When in a player's active career do you start to think about HOF potential?

[jjpm74]

Given the discussion in the top 100 active pitchers project concerning cutoffs for active players, I'm curious as to when people here start looking at a player's career in terms of potential for being a HOFer?

I know players like Pujols has been discussed even though he isn't even close to eligibility or to the end of his career. I even see some 5-6 year players discussed in HOF threads from time to time.

I enabled multiple choice on this one as it is possible to pick from the first subset and second subset depending on one's approach.

[philkid3]

It depends for me. I mean, I'm already thinking about it with Hanley Ramirez, but a guy like Lance Berkman it's only recently been a consideration. Some guys some times it's not until near the end of their career.

Peak is the most important thing to me, so it probably comes sometime between when a player is 25-30 most often. If a player hasn't even reached those years and has put up some awesome seasons already, a lot like A-Rod did, then I'd be thinking of it immediately in his career because the future looks so bright. If a player is in the midst of his peak and has had some great years, that'll do it, too. If a player is in his early 30s and hasn't yet put up what I'd call a truly great season, then he's probably not gonna get much thought from me until he starts seriously pushing the longevity and counting number bills.

[Seattle1]

Just depends on when they start impressing. A guy could start off slow, but as time goes on it could become more and more obvious that he is HoF worthy.


The first few years I try not to think HoF no matter how good he's doing because it's just so early in his career and anything could happen.

[jalbright]

It's pretty complicated. For a meteoric star like Pujols, after about 6-7 years the only issue left is making it to ten years or getting a waiver of that rule (excluding getting banned from the game for gambling, game fixing, or whatever). For most stars, I'd say I don't take it at all seriously until their best years are clearly behind them and they've been in the game at least 12-13 years. However, I don't think you can make the final determination until we close the book on the guy's career. It's hardly unheard of for someone to clarify that he belongs by reaching a milestone at the end of his career. Let's just say I'm not in a rush to talk about actives and that I'm probably more reluctant to get into that discussion than most.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the question is "When do I begin to think about a player's HOF potential?", the answer is "After their first full season in the big leagues."

This, of course, doesn't mean that I make a prediction after a player's rookie year, but I think about it.

People criticize others around here for bringing up theads on guys who are only 3-4 years into their careers, but I think it's right and proper. Most HOFers have racked up a significant number of HOF credentials in their first 3-4 years in the big leagues; it's in a players early years where they often win key awards, make All-Star teams, rack up black ink that they won't rack up later in their career. (It's the counting stats that they rack up later on.) Take a look at Jose Reyes; he's got 14 Black Ink points already. The average HOFer has 27 points. Wade Boggs did enough in his first four years in the big leagues to assure his HOF status.

There's also the question of age. When I see a guy come up at age 20-21 and start out as a quality regular, I begin to think of a guy with HOF potential. Any player who is a minor star at age 21 is a guy who can grow to be a HOFer; it's a BIG deal for a 21 year old to hit 25 HRs and bat .280. Conversely, it's NOT such a big deal for a 25 year old rookie to hit 30 HRs and bat .300; if he didn't make the big leagues until age 25, one must wonder why that player was slow to develop. Such a rookie season could be nothing more than a fluke good season; it's less likely that such a player will sustain success.

There's no reason to NOT think of HOF possibilities from the beginning.

[JDD]

Ten years is the benchmark for me. The HOF requires ten years anyway, and waiting ten years gives us an idea of how well he will play as a man in this 30s.

[Brad Harris]

I keep tabs on players of note (i.e. top prospects, rookie stars, all-stars, award winners, post-season heroes) who haven't yet reached their peak season, but that's usually just a mental exercise (and usually a fleeting thought at that.)

Players who are in their peak, but haven't reached the ten years played are, by that time, normally "on pace" or not in my mind and those are the years I tend to seperate players out. If a guy's peak isn't high enough, he has a lot of work to make up in the second half of his career and the odds of any player doing that are fairly miniscule.

Once a guy crosses the "ten seasons" threshold, I've got him down on paper as a future HOFer, a possible candidate or someone who'll buy a ticket (quite a few of whom, however, other people might think differently about.)

Generally speaking, it's simply a syngergystic matter of how good/early a player's career has been. There's a line, I think, where a Pujols or A-Rod type player crosses from "on pace" to "in" and, for me, that's after a 5-7 year peak. Frank Thomas is a great example of this. To me, it didn't matter what happened in the second half of his career, he was so good in those early years that he punched his ticket before he reached the age of 30. Not many guys can say that, but it's obvious who those players are when it happens.

[abolishthedh]

There's no reason to NOT think of HOF possibilities from the beginning.

For the most part, FB, I agree. These days, I think we overanalyze early in players' careers, but then in the case of Johnny Bench, Johnny was described by most media as a probable HoFer.

However, I still treat Bench as the exception. This is because, IMHO, longevity is the big issue. Peak performance is to be considered in exceptional cases, like Koufax or Dizzy Dean or Kirby Puckett. Longevity is what I care about. To clarify, I say the best time for HoF consideration is after a couple of years of decline when its clear the end is in sight.

[KCGHOST]

It depends. For a megastud like Pujols it might just be four or five years. Other guys have to get well into the their body of work before I think about it. Fifteen years maybe.

It's a dominance thing.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Consideration and potential are not the same thing.

2-3 very good-excellent years right off the bat is an indicator of potential, it doesn't necessarily mean we are considering them and their HOF prospects, it means they've gotten off to a noticable start that warrant mention and they're on a HOF-path. It's too early to consider them. But the potential is there.

[bambambaseball]

I'm already thinking about it with Longoria. If a player is good, its natural to think about how much of a HOF person they can become.

[lyrical]

The guys who string together a couple of all star season in their early-mid twenties ping the HOF radar, but no serious consideration is given until the end of most careers unless they have a couple of Triple Crown dominance seasons a la Pedro.

[Yankeefan94]

It depends. For a borderline HOFer, like Mike Mussina, I would only think about it towards the last few years of his career. For a definite hall of famer, like A-Rod or Pujols, it could become clear that he is a likely hall of famer after three or four years. Considering Longoria at this point of his career is like saying that Joba Chamberlain is an easy choice for the hall of fame at this point in his career. It's somewhat foolish to guess that they would be hall of famers. However, it is not as much of a stretch to guess that someone like David Wright or Brandon Webb will eventually join the hall of fame.

[Paul Wendt]

If the question is "When do I begin to think about a player's HOF potential?", the answer is "After their first full season in the big leagues."

This, of course, doesn't mean that I make a prediction after a player's rookie year, but I think about it.
. . .
There's no reason to NOT think of HOF possibilities from the beginning.
I agree, no REASON, although plenty of other things to think about may give CAUSE not think about Hall of Fame prospects.

Many players are considered Hall of Famers a few years before they play parts of ten major league seasons.

Extreme cases? There were Hall of Fame conversations about Johnny Bench before his rookie season (and first full season, 1968) and I'm sure there were Hall of Fame conversations about Tom Seaver in 1969. Pujols, too, by his third year. Frank Thomas, by his third year which was two full seasons.

People criticize others around here for bringing up theads on guys who are only 3-4 years into their careers, but I think it's right and proper.
Here many threads focus on the Hall of Fame to exclusion of other questions, even whether so and so may be one of the 20 or 10 or 5 greatest players at his position. Many threads provide a multiple choice poll about the subject's current standing. That doesn't work well, maybe can't work very well, for young players.

Beginning 2008, how many repetitions of his 2007 season would Jonathan Papelbon need to earn your vote for the Hall of Fame?
o None. Papelbon's 2005-2007 is enough for me.
o One, 2008
o Two, 2008-2009
o . . .