long overdue congatulations to Jim Rice

[joshfan]

maybe now Byleven,Smith,Santo and Dawson can be looked at again

[Ace Venom]

Ron Santo's fate is up to the VC and they've demonstrated that they can't seem to elect living players anymore. Lee Smith doesn't have a chance for much of the same reason that Santo didn't have a chance. Smith had his career saves record eclipsed by two other relievers, both of whom have accumulated 500 saves. Santo didn't have a chance because Mike Schmidt eclipsed him pretty quickly.

The debate against Blyleven is strange. The only thing I can determine is that he is just not that popular with the media. He doesn't help his case for calling out the writers for not voting for him. The primary arguments against Andre Dawson have been his low OBP and the fact that he moved from center to right. If he played center his entire career, then he would have been in by now. Instead, he's languishing.

[Jsquared83]

Ron Santo's fate is up to the VC and they've demonstrated that they can't seem to elect living players anymore. Lee Smith doesn't have a chance for much of the same reason that Santo didn't have a chance. Smith had his career saves record eclipsed by two other relievers, both of whom have accumulated 500 saves. Santo didn't have a chance because Mike Schmidt eclipsed him pretty quickly.

The debate against Blyleven is strange. The only thing I can determine is that he is just not that popular with the media. He doesn't help his case for calling out the writers for not voting for him. The primary arguments against Andre Dawson have been his low OBP and the fact that he moved from center to right. If he played center his entire career, then he would have been in by now. Instead, he's languishing.

To me, Dawson's counting stats and career value trump his low OBP. Throw in his GGs and albeit non-deserving MVP and I think he gets in. I'd look for him to move within 2-3% of 75 next year.

[Jsquared83]

maybe now Byleven,Smith,Santo and Dawson can be looked at again

Smith has several current and recently retired relievers ahead of him for the hall.

[brett]

Jim Rice's failure to get elected for 14 years was perhaps the single most collectively intelligent thing that the voters ever did. I guess it couldn't last. His superficial stats could have gotten him in 15 years ago, maybe. His value stats put him outside the top 200 players. It's not as bad as Catfish Hunter being in, or if Tim Raines gets left out though.

[Brad Harris]

That's it. I'm officially petitioning Sean for a "vomiting" emoticon.

[Los Bravos]

I'm continually amazed by the way you guys just can't seem to leave it alone. I hate that Kirby Puckett is in but I never mention it unless Mattingly's name comes up. I think maybe you guys should read Posnanski's piece about this from yesterday. He summed up things nicely, from the perspective of someone who didn't support Rice's election, yet looks at it realistically.

Again, as for Andre and Bert...just relax. They're both getting in, sooner or later, by the writers.

[jjpm74]

To me, Dawson's counting stats and career value trump his low OBP. Throw in his GGs and albeit non-deserving MVP and I think he gets in. I'd look for him to move within 2-3% of 75 next year.

At least Rice broke the .350 OBP and 120 OPS+ plane and had the perception of being a fearsome hitter (even if it was mostly hype). Dawson's career was even weaker than Rice and he played on low profile teams for his best seasons. Both factors hurt his case.

[mwiggins]

At least Rice broke the .350 OBP and 120 OPS+ plane and had the perception of being a fearsome hitter (even if it was mostly hype). Dawson's career was even weaker than Rice and he played on low profile teams for his best seasons. Both factors hurt his case.

Yet Dawson was a defensive stud at a prime defensive position, and a strong baserunner as well.

And he still outhit Rice on the road...

Career Road OPS
Rice - .789 (w/ 159 GIDP)
Dawson - .800 (w/ 102 GIDP)

[CorduroyCalves]

maybe now Byleven,Smith,Santo and Dawson can be looked at again

Maybe, but hopefully not. Those guys all had great careers, but the bar has already been lowered enough. I'm a huge Red Sox fan and even I question Rice's HOF worthiness. I'd rather see some deserving players get left out and maintain a high standard than lower the bar and let guys in who are questionable. JMO.

[jjpm74]

Yet Dawson was a defensive stud at a prime defensive position, and a strong baserunner as well.

Unfortunately, most of Dawson's excellent defensive seasons came on a team that had virtually no media coverage which seems to be hurting his case.

[brett]

That's it. I'm officially petitioning Sean for a "vomiting" emoticon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRn5-LQCg2s

[brett]

Unfortunately, most of Dawson's excellent defensive seasons came on a team that had virtually no media coverage which seems to be hurting his case.

While Dawson's defense was largley gone by '87, he actually is close to Willie Mays peak for 5-6 years according to PCA.

[mwiggins]

Unfortunately, most of Dawson's excellent defensive seasons came on a team that had virtually no media coverage which seems to be hurting his case.

I can't imagine the BBWAA is getting that hung up on a low OBP number, so I'm sure you're right. His 1982 season was nearly as great as Rice's big 1978 season, yet Dawson finished 21st in MVP voting. A great defensive CF (who did win a Gold Glove, so that part of his game wasn't overlooked) who steals 39 bases, finishes 3rd in the NL in total bases and slugging %, and hits .301 - yet he can't even crack the top 20 in MVP voting.

And the fact that he played his prime through a fairly low offensive era, resulting in stats that didn't look so impressive by the time he was eligible for the Hall. Take his 1983 season. He finished 2nd in the MVP voting, so he impressed the writers at the time, but I'm guessing looking back this many years later a .299-32-113 season doesn't look too special.

And his best season was strike-shortened, which doesn't help either.

Dawson's the rare player who's underrated by both the writers and the SABRmetrics crowd, though for different reasons.

[mwiggins]

While Dawson's defense was largley gone by '87, he actually is close to Willie Mays peak for 5-6 years according to PCA.

And that's what I think a lot of writers remember best - the gimpy one-dimensional HR hitter.

[dl4060]

Rice was a pretty awesome player for a few years, even if he was aided by Fenway. Someone who could be counted on to hit around .320 with 40 home runs is quite a hitter. Some of his detractors point to him as someone overrated by his rbi, but anyone who can hit .320 and lead the league in HR is really impressive. He hurt his wrist in 1980, and was really never the same player, but for a few years he was scary.

In certain superficial ways, he is similar to Nomar. Both seemed to be certain HOF guys in their mid 20's. Wrist injuries can really change hitters.

I don't see this vote as the travesty some do. I am happy for Jim Rice, even though I see him as very borderline. I would take the Jim Rice of the late 70's over Winfield's peak. If Rice had never been hurt I think his career would look a bit different, and I give him some credit for that.

[jjpm74]

I can't imagine the BBWAA is getting that hung up on a low OBP number, so I'm sure you're right. His 1982 season was nearly as great as Rice's big 1978 season, yet Dawson finished 21st in MVP voting. A great defensive CF (who did win a Gold Glove, so that part of his game wasn't overlooked) who steals 39 bases, finishes 3rd in the NL in total bases and slugging %, and hits .301 - yet he can't even crack the top 20 in MVP voting.


In 1982, Andre Dawson was the best player on a team that featured Gary Carter, Al Oliver, Doug Flynn, Chris Speier, Tom Wallach and Tim Raines in the field, Steve Rogers and Bill Gullickson pitching and Jeff Reardon relieving. It has always amazed me that the 1976-1986 Expos teams produced zero post season appearances despite all the talent they had.

[Cougar]

In 1982, Andre Dawson was the best player on a team that featured Gary Carter, Al Oliver, Doug Flynn, Chris Speier, Tom Wallach and Tim Raines in the field, Steve Rogers and Bill Gullickson pitching and Jeff Reardon relieving. It has always amazed me that the 1976-1986 Expos teams produced zero post season appearances despite all the talent they had.

They won the NL East pennant in the 1981 strike season, beating the Phillies in the divisional playoffs.

Indeed, they just barely were beaten by the Dodgers in the NLCS, thanks to Rick Monday's dramatic homer off of Steve Rogers.

[538280]

I don't think Rice deserved the HOF. He was almost certainly a very overrated player when he played and traditonal numbers greatly overrate his value to his teams, because he was a pretty impatient hitter whose OBP was only a little above average and while he had good power it wasn't great. His OPS+ is 128, and that actually overrates him because OBP is undercompensated and it doesn't take into account other factors in his offense like his GIDP and the fact he wasn't a particularly good baserunner. He was a left fielder and not a particularly good one. He's not a HOFer to me, not even that close, I don't think he deserved it.

With that being said I do not necessarily feel that bad about him being elected. Perhaps this is the part of me that is a Red Sox fan but Rice has been a mainstay in the Red Sox organization in the past 10 or so years. He has become much less ego-centric than he was when he played. He actually isn't a bad analyst for NESN, seems like a great guy who has gotten over any of the surliness his supposedly had when playing (which I find questionable anyway). As a Red Sox supporter I am happy for Rice, even if I realize he isn't really a HOF caliber player.

[jjpm74]

They won the NL East pennant in the 1981 strike season, beating the Phillies in the divisional playoffs.

Indeed, they just barely were beaten by the Dodgers in the NLCS, thanks to Rick Monday's dramatic homer off of Steve Rogers.

I forgot all about that. Thanks for the reminder. Isn't it strange that the 2 years the Expos were in 1st place in their existence were strike shortened seasons (1981 and 1994)?

[Cougar]

I forgot all about that. Thanks for the reminder. Isn't it strange that the 2 years the Expos were in 1st place in their existence were strike shortened seasons (1981 and 1994)?

That franchise was hexed.

[Brad Harris]

That franchise was hexed.

Montreal won their division in 1981 and had the best record in their league in 1994. Cincinnati had the best record in their league in 1981 and won their division in 1994.

Sadness.

[Cougar]

Montreal won their division in 1981 and had the best record in their league in 1994. Cincinnati had the best record in their league in 1981 and won their division in 1994.

Sadness.

My man Davey Concepcion was the best everyday player on that 1981 Cincinnati team!

[Jsquared83]

Rice was a pretty awesome player for a few years, even if he was aided by Fenway. Someone who could be counted on to hit around .320 with 40 home runs is quite a hitter. Some of his detractors point to him as someone overrated by his rbi, but anyone who can hit .320 and lead the league in HR is really impressive. He hurt his wrist in 1980, and was really never the same player, but for a few years he was scary.

In certain superficial ways, he is similar to Nomar. Both seemed to be certain HOF guys in their mid 20's. Wrist injuries can really change hitters.

I don't see this vote as the travesty some do. I am happy for Jim Rice, even though I see him as very borderline. I would take the Jim Rice of the late 70's over Winfield's peak. If Rice had never been hurt I think his career would look a bit different, and I give him some credit for that.

Winfield had way more defensive value than Rice. Plus I'm sure yankee stadium robbed him of plenty of HRs that he would have had in Boston if they switched spots.

[jjpm74]

Winfield had way more defensive value than Rice. Plus I'm sure yankee stadium robbed him of plenty of HRs that he would have had in Boston if they switched spots.

Winfield also had almost 700 more hits (3110 hits) with a higher OPS+ which makes the whole comparison silly.

[Los Bravos]

Dawson's the rare player who's underrated by both the writers and the SABRmetrics crowd, though for different reasons.So very true.

[jaxxr]

Rice's MVP award, and being the last pre-roids guy to get 400+ Total bases in a season, certainly adds to his "Fame", and probably had a big effect on the writers choice.

Regardless of of how one might feel about Jim Rice, it does seem Bert Blyleven is a worthy pick.
There are countless stat measures which show how similar he is to many HOF pitchers, and many which show he is better than some.

I do feel Bert should eventually get in, despite his lack of big time "Fame", or popularity.
He never did win a CY award, which would have obviously helped his cause, and won 20 games only one time, and despite and false or enlarged perceptions, a multiple 20 game winner always garners voter respect.

Despite those "Fame" shortcomings, Bert still appears a HOF hurler, to me at least. An aspect I can not understand, is his lack of AS game selections.
Sure an AS selection is no proof of HOF merit, more popularity than skill, but in 22 seasons, one would think a guy like Bert could at least be considered among the best 9 pitchers, in merely his own league, more than just two times.
Peers like Jack Morris, Bret Saberhagen, and Mike Scott, for example had more AS selections, and played less seasons. Outside of downplaying AS game significance, might anyone have any views on why Bly was not selected more often ?

[Captain Cold Nose]

maybe now Byleven,Smith,Santo and Dawson can be looked at again

Dawson cleared 65%. His eventual election is almost assured.

Blyleven hit the 60% mark and has seen a steady and solid increase in vote totals the last couple years. I'd be very surprised if the writers don't vote him in. Percentages that high almost assure eventual election.

Santo will probably get in. Eventually.

Smith? Lee? I would be really surprised if he makes it.

[Fielding Marshall]

Regardless of of how one might feel about Jim Rice, it does seem Bert Blyleven is a worthy pick.
There are countless stat measures which show how similar he is to many HOF pitchers, and many which show he is better than some.

I do feel Bert should eventually get in, despite his lack of big time "Fame", or popularity.
He never did win a CY award, which would have obviously helped his cause, and won 20 games only one time, and despite and false or enlarged perceptions, a multiple 20 game winner always garners voter respect.

Despite those "Fame" shortcomings, Bert still appears a HOF hurler, to me at least. An aspect I can not understand, is his lack of AS game selections.
Sure an AS selection is no proof of HOF merit, more popularity than skill, but in 22 seasons, one would think a guy like Bert could at least be considered among the best 9 pitchers, in merely his own league, more than just two times.
Peers like Jack Morris, Bret Saberhagen, and Mike Scott, for example had more AS selections, and played less seasons. Outside of downplaying AS game significance, might anyone have any views on why Bly was not selected more often ?

If you payed close attention to the All-Star Game rosters this year, you should have noticed what should have been a minor controversy: that Javier Vazquez, despite stats good enough to put him on the short list to start, had somehow been left off the NL roster. Making the team, however, was one Jason Marquis, who had worse numbers at every statistic save one.

Wins / Winning Percentage.

Entire volumes have seemingly been written about Blyleven's winning percentage and his inability to shake the image of being 'just another .500 pitcher.' I strongly suspect Blyleven was repeatedly left off the team simply due to the lack of wins on his part.

[dl4060]

Winfield also had almost 700 more hits (3110 hits) with a higher OPS+ which makes the whole comparison silly.

Please read my post. I was NOT comparing career value. I stated clearly that I was comparing Rice's late 70's peak to Winfield's.

I do give players a bit more credit for being able to do awesome things. Not enough credit to put Bo Jackson in the HOF, but some nonetheless. When someone is a threat to win a batting title, as Rice was in the late 70's, and lead the league in HR's, that really does make an impression on me.

One thing which may have hurt Rice among older writers is the perception that he did not do what he should have. In the late 70's he was a scary hitter. One could easily project him to finish with 500-600 home runs and a BA around .300. Hank Aaron made a comment around that time to the tune of 'he has a lot more power than I did at his age' which shows just how he was viewed at the time. It was not out of the question to see him as a triple crown winner. If you had told someone in 1979 that Dwight Evans would end up with more home runs than Rice, you would have been laughed out of the building. Many writers saw Rice as someone who should have owned the world but did not.

On the other hand, his awesome peak probably helped him get the votes needed to go over the top. Enough writers may have had impressions of the triple crown threat still in the back of their minds.

[joshfan]

Brooks Robinson(257) was never the offensive stalwart Santo was
I love Mattingley but he had 5 great years followed by 7 good ones, oh yeah sounds like Koufax
Jim Rice was a standout fear inspiring hitter for a long time

[Captain Cold Nose]

Brooks Robinson(257) was never the offensive stalwart Santo was
I love Mattingley but he had 5 great years followed by 7 good ones, oh yeah sounds like Koufax
Jim Rice was a standout fear inspiring hitter for a long time

Would Robinson have been at Wrigley?

Mattingly's five years were not Koufax's five years.

Rice was a standout in an era that didn't produce too many of those.

[nerfan]

Brooks Robinson(257) was never the offensive stalwart Santo was
I love Mattingley but he had 5 great years followed by 7 good ones, oh yeah sounds like Koufax
Jim Rice was a standout fear inspiring hitter for a long time

No, Mattingly had 5 good years followed by 7 average ones.

Koufax had 4 meaningless years, 2 good years, and 4 years where he made the National League look like this :crazy. Don't even ATTEMPT to make a comparison between Koufax and Mattingly.

If you want to make a better comparison, try Mattingly and Puckett.

[Jsquared83]

No, Mattingly had 5 good years followed by 7 average ones.

Koufax had 4 meaningless years, 2 good years, and 4 years where he made the National League look like this :crazy. Don't even ATTEMPT to make a comparison between Koufax and Mattingly.

If you want to make a better comparison, try Mattingly and Puckett.

Puckett got in cause his career was more linear, played CF and didnt and couldn't play after his skills diminished. Mattingly had no chance because he fell off a cliff after '89. However, a few more years similiar to '93, plus a ring or two would have given him a better than average chance.

[nerfan]

Puckett got in cause his career was more linear, played CF and didnt and couldn't play after his skills diminished. Mattingly had no chance because he fell off a cliff after '89. However, a few more years similiar to '93, plus a ring or two would have given him a better than average chance.

Well, yes. Puckett is in my personal Hall of Fame because he's an outfielder and Mattingly was a first baseman.

[JDD]

Brooks Robinson(257) was never the offensive stalwart Santo was
I love Mattingley but he had 5 great years followed by 7 good ones, oh yeah sounds like Koufax
Jim Rice was a standout fear inspiring hitter for a long time

Seven good years? That's a little high, and one of the reasons why he is not in the HOF. I will give him five at or above a HOF level, but after that he was only a little above average for american league first basemen.

[Freakshow]

Rice was a standout in an era that didn't produce too many of those.Highest OPS+, 7500+ PA, players debuting 1967-82
Cnt Player OPS+ OBP PA From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+
1 Mike Schmidt* 147 .380 10062 1972 1989 22-39
2 Reggie Jackson* 139 .356 11416 1967 1987 21-41
3 Jack Clark 137 .379 8225 1975 1992 19-36
4 George Brett* 135 .369 11624 1973 1993 20-40
5 Tony Gwynn* 132 .388 10232 1982 2001 22-41
6 Ken Singleton 132 .388 8558 1970 1984 23-37
7 Rod Carew* 131 .393 10550 1967 1985 21-39
8 Wade Boggs* 130 .415 10740 1982 1999 24-41
9 Dave Winfield* 130 .353 12358 1973 1995 21-43
10 Greg Luzinski 130 .363 7514 1970 1984 19-33
11 Eddie Murray* 129 .359 12817 1977 1997 21-41
12 Fred Lynn 129 .360 7923 1974 1990 22-38
13 Bobby Bonds 129 .353 8090 1968 1981 22-35
14 Keith Hernandez 128 .384 8553 1974 1990 20-36
15 Jim Rice* 128 .352 9058 1974 1989 21-36
16 Rickey Henderson* 127 .401 13346 1979 2003 20-44
17 Don Mattingly 127 .358 7721 1982 1995 21-34
18 Dwight Evans 127 .370 10569 1972 1991 20-39
19 George Foster 126 .338 7812 1969 1986 20-37
20 Johnny Bench* 126 .342 8669 1967 1983 19-35
21 Bobby Grich 125 .371 8220 1970 1986 21-37
22 Tim Raines 123 .385 10359 1979 2002 19-42
23 Cesar Cedeno 123 .347 8133 1970 1986 19-35
24 Paul Molitor* 122 .369 12160 1978 1998 21-41
25 Brian Downing 122 .370 9309 1973 1992 22-41
26 Hal McRae 122 .351 8058 1968 1987 22-41
27 Dale Murphy 121 .346 9040 1976 1993 20-37
28 Dave Parker 121 .339 10184 1973 1991 22-40
29 Ron Cey 121 .354 8344 1971 1987 23-39
30 Cecil Cooper 121 .337 7939 1971 1987 21-37
31 Al Oliver 121 .344 9778 1968 1985 21-38

[nerfan]

If Jim Rice, why not Keith Hernandez?

[Cougar]

If Jim Rice, why not Keith Hernandez?

Yes, why not?

[nerfan]

Yes, why not?

The BBWAA boggles the mind.

Hernandez was as good of a hitter and a far superior fielder, one of the best of all time. The election of Jim Rice was fairly ridiculous.

[mwiggins]

If Jim Rice, why not Keith Hernandez?

Or Bobby Bonds, or Fred Lynn, or Dewy, or Bobby Grich, or Tim Raines, Cesar Cedeno - to pick a few others from that list.

But apparently more "feared" is more important to HoF voters than large edges on defense and/or the basepaths.

[mwiggins]

Hernandez was as good of a hitter and a far superior fielder, one of the best of all time. The election of Jim Rice was fairly ridiculous.

You just as easily say that about each of his young OF mates back with the Sox in the late 70's. Not to mention another better 1970's Sox OF, Reggie Smith.

[nerfan]

You just as easily say that about each of his young OF mates back with the Sox in the late 70's. Not to mention another better 1970's Sox OF, Reggie Smith.

Fred Lynn and Reggie Smith and Dwight Evans were ALL better players than Jim Rice.

[Paul Wendt]

Seven good years? That's a little high, and one of the reasons why he is not in the HOF. I will give him five at or above a HOF level, but after that he was only a little above average for american league first basemen.
Mattingly was a good rookie (which no one is putting in these counts) and he folllowed that with four great seasons. Please count six not "five at or above a HOF level". After that, in six seasons 1990-95 he was below average for a first baseman, batting 104 in 3299 pa.

[Los Bravos]

Puckett got in cause his career was more linear, played CF and didnt and couldn't play after his skills diminished. Puckett got in because he was popular with writers who bought his nice guy act and felt bad about the sudden end of his career.

[brett]

Puckett got in because he was popular with writers who bought his nice guy act and felt bad about the sudden end of his career.

As a centerfielder, he was probably on a hall of fame track. And his career curve was very consistent suggesting a decent decline. If he had been coming off of 2 poor years, I'm not sure he gets in.

[Los Bravos]

I don't really disagree, but that's a fairly thin reed to hang a guy's HOF membership on.

[Jsquared83]

Puckett got in because he was popular with writers who bought his nice guy act and felt bad about the sudden end of his career.

Well yea that too. But they'll never admit it. I was super shocked when he got in first ballot no less.

[Jsquared83]

As a centerfielder, he was probably on a hall of fame track. And his career curve was very consistent suggesting a decent decline. If he had been coming off of 2 poor years, I'm not sure he gets in.

Wasn't he also hitting something like .385 in the spring of '96 before his vision was lost?

[dbacksfan95]

Congrats to Ricky Henderson and Jim Rice-HOF

[brett]

I don't really disagree, but that's a fairly thin reed to hang a guy's HOF membership on.

I don't rate Puckett all that high, but consider that he played about as many games as Todd Helton, Dick Allen, Jimmy Collins, Frank Baker (I'm avoiding guys who lost time to WWII, or shorter schedules, or who were catchers).

And he had a 124 OPS+ as a probably overall average centerfielder (considering that he played there pretty long).

A 124 OPS+ for a centerfielder would be proportionate to a first baseman with about a 145 OPS+ (I'm guessing that centerfielders average about 95-100 and first basemen 115-120). Its a very good OPS+ for a centerfielder. I probably would have wanted to see him get to about 2100-2200 games at near that level so I guess he got 2 1/2 to 3 seasons graced to him. (and he had the 2 world series-not big in my book but it has to count for something).

[Paul Wendt]

I don't rate Puckett all that high, but consider that he played about as many games as Todd Helton, Dick Allen, Jimmy Collins, Frank Baker (I'm avoiding guys who lost time to WWII, or shorter schedules, or who were catchers).
A career of that length was not unusual for a future hofer in the 1900s or 1930s but it hasn't happened in the 1960s or 1990s.

Among all hall of fame "players" there are 103 with at least 12 full seasons equivalent games played in all roles and 37 more with 8 to 12 full seasons.

Among the hall of famers with major league debuts after 1949 there are 38 with at least 13.26 full seasons (Jim Rice) plus Kirby Puckett at 11.40.

[dgarza]

A career of that length was not unusual for a future hofer in the 1900s or 1930s but it hasn't happened in the 1960s or 1990s.

Among all hall of fame "players" there are 103 with at least 12 full seasons equivalent games played in all roles and 37 more with 8 to 12 full seasons.

Among the hall of famers with major league debuts after 1949 there are 38 with at least 13.26 full seasons (Jim Rice) plus Kirby Puckett at 11.40.
Trivial tidbit:
Puckett has the most PAs of the 1984 debuts and 4th most of the 1983-1985 debuts.

[brett]

A career of that length was not unusual for a future hofer in the 1900s or 1930s but it hasn't happened in the 1960s or 1990s.

Among all hall of fame "players" there are 103 with at least 12 full seasons equivalent games played in all roles and 37 more with 8 to 12 full seasons.

Among the hall of famers with major league debuts after 1949 there are 38 with at least 13.26 full seasons (Jim Rice) plus Kirby Puckett at 11.40.

As I said, Puckett would come up short if we put players in the hall of fame based solely on career win value, but a) not that short (as a centerfielder) and b) close enough that we don't have to imagine too many years getting knocked off the end by a freak injury to get him in and c) he would have had a very good "traditional" hall of fame case, .300+, probably 3000 hits, likely 300 home runs (something that only 4 guys had accomplished at the time) AND 6 gold gloves and d) he was a big part of world series history.

1700 games, 124 OPS+ centerfield, knocked out after an all-star season (130 OPS+ for a centerfielder is definitely all star caliber), I think he deserves the imagination of a couple of years.

[Paul Wendt]

There are 140 Hall of Fame "Players" with more 8.0 full seasons equivalent games played in the major leagues. The other Players are pitchers and Negro Leaguers including Roy Campanella and Monte Irvin.

Consider those 140 HOFers in seven groups of twenty defined by their major league debut seasons. For example the latest twenty are Kirby Puckett, debut 1984, back to Tony Perez, debut 1964. The middle twenty all debuted during only eight seasons 1924-31!

The table shows how many in each group played at least 18 full seasons, 15 to 18, 12 to 15, 10 to 12, and less than 10 full seasons.

Full Seasons equivalent mlb games played in all roles
(numbers of hof players)

debut season
1964-84 1948-63 1932-47 1924-31 1914-23 1894-13 1871-94
Full Seasons
18+ (15) 4 4 1 4 2
15-18 (46) 11 12 2 5 3 7* 6*
12-15 (42) 4 4 8 6 12 1 7
10-12 (32) 1 6 4 3 5 3
8-10 (5) 3 5 2 3 2

* Two 1894 debuts with 15-18 seasons are split between the tawo earliest timespans.
Half of the hall of famers who played 15 full seasons are in the latest two of seven groups (31 of 61, bold). Most of the others are in the earliest two of seven groups (19, blue).


By the way, most of the players with 15 full seasons are in the Hall of Fame.
number of players, at least 12 full seasons mlb, debut 1871-1984
Full Seasons
18+ (20) 5 6 1 4 4
15-18 (68) 25 15 3 5 3 7* 10*
12-15 (179) 60 21 17 12 17 19 33

12+ sum (267) 90 42 21 17 20 23 37

[Brad Harris]

Paul,

Looking at your table, is it safe to say that there's been a recent (20-25 year) trend in BBWAA voting towards longer career candidates, as opposed to earlier electorates, that is?

[Paul Wendt]

Brad,
The numbers of all 18-season and all 15-season players follow roughly the same pattern as the numbers in the Hall of Fame. (Compare the second with the first table above.) So I doubt there has been such a trend by Hall of Fame selectors in favor of long careers. Probably I should extend that second table to cover the number of all 12-season players.
...
Here it is and I have highlighted a comparison with the Hall of Fame table.
big : every one in the hall of fame
bold : at least half in the hall of fame

numbers of major league players, at least 12 full seasons, debut 1871-1984

debut season
1964-84 1948-63 1932-47 1924-31 1914-23 1894-13 1871-94
Full Seasons
18+ (20) 5 6 1 4 4
15-18 (68) 25 15 3 5 3 7 10
12-15 (179) 60 21 17 12 17 19 33
Recall the definition of full seasons (equivalent games played). No primary pitcher qualifies; the all-time leaders are Bobby Mathews 9.08, Jesse Orosco 7.90.

[brett]

Brad,
The numbers of all 18-season and all 15-season players follow roughly the same pattern as the numbers in the Hall of Fame. (Compare the second with the first table above.) So I doubt there has been such a trend by Hall of Fame selectors in favor of long careers. Probably I should extend that second table to cover the number of all 12-season players.
...

By 12 full seasons, are we talking about 12 x 162 or 154, or 12 x 504 qualifying plate appearances or something else?

[brett]

Brad,
The numbers of all 18-season and all 15-season players follow roughly the same pattern as the numbers in the Hall of Fame. (Compare the second with the first table above.) So I doubt there has been such a trend by Hall of Fame selectors in favor of long careers. Probably I should extend that second table to cover the number of all 12-season players.
...


Doesn't that just mean that they don't favor "relatively" long careers (relative to their era?)

What's interesting is that I would have suspected that in a more developed game, it would be harder for players to stay productive for many years.

Also, it looks like there were simply MORE players selected from earlier eras.

[OleMissCub]

Dawson is an interesting case, because if you were to JUST look at the things that voters have traditionally voted on, then Dawson is a no doubt HOFer.

2800 hits
440 HR
500 Doubles
1600 RBI
300 Stolen Bases
8 Gold Gloves (4 in CF)
8 All Star appearances
Most Valuable Player award
Rookie of the Year Award


*stats are rounded up in some cases

[Los Bravos]

Again...Andre Dawson is getting in. It's just a matter of time. I know it drives Matt and a lot of other people crazy but this kind of waiting period is how they express that a guy isn't without problems with his case.

He'll make it in a year or two and then the "debate" about his OBP will be so much dust, much like all of the objections to Rice (and mine to Puckett) are now irrelevant.

[Paul Wendt]

By 12 full seasons, are we talking about 12 x 162 or 154, or 12 x 504 qualifying plate appearances or something else?
It would be 12x162 games if every one of a player's teams played 162 games.

Here it is always "full seasons equivalent games played in the major leagues" or "played in all roles". Usually in this forum it is FSE games fielding a particular position.

Kirby Puckett played 8.85 full seasons at CF, which is rank about 40 among hof-eligible players.

[STLCards2]

One more time... nobody has ever said that Dawson should not get in solely because his OB% is low. The people (myself not included) who think he is a hair short of the HOF, feel that his overall production (both offensively and defensively) is a tad short, and his OB% is the main reason why. Many feel he is right on the cusp (with his power, speed and great defense early on) and if he were a bit more patient, it would have pushed him over the line. Nobody to my knowledge has ever stated an OB% minimum that a guy had to reach to be a HOFer. Had Dawson a .50 better slugging%, nobody would care about his OB% one bit, because his cumulative production would be enough in there eyes. It has never been about OB% in isolation, but total run production, which compared to other HOF outfielders, Dawson is a bit behind.

Now, as I have mentioned, I feel (as do a a majority), that his longevity, power, speed, and superior defense as a youngster is just enough to get in, and I hope he does.

[brett]

Dawson is an interesting case, because if you were to JUST look at the things that voters have traditionally voted on, then Dawson is a no doubt HOFer.

2800 hits
440 HR
500 Doubles
1600 RBI
300 Stolen Bases
8 Gold Gloves (4 in CF)
8 All Star appearances
Most Valuable Player award
Rookie of the Year Award


*stats are rounded up in some cases

The funny thing about Dawson is that it may be his impatient (not saber good) approach that gave him the counting stats that the voters will eventually smile upon. If he had been more Saber good, he might have lost out on the counting stats needed. He is saber-borderline and because the new defensive metrics we have see him as an OUTSTANDING, even ALL TIME GREAT centerfielder for 6-7 years, and because I have come to weight fielding, as well as time at centerfield higher I would probably put him in the HOF now. Some of the defensive metrics say the same thing about Dale Murphy's defense too. The earlier metrics seemed to say he was overrated in the field, but now he looks like he had a 6-7 year run of excellence.

Also, both guys could run at least in the first half of their careers, and with an understanding of how much value that may have produced that we don't see in the stats, they both get at least a little boost.

[Paul Wendt]

(part moved here from above)

Doesn't that just mean that they don't favor "relatively" long careers (relative to their era?)
I'm not sure what Brad's question means. Perhaps it should be understood thus:
Given that selectors have taken twenty non-pitchers from each of these timespans, have they moved toward or away from taking the twenty longest careers?

That seems to be how brett interprets my speculative reply: The selectors haven't moved toward simply taking the longest careers.

Also, it looks like there were simply MORE players selected from earlier eras.
more if the "eras" were equally long?
more players per baseball season, so to speak. Right?
That is built into the lengths of the seven timespans that define the groups of players (working backward in time, left to right in the table).
21 16 16 08 10 20 24 (years)

Two of the timespans are much shorter than the others because the HOF has taken many more players (major league non-pitchers) per baseball season from those times, debut 1914-31 combined. Of course that means they have generally dipped further down the lists of contemporary leaders defined over equal timespans.


Now, what about honoring the contemporary leaders specifically by career Full Seasons played?

I don't see strong evidence for any differences in tendency to induct the longest careers from different times.

Even if I am right to say no change (as brett maybe guessed), this is still an open question regarding the BBWAA. I have nowhere distinguished BBWAA and veterans selections.

Number among twenty Hall of Fame players (major league non-pitchers) who are among the twenty longest careers (fse major league games)
debut span ; number of 20 in top 20
1871-94 ; 11
1894-13 ; 11
1914-23 ; 15
1924-31 ; 12 *
1932-47 ; 10
1948-63 ; 16 ; shortest Orlando Cepeda, 13.28 full seasons, rank 29
1964-84 ; 11 *

* Within their unequal timespans that both produced twenty HOF Players, Ross Youngs ranks as high by full seasons as Johnny Bench, Ryne Sandberg, and Jim Rice --just inside the top sixty.

Except for 1948-63, noted in the table, at least two Players from every time period rank outside the top forty by full seasons.

[Los Bravos]

Now, as I have mentioned, I feel (as do a a majority), that his longevity, power, speed, and superior defense as a youngster is just enough to get in, and I hope he does.Fair enough.

There are people on the record, here and in the wider world (Posnanski, for one) who hang their whole anti-Dawson case on that one stat.

[STLCards2]

Fair enough.

There are people on the record, here and in the wider world (Posnanski, for one) who hang their whole anti-Dawson case on that one stat.

True - but for most, it is only because of the overall impact of that less than desirable stat - not the stat itself. Like I said, if Dawson had a .650 career slugging%, he would have sailed into the HOF with 95% on his first ballot-even with the low OB%. Dawson's issue was: he had a below-average OB%, with a very good, but not all-time great slugging%. Looking at it combined, Dawson is short of the HOF as a hitter. Thankfuly for him, he has the CF position, defense and speed to make up for it. And as OleMiss said, the kind of hardware that voters tend to like.

[Los Bravos]

I think you're crediting some people with having the same level headed approach and thorough insight into the numbers that you have, which is (in my experience) not always the case.

The funniest thing about this is that I'm the one who keeps saying that it's a given that he'll get in, yet I can't stop myself from continuing to talk him up.

[brett]

I think you're crediting some people with having the same level headed approach and thorough insight into the numbers that you have, which is (in my experience) not always the case.


Personally I'm kind of counting on the voters putting Dawson in for the wrong reasons-raw career hits, home runs and RBI.

[brett]

In retrospect, remembering 30 years since Munson's death, I do wonder why he didn't get support similar to Puckett. Maybe it seemed in '79 that he did not have much left in the tank while Puckett had an al-star year.

[Jsquared83]

Personally I'm kind of counting on the voters putting Dawson in for the wrong reasons-raw career hits, home runs and RBI.

That's Dawson's ticket. The voters are gonna look at how many clean guys with 400 HR/1500 RBI/2500 Hits arent in and I'm pretty sure he's the only eligible, clean one. Throw in the steals and GGs and he's deserving. Should have made it years ago and before Rice.

[Jsquared83]

In retrospect, remembering 30 years since Munson's death, I do wonder why he didn't get support similar to Puckett. Maybe it seemed in '79 that he did not have much left in the tank while Puckett had an al-star year.

I was thinking about that this morning. I wasn't born until 4 years after he died but just looking at the stats, if he could have had 3 more AS caliber years at catcher and then a few more as DH and retired after '85 or '86, he would have finished with about 2200 hits, .285 BA, close to 1200 RBIs. Throw the AS games, MVP and ROY in and he definitely would have gotten some strong consideration.

[dgarza]

In retrospect, remembering 30 years since Munson's death, I do wonder why he didn't get support similar to Puckett. Maybe it seemed in '79 that he did not have much left in the tank while Puckett had an al-star year.Well, wouldn't the biggest reason be that Munson did not seem to have a HOF career and Puckett did seem to have a HOF career?

[Los Bravos]

Personally I'm kind of counting on the voters putting Dawson in for the wrong reasons-raw career hits, home runs and RBI.I try not to worry about their reasoning, as long as they get the right guys in.

It's funny...I tend to be a counting stats type guy but I'm also decidedly in the Big Hall camp, so I often wind up arguing for the same people that more Sabermetricly inclined posters champion.

I'm perfectly comfortable with that, myself.

[Freakshow]

Three very similar contemporary center fielders, plus a left fielder.
Year Player G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB
1979-90 Murphy 1795 7598 6641 1051 1797 287 34 353 1069 149 60 883 1465 .271 .356 .484 .840 128 3211 163 25 3 46 152
1979-91 Dawson 1847 7758 7129 1042 2032 363 74 333 1191 254 84 453 1045 .285 .330 .497 .827 126 3542 150 67 17 92 119
1984-95 Puckett 1783 7831 7244 1071 2304 414 57 207 1085 134 76 450 965 .318 .360 .477 .837 124 3453 188 56 23 58 85
1975-86 Rice 1766 7754 7060 1098 2145 329 73 350 1276 55 32 560 1206 .304 .356 .520 .876 133 3670 269 52 5 77 72
Even in this age, batting average counts for so much with the voters. :sigh:

[nerfan]

IBB's obviously don't, though.

[Paul Wendt]

Three very similar contemporary center fielders, plus a left fielder.
[table deleted]
Even in this age, batting average counts for so much with the voters. :sigh:
Furthermore, that table of timespan batting records favors Jim Rice a little, too. The timespans Murphy and Dawson 1979-91, Puckett 1984-95, and Rice 1975-86 do show each player at his best, given the playing time covered for each, but why that much?

His admirers commonly speak and write of Jim Rice dominating the league for these 12 seasons, ha, largely because he put up another good season in 1986 (in limelight with the Red Sox winning again). That was his career fourth-best by hits or runs, sixth by RBI, fifth by OPS+. The others would all look better by most rates and the OPS+ index if their spans were shortened by one season, Murphy and Puckett significantly better.

Murphy and Dawson need the extra calendar time featured here, 13 years to 12 for Puckett and Rice, in order to make a better match by counting statistics except games played. Why? Partly or wholly because of league and team differences in aggregate plate appearances. Boston in particular put more men on base and thus provided every batting position with more appearances for three reasons: the designated hitter, Fenway Park, and above-average batters. The adjustments in "park factors" pertain to averages and rates, not to appearance counts and therefore not adequately to counting achievements.

[nerfan]

Murphy is the perfect example of a player who fell of a cliff for no reason. Despite this he's STILL better than Jim Rice.

[Freakshow]

table #75 favors RiceDoes it? Does 5 to 9 points of OPS+ more than offset the large deficits in defense and baserunning?

Furthermore, that table of timespan batting records favors Jim Rice a little, too. The timespans Murphy and Dawson 1979-91, Puckett 1984-95, and Rice 1975-86 do show each player at his best, given the playing time covered for each, but why that much?Puckett's line is his entire career. The others are chosen to approximately equate this.

I edited Murphy to 1979-90.

[Steven Gallanter]

Winfield also had almost 700 more hits (3110 hits) with a higher OPS+ which makes the whole comparison silly.
The comparison is not silly.

The argument for Rice as a great player is a peak value argument.

Rice was a great player who had a very good career.