of baseball at any given time to make the HOF. That is not a requirement. He is one of the top 10 hitters in the game today and has been for the past 5 seasons. Bagwell had a couple of great seasons and a very nice career as a whole. Berkman will likely finish his career with a similar average, OBP, and SLG to that of Bagwell. His counting stats should also be very similar to Bagwell's in runs, hits, homers, and RBI's.

[Sockeye]

Yes, but many of these guys have something Berkman doesn't...longevity. Thome, Sheffield, etc. Also, many have something else Berkman doesn't...defense. Jeter, Crawford, Lee etc. Berkman also has had the luxury of playing in arguably the best hitters park in baseball not in Colorodo. Nobody is saying Berkman sucks, but give him a little time before comparing him to guys who have produced for 15-20 seasons like Sheffield.

This poll question isn't about if Berkman retired today would he deserve to make the HOF. Obviously the answer to that is no. What this poll is about is given Berkman's current rate of production and a reasonable amount of longevity will Berkman make the HOF after he retires? Considering that most great players today barring a career ending injury play into their late 30's if not early 40's. Berkman should put up impressive counting stats to go along with extremely impressive rate stats. That combination should put him in the HOF.

[Sockeye]

Or Albert Belle. Or Jose Canseco. Or Don Mattingly. Or Pedro Guerrero. Or (practically) Darryl Strawberry.

All were of comparable value as Berkman in their twenties. All (except Strawberry) hung it up by age 36. Strawberry retired a few at bats after his 38th birthday.

Guerrero was never on Berkman's level. Strawberry and Canseco were both great home run hitters but never had the AVG or OBP that Berkman has.
Don Mattingly had 4 great seasons from the ages of 23-26 but was already on the decline by the age of 29. So if projecting his stats at the same age of Berkman wouldn't have projected out nearly as well. Lets not forget he was coming off a year where he batted just .256 with 5 homers and 42 RBI's and had hit just 46 home runs over the previous 3 seasons. Compare that to Lance Berkman who has hit 79 home runs the past 3 seasons. Albert Belle is a player that fooled me. His stats were actually better than Berkman's but an out of the blue hip injury forced him out of the game. This was unforseen and could not be predicted. That is an exception rather than the norm.

There is an art to spotting players who will age well. You have to look for a decrease in production. To date Berkman has showed not the slightest hint of slowing down. So it's a very reasonable assumption that he will continue to produce at his current level for at least the next 3-5 seasons before age starts to take effect. At the point given an average rate of decline his stats end up at a certain HOF level. I think if the odds are above 50% of him making the HOF than you should vote yes, if the odds are below 50% you should vote no. I think there is a 90% chance of Berkman making the HOF and therefor my vote is yes.

[jalbright]

So again Bill James pretty much backs up my projections. My question is this. Where does James predict him to end up in terms of OBP and SLG? My guess is pretty close to his current numbers maybe around .410 OBP and a .550 SLG? So not only do we have a player with impressive counting stats over 2400 hits and over 400 home runs. His rate statistics are extremely impressive! Here let me purpose another question to you or anyone else that cares to answer it. How many players in the history of baseball have finished their career with 2400+ hits, 400+ home runs, and a OBP of .400+ How many of those players have failed to make the HOF? Tell you what. Let me go ahead and answer that question for you. There are exactly 7 players in HISTORY that have done that. They are

Mel Ott: 2876/511/.414
Stan Musial: 3630/475/.417
Mickey Mantle: 2415/536/.421
Jimmie Foxx: 2646/534/.428
Lou Gehrig: 2721/493/.447
Babe Ruth: 2873/714/.474
Ted Williams: 2654/521/.482
Lance Berkman: 2449/446/.410?

Pretty elite company if you ask me. And you are suggesting he is only 24th best LFer of all time?? I think not!!

The main flaw with your argument above is so obvious, it's laughable. Only six guys have actually done what you suggest is a HOF trifecta. Berkman is merely projected to do that well. There's one hell of a lot of difference between having done it on one hand, and that it's reasonable to estimate this is what he'll do in the future on the other. It would only take a beaning or serious injury to call that whole house of estimation cards into question.

There's another flaw with that argument--Berkman is well at the bottom of that group, not truly in it. Only Mantle has less hits than the projection, and he 1) actually had 90 more homers than the projection, and 2) did not play in an environment so skewed toward the offense as Berkman has to date. Berkman's projection also isn't within 28 HR of anyone on the list. James in his Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame cautions us to watch for "in the group" arguments of this sort where the target individual just sneaks in a couple of times.

No, I'm not suggesting he is currently anything like the 24th best leftfielder ever. I happen to give much more importance to career marks than most around here (ask other posters or check my posts out if you don't believe it), so I wouldn't say Berkman is remotely close to that level yet. At his peak thus far, yes, that's what I think based upon win shares, which do something you resolutely refuse to do--adjust for context. He may improve on that, he may not--we'll see.

I reiterate--Berkman may make it, but the current evidence suggests it will be a close call. Right now, I think that given his age, if anything goes unexpectedly wrong, he's cooked. For that reason, I've got to say that right now I think it is more likely he'll miss than that he'll make it.

Jim Albright

[Sockeye]

The main flaw with your argument above is so obvious, it's laughable. Only six guys have actually done what you suggest is a HOF trifecta. Berkman is merely projected to do that well. There's one hell of a lot of difference between having done it on one hand, and that it's reasonable to estimate this is what he'll do in the future on the other. It would only take a beaning or serious injury to call that whole house of estimation cards into question.

There's another flaw with that argument--Berkman is well at the bottom of that group, not truly in it. Only Mantle has less hits than the projection, and he 1) actually had 90 more homers than the projection, and 2) did not play in an environment so skewed toward the offense as Berkman has to date. Berkman's projection also isn't within 28 HR of anyone on the list. James in his Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame cautions us to watch for "in the group" arguments of this sort where the target individual just sneaks in a couple of times.

No, I'm not suggesting he is currently anything like the 24th best leftfielder ever. I happen to give much more importance to career marks than most around here (ask other posters or check my posts out if you don't believe it), so I wouldn't say Berkman is remotely close to that level yet. At his peak thus far, yes, that's what I think based upon win shares, which do something you resolutely refuse to do--adjust for context. He may improve on that, he may not--we'll see.

I reiterate--Berkman may make it, but the current evidence suggests it will be a close call. Right now, I think that given his age, if anything goes unexpectedly wrong, he's cooked. For that reason, I've got to say that right now I think it is more likely he'll miss than that he'll make it.

Jim Albright


Actually there are 7 players that have done it not 6. Berkman will likely be the 8th to do it. Obviously with any such projection there is always that chance of a career ending injury (Albert Belle) or a series of minor injuries that cuts down on a plays career numbers (Ken Griffey Jr). I don't see any evidence of that happening in Lance Berkman's case. It's actually pretty rare for star players to suffer a career ending injury. It happens but is definitely the exception rather than the norm. As for Berkman's numbers not comparing to the other 7 players to do it. That isn't the least bit important seeing as how they are among the top 20 players to ever play the game. The fact that Berkman is even on pace to be in that elte company says a great deal about his career to date.

[DoubleX]

Good players all but few are the caliber of Lance Berkman. I'll grant you Rodriguez, Ramirez, Pujols, Bonds, Helton, Guerrero, and Cabrera. As for the others.
Look at the numbers

Berkman: .302/.416/.557
Martinez: .293/.365/.463
Chavez: .275/.350/.496
Jeter: .314/.386/.461
Ortiz: .282/.366/.534
Tejada: .280/.338/.477
Hafner: .293/.388/.556
Teixeira: .282/.362/.541
Young: .297/.341/.451
Suzuki: .332/.377/.442
Jones: .267/.342/.503
Wright: .302/.371/.524
Delgado: .284/.393/.559
Abreu: .303/.411/.512
Utley: .276/.350/.496
Edmonds: .291/.384/.543
Rolen: .284/.375/.515
D.Lee: .276/.363/.501
Wells: .285/.330/.481
Crawford: .289/.320/.421
Konerko: .279/.349/.488
Thome: .281/.408/.562
Sizemore: .281/.345/.470
Burrell: .258/.358/.476
Soriano: .280/.320/.500
Griffey Jr: .293/.377/.561
C.Lee: .284/.337/.488
Bay: .295/.387/.553
Kent: .289/.354/.506

The numbers speak for itself.

Don't you think I'm aware of the numbers? The numbers you posted don't speak for themselves because they either A) Don't speak to longevity, or B) Don't reflect the fact that Berkman is a lumbering corner OFer while many of these players have value in defense and on the bases in addition to having good bat, and you haven't accounted for this by just blindly looking at offensive statistics. Berkman' superficial stats ar also greatly helped by that bandbox in Houston, but your blind reference to the numbers does not reflect that either.

[Sockeye]

Don't you think I'm aware of the numbers? The numbers you posted don't speak for themselves because they either A) Don't speak to longevity, or B) Don't reflect the fact that Berkman is a lumbering corner OFer while many of these players have value in defense and on the bases in addition to having good bat, and you haven't accounted for this by just blindly looking at offensive statistics. Berkman' superficial stats ar also greatly helped by that bandbox in Houston, but your blind reference to the numbers does not reflect that either.

I figured you'd try to use the positional or longevity argument. It simply doesn't hold water in this case. A) for the fact that positionally/defense only makes up a small amount of the offensive difference. You might be able to make a case for Edmonds or Griffey either of whoms offense it at least in the same league as Berkman while both being exceedingly excellent defensively over a long period of time. I could even remotely understand you trying to make a case for Jeff Kent or Derek Jeter they play 2B/SS. But even then I'll take a corner OFer that bats .302/.416/.557 over a 2B that puts up .289/.354/.506 or a SS that bats .314/.386/.461
Or maybe I could understand you trying to make a case for Delgado or Thome both of whom play 1B (so no positional or defensive argument there) and have put up slightly less productive numbers than Berkman but have done it over a longer period of time.

But how do you justify all of the other picks?

Berkman: .302/.416/.557
Martinez: .293/.365/.463
Chavez: .275/.350/.496
Ortiz: .282/.366/.534
Tejada: .280/.338/.477
Hafner: .293/.388/.556
Teixeira: .282/.362/.541
Young: .297/.341/.451
Suzuki: .332/.377/.442
Jones: .267/.342/.503
Wright: .302/.371/.524
Abreu: .303/.411/.512
Utley: .276/.350/.496
Rolen: .284/.375/.515
D.Lee: .276/.363/.501
Wells: .285/.330/.481
Crawford: .289/.320/.421
Konerko: .279/.349/.488
Sizemore: .281/.345/.470
Burrell: .258/.358/.476
Soriano: .280/.320/.500
C.Lee: .284/.337/.488
Bay: .295/.387/.553

All of whom have inferior offensive numbers while either playing the same position and/or have less longevity than Berkman.

Martinez: Inferior production/less longevity
Chavez: similar longevity/inferior production
Ortiz: 1st baseman/similar longevity/inferior production
Tejada: similar longevity/inferior production
Hafner: 1st baseman/less longevity/inferior production
Young: less longevity/inferior production
Suzuki: same position/less longevity/inferior production
Jones: inferior production
Wright: less longevity/inferior production
Abreu: same position/less production
Utley: less longevity/inferior production
Rolen: similar longevity/inferior production
D.Lee: 1st baseman/similar longevity/inferior production
Wells: same position/similar longevity/inferior production
Crawford: less longevity/inferior production
Konerko: 1st baseman/similar longevity/inferior production
Sizemore: less longevity/inferior production
Burrell: similar longevity/inferior production
Soriano: similar longevity/inferior production
C.Lee: same position/inferior production
Bay: less longevity/inferior production

[STLCards2]

I figured you'd try to use the positional or longevity argument. It simply doesn't hold water in this case. A) for the fact that positionally/defense only makes up a small amount of the offensive difference. You might be able to make a case for Edmonds or Griffey either of whoms offense it at least in the same league as Berkman while both being exceedingly excellent defensively over a long period of time. I could even remotely understand you trying to make a case for Jeff Kent or Derek Jeter they play 2B/SS. But even then I'll take a corner OFer that bats .302/.416/.557 over a 2B that puts up .289/.354/.506 or a SS that bats .314/.386/.461
Or maybe I could understand you trying to make a case for Delgado or Thome both of whom play 1B (so no positional or defensive argument there) and have put up slightly less productive numbers than Berkman but have done it over a longer period of time.

But how do you justify all of the other picks?

Berkman: .302/.416/.557
Martinez: .293/.365/.463
Chavez: .275/.350/.496
Ortiz: .282/.366/.534
Tejada: .280/.338/.477
Hafner: .293/.388/.556
Teixeira: .282/.362/.541
Young: .297/.341/.451
Suzuki: .332/.377/.442
Jones: .267/.342/.503
Wright: .302/.371/.524
Abreu: .303/.411/.512
Utley: .276/.350/.496
Rolen: .284/.375/.515
D.Lee: .276/.363/.501
Wells: .285/.330/.481
Crawford: .289/.320/.421
Konerko: .279/.349/.488
Sizemore: .281/.345/.470
Burrell: .258/.358/.476
Soriano: .280/.320/.500
C.Lee: .284/.337/.488
Bay: .295/.387/.553

All of whom have inferior offensive numbers while either playing the same position and/or have less longevity than Berkman.

Martinez: Inferior production/less longevity
Chavez: similar longevity/inferior production
Ortiz: 1st baseman/similar longevity/inferior production
Tejada: similar longevity/inferior production
Hafner: 1st baseman/less longevity/inferior production
Young: less longevity/inferior production
Suzuki: same position/less longevity/inferior production
Jones: inferior production
Wright: less longevity/inferior production
Abreu: same position/less production
Utley: less longevity/inferior production
Rolen: similar longevity/inferior production
D.Lee: 1st baseman/similar longevity/inferior production
Wells: same position/similar longevity/inferior production
Crawford: less longevity/inferior production
Konerko: 1st baseman/similar longevity/inferior production
Sizemore: less longevity/inferior production
Burrell: similar longevity/inferior production
Soriano: similar longevity/inferior production
C.Lee: same position/inferior production
Bay: less longevity/inferior production

What your forgetting is none of us would project most of these other guys for the HOF either. We aren't picking on Berckman.

[DoubleX]

I figured you'd try to use the positional or longevity argument. It simply doesn't hold water in this case. A) for the fact that positionally/defense only makes up a small amount of the offensive difference. You might be able to make a case for Edmonds or Griffey either of whoms offense it at least in the same league as Berkman while both being exceedingly excellent defensively over a long period of time. I could even remotely understand you trying to make a case for Jeff Kent or Derek Jeter they play 2B/SS. But even then I'll take a corner OFer that bats .302/.416/.557 over a 2B that puts up .289/.354/.506 or a SS that bats .314/.386/.461
Or maybe I could understand you trying to make a case for Delgado or Thome both of whom play 1B (so no positional or defensive argument there) and have put up slightly less productive numbers than Berkman but have done it over a longer period of time.

But how do you justify all of the other picks?

Berkman: .302/.416/.557
Martinez: .293/.365/.463
Chavez: .275/.350/.496
Ortiz: .282/.366/.534
Tejada: .280/.338/.477
Hafner: .293/.388/.556
Teixeira: .282/.362/.541
Young: .297/.341/.451
Suzuki: .332/.377/.442
Jones: .267/.342/.503
Wright: .302/.371/.524
Abreu: .303/.411/.512
Utley: .276/.350/.496
Rolen: .284/.375/.515
D.Lee: .276/.363/.501
Wells: .285/.330/.481
Crawford: .289/.320/.421
Konerko: .279/.349/.488
Sizemore: .281/.345/.470
Burrell: .258/.358/.476
Soriano: .280/.320/.500
C.Lee: .284/.337/.488
Bay: .295/.387/.553

All of whom have inferior offensive numbers while either playing the same position and/or have less longevity than Berkman.

Martinez: Inferior production/less longevity
Chavez: similar longevity/inferior production
Ortiz: 1st baseman/similar longevity/inferior production
Tejada: similar longevity/inferior production
Hafner: 1st baseman/less longevity/inferior production
Young: less longevity/inferior production
Suzuki: same position/less longevity/inferior production
Jones: inferior production
Wright: less longevity/inferior production
Abreu: same position/less production
Utley: less longevity/inferior production
Rolen: similar longevity/inferior production
D.Lee: 1st baseman/similar longevity/inferior production
Wells: same position/similar longevity/inferior production
Crawford: less longevity/inferior production
Konerko: 1st baseman/similar longevity/inferior production
Sizemore: less longevity/inferior production
Burrell: similar longevity/inferior production
Soriano: similar longevity/inferior production
C.Lee: same position/inferior production
Bay: less longevity/inferior production

This is like talking to a brick wall. You obviously don't understand inherent issues in value. I can find a bunch of players to play LF and hit near Berkman's level, but it's harder to find good offense at catcher, centerfield, shortstop, secondbase, and third base. You don't understand positional adjustments just as you don't understand era adjustments. A lot of these players play these more defensively important positions where offense is at a premium, and thus they have more value than Berkman who is just one of many slugging and lumbering corner OFers. I suppose you'd be content with building a team that had a pitcher and 8 Berkman's around the diamond, because defense and speed don't matter anywhere? Defense and speed make a huge difference at certain positions and give players value even if their numbers aren't on the surface as impressive as a slugging OFer. There is a lot more to the game than just being a corner OFer that can hit, and that's why we don't have corner OFers at every position.

It's like if we were living in 1980, you'd be arguing for George Foster, Al Oliver, Jack Clark, Greg Luzinsk, Dave Kingman, and Bill Madlock to be in the Hall.

[Brad Harris]

In the last 15 years how many players the caliber of Lance Berkman have retired or were out of baseball before the age of 36? Answer NONE. A few here and there retire around 37, 38, 39. Most great players of this era last until at least 39, 40, or older. So there is better than a 50% chance that Berkman will play until age 40. If that happens he only needs to average less than 130 games per season to reach the 2332 games and if he averages 150 games per season for the next 5 years from the ages of 30-34 then he only needs to average less than 113 games per season for his last 6 seasons at the ages of 35-40.

I answered this question once and you pretty much ignored it by asserting your opinion that the players I mentioned were not "the caliber of Lance Berkman." To explain those choices, I used players with a similar RCAP to Berkman through the same age. That focused solely on offense.

Let me use a more comprehensive stat in my second attempt.

Henceforth, allow me to present the following: Players from "the last 15 years" who were "the caliber of Lance Berkman" who "were out of baseball before the age of 36." Remember that Berkman has 147 win shares through age 29; the numbers presented below are those players' win shares total through age 29.

WS Player, Age at Retirement
186 Don Mattingly, 34
183 Chuck Knoblauch, 33
178 Chet Lemon, 35
171 Kirby Puckett, 35
160 Kent Hrbek, 34
160 Gary Templeton, 35
159 Lloyd Moseby, 31
158 Travis Fryman, 33
155 Carney Lansford, 35
155 Steve Sax, 34
154 Dwight Gooden, 35
154 Dave Stieb, 35
153 Jason Thompson, 31
150 Andy Van Slyke, 34
149 Albert Belle, 33
148 Terry Puhl, 34
147 Delino DeShields, 33

Now...that's 17 players with the same or better career value to the same point in their career - all of which retired in just the last 15 years. All-star caliber players retiring early in "modern" times is hardly rare. What is rare, however, is the possibility that such a player will be elected to Cooperstown.

If you want to dispute using win shares, fine. Pick an acceptable stat and come up with your own list. While a Chuck Knoblauch may not "look" much like a Lance Berkman, Don Mattingly and Kent Hrbek are certainly good comps. Just because the player played a different position, or because his defense was of greater weight to his overall value, or because he was a different kind of hitter than Berkman...none of that means his production didn't have similar value.

You made a contention - that no one with similar value to Berkman's pre-30 career has retired before age 36 in the past decade and a half. Your contention is flat-out wrong and the point of this list is to demonstrate that. I certainly didn't bother including the many players with similar, but slightly less, career value.

Here's a list of the "few here and there" who recently retired later than the first list, but before age 40.

245 Robin Yount, 37
234 Roberto Alomar, 36
222 Will Clark, 36
219 Darryl Strawberry, 37
210 Alan Trammell, 38
192 Jose Canseco, 36
191 Ryne Sandberg, 37
189 Dale Murphy, 37
186 Jack Clark, 36
179 Willie Randolph, 37
177 Lou Whitaker, 38
167 Tony Fernandez, 39
160 Mark McGwire, 37
158 Bobby Bonilla, 38
156 Willie Wilson, 38
153 Robin Ventura, 36
148 Sammy Sosa, 36
147 Lance Parrish, 39

Again...players with the same or better career value as Berkman at this point in their careers - some with a great deal more value - all of whom retired at age 36, 37, 38 or 39 within the past 15 years. It's more than a "few" players. These guys were all perennial all-stars during their heyday.

Again...you claim that "most great players of this era last until at least 39, 40, or older." Let's look at this statement for a minute. Since you make no bones about considering Berkman a "great" player of "this era," let's continue to apply the same conditions to the criteria we've been using (guys from the past 15 years with equal or better pre-30 career value as Berkman.)

I won't list them all here, but Berkman's pre-30 career value of 147 win shares is equalled or surpassed by 78 other players in the past 15 years! How many of those have (or will) retire at age 40 or later?

49 of those players have already retired. Of the 49, only 13 retired after their age-40 season or later. You said "most great players" retire at that age. I don't think 27% is anywhere close to "most."

Your post infers something like this...
1. 50% of great players play into their forties.
2. Berkman is a great player.
3. Therefore, Berkman has a 50% chance of playing into his forties.

Leaving aside the illogicality of this train of thought, we have already proven that the foundation of your first posited statement is completely fallacious.

Nobody here is arguing with you that Berkman isn't a very good player. Where you are seeing resistance isn't in an admission of the possibility that Berkman could someday have Hall-of-Fame caliber numbers, but in the likelihood of it happening.

Frankly, your "projections" seem little more than wild, speculative opinion. A little elementary math spiced with a lot of wishful thinking. Nothing more. You're asking others to swallow an awful lot and you've spent what little credibility you started with before you tried to make the sale.

I, for one, am beginning to tire of the kind of unsupported assumptions you are basing these arguments on and your attitude towards those of us who don't share those assumptions. If you want to win some converts, I'd downsize my ambitions and try starting with some more reasonable assertions, statements you can support.

[Brad Harris]

This poll question isn't about if Berkman retired today would he deserve to make the HOF. Obviously the answer to that is no. What this poll is about is given Berkman's current rate of production and a reasonable amount of longevity will Berkman make the HOF after he retires? Considering that most great players today barring a career ending injury play into their late 30's if not early 40's. Berkman should put up impressive counting stats to go along with extremely impressive rate stats. That combination should put him in the HOF.

Again...no one is disputing that Berkman with 8-10 more years wouldn't be a good candidate for the Hall. What we dispute is the likelihood of that happening!

[digglahhh]

You might be able to make a case for Edmonds or Griffey either of whoms offense it at least in the same league as Berkman while both being exceedingly excellent defensively over a long period of time.

Berkman is in Griffey's league in much the same way that Nate Roverton is in Allen Iverson's. They are in the same league- literally- and that's it!

[Sockeye]

This is like talking to a brick wall. You obviously don't understand inherent issues in value. I can find a bunch of players to play LF and hit near Berkman's level, but it's harder to find good offense at catcher, centerfield, shortstop, secondbase, and third base. You don't understand positional adjustments just as you don't understand era adjustments. A lot of these players play these more defensively important positions where offense is at a premium, and thus they have more value than Berkman who is just one of many slugging and lumbering corner OFers. I suppose you'd be content with building a team that had a pitcher and 8 Berkman's around the diamond, because defense and speed don't matter anywhere? Defense and speed make a huge difference at certain positions and give players value even if their numbers aren't on the surface as impressive as a slugging OFer. There is a lot more to the game than just being a corner OFer that can hit, and that's why we don't have corner OFers at every position.

It's like if we were living in 1980, you'd be arguing for George Foster, Al Oliver, Jack Clark, Greg Luzinsk, Dave Kingman, and Bill Madlock to be in the Hall.


I understand the positional adjustments perfectly as I understand the era adjustments but you are ignoring the obvious. If there was a .005 difference in AVG or a .010 difference in OBP or a .015 difference in SLG then you might have a case. But when you have a .030 lower AVG, a .060 lower OBP, or a .090 lower SLG then it doesn't matter if they are the best defensive player to ever play the position it doesn't make up for the huge difference in offensive production. Era adjustments? His OPS+ is 147 which is tied for 43rd all time with Edgar Martinez, Mike Piazza, Mike Schmidt, and Willie Stargell so that argument doesn't hold water either. As for your statement "I can find a bunch of players to play LF and hit near Berkman's level" I strongly dispute that statement. There are only 6 players in the game today with a higher OPS than Berkman.

So now you are comparing Lance Berkman to George Foster, Al Oliver, Jack Clark, Greg Luzinsk, Dave Kingman, and Bill Madlock?

Lets compare the numbers

AVG OBP SLG OPS+
Berkman: .302/.416/.557/147
Foster: .274/.338/.480/126
Oliver: .303/.344/.451/121
Clark: .267/.379/.476/137
Luzinski: .276/.363/.478/130
Kingman: .236/.302/.478/115
Madlock: .305/.365/.442/123

Now I don't suppose you can see the difference in these stats?

[Sockeye]

I answered this question once and you pretty much ignored it by asserting your opinion that the players I mentioned were not "the caliber of Lance Berkman." To explain those choices, I used players with a similar RCAP to Berkman through the same age. That focused solely on offense.

Let me use a more comprehensive stat in my second attempt.

Henceforth, allow me to present the following: Players from "the last 15 years" who were "the caliber of Lance Berkman" who "were out of baseball before the age of 36." Remember that Berkman has 147 win shares through age 29; the numbers presented below are those players' win shares total through age 29.

WS Player, Age at Retirement
186 Don Mattingly, 34
183 Chuck Knoblauch, 33
178 Chet Lemon, 35
171 Kirby Puckett, 35
160 Kent Hrbek, 34
160 Gary Templeton, 35
159 Lloyd Moseby, 31
158 Travis Fryman, 33
155 Carney Lansford, 35
155 Steve Sax, 34
154 Dwight Gooden, 35
154 Dave Stieb, 35
153 Jason Thompson, 31
150 Andy Van Slyke, 34
149 Albert Belle, 33
148 Terry Puhl, 34
147 Delino DeShields, 33

Now...that's 17 players with the same or better career value to the same point in their career - all of which retired in just the last 15 years. All-star caliber players retiring early in "modern" times is hardly rare. What is rare, however, is the possibility that such a player will be elected to Cooperstown.

If you want to dispute using win shares, fine. Pick an acceptable stat and come up with your own list. While a Chuck Knoblauch may not "look" much like a Lance Berkman, Don Mattingly and Kent Hrbek are certainly good comps. Just because the player played a different position, or because his defense was of greater weight to his overall value, or because he was a different kind of hitter than Berkman...none of that means his production didn't have similar value.

You made a contention - that no one with similar value to Berkman's pre-30 career has retired before age 36 in the past decade and a half. Your contention is flat-out wrong and the point of this list is to demonstrate that. I certainly didn't bother including the many players with similar, but slightly less, career value.

Here's a list of the "few here and there" who recently retired later than the first list, but before age 40.

245 Robin Yount, 37
234 Roberto Alomar, 36
222 Will Clark, 36
219 Darryl Strawberry, 37
210 Alan Trammell, 38
192 Jose Canseco, 36
191 Ryne Sandberg, 37
189 Dale Murphy, 37
186 Jack Clark, 36
179 Willie Randolph, 37
177 Lou Whitaker, 38
167 Tony Fernandez, 39
160 Mark McGwire, 37
158 Bobby Bonilla, 38
156 Willie Wilson, 38
153 Robin Ventura, 36
148 Sammy Sosa, 36
147 Lance Parrish, 39

Again...players with the same or better career value as Berkman at this point in their careers - some with a great deal more value - all of whom retired at age 36, 37, 38 or 39 within the past 15 years. It's more than a "few" players. These guys were all perennial all-stars during their heyday.

Again...you claim that "most great players of this era last until at least 39, 40, or older." Let's look at this statement for a minute. Since you make no bones about considering Berkman a "great" player of "this era," let's continue to apply the same conditions to the criteria we've been using (guys from the past 15 years with equal or better pre-30 career value as Berkman.)

I won't list them all here, but Berkman's pre-30 career value of 147 win shares is equalled or surpassed by 78 other players in the past 15 years! How many of those have (or will) retire at age 40 or later?

49 of those players have already retired. Of the 49, only 13 retired after their age-40 season or later. You said "most great players" retire at that age. I don't think 27% is anywhere close to "most."

Your post infers something like this...
1. 50% of great players play into their forties.
2. Berkman is a great player.
3. Therefore, Berkman has a 50% chance of playing into his forties.

Leaving aside the illogicality of this train of thought, we have already proven that the foundation of your first posited statement is completely fallacious.

Nobody here is arguing with you that Berkman isn't a very good player. Where you are seeing resistance isn't in an admission of the possibility that Berkman could someday have Hall-of-Fame caliber numbers, but in the likelihood of it happening.

Frankly, your "projections" seem little more than wild, speculative opinion. A little elementary math spiced with a lot of wishful thinking. Nothing more. You're asking others to swallow an awful lot and you've spent what little credibility you started with before you tried to make the sale.

I, for one, am beginning to tire of the kind of unsupported assumptions you are basing these arguments on and your attitude towards those of us who don't share those assumptions. If you want to win some converts, I'd downsize my ambitions and try starting with some more reasonable assertions, statements you can support.


There are so many flaws with your post that I don't even know where to begin and I doubt I'll be able to touch on all of them. If I tried Berkman will be in the HOF before I get finished.

Let me begin by saying if you twist the stats around long enough you'll be able to get them to support your argument no matter how obsurd it is. First the stat you are using "win shares" is flawed. It gives more emphasis on the teams performance than the individual players performance. The system itself contains a great deal of arbitrary numbers and educated guesses. How many people in here honestly think that Chuck Knoblauch, Chet Lemon, Kent Hrbek, Gary Templeton, Lloyd Moseby, Travis Fryman, Carney Lansford, Steve Sax, Jason Thompson, Terry Puhl, Delino DeShields, Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, Alan Trammel, Jack Clark, Willie Randolph, Lou Whitaker, Tony Fernandez, Bobby Bonilla, Robin Ventura, or Lance Parrish are on the same level as Lance Berkman??? That is completely rediculous.

You use that stat to support your case that players retire at an early age. Well obviously players like that retire at a younger age because they are not top notch players. And IF win shares was so important and these were such great players then why were they out of baseball at such a young age if they were so valuble to their teams? In fact looking at your list very few were ever even the best player on their team at any point during their careers. All these players were were nice supporting players on good teams. That's why they were out of baseball at a younger age. With the exception of a Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, or Bobby Bonilla for a brief amount of time none of the players I listed above were ever truly stars. How about instead of using a stat that uses educated guesses to assign certain values to players depending on how many games their teams wins, use a fact based stat such as AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, or even RC/27...Next you'll be listing the the players that had a higher career fielding % through age 29 that were out of baseball before age 35.

[Sockeye]

Again...no one is disputing that Berkman with 8-10 more years wouldn't be a good candidate for the Hall. What we dispute is the likelihood of that happening!

Okay I'll conceed you that point IF you prove it to me a different way. You seem to have all the stats at your finger tips. Tell me this. How many players in baseball history have hit 180 home runs through age 29? I'm guessing around 40-50 players? Take out the active players and of those retired players what is the average retirement age? I'll guess the average retirement age is no less than 37 or 38.

[Windy City Fan]

How many people in here honestly think that Chuck Knoblauch, Chet Lemon, Kent Hrbek, Gary Templeton, Lloyd Moseby, Travis Fryman, Carney Lansford, Steve Sax, Jason Thompson, Terry Puhl, Delino DeShields, Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, Alan Trammel, Jack Clark, Willie Randolph, Lou Whitaker, Tony Fernandez, Bobby Bonilla, Robin Ventura, or Lance Parrish are on the same level as Lance Berkman???

I'd take W. Clark, Trammel, and Ventura over Berkman without a second thought right now. I'd have to take a second look at Randolph, Whitaker, Parrish, Clark, Knoblauch, Lansford, Fernandez, and Fryman before deciding.

You may not like comparing Berkman to those guys, but how do you account for the early retirement of Canseco, Mattingly, Hrbek, McGwire? All were considered to be top level players in their day. Which Berkman is not considered to be today.

... use a fact based stat such as AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, or even RC/27

With the exception of OPS+, all of those stats do not adjust for league conditions. Berkman plays in an era of huge offensive production, compare his raw stats to a deadballer or a player from the 1960's and of course he's going to look good. Playing the era of lousy middle relievers, cracker jack ballparks, a tiny strike zone, and a juiced ball tends to help your raw offensive stats.

The point Chancellor was trying to make is that maintaining a productive career into your 40's is no safe bet.

You can cite Berkman's OPS+, and yes its a nice number, but he's not done yet. Rate stats tend to decline, sometimes sharply, as a player ages. If he plays another ten years and maintains that figure, then you can start comparing it to the careers of past players.

[Sockeye]

Berkman is in Griffey's league in much the same way that Nate Roverton is in Allen Iverson's. They are in the same league- literally- and that's it!

That is why Griffey's career OPS+ is 143 and RC/27 is 7.64 while Berkman's OPS+ is 147+ and RC/27 is 8.45

[Windy City Fan]

Okay I'll conceed you that point IF you prove it to me a different way. You seem to have all the stats at your finger tips. Tell me this. How many players in baseball history have hit 180 home runs through age 29? I'm guessing around 40-50 players? Take out the active players and of those retired players what is the average retirement age? I'll guess the average retirement age is no less than 37 or 38.

Here's a few guys who reached 180 HR or better before their 30th birthday. Many of them are fairly recent memories.

Mo Vaugh 190, retired age 35, 328 HR total
Tim Salmon 179 at 29, retired age 36, 290 total HR
Jose Canseco 245 at 29, retired age 37, 462 total HR
Daryl Stawberry 280 at 29, retired age 37, 335 total HR
Rocky Colavito 246 HR at 29, retired age 35, 374 total HR
Juan Gonzalez, 301 Hr at 29, technically still playing, 434 total HR
Roger Maris, 231 HR at 29, retired age 34, 275 total HR
Jesse Barfield 197 HR at 29, retired age 32, 241 total HR
Pete Incaviglia 183 HR at 29, retired age 34, 206 total HR
Dave Kingman 206 HR at 29, retired age 38, 442 total HR

*Please note, some of these players I included their HR totals from the season they turned 30 (i.e. they started the season at 29, but turned 30 during the season). Most of them had their birthday late in the season.

I'm not going to look up all the players that reached 180 at age 29, but it clearly is possible for players to flame out. And, in this era its even easier to rack up big numbers for a few years before ultimately flaming out.

[Windy City Fan]

That is why Griffey's career OPS+ is 143 and RC/27 is 7.64 while Berkman's OPS+ is 147+ and RC/27 is 8.45

Griffey has also played 6 seasons past Berkman's age of 29. He also came up much earlier, at age 19. In short, I'll take Griffey's 143 OPS+ in 9,072 plate appearances over Berkman's 147 in 3,813 plate appearances.

[Sockeye]

I'd take W. Clark, Trammel, and Ventura over Berkman without a second thought right now. I'd have to take a second look at Randolph, Whitaker, Parrish, Clark, Knoblauch, Lansford, Fernandez, and Fryman before deciding.

You may not like comparing Berkman to those guys, but how do you account for the early retirement of Canseco, Mattingly, Hrbek, McGwire? All were considered to be top level players in their day. Which Berkman is not considered to be today.



With the exception of OPS+, all of those stats do not adjust for league conditions. Berkman plays in an era of huge offensive production, compare his raw stats to a deadballer or a player from the 1960's and of course he's going to look good. Playing the era of lousy middle relievers, cracker jack ballparks, a tiny strike zone, and a juiced ball tends to help your raw offensive stats.

The point Chancellor was trying to make is that maintaining a productive career into your 40's is no safe bet.

You can cite Berkman's OPS+, and yes its a nice number, but he's not done yet. Rate stats tend to decline, sometimes sharply, as a player ages. If he plays another ten years and maintains that figure, then you can start comparing it to the careers of past players.

You can take Clark, Trammel, and Ventura all you want. None with the exception to Clark was anywhere close to Berkman in their prime. Trammell had an OPS+ of below 100 in 11 of his 20 seasons and a career OPS of just 110. Ventura's highest OPS+ was 132 and his career OPS+ was just 115.

Well lets see Canseco was blackballed and forced to retire, McGwire's body broke down due to the use of steroids, Mattingly had a bad back but his numbers were starting to decline from the age of 27 on.. Hrbek wasn't on a HOF pace so an early retirement really didn't change anything.

The reason I'm using OPS+ is for the fact that it compares Berkman to the other players of his era to show is superiority and as I've already addressed in the past that a decline in his average are likely but a sharp drop off is unreasonable as Bill James projections back me up on.

[Windy City Fan]

You can take Clark, Trammel, and Ventura all you want. None with the exception to Clark was anywhere close to Berkman in their prime. Trammell had an OPS+ of below 100 in 11 of his 20 seasons and a career OPS of just 110. Ventura's highest OPS+ was 132 and his career OPS+ was just 115.

Well lets see Canseco was blackballed and forced to retire, McGwire's body broke down due to the use of steroids, Mattingly had a bad back but his numbers were starting to decline from the age of 27 on.. Hrbek wasn't on a HOF pace so an early retirement really didn't change anything.

The reason I'm using OPS+ is for the fact that it compares Berkman to the other players of his era to show is superiority and as I've already addressed in the past that a decline in his average are likely but a sharp drop off is unreasonable as Bill James projections back me up on.

Trammel was Gold Glove shortstop. Ventura was a Gold Glove third baseman. Berkman's an average fielding corner outfielder. Of course Berkman's bat is going to be better, but defense and positional adjustment more than make up for it.

You're seriously going to tell me Canseco was black balled? It had nothing to do with his fading skills that reduced him to a one dimensional player that put up mediocre seasons for 4 of his last 5 years?

Again, no one here is saying that Berkman is going to flame out and suddenly drop off. We're just saying its way too early to start making projections and calling him a sure fire or even likely Hall of Famer. We've seen too many guys like Strawberry, Canseco, Mattingly, Clark, and others who started out great, but couldn't keep the pace.

[DoubleX]

So now you are comparing Lance Berkman to George Foster, Al Oliver, Jack Clark, Greg Luzinsk, Dave Kingman, and Bill Madlock?

Lets compare the numbers

AVG OBP SLG OPS+
Berkman: .302/.416/.557/147
Foster: .274/.338/.480/126
Oliver: .303/.344/.451/121
Clark: .267/.379/.476/137
Luzinski: .276/.363/.478/130
Kingman: .236/.302/.478/115
Madlock: .305/.365/.442/123

Now I don't suppose you can see the difference in these stats?

I'm not comparing them, I'm saying that you, if we lived in 1980, would perceive their then contemporaneous play as Hall of Fame quality. And again, your blind reliance on superficial stats shows that you really don't understand era adjustments in the least, nor are you understanding a thing called DECLINE PHASE! Berkman is tied with Piazza, Schmidt, Stargell, and Martinez you say? Talk to me in 5 years and then 10 years and tell me if Berkman is still tied with them or anywhere close. You're comparing a guy with 6 years and in his prime to guys who have played 15-20 years and have declined to bring their numbers down. If you want to make these absurd comparisons fair, you have to eliminate the other players' decline periods. Do you understand that? Do you think Berkman can compete with Schmidt et al. just based on on their 6 best years? Try looking at that.

[DoubleX]

Okay I'll conceed you that point IF you prove it to me a different way. You seem to have all the stats at your finger tips. Tell me this. How many players in baseball history have hit 180 home runs through age 29? I'm guessing around 40-50 players? Take out the active players and of those retired players what is the average retirement age? I'll guess the average retirement age is no less than 37 or 38.

And you post to me and say you understand era adjustments? I also suppose you'd be happy with Lance Berkman playing SS, because apparently the defensive skill required to play SS, usually at the expense of offense doesn't mean anything. It's amazing that managers haven't figured this out yet in 130 years! They need to have Lance Berkman's all over the diamond because defense does not matter that much when guys hit like Lance Berkman at positions like catcher and shortstop and second base. This will revolutionize the game! We need Berkman's everywhere! Whatever dude...

[DoubleX]

You can take Clark, Trammel, and Ventura all you want. None with the exception to Clark was anywhere close to Berkman in their prime. Trammell had an OPS+ of below 100 in 11 of his 20 seasons and a career OPS of just 110. Ventura's highest OPS+ was 132 and his career OPS+ was just 115.

And you post this and say you understand positional defensive adjusments? You have absolutely no perspective. Try looking up how many shortstops in 130 years have a career OPS+ better than Trammell's. Seriously, try it. Perhaps this will help you to understand that putting up corner OF or 1B type OPS+ at a defensive position is extremely rare, and it's ludicrous to compare a corner OFer to a middle IFer on nothing but OPS+. It really shows a serious lack of understanding for the game, how it's played, and what the purpose of each position is.

This thread is innane and it's not worth my aggravation anymore. I'm bailing. Everyone else, please enjoy!

[jalbright]

Actually there are 7 players that have done it not 6. Berkman will likely be the 8th to do it. Obviously with any such projection there is always that chance of a career ending injury (Albert Belle) or a series of minor injuries that cuts down on a plays career numbers (Ken Griffey Jr). I don't see any evidence of that happening in Lance Berkman's case. It's actually pretty rare for star players to suffer a career ending injury. It happens but is definitely the exception rather than the norm. As for Berkman's numbers not comparing to the other 7 players to do it. That isn't the least bit important seeing as how they are among the top 20 players to ever play the game. The fact that Berkman is even on pace to be in that elte company says a great deal about his career to date.

First, any projection system, to get the most accurate results possible, should try to hit the middle of the expected range of results. I would think an error rate of +/- 5% on the projected counting stats would be an excellent achievement, but this is problematic for a case like Berkman's, which is close to the borderlines for such counting stats. Every single hit, home run, etc, that Berkman would fall below the projected number would lessen his chances. Granted, if he moved up, the reverse would be true. I would assume your projections follow this principle of aiming for the middle of the expected range of results. If they do not, they are worthless, at least without a proper disclaimer.

Second, if it's so important that Berkman projects into such heady company with your argument about a combination of hits, homers, and OBP (IIRC), then why isn't Vada Pinson in the Hall? He's an example given by Bill James in Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame? I don't know if this example is still true, but it was in 1994 when the book was written. You could get Vada Pinson as the sixth and final member of a group with Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan and Reggie Jackson using the criteria of 2500 hits, 200 homers and 200 stolen bases. It's the same argument, with the same exact problem--Pinson's at the bottom of the "group" rather than representative of it.

James says the following:

It is possible to form a similar group for any Hall of Fame candidate....since every player is unique, you can always form a group of players, all of whom are in the Hall except for our man.

To prove his point, he did it for Del Ennis, though that one fell through once Jim Rice became eligible--but I'd venture a guess it could be resurrected somehow.

Jim Albright

[Sockeye]

Here's a few guys who reached 180 HR or better before their 30th birthday. Many of them are fairly recent memories.

Mo Vaugh 190, retired age 35, 328 HR total
Tim Salmon 179 at 29, retired age 36, 290 total HR
Jose Canseco 245 at 29, retired age 37, 462 total HR
Daryl Stawberry 280 at 29, retired age 37, 335 total HR
Rocky Colavito 246 HR at 29, retired age 35, 374 total HR
Juan Gonzalez, 301 Hr at 29, technically still playing, 434 total HR
Roger Maris, 231 HR at 29, retired age 34, 275 total HR
Jesse Barfield 197 HR at 29, retired age 32, 241 total HR
Pete Incaviglia 183 HR at 29, retired age 34, 206 total HR
Dave Kingman 206 HR at 29, retired age 38, 442 total HR

*Please note, some of these players I included their HR totals from the season they turned 30 (i.e. they started the season at 29, but turned 30 during the season). Most of them had their birthday late in the season.

I'm not going to look up all the players that reached 180 at age 29, but it clearly is possible for players to flame out. And, in this era its even easier to rack up big numbers for a few years before ultimately flaming out.

No question it is possible for players to flame out early. But the question is how "likely" is it. Oh and btw Tim Salmon is still active and playing for the Angels this season.

For each of the players you listed that flamed out early you also have players such as

Dave Winfield 154 at 29, retired age 43, 465 total HR
Carl Yastrzemski 162 at 29, retired age 43, 452 total HR
Hank Aaron 342 at 29, retired age 42, 755 total HR
Willie Mays 279 at 29, retired age 42, 660 total HR
Willie McCovey 232 at 29, retired age 42, 521 total HR
Stan Musial 146 at 29, retired age 42, 475 total HR
Willie Stargell 165 at 29, retired age 42, 475 total HR
Darrell Evans 130 at 29, retired age 42, 414 total HR
Reggie Jackson 254 at 29, retired age 41, 563 total HR
Ted Williams 197 at 29, retired age 41, 521 total HR
Eddie Murray 258 at 29, retired age 41, 504 total HR
Andre Dawson 165 at 29, retired age 41, 438 total HR

[Sockeye]

I'm not comparing them, I'm saying that you, if we lived in 1980, would perceive their then contemporaneous play as Hall of Fame quality. And again, your blind reliance on superficial stats shows that you really don't understand era adjustments in the least, nor are you understanding a thing called DECLINE PHASE! Berkman is tied with Piazza, Schmidt, Stargell, and Martinez you say? Talk to me in 5 years and then 10 years and tell me if Berkman is still tied with them or anywhere close. You're comparing a guy with 6 years and in his prime to guys who have played 15-20 years and have declined to bring their numbers down. If you want to make these absurd comparisons fair, you have to eliminate the other players' decline periods. Do you understand that? Do you think Berkman can compete with Schmidt et al. just based on on their 6 best years? Try looking at that.

What you are doing is way overstating the "decline phase" Yes, Berkman is quite likely to have a decline phase as every player not named Barry Bonds has. The issue is how much will his numbers decline. At just 30 this season I doubt we'll start to see a decline for at least another 4-5 seasons. By that time Berkman should have 5000-5500 career AB's with a OBP/SLG of around .416/.557 So then he declines for his last 6-7 seasons or his last 2500-3000 AB's. All he has to do is average a OBP/SLG of .375/.540 to finish his career with a .400 OBP/.550 SLG

[holyroman]

half or more of these are ridiculous, sockeye you will lose on this vote because it is premature. and people do not watch the astros. thats fine also
Berkman is a good defensive first baseman so who-ever said that does not know what they are talking about, that is all

[holyroman]

Don't you think I'm aware of the numbers? The numbers you posted don't speak for themselves because they either A) Don't speak to longevity, or B) Don't reflect the fact that Berkman is a lumbering corner OFer while many of these players have value in defense and on the bases in addition to having good bat, and you haven't accounted for this by just blindly looking at offensive statistics. Berkman' superficial stats ar also greatly helped by that bandbox in Houston, but your blind reference to the numbers does not reflect that either.
what are you talking about bagwell is done berkman is a first baseman was in college was over half of last year is this year and a damn good one.
secondly minute maid park is anything but a bandbow. look up some facts on the parks dimensions and wall heights and the fact that berkman is a lefthanded hitter. your'e arguement doesn't wash

[Chisox]

I understand the positional adjustments perfectly as I understand the era adjustments but you are ignoring the obvious. If there was a .005 difference in AVG or a .010 difference in OBP or a .015 difference in SLG then you might have a case. But when you have a .030 lower AVG, a .060 lower OBP, or a .090 lower SLG then it doesn't matter if they are the best defensive player to ever play the position it doesn't make up for the huge difference in offensive production. Era adjustments? His OPS+ is 147 which is tied for 43rd all time with Edgar Martinez, Mike Piazza, Mike Schmidt, and Willie Stargell so that argument doesn't hold water either.

Congratulations! You just said that Edgar Martinez is better than Johnny Bench!!!

[Chisox]

There are so many flaws with your post that I don't even know where to begin and I doubt I'll be able to touch on all of them. If I tried Berkman will be in the HOF before I get finished.

Let me begin by saying if you twist the stats around long enough you'll be able to get them to support your argument no matter how obsurd it is. First the stat you are using "win shares" is flawed. It gives more emphasis on the teams performance than the individual players performance. The system itself contains a great deal of arbitrary numbers and educated guesses. How many people in here honestly think that Chuck Knoblauch, Chet Lemon, Kent Hrbek, Gary Templeton, Lloyd Moseby, Travis Fryman, Carney Lansford, Steve Sax, Jason Thompson, Terry Puhl, Delino DeShields, Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, Alan Trammel, Jack Clark, Willie Randolph, Lou Whitaker, Tony Fernandez, Bobby Bonilla, Robin Ventura, or Lance Parrish are on the same level as Lance Berkman??? That is completely rediculous.

Yes, it is absolutely rediculous to say that Lance Berkman is anywhere near Will Clark, who should be in the HOF, Allan Trammell, who should be in the HOF, Lou Whitaker, who should be in the HOF, Robin Ventura, who I believe should be inducted when his time comes, and Lance Parrish who should be in the HOF.
Not to mention that Chuck Knoblauch has a legitimate case as one of the 25 best ever at his position (I've had him there, but not now) and Willie Randolph who I do have there. Bobby Bonilla's another one you can add to that category.

[Chisox]

Mel Ott: 2876/511/.414
Stan Musial: 3630/475/.417
Mickey Mantle: 2415/536/.421
Jimmie Foxx: 2646/534/.428
Lou Gehrig: 2721/493/.447
Babe Ruth: 2873/714/.474
Ted Williams: 2654/521/.482
Lance Berkman: 2449/446/.410?
Which one of those doesn't belong?
Which one of those isn't real?

Pretty elite company if you ask me. And you are suggesting he is
only 24th best LFer of all time?? I think not!!
Absolutely not.
01.Barry Bonds
02.Ted Williams
03.Stan Musial
04.Rickey Henderson
05.Al Simmons
06.Carl Yastrzemski
07.Goose Goslin
08.Ed Delahanty
09.Willie Stargell
10.Billy Williams
11.Pete Rose
12.Bob Johnson
13.Tim Raines
14.Fred Clarke
15.Zach Wheat
16.Sherry Magee
17.Ralph Kiner
18.Minnie Minoso
19.Joe Medwick
20.Jesse Burkett
21.Harry Stovey
22.Joe Kelley
23.Lou Brock
24.Joe Carter
25.Luis Gonzalez

Nowhere in the top 25.

[holyroman]

FOR THE LAST TIME LANCE IS NOT A LEFT FIELDER. know your facts people he's played a year at centerfield, rightfield leftfield and now that bagwell is unofficially done as an astro he is back to his natural position of first base. where he is a damn good fielder. i would say above average because i watch 90% of astros games i can say this can you ? obviously not.

this vote is ridiculous at this point in his career, i agree, but it is also ridiculous to say he is a tier two player.

[leecemark]

--Berkman has played more LF than all other positions combined and 5 times more LF than 1B. Maybe he'll eventually be a career 1B, but to call him one now is as premature as discussing his Hall of Fame qualifications. Of course, he wouldn't be a top 25 1B anymore than he is a LF at this point.

[holyroman]

not all time of course not that was the original premature arguement but, present day he may be the 2nd or 3rd best first baseman in the national league.

[Chisox]

I don't get the "second tier" guy label. There is nothing second tier about Berkman. He is one of the 10 best active players

01.Barry Bonds
02.Roger Clemens*
03.Jeff Bagwell*
04.Ken Griffey, Jr.
05.Greg Maddux
06.Randy Johnson
07.Alex Rodriguez
08.Frank Thomas
09.Pedro Martinez
10.Craig Biggio
Absolutely no way he's in their class

11.Tom Glavine
12.Chipper Jones
13.Scott Rolen
14.Jim Edmonds
15.Bernie Williams
16.Manny Ramirez
17.Gary Sheffield
18.Sammy Sosa
19.Kevin Brown
20.Mike Mussina
21.John Smoltz
22.Curt Schilling
23.Jeff Kent
24.Rafael Palmeiro

No way he's in their class, either.
And I'm sure I missed one.

And that's not including:
Jason Kendall
Benito Santiago
Jim Thome
John Olerud
Bret Boone
Derek Jeter
Miguel Tejada
Omar Vizquel
Luis Gonzalez
Andruw Jones
Steve Finley
Kenny Lofton
Vladimir Guerrero

and I'm sure I could come up with other actives who I wouldn't put him ahead of all-time.

[Chisox]

FOR THE LAST TIME LANCE IS NOT A LEFT FIELDER. know your facts people he's played a year at centerfield, rightfield leftfield and now that bagwell is unofficially done as an astro he is back to his natural position of first base. where he is a damn good fielder. i would say above average because i watch 90% of astros games i can say this can you ? obviously not.

this vote is ridiculous at this point in his career, i agree, but it is also ridiculous to say he is a tier two player.

Entering the year he played:

LF* 528 G
RF* 191 G
CF* 165 G
1B* 103 G

from baseball-reference
I'd say that qualifies as a left fielder

[Chisox]

I realize this may be a bit premature but I was discussing Lance Berkman with a few friends of mine. He's 30 and in his 8th season. I would like to get some thoughts on his career thus far and if possible some insight on where you think his career totals will end up? I know this calls for a lot of speculation. So I'll be the first to throw some projections out there.

I think he could very well end up with

Games 2332
At-Bats 8102
Runs 1522
Hits 2445
Doubles 588
Triples 46
Home Runs 462
RBI's 1586
Stolen Bases 113
Walks 1522
AVG .302
OBP .416
SLG .557

If he ends up with those, he'd be Mel Ott. Although I highly doubt he'd end up with those.
I actually don't think this is as absurd of a poll as most do (its CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER than Beltre and even Beltran), but we really need to keep things in perspective.

[DoubleX]

not all time of course not that was the original premature arguement but, present day he may be the 2nd or 3rd best first baseman in the national league.

I think Albert Pujols, Derrek Lee, Carlos Delgado, and Todd Helton might have something to say about that.

Also, when I have some time later I'll post the park factors of Minutemaid and show you that it is indeed one of the more offensively favored parks in the NL.

[holyroman]

sure if he went in the hall today(which is why this post is so ridiculous)it would be considered he spent most of his time in left field. all i am saying is for the remainder of his career he will be at first where he is very good defensively and played all four years at college and in the minors. he was playing in the outfield to get his bat in the lineup behind bagwell.

[holyroman]

I think Albert Pujols, Derrek Lee, Carlos Delgado, and Todd Helton might have something to say about that.

Also, when I have some time later I'll post the park factors of Minutemaid and show you that it is indeed one of the more offensively favored parks in the NL.

i have albert for sure ahead of him right now.
lee is a pretty good comparison right now
berkman probably has a better average and on on base percentage
then delgado close behind same story
then helton(coors field inflation)

you want to talk about home field adjustments
how about two guys on this list
coors field and wrigley with the wind blowing out, remember lance is a lefty and i bet if you look up his splits over a full year and his career i bet he hits the same or more homers on the road.

i'm getting tired of defending mulit-millionaires though, so here's to letting them decide it on the field!

[Chisox]

i have albert for sure ahead of him right now.
lee is a pretty good comparison right now
berkman probably has a better average and on on base percentage
then delgado close behind same story
then helton(coors field inflation)

you want to talk about home field adjustments
how about two guys on this list
coors field and wrigley with the wind blowing out, remember lance is a lefty and i bet if you look up his splits over a full year and his career i bet he hits the same or more homers on the road.

i'm getting tired of defending mulit-millionaires though, so here's to letting them decide it on the field!
from retrosheet through 2004

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF XI ROE GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG

Home 398 1347 256 418 101 13 64 251 254 25 257 18 1 13 0 16 23 21 12 .310 .423 .547
Away 377 1336 260 396 94 4 92 284 247 28 285 19 0 13 0 13 24 19 14 .296 .410 .579

I'm actually beginning to think that he's been HURT by his home park. WOW!
Wrigley
Riverfront/Great America
Miller/Milwaukee County
Busch
Now I'm beginning to re-think that. :confused::confused:

[holyroman]

i figured he had hit more away.. as minute maid is not as hitter friendly as one would think, especially for lefty's

[Edgartohof]

Congratulations! You just said that Edgar Martinez is better than Johnny Bench!!!

Now many will attest to this, I am probably the biggest and most ardent supporter of Edgar here, but come on now! :laugh

[digglahhh]

Okay, so in the NL we have Delgado, Lee, Pujols and Helton.

In the AL we have Texeira and Konerko plus a couple of guys who would be 1Bs if they couldn't DH: Ortiz, Hafner, Giambi.

Now, you can make arguments that Berkman is better than some of these guys, I won't deny that. But, the point is that Berkman, though a very good player, is hardly a standout even at his own position.


BTW, Bagwell did most of his work in the Astrodome and that deserves mention.

[BoSox Rule]

Comparisions between Lance Berkman and Ken Griffey, Jr./Jim Edmonds are hilarious.

Ken Griffey, Jr: .314 EqA, 133.2 WARP
Jim Edmonds: .308 EqA, 103.9 WARP
Lance Berkman: .320 EqA in just 3209 AB's, 54.0 WARP

I am not a big fan of the favorite toy but 2400/400/.400 is a ridiculous projection for Lance Berkman who only has 3200 AB's and 900 games.

The favorite toy projects him to finish with about 350 HR and a 29% chance of 400. It also projects him to finish with 1950 hits and a 19% chance at 2400 hits. How he is on pace to do this I have no idea.

I seriously doubt you have much of a track record doing this. Anybody and their mother could have projected A-Rod to be a HOF'er in 1999, or Manny in 1996, or Bonds in 1993.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What do you all thing of Lance Berkman's chances at the HOF?

Right now, Berkman is at 202 HRs with a .303 BA. He's got 693 RBIs and 1,042 hits lifetime. He's 30, born in February, 1976.

If Berkman were 3 years younger, he'd be a good bet for the HOF, but he's not. He's 30, and he was a college boy; he was 24 before he became a regular, and even that was only for a little more than a half season in 2000.

On the other hand, Berkman does well on the HOF monitor:

Black Ink: Batting - 6 (322) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 54 (448) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 32.0 (236) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 61.0 (285) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

He's playing 1B this year, but he's played CF and he's good on defense in RF. His career is truncated a bit by position, but by the standards of a corner OF/1B, his numbers are OK. He's got some back problems, but they don't seem to be pulling him down this year; maybe the switch to 1B did the trick.

Berkman's not likely to get to 3,000 hits or 500 HRs, but what if he gets to 2,300 hits with 400 HRs and keeps his BA over .300 with a good OBP? If he plays until age 37 this is possible. I think Berkman's back will limit his longevity, but my projections here represent an OPTIMISTIC view of what Berkman may do.

What do you all think? Can he do it?

[mtortolero]

With those figures that you say looks that Berkman will be finnishing his carrer very close of Larry Walker's figures. However, as Bob Abreu and Brian Giles, looks as he is the kind of hitter that is building a fine careers always being top ten in different categories although not as leader of any (maybe excepting walks), ala Bob Johnson.
Probably at the end of their carrers, all they will share with Johnson the room of the quiet and excellent but forgotten players in the history of baseball that never reached 500 hr, 3000 hits, 1500 rbi or any other HOF milestone that buy the ticket to be in a plaque.

[holyroman]

I dont want to vote on him yet, but i will say he is the second best player in the nl this year behind pujlos only in terms of production.

[KCGHOST]

I don't know how to vote "yes or no" on a guy of Berkmans age with his low counting numbers and high quality. He needs a lot of things to make it to the HoF, particularly good health. The guy need 5 more years like he is having and a nice decline. That is a lot to ask.

[jalbright]

We did this a few months back in this thread: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=42057 The consensus was no then, and I don't think enough has happened to change that view.

Jim Albright

[digglahhh]

Personally I think that other than Pujols, the only real MVP candidates in the NL are Wright and Berkman, with Nomar as an honorable mention.

I don't think Berkman will do it, longevity will probably be the stumbling block. But, I think his prime as a whole will probably be HOF level, he might also be one of those guys whose career pattern looks weird- I don't trust his health. He may end up with partial seasons breaking up his prime which is usually terminal for the HOF resume of borderline guys.

[ChrisLDuncan]

He has the stats, he's a beast at the dish...what does he need to get in?

[Cougar]

At least a few more years at the same pace, but not 10. Five, minimum, with a decline period.

That option's not in the poll. It's either three (my interpretation of "a few") or 10.

Three more years -- not nearly good enough.

Ten more years -- closing in on 600 HR with a .300 average.

We need something in between.

[ChrisLDuncan]

At least a few more years at the same pace, but not 10. Five, minimum, with a decline period.

That option's not in the poll. It's either three (my interpretation of "a few") or 10.

Three more years -- not nearly good enough.

Ten more years -- closing in on 600 HR with a .300 average.

We need something in between.

Well a few means abiut five

[Colorado Express]

5-7 more VERY GOOD-to-GREAT years...

[fenrir]

1B with power...not exactly anything rare in this era. he's borderline

[Fuzzy Bear]

Berkman is not consistent from year to year; each year his stats take on a different form, to some degree, than the year before. When you talk about Berkman keeping up the pace, you wonder which pace he'll be keeping up.

Berkman projects out to be a borderline HOFer, but that's if he plays a full career. He's stinking up the joint this year, and may be in early decline. Berkman has had injuries and he's a bit heavy, so I don't view him as a good bet to age well.

I also think he'll fall a little short of 500 HRs, and his BA will drop below .300; he'll probably finish in the .290 range.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Berkman is not consistent from year to year; each year his stats take on a different form, to some degree, than the year before. When you talk about Berkman keeping up the pace, you wonder which pace he'll be keeping up.


His OPS+ numbers.

[Fuzzy Bear]

His OPS+ numbers.

A guy with consistent OPS numbers who arrives at them a different way from year to year will have a career that appears more truncated that a player who has a lower OPS but more consistent triple crown stats.

It may not be right, but its the way it is.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have always discounted Berkman, but we need to take him seriously as a HOF candidate.

Berkman has a .734 lifetime Offensive Winning Percentage. This may drop over the years, but his .659 OWP last year was his second worst, and it was an off-year. His .659 off year was a typical Jim Rice prime year. He's on a pace to where if he stays in the game, he'll make it to 500 HRs, and he may not need it for the HOF.

He's not there yet; he's only got 9 seasons in the bigs. If last year is a start of an early decline, well, that won't be good. But if all Berkman does is level off in the high .600s in OWP, he'll rack up the kind of numbers that will strengthen his candidacy.

Berkman may be the most underrated player in baseball today. I don't think people, myself included, have fully realized what an offensive force he has been this decade. He's been a truly GREAT hitter, and mentioning his name in the same breath as the HOF is not silly at all.

[holyroman]

well said.
this thread is typical of national opinion of Lance Berkman and the Astros.
people are not watching the Astros nationally. for the fourth largest media market in the country, they don't have a national cable station that they play on, they don't have the long history and tradition of some other clubs and they don't get the play on sports center as such.
Berkman is not a lumbering left fielder, he has not benefitted from playing at Minute Maid Park, and people just don't know, so he is underated

[dgarza]

Right now I have no clue as to his chances.
Right now, he's on a good path and is approaching HOF territory, but it's hard to get a read on his chances.
He's pretty underrated, and that clearly does not help.

[digglahhh]

Berkman got a late start, and he's going to need longevity to become a serious candidate, especially since he's basically a 1B now.

Five or six more seasons, would put him in his late 30s. Assuming he has three more near career norms and then begins to decline, he'll have a similar offensive resume (and service time) to Larry Walker (possibly with more consistency). He'll trail Walker in terms of defense and baserunning though.

Walker probably won't get a fair shake because of Colorado, so maybe he's a bad comparison.

The point is Berkman is on something of a legit trajectory, but he's going to have to be pretty productive well into his thirties.

[Go get em Tigers]

He could finish his career approaching both 500 HR's and 1500 RBI's. Of course, he could fade at any minute, just like every other ball player, so all we can do is watch...

[willshad]

Assuming Berkman can go on to have a monster, MVP season, does this year put him over the top, and into the 'hall of fame lock' category? Not to say that if he retired after the season he would go in...but that even if he started to decline after this year, he would.

[jalbright]

we're going to merge four Lance Berkman threads under the newest one, but reset the poll to allow new perspectives on his ongoing career to determine the results.

[Brad Harris]

Assuming Berkman can go on to have a monster, MVP season, does this year put him over the top, and into the 'hall of fame lock' category? Not to say that if he retired after the season he would go in...but that even if he started to decline after this year, he would.

Not necessarily though an MVP season would be an enormous boost to his candidacy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Assuming Berkman can go on to have a monster, MVP season, does this year put him over the top, and into the 'hall of fame lock' category? Not to say that if he retired after the season he would go in...but that even if he started to decline after this year, he would.

He's having that kind of season, so far. In addition, his play is CLEARLY a reason his team, predicted to finish near the bottom of his decision, is in contention.

Berkman's season reflects the notion that last season was merely an off year, and NOT a sign of early decline. I am more optimistic of his long-term HOF prospects now than I ever have been.

[STLCards2]

He's having that kind of season, so far. In addition, his play is CLEARLY a reason his team, predicted to finish near the bottom of his decision, is in contention.

Berkman's season reflects the notion that last season was merely an off year, and NOT a sign of early decline. I am more optimistic of his long-term HOF prospects now than I ever have been.

I would agree. He is having a great season. He should be in MVP contention by the end of the year. Chipper has to stay healthy, and Utley is dangerous too. There is also a guy in St. Louis who is hitting .350, with a slugging % near .600 and an OB% near .500 who hasn't even had a monster week yet. Either way, an MVP-type season will bode well for Berkman. He is making a HOF case, but still needs several more years to get beyond the Carlos Delgado - close, but no cigar-range.

[willshad]

I think Berkman will run away with the MVP. Jones wont keep it up or will get hurt...Utley wont be in his league, Pujols wont have the power numbers as he walks too much. It will be much like A-Rod last year.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would agree. He is having a great season. He should be in MVP contention by the end of the year. Chipper has to stay healthy, and Utley is dangerous too. There is also a guy in St. Louis who is hitting .350, with a slugging % near .600 and an OB% near .500 who hasn't even had a monster week yet. Either way, an MVP-type season will bode well for Berkman. He is making a HOF case, but still needs several more years to get beyond the Carlos Delgado - close, but no cigar-range.

Truthfully, Berkman is beyond the Carlos Delgado class right now. He's a much more valuable player, offensively AND defensively, and has been for his entire career.

Berkman's a far more well-rounded hitter. Delgado is a pure slugger, and while he's a borderline HOF case, his poor hitting for average has been disguised a bit by the era he played in.

[willshad]

Truthfully, Berkman is beyond the Carlos Delgado class right now. He's a much more valuable player, offensively AND defensively, and has been for his entire career.

Berkman's a far more well-rounded hitter. Delgado is a pure slugger, and while he's a borderline HOF case, his poor hitting for average has been disguised a bit by the era he played in.

I dont see how Berkman is better than Delgado was at the same age. Theyre both pretty even..mixing monster seasons with good to very good ones. Delgado didnt hit for a great average, but he walked alot so his OBP were always good. he also had his 2000 season, which was better than any Berkman season so far. if he had won MVP in 2000 and 2003 (both of which he deserved I think) he'd be looked at as a definite hall of famer in my book. Of course he hasnt aged well, and Berkman will probbaly pass him (especially if he can keep hitting like he has so far this season). How does Berkman compare to Magglio Ordonez, who also could make a hall of fame case for himself with a few more great seasons?

[STLCards2]

Truthfully, Berkman is beyond the Carlos Delgado class right now. He's a much more valuable player, offensively AND defensively, and has been for his entire career.

Berkman's a far more well-rounded hitter. Delgado is a pure slugger, and while he's a borderline HOF case, his poor hitting for average has been disguised a bit by the era he played in.

Berkman's defensive advantage is large, but not enough at this point to make up for the PA gap between the two players. I do think Berkman will finish with a noticeably better career than Delgado, but if both of their careers ended today, delgado would be closer, in my opinion.

[AstrosFan]

I did a BaseRuns analysis of Lance Berkman's career, using as the weights here: http://www.tangotiger.net/bsrexpl.html, and using as many of the categories listed there as I could. All stats came from retrosheet. I calculated individual BaseRuns by calculating it for the Astros for each year, calculating them without Berkman, and subtracting the latter from the former. Data runs from 1999-2007. Then, I added in the park-adjusted runs context, and calculated offensive games created. Here are the results:

Fname Lname Year Team BsR *LgR/G GmCrtd
Lance Berkman 1999 HOU 10.7 5.00 2.14
Lance Berkman 2000 HOU 68.7 5.35 12.83
Lance Berkman 2001 HOU 130.6 5.03 25.96
Lance Berkman 2002 HOU 116.9 4.72 24.78
Lance Berkman 2003 HOU 101.9 4.75 21.46
Lance Berkman 2004 HOU 119.0 4.73 25.13
Lance Berkman 2005 HOU 83.4 4.49 18.56
Lance Berkman 2006 HOU 116.6 4.76 24.49
Lance Berkman 2007 HOU 97.3 4.66 20.87
Total 845.0 4.83 174.84

I wish I knew what would be considered Hall of Fame Level, but it looks as if Berkman is consistently a high quality hitter.

[STLCards2]

it looks as if Berkman is consistently a high quality hitter.

That is pretty safe to say!

[Fuzzy Bear]

I did a BaseRuns analysis of Lance Berkman's career, using as the weights here: http://www.tangotiger.net/bsrexpl.html, and using as many of the categories listed there as I could. All stats came from retrosheet. I calculated individual BaseRuns by calculating it for the Astros for each year, calculating them without Berkman, and subtracting the latter from the former. Data runs from 1999-2007. Then, I added in the park-adjusted runs context, and calculated offensive games created. Here are the results:

Fname Lname Year Team BsR *LgR/G GmCrtd
Lance Berkman 1999 HOU 10.7 5.00 2.14
Lance Berkman 2000 HOU 68.7 5.35 12.83
Lance Berkman 2001 HOU 130.6 5.03 25.96
Lance Berkman 2002 HOU 116.9 4.72 24.78
Lance Berkman 2003 HOU 101.9 4.75 21.46
Lance Berkman 2004 HOU 119.0 4.73 25.13
Lance Berkman 2005 HOU 83.4 4.49 18.56
Lance Berkman 2006 HOU 116.6 4.76 24.49
Lance Berkman 2007 HOU 97.3 4.66 20.87
Total 845.0 4.83 174.84

I wish I knew what would be considered Hall of Fame Level, but it looks as if Berkman is consistently a high quality hitter.


Is Berkman the most underrated superstar in today's game? I think he just might be.

[Zito75]

I'm going to yes on Berkman, not just because he is re-inventing baseball this year. He's still got some good years left and if he can keep the mojo going, he's got a shot. Someone from this generation has got to Hall bound besides A-Rod and Manny Ramirez.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

How does Berkman compare to Magglio Ordonez, who also could make a hall of fame case for himself with a few more great seasons?

Funny you should mention Magglio, because I've been thinking that Berkman is currently doing exactly what Magglio did in '07 - drastically improving his HOF chances with a monster year. Overall, Berkman is a little bit ahead of Mags though. Even with that career year, Magglio is still unlikely to get in. He only has 250 homers and 1,700 hits at age 34. If his career average dips below .300, he loses the only ace up his sleeve. Berkman has been in the MVP mix a few more times. Although no one could touch Barry Bonds, Berkman was a contender in '01 and '02, then again in '06. The way '08 is shaping up, he will be in the mix again and should widen the gap between him and Mags even more. He's also a couple years younger and probably has more good/healthy seasons in front of him. What about Berkman's HOF chances versus Todd Helton's???

[STLCards2]

I'm going to yes on Berkman, not just because he is re-inventing baseball this year. He's still got some good years left and if he can keep the mojo going, he's got a shot. Someone from this generation has got to Hall bound besides A-Rod and Manny Ramirez.

What do you consider "this generation"? What about Albert? Ichiro? Guerrero? Piazza only came in to league a couple of years before Ramirez and A-Rod.

[Sockeye]

It has been about 3 years since the last series of potential HOFer polls I ran. Thought I would do another series of polls. Below is a list of the players stats to date. Unlike the last series of polls I'm not going to list any career projections.

Lance Berkman at age 32

1371 games
4802 at-bats
896 runs
1449 hits
328 doubles
24 triples
288 home runs
961 RBI
72 stolen bases
883 BB
.302 AVG
.413 OBP
.560 SLG
148 OPS+
2689 total bases
5792 PA's
1158 runs created
8.8 RC/G
.737 OWP
377.2 batting runs
35.1 batting wins
8 black ink
96 gray ink
39.2 HOF standards
93.0 HOF monitor
.320 EQA
50.6 WARP1
51.0 WARP3
562 BRAR
405 BRAA
84 FRAR
-41 FRAA
247 win shares

[jalbright]

merged with prior thread, but with new poll.

[Sockeye]

merged with prior thread, but with new poll.

It should be noted that the prior poll results were 6 yes, and 7 no.

[Brad Harris]

He's definitely on track.

[STLCards2]

How many contemporary firstbasemen/DH's will be in the discussion? Pujols obviously. Helton looks like he may be running out of steam (not trying to start another Helton for HOF debate), Delgado, Thome, Thomas, etc. will be long retired. Ortiz, Teixiera, Howard and Fielder? I wouldn't bet the farm on any of them at this point, but not long-shots either.

I think he has a pretty good shot at standing out at his position. One of the biggest reasons some guys don't make the HOF is if their position happens to be very deep at the time. I don't see that hurting Berkman here.

[bambambaseball]

His last name begins with a B and he plays for the Astros. Need I say more? :lookitup:dance:cap:

[STLCards2]

His last name begins with a B and he plays for the Astros. Need I say more? :lookitup:dance:cap:

Then Kevin Bass and Brandon Backe are in for the shock of their lives!

[jjpm74]

I voted no only because too early to tell was not an option. Berkman is definitely on a HOF path, but voting yes at this point is too speculative.

[Sockeye]

I voted no only because too early to tell was not an option. Berkman is definitely on a HOF path, but voting yes at this point is too speculative.

Let me ask you then. Do you support Ralph Kiner being in the HOF? Compare Berkman's career numbers to that of Ralph Kiner.

Berkman: 148 OPS+, 8.8 RC/G, .737 OWP, .320 EQA, 74.2 WARP3, 247 Win shares, 5792 PA
Kiner: 149 OPS+, 7.8 RC/G, .731 OWP, .316 EQA, 71.3 WARP3, 242 Win shares, 6256 PA

[STLCards2]

Well, since "too early to tell" is not an option, I voted "yes" since I feel it is more likely that he will than he won't. He is at the point in which it would take an injury or abormaly poor decline phase to put him out of a HOF path.

[Jsquared83]

I dont think we've had any discussion about Lance in a while so I'll throw it out there. After a slow start, he seems on pace for another 30/100+ year with the average creeping up and a solid OBP as always. Just reached 300 HR and 1000 RBI at 33 with a career OPS+ of 147 (.300/.412/.558). His counting numbers arent there yet but will he be deserving after another 2-3 solid years?

[Ace Venom]

I give him a strong maybe. Since power numbers are declining across the league, Berkman has a better shot of getting in.

[Jsquared83]

I also think his ability to walk will keep him productive into his late 30s barring injury.

[brett]

If he hits 8000 plate appearances without losing much of his rates, he'll seriously enter the discussion.

[dgarza]

I think he's already reached the cusp. He'd have to severely crash not to make it in my eyes.

OPS+, 1st 11 Seasons, 1400 games:

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Ted Williams 190 1427 1939 1952 20-33
2 Rogers Hornsby 183 1400 1915 1925 19-29
3 Mickey Mantle 175 1552 1951 1961 19-29
4 Stan Musial 172 1524 1941 1952 20-31
5 Frank Thomas 168 1530 1990 2000 22-32
6 Johnny Mize 164 1522 1936 1949 23-36
7 Barry Bonds 161 1583 1986 1996 21-31
8 Honus Wagner 160 1462 1897 1907 23-33
9 Willie Mays 159 1534 1951 1962 20-31
10 Joe DiMaggio 158 1481 1936 1949 21-34
11 Hank Aaron 157 1656 1954 1964 20-30
12 Jeff Bagwell 156 1637 1991 2001 23-33
13 Mel Ott 156 1438 1926 1936 17-27
14 Frank Robinson 154 1657 1956 1966 20-30
15 Eddie Mathews 152 1634 1952 1962 20-30
16 Reggie Jackson 151 1511 1967 1977 21-31
17 Mike Schmidt 150 1484 1972 1982 22-32
18 Vladimir Guerrero 149 1457 1996 2006 21-31
19 Jason Giambi 149 1483 1995 2005 24-34
20 Ken Griffey 149 1535 1989 1999 19-29
21 Ralph Kiner 149 1472 1946 1955 23-32
22 Lance Berkman 147 1445 1999 2009 23-33
23 Harry Heilmann 146 1433 1914 1925 19-30
24 Fred McGriff 145 1450 1986 1996 22-32
25 Al Simmons 145 1524 1924 1934 22-32
26 Sam Crawford 145 1441 1899 1909 19-29
27 Duke Snider 144 1425 1947 1957 20-30
28 Chuck Klein 144 1447 1928 1938 23-33
29 Todd Helton 143 1578 1997 2007 23-33
30 Alex Rodriguez 143 1430 1994 2004 18-28
31 Paul Waner 143 1638 1926 1936 23-33
32 Wade Boggs 142 1625 1982 1992 24-34
33 Sherry Magee 142 1521 1904 1914 19-29
34 Eddie Murray 141 1659 1977 1987 21-31
35 Babe Herman 141 1498 1926 1936 23-33
36 Chipper Jones 140 1542 1993 2004 21-32
37 Carl Yastrzemski 140 1692 1961 1971 21-31
38 Joe Medwick 140 1502 1932 1942 20-30
39 Frank Baker 140 1412 1908 1919 22-33

I'd have no problem with any of these players being in the Hall.

[KCGHOST]

He is probably on a HoF track but not there yet. One problem he may have is the glut of possible HoF 1B candidates the electorate will have to sift through. Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Will Clark, Jim Thome, Jason Giambi, Fred Mcgriff, Carlos DelGado, Albert Pujols, etc.

[Francoeurstein]

I say maybe, but a few more Berkman type years should get him in. I can see him batting .300 with 450 home runs (500 is a stretch but not impossible) 500 doubles and 1500 rbi's. That's a hall of famer any day in my book.

[Paul Wendt]

> OPS+, 1st 11 Seasons, 1400 games

Does that mean coverage is limited to everyone with at least 1400 games in his first 11 seasons?
That is 128 per season, a high threshold considering that so many first seasons are short.

Lance Berkman debuted in July and he is only halfway thru his 11th season. He has been unusually durable 2001-2008 to be at 1445 games now.

... Rod Carew was down a few times during his first four seasons but he was durable thereafter and he debuted in April. He reached 1483 games total, 134 average.
... George Brett missed dozens of games in about half of his seasons (including the 1981 strike) and debuted in September. He reached only 1358 total, 123 average.

--
Berkman is much better than Derek Bell.
The "Killer Bs" were Bagwell, Biggio, and Bell if I recall correctly. Berkman more or less succeeded Bell.

I think of him as an outfielder but I see that he played majority firstbase 2005-2008, post-Bagwell, and exclusively firstbase since last year, except for DH in some interleague games. Probably he will play first long enough that most people will think of him thus --although he might not get much playoff exposure there! That will hurt him a little, for he will be ranked purely as a batter and he is not a leading slugger.

Nevertheless I vote yes. He will be deserving, barring a sharp dropoff or curtailment soon.

[Ace Venom]

He is probably on a HoF track but not there yet. One problem he may have is the glut of possible HoF 1B candidates the electorate will have to sift through. Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Will Clark, Jim Thome, Jason Giambi, Fred Mcgriff, Carlos DelGado, Albert Pujols, etc.

Will Clark was one and done on the ballot. You could also argue that Frank Thomas should be considered a DH (1,311 games at DH opposed to 971 at first base) even though it's still pretty close. People will rule out McGwire and Palmeiro due to steroids.

[brett]

Will Clark was one and done on the ballot. You could also argue that Frank Thomas should be considered a DH (1,311 games at DH opposed to 971 at first base) even though it's still pretty close. People will rule out McGwire and Palmeiro due to steroids.

Clark by the way had a 139 OPS+ through 11 seasons, and 137 for over 8000 plate appearances.

[brett]

I think he's already reached the cusp. He'd have to severely crash not to make it in my eyes.

OPS+, 1st 11 Seasons, 1400 games:

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Ted Williams 190 1427 1939 1952 20-33
2 Rogers Hornsby 183 1400 1915 1925 19-29
3 Mickey Mantle 175 1552 1951 1961 19-29
4 Stan Musial 172 1524 1941 1952 20-31
5 Frank Thomas 168 1530 1990 2000 22-32
6 Johnny Mize 164 1522 1936 1949 23-36
7 Barry Bonds 161 1583 1986 1996 21-31
8 Honus Wagner 160 1462 1897 1907 23-33
9 Willie Mays 159 1534 1951 1962 20-31
10 Joe DiMaggio 158 1481 1936 1949 21-34
11 Hank Aaron 157 1656 1954 1964 20-30
12 Jeff Bagwell 156 1637 1991 2001 23-33
13 Mel Ott 156 1438 1926 1936 17-27
14 Frank Robinson 154 1657 1956 1966 20-30
15 Eddie Mathews 152 1634 1952 1962 20-30
16 Reggie Jackson 151 1511 1967 1977 21-31
17 Mike Schmidt 150 1484 1972 1982 22-32
18 Vladimir Guerrero 149 1457 1996 2006 21-31
19 Jason Giambi 149 1483 1995 2005 24-34
20 Ken Griffey 149 1535 1989 1999 19-29
21 Ralph Kiner 149 1472 1946 1955 23-32
22 Lance Berkman 147 1445 1999 2009 23-33
23 Harry Heilmann 146 1433 1914 1925 19-30
24 Fred McGriff 145 1450 1986 1996 22-32
25 Al Simmons 145 1524 1924 1934 22-32
26 Sam Crawford 145 1441 1899 1909 19-29
27 Duke Snider 144 1425 1947 1957 20-30
28 Chuck Klein 144 1447 1928 1938 23-33
29 Todd Helton 143 1578 1997 2007 23-33
30 Alex Rodriguez 143 1430 1994 2004 18-28
31 Paul Waner 143 1638 1926 1936 23-33
32 Wade Boggs 142 1625 1982 1992 24-34
33 Sherry Magee 142 1521 1904 1914 19-29
34 Eddie Murray 141 1659 1977 1987 21-31
35 Babe Herman 141 1498 1926 1936 23-33
36 Chipper Jones 140 1542 1993 2004 21-32
37 Carl Yastrzemski 140 1692 1961 1971 21-31
38 Joe Medwick 140 1502 1932 1942 20-30
39 Frank Baker 140 1412 1908 1919 22-33

I'd have no problem with any of these players being in the Hall.


Obviously the guys with the highest OPS+'s through 11 years are going to tend to be hall of famers. If you look at the 25 (other) guys in the 140-155 range, which Berkmann would be in the middle of,

a) 18 were younger than Lance (22 or younger) when they broke in.
Of the 7 who were 23 or older: Giambi, Kiner, Helton, Boggs, Waner, Klein and Herman were all 23, Klein and Herman should not be hall of famers, Helton is not there yet, Giambi will not be, and Kiner took a long time to get in, and did not have a hall of fame career on the basis of value. Only Boggs and Waner have had hall of fame careers so far. If we take out Helton and Giambi, you have 2 sure hall of famers: Boggs, Waner; and 3 who are definitely not hall of famers based on their career value.

b) Only 4 were first baseman: Giambi, McGriff, Helton, Murray. 1 is in-due to super longevity, one is probably just short (McGriff); 1 needs 3 more solid years (Helton) and one has a borderline stats (Giambi) but needs more.

Look at it this way. Make a list of your top first basemen. Where do you put Giambi, McGriff, Helton and Murray right now?

[Paul Wendt]

b) Only 4 were first baseman: Giambi, McGriff, Helton, Murray. 1 is in-due to super longevity [Murray] ...

Look at it this way. Make a list of your top first basemen. Where do you put Giambi, McGriff, Helton and Murray right now?
Eddie Murray, easily in the top half of the Hall of Fame, a greater player than McCovey or Killebrew.

Today it is easy to scoff at OPS+ 140. They seem to be a dime a dozen at firstbase. But that margin of superiority to league-average batting is more common in the nineties and aughts than it was in the seventies and eighties. Look at Murray's standing in annual votes for MVP --where Murray is 21st in career share although he never won one-- and look up some of his competitors. Nowadays one expects OPS+ 150 from any firstbasemen and corner outfielders who enjoy and deserve that degree of attention. Thomas, Bagwell, and Co. have warped some perceptions.

In his nine full seasons Lance Berkman has five with OPS+ 150, the same number as Eddie Murray in his entire career (four in his first eleven seasons).

Yet compare their league ranks by OPS+
-- 10 -- 8 3 2 2 2 5 7 -- ; Murray, first eleven seasons; one more top ten (2) in 1990
-- -- 7 -- 10 6 10 3 -- 3 * ; Berkman, first ten seasons (* eleventh season in progress)

Bold marks the full seasons with OPS+ 150 (Berkman, five at 150 to 163; Murray five at 156 to 158). Berkman's five include his fourth season, 2002, not in the top ten ("--"). This shows clearly that the same quantitative performance (relative to league average) has become much more common; it does not yield the same ordinal performance (among league leaders).

[Brad Harris]

He is probably on a HoF track but not there yet. One problem he may have is the glut of possible HoF 1B candidates the electorate will have to sift through. Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Will Clark, Jim Thome, Jason Giambi, Fred Mcgriff, Carlos DelGado, Albert Pujols, etc.

So far as the BBWAA is concerned, McGwire, Palmeiro and Giambi have no hope of election due to PED controversies and Clark has already been one-and-done (rightly or wrongly). Thomas, Bagwell and (perhaps) McGriff will already be inducted by the time Berkman reaches the ballot so he's likely only going to be contending with Delgado and Pujols out of that "glut" you mentioned. Pujols will go in first-ballot so it's doubtful he'll compete with Berkman which really leaves Delgado as someone that's likely to be a direct competitor for some BBWAA votes. And Delgado's case hinges, in part, on how McGriff fares. And that, as they say, we'll know soon enough.

[brett]

Eddie Murray, easily in the top half of the Hall of Fame, a greater player than McCovey or Killebrew.

Today it is easy to scoff at OPS+ 140. They seem to be a dime a dozen at firstbase. But that margin of superiority to league-average batting is more common in the nineties and aughts than it was in the seventies and eighties. Look at Murray's standing in annual votes for MVP --where Murray is 21st in career share although he never won one-- and look up some of his competitors. Nowadays one expects OPS+ 150 from any firstbasemen and corner outfielders who enjoy and deserve that degree of attention. Thomas, Bagwell, and Co. have warped some perceptions.

In his nine full seasons Lance Berkman has five with OPS+ 150, the same number as Eddie Murray in his entire career (four in his first eleven seasons).

Yet compare their league ranks by OPS+
-- 10 -- 8 3 2 2 2 5 7 -- ; Murray, first eleven seasons; one more top ten (2) in 1990
-- -- 7 -- 10 6 10 3 -- 3 * ; Berkman, first ten seasons (* eleventh season in progress)

Bold marks the full seasons with OPS+ 150 (Berkman, five at 150 to 163; Murray five at 156 to 158). Berkman's five include his fourth season, 2002, not in the top ten ("--"). This shows clearly that the same quantitative performance (relative to league average) has become much more common; it does not yield the same ordinal performance (among league leaders).


Murray is in the upper half of the hall of fame. When offense shot off scale in the late 90s, walks started correlating to slugging. In the 80s, at least league-wide, there was actually no correlation between walks and power. So I guess that big offensive eras may allow higher OPS+ scores. Walks did correlate in the 20s, 30s and 40s by the way, and not in the 60s, 70s or 80s, or 1910s and 1920s.

[jalbright]

threads on Berkman merged.

[dgarza]

Today it is easy to scoff at OPS+ 140. They seem to be a dime a dozen at firstbase. But that margin of superiority to league-average batting is more common in the nineties and aughts than it was in the seventies and eighties.

Just out of curiosity, I ran some numbers...

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 2000s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Albert Pujols 172 1318 2001 2009 21-29
2 Jason Giambi 152 1277 2000 2009 29-38
3 Jim Thome 149 1307 2000 2009 29-38
4 Todd Helton 146 1387 2000 2009 26-35
5 Carlos Delgado 144 1368 2000 2009 28-37
6 Mark Teixeira 135 977 2003 2009 23-29
7 Jeff Bagwell 133 833 2000 2005 32-37
8 Ryan Klesko 129 944 2000 2007 29-36
9 Derrek Lee 128 1371 2000 2009 24-33
10 Rafael Palmeiro 128 891 2000 2005 35-40


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 2000s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+---+
1 Jason Giambi 198 154 2001 30 OAK
2 Jim Thome 197 147 2002 31 CLE
3 Albert Pujols 190 148 2008 28 STL
4 Jason Giambi 187 152 2000 29 OAK
5 Carlos Delgado 181 162 2000 28 TOR
6 Albert Pujols 178 143 2006 26 STL
7 Derrek Lee 174 158 2005 29 CHC
8 Carlos Pena 172 148 2007 29 TBD
9 Albert Pujols 172 154 2004 24 STL
10 Jason Giambi 172 155 2002 31 NYY


================================================== =====

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1990s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Mark McGwire 172 1221 1990 1999 26-35
2 Frank Thomas 169 1371 1990 1999 22-31
3 Jeff Bagwell 159 1317 1991 1999 23-31
4 Rafael Palmeiro 139 1526 1990 1999 25-34
5 Mo Vaughn 138 1185 1991 1999 23-31
6 Fred McGriff 135 1472 1990 1999 26-35
7 John Olerud 134 1390 1990 1999 21-30
8 Will Clark 129 1264 1990 1999 26-35
9 Mark Grace 122 1491 1990 1999 26-35
10 Andres Galarraga 120 1189 1990 1998 29-37


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 1990s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+---+
1 Mark McGwire 216 155 1998 34 STL
2 Jeff Bagwell 213 110 1994 26 HOU
3 Frank Thomas 211 113 1994 26 CHW
4 Mark McGwire 200 104 1995 31 OAK
5 Mark McGwire 196 130 1996 32 OAK
6 John Olerud 186 158 1993 24 TOR
7 Frank Thomas 181 146 1997 29 CHW
8 Frank Thomas 179 145 1995 27 CHW
9 Frank Thomas 178 141 1996 28 CHW
10 Jeff Bagwell 178 162 1996 28 HOU


==================================================

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1980s

1 Don Mattingly 144 1015 1982 1989 21-28
2 Eddie Murray 141 1500 1980 1989 24-33
3 Alvin Davis 136 881 1984 1989 23-28
4 Keith Hernandez 132 1357 1980 1989 26-35
5 Kent Hrbek 132 1156 1981 1989 21-29
6 Jason Thompson 127 839 1980 1986 25-31
7 Leon Durham 125 1067 1980 1989 22-31
8 Cecil Cooper 121 1073 1980 1987 30-37
9 Dan Driessen 114 840 1980 1987 28-35
10 Nick Esasky 112 801 1983 1989 23-29
11 Bruce Bochte 112 801 1980 1986 29-35


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 1980s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+---+
1 Jack Clark 176 131 1987 31 STL
2 Will Clark 175 159 1989 25 SFG
3 Fred McGriff 166 161 1989 25 TOR
4 Mark McGwire 164 151 1987 23 OAK
5 Don Mattingly 161 162 1986 25 NYY
6 Will Clark 160 162 1988 24 SFG
7 Tim Corcoran 159 102 1984 31 PHI
8 Fred McGriff 157 154 1988 24 TOR
9 Alvin Davis 156 142 1989 28 SEA
10 Dwight Evans 156 154 1987 35 BOS
11 Don Mattingly 156 159 1985 24 NYY
12 Eddie Murray 156 162 1984 28 BAL
13 Don Mattingly 156 153 1984 23 NYY
14 Eddie Murray 156 156 1983 27 BAL
15 Eddie Murray 156 151 1982 26 BAL


================================================== =====

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1970s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Dick Allen 148 883 1970 1977 28-35
2 Willie McCovey 136 1166 1970 1979 32-41
3 Boog Powell 135 925 1970 1977 28-35
4 Bob Watson 132 1393 1970 1979 24-33
5 Mike Hargrove 130 878 1974 1979 24-29
6 Tony Perez 129 1471 1970 1979 28-37
7 Steve Garvey 125 1289 1970 1979 21-30
8 John Mayberry 125 1282 1970 1979 21-30
9 Ron Fairly 123 1066 1970 1978 31-39
10 Cecil Cooper 120 823 1971 1979 21-29
11 Nate Colbert 120 826 1970 1976 24-30


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 1970s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+---+
1 Dick Allen 199 148 1972 30 CHW
2 Hank Aaron 194 139 1971 37 ATL
3 Willie McCovey 181 152 1970 32 SFG
4 Rod Carew 178 155 1977 31 MIN
5 Carl Yastrzemski 177 161 1970 30 BOS
6 John Mayberry 168 156 1975 26 KCR
7 John Mayberry 168 149 1972 23 KCR
8 Willie McCovey 164 128 1974 36 SDP
9 Dick Allen 164 128 1974 32 CHW
10 Willie Stargell 163 138 1972 32 PIT
11 Mike Epstein 163 138 1972 29 OAK
12 Boog Powell 163 154 1970 28 BAL


================================================== ==

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1960s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Willie McCovey 157 1322 1960 1969 22-31
2 Norm Cash 142 1442 1960 1969 25-34
3 Orlando Cepeda 137 1400 1960 1969 22-31
4 Jim Gentile 137 920 1960 1966 26-32
5 Boog Powell 133 1117 1961 1969 19-27
6 Joe Adcock 130 831 1960 1966 32-38
7 Don Mincher 128 1024 1960 1969 22-31
8 Norm Siebern 119 1098 1960 1968 26-34
9 Donn Clendenon 118 1092 1961 1969 25-33
10 Bill White 118 1371 1960 1969 26-35


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 1960s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+---+
1 Willie McCovey 209 149 1969 31 SFG
2 Norm Cash 201 159 1961 26 DET
3 Jim Gentile 187 148 1961 27 BAL
4 Mike Epstein 176 131 1969 26 WSA
5 Willie McCovey 174 148 1968 30 SFG
6 Harmon Killebrew 174 163 1967 31 MIN
7 Frank Robinson 169 139 1960 24 CIN
8 Dick Allen 165 118 1969 27 PHI
9 Orlando Cepeda 165 156 1963 25 SFG
10 Orlando Cepeda 164 151 1967 29 STL
11 Willie McCovey 164 150 1966 28 SFG


================================================== ===

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1950s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Ted Kluszewski 130 1272 1950 1959 25-34
2 Gil Hodges 129 1477 1950 1959 26-35
3 Mickey Vernon 122 1280 1950 1959 32-41
4 Joe Adcock 119 1128 1950 1959 22-31
5 Earl Torgeson 117 1271 1950 1959 26-35
6 Eddie Robinson 115 927 1950 1957 29-36
7 Joe Collins 111 896 1950 1957 27-34
8 Vic Power 107 822 1954 1959 26-31
9 Walt Dropo 101 1184 1950 1959 27-36
10 Dee Fondy 95 967 1951 1958 26-33


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 1950s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+---+
1 Stan Musial 172 134 1957 36 STL
2 Ted Kluszewski 167 149 1954 29 CIN
3 Stan Musial 156 154 1955 34 STL
4 Frank Robinson 152 146 1959 23 CIN
5 Joe Adcock 152 137 1956 28 MLN
6 Ted Kluszewski 149 153 1955 30 CIN
7 Mickey Vernon 149 152 1953 35 WSH
8 Joe Cunningham 147 131 1958 26 STL
9 Ferris Fain 147 117 1951 30 PHA
10 Stan Musial 146 135 1958 37 STL
11 Johnny Hopp 146 125 1950 33 TOT


=================================================

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1940s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Johnny Mize 159 949 1940 1949 27-36
2 Phil Cavarretta 130 1217 1940 1949 23-32
3 Nick Etten 129 872 1941 1947 27-33
4 Elbie Fletcher 127 936 1940 1949 24-33
5 Rudy York 118 1259 1940 1948 26-34
6 Frank McCormick 117 1191 1940 1948 29-37
7 Mickey Vernon 111 1044 1940 1949 22-31
8 George McQuinn 108 1210 1940 1948 30-38
9 Joe Kuhel 105 938 1940 1947 34-41
10 Babe Dahlgren 99 800 1940 1946 28-34


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 1940s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+---+
1 Johnny Mize 185 101 1946 33 NYG
2 Stan Musial 183 156 1946 25 STL
3 Johnny Mize 176 155 1940 27 STL
4 Phil Cavarretta 166 132 1945 28 CHC
5 Dolph Camilli 165 149 1941 34 BRO
6 Hank Greenberg 163 142 1946 35 DET
7 Phil Weintraub 162 104 1944 36 NYG
8 Johnny Mize 161 142 1942 29 NYG
9 Johnny Mize 160 154 1947 34 NYG
10 Mickey Vernon 160 148 1946 28 WSH


================================================== ======

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1930s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Lou Gehrig 181 1397 1930 1939 27-36
2 Jimmie Foxx 173 1470 1930 1939 22-31
3 Hank Greenberg 159 882 1930 1939 19-28
4 Bill Terry 142 961 1930 1936 31-37
5 Hal Trosky 135 895 1933 1939 20-26
6 Dolph Camilli 134 891 1933 1939 26-32
7 Ripper Collins 127 1035 1931 1938 27-34
8 Sam Leslie 116 821 1930 1938 24-32
9 Gus Suhr 113 1425 1930 1939 24-33
10 Buck Jordan 104 804 1931 1938 24-31
11 Jim Bottomley 104 929 1930 1937 30-37


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 1930s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+---+
1 Lou Gehrig 208 154 1934 31 NYY
2 Jimmie Foxx 205 154 1932 24 PHA
3 Lou Gehrig 203 154 1930 27 NYY
4 Jimmie Foxx 200 149 1933 25 PHA
5 Lou Gehrig 194 155 1931 28 NYY
6 Lou Gehrig 190 155 1936 33 NYY
7 Jimmie Foxx 188 124 1939 31 BOS
8 Jimmie Foxx 186 150 1934 26 PHA
9 Jimmie Foxx 182 149 1938 30 BOS
10 Jimmie Foxx 182 147 1935 27 PHA


================================================== ===

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1920s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Jack Fournier 144 1059 1920 1927 30-37
2 Jim Bottomley 142 1062 1922 1929 22-29
3 George Sisler 120 1326 1920 1929 27-36
4 Joe Judge 116 1359 1920 1929 26-35
5 George Kelly 114 1351 1920 1929 24-33
6 Lu Blue 112 1230 1921 1929 24-32
7 George Burns 112 1114 1920 1929 27-36
8 Earl Sheely 108 1087 1921 1929 28-36
9 Wally Pipp 99 1189 1920 1928 27-35
10 Charlie Grimm 94 1458 1920 1929 21-30


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 1920s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+---+
1 Lou Gehrig 221 155 1927 24 NYY
2 Lou Gehrig 194 154 1928 25 NYY
3 George Sisler 181 154 1920 27 SLB
4 Jimmie Foxx 173 149 1929 21 PHA
5 George Sisler 172 142 1922 29 SLB
6 Lou Gehrig 166 154 1929 26 NYY
7 Jack Fournier 164 133 1923 33 BRO
8 Jim Bottomley 163 149 1928 28 STL
9 Jack Fournier 161 145 1925 35 BRO
10 Jack Fournier 160 154 1924 34 BRO


================================================== =

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1910s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Ed Konetchy 123 1430 1910 1919 24-33
2 Jake Daubert 121 1353 1910 1919 26-35
3 Vic Saier 120 865 1911 1919 20-28
4 Stuffy McInnis 117 1260 1910 1919 19-28
5 Hal Chase 116 1291 1910 1919 27-36
6 Fred Luderus 114 1319 1910 1919 24-33
7 Fred Merkle 112 1406 1910 1919 21-30
8 Dick Hoblitzel 107 1144 1910 1918 21-29
9 Chick Gandil 103 1147 1910 1919 22-31
10 Dots Miller 96 1256 1910 1919 23-32


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 1910s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age Tm
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+---+
1 Jack Fournier 172 126 1915 25 CHW
2 George Sisler 161 135 1917 24 SLB
3 George Sisler 157 114 1918 25 SLB
4 George Burns 157 130 1918 25 PHA
5 George Sisler 155 132 1919 26 SLB
6 Hal Chase 154 142 1916 33 CIN
7 Fred Luderus 150 141 1915 29 PHI
8 Ed Konetchy 149 152 1915 29 PBS
9 Jack Fournier 145 109 1914 24 CHW
10 Ed Konetchy 144 144 1910 24 STL


================================================== =======

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1900s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Frank Chance 140 1036 1900 1909 23-32
2 Harry Davis 129 1198 1901 1909 27-35
3 Jake Beckley 125 925 1900 1907 32-39
4 Dan McGann 115 1109 1900 1908 28-36
5 Fred Tenney 111 1329 1900 1909 28-37
6 Kitty Bransfield 100 1176 1901 1909 26-34
7 Jiggs Donahue 99 813 1900 1909 20-29
8 Frank Isbell 90 1074 1901 1909 25-33
9 Tom Jones 89 923 1902 1909 25-32


1B, OPS+, Top 10, Seasonal, 100 Games, 1900s

Cnt Player OPS+ G Year Age
+----+-----------------+----+---+----+---+
1 Frank Chance 159 118 1905 28
2 Frank Chance 158 136 1906 29
3 Harry Davis 158 102 1904 30
4 Charlie Hickman 157 130 1902 26
5 Buck Freeman 156 129 1901 29
6 Jake Stahl 154 127 1909 30
7 Frank Chance 154 125 1903 26
8 Harry Davis 151 145 1906 32
9 Tim Jordan 150 129 1906 27
10 Frank Chance 150 124 1904 27


So, yeah, nothing surprising about the 80s here.
But what about the 50s? No 1B in the 1950s Decade Top 10 is a HOFer.

[Paul Wendt]

================================================== ===

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1950s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Ted Kluszewski 130 1272 1950 1959 25-34
2 Gil Hodges 129 1477 1950 1959 26-35
3 Mickey Vernon 122 1280 1950 1959 32-41
4 Joe Adcock 119 1128 1950 1959 22-31
5 Earl Torgeson 117 1271 1950 1959 26-35
6 Eddie Robinson 115 927 1950 1957 29-36
7 Joe Collins 111 896 1950 1957 27-34
8 Vic Power 107 822 1954 1959 26-31
9 Walt Dropo 101 1184 1950 1959 27-36
10 Dee Fondy 95 967 1951 1958 26-33


=================================================

1B, OPS+, Top 10, Entire Decade, 800 Games, 1940s

Cnt Player OPS+ G From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+-----+
1 Johnny Mize 159 949 1940 1949 27-36
2 Phil Cavarretta 130 1217 1940 1949 23-32
3 Nick Etten 129 872 1941 1947 27-33
4 Elbie Fletcher 127 936 1940 1949 24-33
5 Rudy York 118 1259 1940 1948 26-34
6 Frank McCormick 117 1191 1940 1948 29-37
7 Mickey Vernon 111 1044 1940 1949 22-31
8 George McQuinn 108 1210 1940 1948 30-38
9 Joe Kuhel 105 938 1940 1947 34-41
10 Babe Dahlgren 99 800 1940 1946 28-34


So, yeah, nothing surprising about the 80s here.
But what about the 50s? No 1B in the 1950s Decade Top 10 is a HOFer.
Except for Johnny Mize, the decade-leading OPS+ was 130 in the 1940s, too. Of course WWII may have dropped some 1940s stars below the playing time threshold, which is unlikely regarding Korea in the 1950s.

Except for Mize the strongest batters who played several seasons at firstbase in the 1940s/50s were not great players. Nowadays their kind is featured here in polls. Only a few of them belong in the Hall of the Very Good.

[dgarza]

Except for Johnny Mize, the decade-leading OPS+ was 130 in the 1940s, too. Of course WWII may have dropped some 1940s stars below the playing time threshold, which is unlikely regarding Korea in the 1950s.
Definitely Hank Greenberg is hurt by the threshold. Les Fleming as well, to a degree.
Babe Young and Hal Trosky still would have probably made a showing, but just at the bottom of the list.

I don't think any regular 1B lost time due to Korea.

[Sockeye]

Another solid season for Berkman in 2009. His 7th 140 OPS+ season. Ten seasons with a 130 OPS+. He's looking more and more like a HOF lock at the point.

[nerfan]

If Edgar to HOF, then Berkman to HOF.

Just in my opinion.

[Cowtipper]

.274, 25 HR, 80 RBI...not a typical Berkman season. He was hurt for part of the year, but this was perhaps his worst full season to date.

[willshad]

I say maybe, but a few more Berkman type years should get him in. I can see him batting .300 with 450 home runs (500 is a stretch but not impossible) 500 doubles and 1500 rbi's. That's a hall of famer any day in my book.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but how do you see him batting .300 lifetime, if he is under .300 now, and hasn't started his decline years yet?

[willshad]

Though his OPS+ scores remain pretty consistent year to year, his counting stats (HR, RBI BA) seem to fluctuate from year to year...much better in even numbered years that odd numbered years (except for 2001). Anyone have any theories why this may be?

[Brad Harris]

Though his OPS+ scores remain pretty consistent year to year, his counting stats (HR, RBI BA) seem to fluctuate from year to year...much better in even numbered years that odd numbered years (except for 2001). Anyone have any theories why this may be?
Variance. Chance. Fluke.