Most Hits, Not in the Hall (yet)

[JDD]

Here is a list... most hits but not yet in the HOF. Base hits take a bad rap, as we look for players who do other things too, like walk, run the bases, drive in runs, and avoid outs. The number out front is their all time ranking in the base hits category. How they bat is listed last, and their age is listed if they are active. When I was a kid, the trivia question answer was Vada Pinson (most hits, not in the HOF). Now look at the list:


Rank Player (age) Hits Bats
1. Pete Rose............4256 B
20. Craig Biggio........3060 R
24. Rafael Palmeiro...3020 L
31. Barry Bonds........2935 L
40. Harold Baines......2866 L
45. Andre Dawson.....2774 R
46. Vada Pinson........2757 L
48. Al Oliver.............2743 L
51. Roberto Alomar....2724 B
53. Rusty Staub.........2716 L
54. Bill Buckner.........2715 L
55. Ken Griffey (39)...2712 L
56. Dave Parker........2712 L
58. Doc Cramer.........2705 L
60. O.Vizquel (42)......2674 B
67. I. Rodriguez (37)..2648 R
69. Lave Cross..........2645 R
70. G. Sheffield (40)..2644 R
72. Tim Raines..........2605 B
74. Derek Jeter (35)...2604 R
75. Steve Garvey.......2599 R
77. L. Gonzalez (41)...2591 L
78. Julio Franco.........2586 R
82. Willie Davis.........2561 L
83. Steve Finley........2548 L
84. G. Van Haltren.....2532 L
87. Buddy Bell..........2514 R
88. Jimmy Ryan........2502 R

My point is this. 2500 hits may not sound like a lot, but only 88 guys have reached that milestone. We talk about 3,000 hits all the time as an indicator of HOF worthiness. But it may be too high.

Jim Rice had 2452 for instance. It took him forever to get in, but he made it. Perhaps not BECAUSE of the hits total, but he's there because of all the runs he put up with them (of course).

Are we expecting too much? I say this because of the Bobby Abreu thread. I really don't think he will make 3,000 hits. And I argued that he HAS to in order to make the HOF. Not because of my opinion, but what I believe the voters look for when voting yes or no. And I don't think he can get 75 percent unless he hits that 3,000 hits mark. Which is a shame.

[jjpm74]

One thing that is interesting about that list is that the only players on it I never hear about in HOF conversations are Doc Cramer and Billy Buckner. The rest show up in conversations. 2500 hits is not a HOF lock, but it is an indicator that someone could hit and played a long time which means they were a valuable player.

[leecemark]

--Do you think Cramer and Buckner belong in HOF discussions? Cramer was pretty much an average player whose career was extended by WWII to allow him to bolster his career totals (which were also inflated by leading off - which was a bad management decision - in a high offensive environment). Buckner had some pretty good years, but hardly a Hall of Fame peak - then hung around as a below average player who somehow stuck in the lineup. He still hit for decent average, but contributed nothing else in his later years.

[jjpm74]

--Do you think Cramer and Buckner belong in HOF discussions?

Definitely not. I agree with you that both of them were average players. I'm actually surprised Julio Franco is talked about as a potential HOF candidate. Isn't longevity and production at an advanced age his major claim to fame?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Definitely not. I agree with you that both of them were average players. I'm actually surprised Julio Franco is talked about as a potential HOF candidate. Isn't longevity and production at an advanced age his major claim to fame?

Other than winning a batting title in 1991, yes.

[Freakshow]

I prefer looking at Times On Base.

Players outside the Hall with 3500+ TOB
Cnt Player TOB OBP PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+-----+-----+----+----+
1 Pete Rose 5929 .375 15861 1963 1986
2 Barry Bonds 5599 .444 12606 1986 2007
3 Craig Biggio 4505 .363 12503 1988 2007
4 Rafael Palmeiro 4460 .371 12046 1986 2005
5 Gary Sheffield 4237 .394 10772 1988 2009
6 Frank Thomas 4222 .419 10074 1990 2008
7 Ken Griffey 4057 .372 10912 1989 2009
8 Rusty Staub 4050 .362 11229 1963 1985
9 Tim Raines 3977 .385 10359 1979 2002
10 Harold Baines 3942 .356 11092 1980 2001
11 Dwight Evans 3890 .370 10569 1972 1991
12 Darrell Evans 3863 .361 10737 1969 1989
13 Luis Gonzalez 3857 .367 10531 1990 2008
14 Jeff Bagwell 3843 .408 9431 1991 2005
15 Fred McGriff 3834 .377 10174 1986 2004
16 Roberto Alomar 3806 .371 10400 1988 2004
17 Manny Ramirez 3759 .412 9126 1993 2009
18 Jim Thome 3733 .405 9212 1991 2009
19 Omar Vizquel 3689 .339 11138 1989 2009
20 Bill Dahlen 3661 .358 10390 1891 1911
21 Edgar Martinez 3619 .418 8672 1987 2004
22 Chipper Jones 3613 .408 8858 1993 2009
23 John Olerud 3602 .398 9063 1989 2005
24 Chili Davis 3589 .360 9996 1981 1999
25 Lou Whitaker 3586 .363 9967 1977 1995
26 Derek Jeter 3582 .387 9342 1995 2009
27 Eddie Yost 3576 .394 9175 1944 1962
28 Alex Rodriguez 3573 .389 9195 1994 2009
29 Mark Grace 3554 .383 9290 1988 2003
30 Brett Butler 3542 .377 9545 1981 1997
31 Julio Franco 3541 .365 9731 1982 2007

[Ace Venom]

Other than winning a batting title in 1991, yes.

There's also the fact that Franco could hit and do things better than players half his age. It's unfortunate for him that his other hit totals from different professional leagues won't be counted in his favor. A few more major league seasons in place of where he spent time could have easily gotten him to 3,000 hits.

[jalbright]

Freakshow's suggestion of Times on Base is largely a counting stat mirror to On Base Percentage. I'll add the suggestion of the counting stat mirror to Slugging Percentage, Total Bases (listing all those over 4000 total bases not in the Hall, active players marked with an asterisk ):


rank Player…………….. ttl bases
1 Barry Bonds 5976
2 Pete Rose 5752
3 Rafael Palmiero 5388
4 K Griffey, Jr* 5150
5 Andre Dawson 4787
6 Craig Biggio 4711
7 Sammy Sosa 4704
8 G Sheffield * 4667
9 Harold Baines 4604
10 A Rodriguez * 4595
11 Manny Ramirez * 4575
12 Frank Thomas 4550
13 Fred McGriff 4458
14 Dave Parker 4405
15 Luis Gonzalez* 4385
16 Vada Pinson 4264
17 Jeff Kent.. 4246
18 Dwight Evans 4230
19 Jeff Bagwell 4213
20 Jim Thome* 4186
21 Rusty Staub 4185
22 Ivan Rodriguez* 4179
23 Steve Finley 4157
24 Chipper Jones* 4092
25 Al Oliver.. 4083
26 A Galarraga 4038

[jalbright]

There's also the fact that Franco could hit and do things better than players half his age. It's unfortunate for him that his other hit totals from different professional leagues won't be counted in his favor. A few more major league seasons in place of where he spent time could have easily gotten him to 3,000 hits.

The problem with Franco's time in Japan is he played 1B/DH at a level which when converted to MLB, wasn't all that impressive for that position. I sincerely doubt a player of his age would have gotten anywhere near the playing time he did in Japan playing 1B/DH and producing at that level. You'd be better off financially and possibly in the long run trying some kid who might or might not make it in the majors at the spot.

[Paul Wendt]

Bill Dahlen really stands out with that 1891 debut. Eddie Yost 1944 is the only other before 1963.

Dahlen played five seasons under the 132-game schedule and five under 140 games.

[JDD]

Times on base is nice, but unless I am there, I don't know the difference between someone drawing a walk, and someone who is just walked because the pitcher could not find the plate. Not every walk is the result of batter skill or fear on the part of the pitcher.

And we all know singles drive in more runs than walks.

So I am back to wondering if too many guys currently playing right now will be unfairly shut out of the HOF just because they only reach 85 percent of a goal set at 3,000 hits.

Don't get me wrong, I am not looking to elect everyone who... say... gets fifty percent of 4,256 hits or perhaps hits half of 714 home runs.

But 2,500 is a LOT of hits.

[Paul Wendt]

2500 is a lot of hits.
But, as jjpm suggested,
- 2500 hits does get players into the conversation, not entirely overlooked
- we don't want it to do more than get them into the conversation.
We don't need a milestone short of 3000 to become a sure ticket.

The modern players with greatest longevity are playing later than ever before, or there are more of them. Hall of Fame voters must decide how to respond to that, how much to weigh career counting achievements. For starting pitchers the great longevity of modern players and the great modern reliance on relief pitchers have opposite effects on many career counts. For relief pitchers and "regulars", however, modern players are doing very well in many important categories.

[JDD]

Now this is an interesting thought. A long career means more now for pitchers than ever before (not years per se, but perhaps innings pitched), while a long career for hitters may be more ho hum and not what it used to be.

Verrrrry Interesting.

Relief pitchers take up more innings than they used to back in grandpa's day, while expansion now allows for more batters to have that fifteen to twenty year career.

This sound very basic, but to be honest I never really thought about it, other than make adjustments in my mind when it comes to innings pitched. 192 per season does not sound like a whole lot when looking for HOF-type seasons, but that is what you get if you went six innings in every one of your 32 starts.

Is 192 innings now "a lot of innings" for one season? Didn't used to be, even as recently as the 1970s (for average to above average pitchers).

[JDD]

... meaning the Wins bar could be lowered for pitchers, and the Hits (and certainly home runs) bar could be raised for hitters.

Very interesting. I don't think it will be easier for pitchers to get in, but it might be easier for very good pitchers to get votes as compared to very good hitters (as opposed to great players).

[Freakshow]

Eligible for HOF and 200+ wins 1915-2004
Cnt Player W W-L% LstY ERA+ IP From To
+----+-----------------+---+-----+----+----+------+----+----+
1 Tommy John 288 .555 1989 110 4710.1 1963 1989
2 Bert Blyleven 287 .534 1992 118 4970 1970 1992
3 Jim Kaat 283 .544 1983 107 4530.1 1959 1983
4 Jack Morris 254 .577 1994 105 3824 1977 1994
5 Dennis Martinez 245 .559 1998 106 3999.2 1976 1998
6 Frank Tanana 240 .504 1993 106 4188.1 1973 1993
7 Luis Tiant 229 .571 1982 114 3486.1 1964 1982
8 Sam Jones 229 .513 1935 104 3879.2 1915 1935
9 Mel Harder 223 .545 1947 113 3426.1 1928 1947
10 Paul Derringer 223 .513 1945 108 3645 1931 1945
11 Jerry Koosman 222 .515 1985 110 3839.1 1967 1985
12 Joe Niekro 221 .520 1988 97 3584 1967 1988
13 Jerry Reuss 220 .535 1990 100 3669.2 1969 1990
14 Earl Whitehill 218 .541 1939 100 3564.2 1923 1939
15 Mickey Lolich 217 .532 1979 105 3638.1 1963 1979
16 Freddie Fitzsimmo 217 .598 1943 111 3223.2 1925 1943
17 Charlie Hough 216 .500 1994 107 3801.1 1970 1994
18 Jim Perry 215 .553 1975 106 3285.2 1959 1975
19 Rick Reuschel 214 .528 1991 114 3548.1 1972 1991
20 Bob Welch 211 .591 1994 106 3092 1978 1994
21 Billy Pierce 211 .555 1964 119 3306.2 1945 1964
22 Bobo Newsom 211 .487 1953 107 3759.1 1929 1953
23 Vida Blue 209 .565 1986 108 3343.1 1969 1986
24 Milt Pappas 209 .560 1973 110 3186 1957 1973
25 Carl Mays 207 .622 1929 120 3021.1 1915 1929
26 Orel Hershiser 204 .576 2000 112 3130.1 1983 2000
27 Lew Burdette 203 .585 1967 98 3067.1 1950 1967
28 Charley Root 201 .557 1941 110 3197.1 1923 1941
29 Chuck Finley 200 .536 2002 115 3197.1 1986 2002
30 George Uhle 200 .546 1936 105 3119.2 1919 1936

[The Commissioner]

--Do you think Cramer and Buckner belong in HOF discussions? Cramer was pretty much an average player whose career was extended by WWII to allow him to bolster his career totals (which were also inflated by leading off - which was a bad management decision - in a high offensive environment).

Cramer definitely belongs in the discussions. Whether he actually belongs in Cooperstown, that's understandably debatable, but he was far from simply being an "average player". That's truly being dismissive of an excellent career.

If a guy collects 2500 hits with a .255 batting average and no power, okay, he was probably average and just stayed around for a long time. However, Cramer had 2700+ hits with a .296 batting average. No matter what era or ballparks you adjust that for, it still comes out to being an excellent career. Throw in seven full seasons batting .300 or better, five All-Star selections, excellent fielding prowess and his World Series performance and he does at least deserve some mention.

I'm not saying start carving his plaque, but by no means should he ever be considered simply an "average player".

[jalbright]

I don't think the characterization of Cramer as "average" is unfair:

his career average .293
league average, same period .283

career OBP .357
league average, same period .375

career slg pct .405
league average, same period .414

thus, Cramer's career OPS+ is (drum roll, please) 87--which is below average. His defense brings him back to that level, but I think the characterization is fair. Do you know how many seasons he had with an OPS+ of over 100? Precisely two, 110 in 1932 and 105, in 1935. He had one at 100, in 1934--and all the rest of his seasons were below a 100 OPS+, which by definition is average for hitters.

[The Commissioner]

I don't think the characterization of Cramer as "average" is unfair:

his career average .293
league average, same period .283

career OBP .357
league average, same period .375

career slg pct .405
league average, same period .414

thus, Cramer's career OPS+ is (drum roll, please) 87--which is below average. His defense brings him back to that level, but I think the characterization is fair. Do you know how many seasons he had with an OPS+ of over 100? Precisely two, 110 in 1932 and 105, in 1935. He had one at 100, in 1934--and all the rest of his seasons were below a 100 OPS+, which by definition is average for hitters.

I realize that a lot of this may simply be a matter of semantics. One person's "average" is another person's "very good", so we could be at this all day both stating more or less the same point yet speaking different languages.

Also, keep in mind that I am arguing from the perspective of one of the few statistical Luddites around here. While I do believe in the value of some sabermetrics, I've never been a huge fan of OPS, OPS+, win shares, etc. I call myself "old-fashioned", others call me "unenlightened", "uneducated", or a litany of far worse names than you'd hear during the course of an average David Mamet play.

Given all that, here is why I say, Cramer has to be considered above the realm of the simply "average":

1) While I do agree that to a certain extent the league's averages should be taken into account when measuring a player in the context of his time, it gets progressively more difficult to pinpoint exactly how much to count those the longer he played. It gets exponentially more fuzzy the longer the career involved. For example, let's say that the league batting average one season was .265 and OB% was .300. Player X comes along and in that year, his lone Major League season, bats .265 and has a .300 OB%, it's probably pretty fair to call him "average". However, to try and extrapolate over the course of someone's entire career, doesn't accurately reflect the situation. Over that time, different players have come and gone, different players have gone through peaks and valleys, and different aspects of the game have progressed and regressed. One player's career over two decades can't be accurately compared to the ebb and flow of every single player combined and taken as an aggregate for that period.

2) Despite this not being the most accurate way to measure one's career, since it is setting up an artificial parameter that cut short the careers of several players before and after, one has to also consider how Cramer ranked during the time played. Even though his first few years were not complete ones and neither were his last, let's look at how he compared in his total numbers, not simply averages, over that period of time. For the sake of argument I've included even Cramer's' first few and last few years when he wasn't a full-time player. This actually hurts rather helps his rankings. Between 1929-48, he had more hits than other player in the game. His hit total over the two decade span he was playing was more than anyone else in baseball. Over that same period he was 5th in runs score behind only Ott, Foxx, Gehringer, and Gehrig, and ranked 6th overall in times on base. Does any of that prove he was an "all-time great"? Absolutely not. Does it mean he is a "Hall of Famer"? No. Does it even necessarily mean he was "great" or "near great", probably not. He does at least merit being "above average", though. Even if you expand the time period to include most hits over the thirty-five year period from 1929 through 1964, he still ranks third to only Musial and Appling.

3) At the time he retired in 1948, Cramer ranked amongst the all-time top 50 in at bats, plate appearances, games played, hits, runs, times on base, and total bases. He also stood at #51 all-time in doubles. Admittedly, those are totals that resulted from a lot of luck in staying healthy enough to simply be up at the plate so often. They also only take into account less than 30 years of live ball at that point. Were I arguing that Cramer is a Hall of Famer or an "all-time great" those would all be valid arguments against these numbers. Once again, though, I'm just going for a minimum threshold of "above average" here.

I'll be the first to state that it's true stats can be manipulated and dissected,and special parameters can be constructed, to make almost anyone look like a Hall of Famer or a bum. However, when someone has compiled 2700+ career hits, unless it is combined with a sub-Mendoza average, that player must be considered to have been above the level of simply "average".

[Freakshow]

While there is something to the idea that being average for an extremely extended time period makes you better than average, I think Cramer is getting boosted largely due to the good fortune of all the good players going off to war.

By the time he turned 37 in 1942, Cramer's hitting had fallen off so much (mid 70's OPS+) that he surely was on the verge of losing a regular position in MLB. From 1943-45 his OPS+ rebounded to the mid 90's, higher than his career mark of 87! Either he was taking PED's or the quality of pitching in the league suddenly declined. In those three years he had exactly 500 hits.

Assuming, reasonably, that Cramer would have slid into part-time play sooner rather than later, I think his career would have at least 200 fewer hits if not for the war, and nobody would be talking much about him.

[The Commissioner]

While there is something to the idea that being average for an extremely extended time period makes you better than average, I think Cramer is getting boosted largely due to the good fortune of all the good players going off to war.

By the time he turned 37 in 1942, Cramer's hitting had fallen off so much (mid 70's OPS+) that he surely was on the verge of losing a regular position in MLB. From 1943-45 his OPS+ rebounded to the mid 90's, higher than his career mark of 87! Either he was taking PED's or the quality of pitching in the league suddenly declined. In those three years he had exactly 500 hits.

Assuming, reasonably, that Cramer would have slid into part-time play sooner rather than later, I think his career would have at least 200 fewer hits if not for the war, and nobody would be talking much about him.

I don't necessarily buy into your premise, but let's even say that it's true. Let's say that Doc Cramer had accumulated 200 less hits. Let's even say that his career batting average were 10 points lower. That still leaves him with 2500 career hits, a .286 lifetime batting average. That would still be more hits than all but 7 other players over the 35 year period between the Stock Market Crash and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (or in baseball terms, from the time Whitey Ford was born until after he pitched in his last post season game). That doesn't at least make him "slightly above average?" Keep in mind, I'm not arguing that he belongs in the company of the seven Hall of Famers above him on that hypothetical list. I'm just saying that absolutely merits "better than average".

[Cougar]

Commish, I miss you around here man! I thought I was the only one who ever took up the cause of Doc Cramer. (And I passed it up this time because I didn't feel like drawing the fire.)

I am in complete agreement that a guy just does not get 2700 hits with a .296 average, while being the best fielding CF between Speaker and DiMaggio, and be merely ordinary.

Cramer was great at what he did -- he was durable, reliable offensively, and wonderful defensively, for a long period of time.

I've actually always thought that Connie Mack missed the boat by not bringing him up from the minors earlier on; Mule Haas, (now there's a merely average player!), blocked him in CF during the dynasty years 1929-1931. That team would have been even better with Doc tracking everything down in CF.

[The Commissioner]

I've actually always thought that Connie Mack missed the boat by not bringing him up from the minors earlier on; Mule Haas, (now there's a merely average player!), blocked him in CF during the dynasty years 1929-1931. That team would have been even better with Doc tracking everything down in CF.

Well Cramer did only hit .404 in 1929 and they certainly wouldn't have wanted to interrupt Martinsburg's valiant attempt clinching the Piedmont League pennant. :rolleyes: