OPS+ Over 145 who deserves to be in Cooperstown

[jjpm74]

Out of the non-active players with an OPS+ of 145 or higher who are not in the HOF, which ones deserve to be there? Why/why not?

Barry Bonds 182
Joe Jackson 170
Pete Browning 162
Mark McGwire 162
Dave Orr 161
Dick Allen 156
Charlie Keller 152
Gavvy Gravath 151
Charlie Jones 150
Benny Kauff 149
Edgar Martinez 147

[jjpm74]

Cowtipper, I'm curious why you think Mark McGwire is a HOFer but not Barry Bonds?

[Cowtipper]

Eventually I'll get around to supporting Bonds. The reason I support McGwire more now is because, even though he used steroids, he did help pull baseball back into the mainstream after the strike.

[ipitch]

The reason I support McGwire more now is because, even though he used steroids, he did help pull baseball back into the mainstream after the strike.

Did he? I'd say that's a mostly a myth, and so does this guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/sports/baseball/27score.html

[Cowtipper]

Did he? I'd say that's a mostly a myth, and so does this guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/sports/baseball/27score.html

Uh-oh, two guys say it's a myth, so it must be. :D

[leecemark]

--The only thing you could possibly argue against either Bonds or McGwire is steroids. With Bonds he was a Hall of Famer before he ever touched them. It is much harder to say that about McGwire. With or without taking steroids into account Bonds is a MUCH greater player.

[jalbright]

I can't vote for Jackson, but that's not because of anything he did on the field, with the possible exception of the 1919 World Series.

[Paul Wendt]

Does this list of 11 cover everyone with some number of PA(?) in the majors from 1871(?)?

--evidently, not everyone with ten seasons in the majors from 1876. Terry Forster is on that list.

[jjpm74]

Does this list of 11 cover everyone with some number of PA(?) in the majors from 1871(?)?

--evidently, not everyone with ten seasons in the majors from 1876. Terry Forster is on that list.

Minimum 3000 PA. Terry Forster was nowhere near 500 PA let alone 3000 PA.

[Afterglow]

Why is Bonds even on this list? He's only been out for a year.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Why is Bonds even on this list? He's only been out for a year.

It's highly unlikely Bonds will ever play again. He's ll be 45 next July. What team is going to sign such an old position player?

[Afterglow]

It's highly unlikely Bonds will ever play again. He's ll be 45 next July. What team is going to sign such an old position player?



It's not that. It's the fact he can't even get in yet.

He should get in. The only way he doesn't get in on the first ballot is because he is being punished because of the controversy he caused with becoming the terminator.

[jjpm74]

It's not that. It's the fact he can't even get in yet.

He should get in. The only way he doesn't get in on the first ballot is because he is being punished because of the controversy he caused with becoming the terminator.

He's on there because he's currently inactive, has over 3000PA and has an OPS of 145 or higher. Edgar Martinez isn't eligible for Cooperstown yet either. He won't be until next year. ;)

[Paul Wendt]

> Minimum 3000 PA. Terry Forster was nowhere near 500 PA let alone 3000 PA.

OK, I see.
Ross Barnes and Cal McVey short of 3000 pa from 1871, as well as from 1876.

By the way there are many early stars who surpass 3000 PA by counting from 1871.
George Wright? no, only 2900 from 1871
Joe Start? no, 3300 even from 1876
Presumably there are some non-stars with debuts during the mid-seventies.

Why is Bonds even on this list? He's only been out for a year.
This convention is decades old. I wonder whether it goes back to the earliest compiled lists of major league career leaders, or back to the first published lists generated from a comprehensive database by computer.
Everyone who played played during the most recent season carries a distinguishing mark, such as boldface or asterfrick, conventionalled explained as "active".

. . . Turkin & Thompson's Official Encyclopedia of Baseball (1st ed., 1951) does not obviously include any such thing. The number of career lists is few but they do include at least one active player: Home Runs, Joe DiMaggio, 349. No mark distinguishes DiMaggio.

. . . The first digital production, The Baseball Encyclopedia (1st ed. 1969) obviously does not include any such thing. There are dozens of lists of leaders but none for active leaders and no distinguishing marks for listings of active players. There is heavy use of boldface to distinguish annual season leaders --that is, black ink.


BaseBall-Reference Leaders (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/)
Baseball-reference has not yet closed the 2008 season. I suppose that awaits release of more data, such as a proofed edition of the play-by-play and the season records. Playing records for 2008 are included in the listings (that was true during the season with a lag of about 12 hours, I think) but everyone who played in 2007 or 2008 is still marked "active".

For example, visit Active Leaders & Records for Runs (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/R_active.shtml). Ken Griffey and Alex Rodriguez are listed with 1600+ runs, which they surpassed during 2008, but they are not yet the active leaders, merely ranks #2-3 after Barry Bonds.

[AG2004]

Bonds - Yes. His pre-1999 record is enough for the Hall, and the PED allegations indicate that he didn't use them before 1999.

Jackson - No. Being complicit in throwing the World Series is should keep one out of the Hall, and Jackson did admit to taking $5,000.

Browning - No. Those suspensions reduced the number of All-Star-type seasons from eight to six, and Browning was lucky that he didn't lose more time as a result of hitting a Louisville City Council member on a streetcar.

McGwire - Yes. Andro was permitted by MLB and legal in the US in 1998. Furthermore, even without McGwire's 1998 season, he had two seasons of 30 win shares, and six more in the 26-27 range (including credit for missed games from the shortened 1995 season). Norm Cash, Joe Torre, and Al Rosen had fluke 40-win share seasons; it is conceivable that McGwire's 1998 season could be in the same category.

Orr - No. His career is short. 1884 and 1885 were impressive, with 34 win shares each after schedule adjustments. However, those were both in the AA. Furthermore, he had only four All-Star-type seasons overall.

Allen - Yes. His combination of peak and career is similar to that of many players in the Hall.

Keller - Yes. He's underrated due to a short career, but he was in the military during 1944 and most of 1945, and deserves credit for that. He had over 30 win shares in 1941, 1942, 1943, and 1946. His peak was of Hall caliber. With military credit, he would have more career value than Hack Wilson or Ralph Kiner. I made a Keltner List for him which further explores his case.

Cravath - No. I have a Keltner List for him as well. His peak is suspect because it came in Nicollet Park (Minneapolis) and the Baker Bowl, and those two fields were notorious for boosting home run totals. He was a good player outside those parks. However, I doubt he would have been considered a great player nowadays without those home run crowns, and he has the Baker Bowl to thank for that -- two of those crowns came without his hitting a single home run outside of the city of Philadelphia.

Jones - When I made my Keltner List for him, I put him on the fence. The decision hangs on whether he should get compensation for his two blacklisted seasons, and how much of the blame he deserves for being blacklisted.

Kauff - No. He was banned from the game, and the Federal League play boosted his totals.

Martinez - No. I also have a Keltner List for him. At best, he's around the cutoff for 1B in both career and peak, and he was too inconsistent at his best. He might have been the best career DH in baseball history, but there aren't many career DHs, since most players who play that position are only doing so for a few years at the end of their careers. With no defensive value to boost those offensive numbers, Martinez isn't quite good enough for the honor.

Imagine that Martinez had been a career 1B with the defensive value of Dick Stuart instead of a career DH. Would he even be as popular a candidate as he is now had that been the case? Martinez does not compare too well with contemporary 1B, and too much of his Hall of Fame case rests on the phrase "best DH ever," so I doubt that he would.

[hairmetalfreek]

Did he? I'd say that's a mostly a myth, and so does this guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/sports/baseball/27score.html

Speaking from personal experience, I believe McGwire and Sosa had a major impact on my own renewed interest in the game. I lost interest leading up to the strike, partly because of disgust with the business side of the game, partly because I was in high school and was more interested in girls than sports. After the strike, I didn't buy any baseball cards again until 1998. I was interested in the home run race, and I started watching baseball on TV again. So for me, yeah, McGwire helped me get interested in baseball again.

But I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame. I voted for everyone on the list except McGwire and Bonds.

[gman5431]

Dick Allen - only. Dont support steroid users and dont support Joe Jackson, even though he is the best hitter on this list, because he made a mistake just as, if not even more, horrendeous.

G Man

[Freakshow]

Out of the non-active players with an OPS+ of 145 or higher who are not in the HOF, which ones deserve to be there? Why/why not?

Barry Bonds 182
Joe Jackson 170
Pete Browning 162
Mark McGwire 162
Dave Orr 161
Dick Allen 156
Charlie Keller 152
Gavvy Gravath 151
Charlie Jones 150
Benny Kauff 149
Edgar Martinez 147Jeff Bagwell 149 should be on the list. Obviously, a future hall of famer. Ross Barnes 166 and Cal McVey 152 would be included under 9 seasons/2500 PA limits.

[SABR Matt]

I am thrilled to see so many folks voting for Edgar Martinez...

Maybe the silly bigotry against the DH is ending...

[KCGHOST]

Bonds, McGwire, and Martinez. And I may change my mind about any or all of them. I've always liked Keller but his career is just too short and the counting numbers are seriously lacking. You have to give an awful lot of war credit to get a guy in who only has 1085 hits. He only had five seasons in which he would have qualified for the batting title.

[DoubleX]

Of this list, Allen is the only one I feel certain about right now.

Bonds: I need more time to digest Bonds' career, though it's hard to argue that steroids or not, he wasn't legitimately a great player. The question for me is whether the PEDs are a totally wipeout, perhaps just on an integrity of the game standpoint, or are they a negative factor to be balanced in. I'm heavily leaning towards the latter, but the subsequent balancing is what becomes difficult.

Jackson: I don't want to start another Jackson debate here, but by his own admission, he was part of the conspiracy. So he's out for me.

Browning: I'm on the fence with Browning. There are a number of other players from that era I'd like to see elected before Browning. Hard to argue he wasn't a monster hitter for the day though.

McGwire: I still need more time here too because I think there's still a lot more to come out about the steroids era. However, I'm increasingly leaning towards no for McGwire. The thing I find interesting about McGwire is that he did have great natural power - his 49 homeruns as a rookie was tied for the most in the game during a 13 year period (1977-1990). The massive bulk he put on had an obvious effect on his body - he couldn't stay healthy for much of his career and he broke down and called it a career fairly suddenly. So what I find interesting is that had he not used, he may have stayed healthier, been better defensively, and perhaps have had a longer and more productive career.

Orr: I'm in the no camp. Even for his era, Orr's career just wasn't particularly long, and it was almost entirely in the increasingly weakening AA.

Keller: Great hitter, but injuries robbed him of enough longevity to make it in my book. He's a player that really could have benefited from the DH.

Cravath: Similar to Keller, just not enough there in terms of longevity, plus I wonder how much he was helped by the Baker Bowl.

Charley Jones: He's somewhere between Orr and Browning for me.

Benny Kauff: Another case of just not enough longevity, plus one of his best seasons came in the Federal League.

Edgar Martinez: I've been slowly warming up to Martinez recently, but I'm not quite there yet. In another era, Martinez would be Ted Kluszewski or Charlie Keller. A great hitter who couldn't stay in the lineup due to injuries and defensive ineptitude. That's Martinez. I make a fairly steep positional adjustment for DHs, in that I expect a very high level of offense from them over a long period to make it to the Hall. This is because if not for the DH, which hasn't existed for most of the game's history, the player probably would have had a very different career. The DH enables players to stay in the lineup and have longer and more productive careers that players of earlier generations did not benefit from. Perhaps Kluszewski or Keller would be Hall of Famers if they had the DH? Plus, the DH is paid to do nothing but concentrate on hitting, and thus it's fair to expect a higher level of offense. Like I said, Martinez is getting closer for me, and I suspect I'll be over the line one day, but I'm just not there yet.

[DoubleX]

I am thrilled to see so many folks voting for Edgar Martinez...

Maybe the silly bigotry against the DH is ending...

So I guess I'm a bigot then. This is the exact type of tone and rhetoric that turns people off to all the diligent work you do. It is insulting, haughty, and presumptuous, to say the least, and very much bigoted in its own right. I think it is perfectly plausible to hold the DH to higher standard of production, just as you would make a positional adjustment for any position. As well as to keep in mind the game's history, and how so many generations of players saw their production and careers cut short because they didn't have the DH to keep them in the lineup. I'm not at all convinced that if not for the DH, Edgar Martinez would be all that different than someone like Ted Kluszewski.

On that note, I'm not even going to pursue this conversation with you further. When you label those who disagree with you, on the all important matter of the DH in baseball, as silly bigots, you disqualify yourself.

[Domenic]

As well as to keep in mind the game's history, and how so many generations of players saw their production and careers cut short because they didn't have the DH to keep them in the lineup. I'm not at all convinced that if not for the DH, Edgar Martinez would be all that different than someone like Ted Kluszewski.

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly.

I am also curious to see how several modern players would have performed had the DH role not been available. I wonder, for example, how Paul Molitor's career would have looked if he had not been able to DH for the last eight years of his career. Frank Thomas also comes to mind, particularly in a discussion involving Kluszewski (though Big Klu was not on the same level as Thomas).

[SABR Matt]

So I guess I'm a bigot then. This is the exact type of tone and rhetoric that turns people off to all the diligent work you do. It is insulting, haughty, and presumptuous, to say the least, and very much bigoted in its own right. I think it is perfectly plausible to hold the DH to higher standard of production, just as you would make a positional adjustment for any position. As well as to keep in mind the game's history, and how so many generations of players saw their production and careers cut short because they didn't have the DH to keep them in the lineup. I'm not at all convinced that if not for the DH, Edgar Martinez would be all that different than someone like Ted Kluszewski.

On that note, I'm not even going to pursue this conversation with you further. When you label those who disagree with you, on the all important matter of the DH in baseball, as silly bigots, you disqualify yourself.

The paraphrased dictionary definition of a bigot is a person who hates another person or group of people for a reason not linked to evidence/behavior/logic. There is a large group of people (and no, I would not call you one of these) at baseball-fever who make declarative statements like "No DH should ever be in the hall of fame since they didn't play a position"...anhd yes...that meets the dictionary definition of bigotry...specifically intellectual bigotry against designated hitters based on a personal (non-factual) hatred of the DH rule. If your position is that no matter how good a hitter someone is, they can't be a hall of famer if they don't do anything else, then you're a bigot and I stand by that.

That's not your stated position though, DX...your stated position is that you expect a LOT out of a DH to be in the hall...and you gave very sound reasoning behind this position.

[Paul Wendt]

Of this list, Allen is the only one I feel certain about right now.
So Dick Allen is in a sense number one on this list.
Keller: Great hitter, but injuries robbed him of enough longevity to make it in my book. He's a player that really could have benefited from the DH.
I suppose that swinging the bat hard, especially fanning, puts more strain on the back than any other baseball activity. Unless Keller's back trouble was exceptional in nature, it must have impaired his ability to play DH.

The record shows that he did finish his career as a pinch-hitter, batting but not fielding, which is the DH role. So I wonder about the nature of his back trouble. Was it exceptional?

Don Mattingly was a normal back-troubled slugger, I suppose. He could no longer bat as a major league 1Bman should. There was not much harm to his fielding --at least, fans continued to call him one of the best 1Bman in the field. But he couldn't hit worth keeping a job.
(OPS+ 112 during his last eight seasons,
OPS+ 104 during his last six seasons
Mattingly & Co. after age 28 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=mattido01:Don+Mattingly&st=int&age=-29&compage=26)
Cravath: Similar to Keller, just not enough there in terms of longevity, plus I wonder how much he was helped by the Baker Bowl.
He was 37 years old in the spring of 1918, before he first showed clear decline as a player. In 1917, age 36.1 to 36.6, he was the seventh oldest player in the National League.
Charley Jones: He's somewhere between Orr and Browning for me.
What makes Browning better than Jones?
Benny Kauff: Another case of just not enough longevity, plus one of his best seasons came in the Federal League.
OPS+ only 136 in the National League, playing Centerfield every day for the Giants.

Kauff was suspended at age 30.6, then blacklisted. It isn't appropriate to call that lack of durability. One should come down one way or the other on the effective expulsion.

[DoubleX]

I suppose that swinging the bat hard, especially fanning, puts more strain on the back than any other baseball activity. Unless Keller's back trouble was exceptional in nature, it must have impaired his ability to play DH.

The record shows that he did finish his career as a pinch-hitter, batting but not fielding, which is the DH role. So I wonder about the nature of his back trouble. Was it exceptional?

Standing often puts a great strain on the back, particularly an already impaired back. Keller tried to gut through several seasons with his injured back (particularly '47-'49). I would think having an opportunity to sit on the bench and only get up 4 times a game would have been much easier on his back than standing, running, and fielding (which would have involved a variety of bending, extending, twisting, and throwing). Plus, sitting in between action would give him back an opportunity to rest and ease that playing the field would not. In sum, those years he gutted through the pain, trying to stay in the lineup as much as possible, would have been likely aided by being able to DH,

Don Mattingly was a normal back-troubled slugger, I suppose. He could no longer bat as a major league 1Bman should. There was not much harm to his fielding --at least, fans continued to call him one of the best 1Bman in the field. But he couldn't hit worth keeping a job.

Mattingly actually came to mind, and I actually believe that Mattingly would have benefited from DHing. I think many people underestimate the strain that playing the field everyday puts on a body, even if just 1B or corner OF. The standing combined with the many little yet athletic movements, adds up, especially compared to sitting on the bench like a DH. I suspect the Yankees kept him at 1B because he did still provide good defense and preferred to use the DH on someone like Danny Tartabull. May have also been a pride thing, much in the same way the team hasn't moved Jeter from SS.

He was 37 years old in the spring of 1918, before he first showed clear decline as a player. In 1917, age 36.1 to 36.6, he was the seventh oldest player in the National League.

I should amend my statement to say that his career wasn't long enough, which is the result of him not getting started until age 27 and not really emerging until age 31. His career was pretty short, just 4600 PAs, and he played at a very hitter friendly park. The late start does give the "what if" scenario, but dealing with what there is, there isn't enough for even supposition to put him over.

What makes Browning better than Jones?

Browning had 1300 more PAs (though he did have longer schedules for some of his career), 12 points higher in OPS+ (162 to 150), much more prolific at stealing bases (based on what records we do have), and played CF. So in addition to being a better hitter than Jones, Browning seems to have a larger skillset.

OPS+ only 136 in the National League, playing Centerfield every day for the Giants.

Kauff was suspended at age 30.6, then blacklisted. It isn't appropriate to call that lack of durability. One should come down one way or the other on the effective expulsion.

I didn't say he lacked durability, I said he didn't have enough longevity. And that's true, IMO. Regardless of the reason, he had just 3500 PAs, that's not much to go on at all when talking about Hall of Fame case. Maybe if he had another 2000 or so PAs, while maintaining his high level of play, and then was banished, I could give him enough benefit of the doubt to get him over the top (depending on why he was banned, which is a separate conversation), but with just 3500+ PAs, it takes too much benefit of the doubt to make the difference.

[SABR Matt]

First basemen have to do a lot of contorting and stretching around the bag...which would put a lot of strain on the back. Though Mattingly's statistical record at first base remained impressive during his injury plagued final seasons.

Edgar Martinez tried to play first base a few times in his career...once, he famously put on the glove for one game back in, I think, 1997...and within one game of the experiment ran into John Marzano on a foul pop and got himself seriously injured. No matter where you play, the position carries risks to the body that DHing does not.