Andy Van Slyke

[Cowtipper]

Andy Van Slyke played 13 years in the big leagues, hitting .274 with 164 home runs and 245 stolen bases. He was an All-Star three times, won a Gold Glove Award five seasons in a row, and a Silver Slugger twice. In 1992, he led the league in hits and doubles, and in 1988 he led the league in triples and sacrifice hits.

According to Baseball Reference, Van Slyke is statistically similar to Lloyd Moseby, Al Smith, Hank Bauer, Gene Woodling, Ken Keltner, Von Hayes, George McQuinn, Richie Hebner, Kevin McReynolds and Brian Jordan (although I believe he was better than some of the guys on that list).

The Baseball Page ranks him as the 41st best centerfielder of all-time, ahead of Ginger Beaumont, Chet Lemon and Curt Flood, but behind Earle Combs, Cy Seymour and Roy Thomas. In 2001, his only year of Hall of Fame eligibility, he received exactly zero votes.

So, what do you think about Van Slyke? Do you think he should be in the Hall of Fame?

[Cougar]

The vote total was correct.

[jjpm74]

A very underrated player, but not a HOFer.

[nerfan]

A very underrated player, but not a HOFer.

I concur. Andy Van Slyke played great defense and had a solid bat. If his career was twice as long with slightly better rate stats I might be inclined to vote for him.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Your overreaches are become more and more irrelevant Cowtipper. In terms of career value, Van Slyke is only marginally better than...

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/tony_gonzalez_autograph.jpg :lookitup

[Brad Harris]

I just stopped in to vote my traditional "no".

[STLCards2]

I concur. Andy Van Slyke played great defense and had a solid bat. If his career was twice as long with slightly better rate stats I might be inclined to vote for him.

Oh, is that all...twice as long and better!:laugh
In other words: no, Van Slyke isn't even close to close.

[Cougar]

Your overreaches are become more and more irrelevant Cowtipper. In terms of career value, Van Slyke is only marginally better than...

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/tony_gonzalez_autograph.jpg :lookitup

#1. That's not nice.

#2. There seems to be widespread agreement that Van Slyke is not a HOFer, or even terribly close. However, in the heart of his prime, he was very, very well regarded.

The Pirate outfield of a young Barry Bonds, Andy Van Slyke, and Bobby Bonilla was considered a historically great one, and early on in that outfield triumvirate, Van Slyke was considered the best player of the three!

Obviously it didn't turn out that way...Van Slyke had peaked and and the other two got better (particularly Bonds, obviously...I'm actually not sure it's terribly clear cut whether you'd want Bonilla's slightly more potent bat or Van Slyke's gold glove in CF).

But if you asked about Van Slyke twenty years ago, you'd get a much more favorable response.

It might be interesting to discuss why some careers fizzle and others blossom.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

#1. That's not nice.

#2. There seems to be widespread agreement that Van Slyke is not a HOFer, or even terribly close. However, in the heart of his prime, he was very, very well regarded.

The Pirate outfield of a young Barry Bonds, Andy Van Slyke, and Bobby Bonilla was considered a historically great one, and early on in that outfield triumvirate, Van Slyke was considered the best player of the three!

Obviously it didn't turn out that way...Van Slyke had peaked and and the other two got better (particularly Bonds, obviously...I'm actually not sure it's terribly clear cut whether you'd want Bonilla's slightly more potent bat or Van Slyke's gold glove in CF).

But if you asked about Van Slyke twenty years ago, you'd get a much more favorable response.

It might be interesting to discuss why some careers fizzle and others blossom.

I'd be happy to discuss Andy Van Slyke in another thread like "Did Andy Van Slyke Aave HOF Talent" or "Was AVS A Great Defensive Player". But the thread is whether Andy Van Slyke should be a HOF'er, and its ridiculous. Again, if someone posts such clear rubbish on the HOF board he opens himself up to deserved criticism. It obviously posted to provoke a reaction, so I gave mine :waving

[jjpm74]

#1. That's not nice.

#2. There seems to be widespread agreement that Van Slyke is not a HOFer, or even terribly close. However, in the heart of his prime, he was very, very well regarded.

The Pirate outfield of a young Barry Bonds, Andy Van Slyke, and Bobby Bonilla was considered a historically great one, and early on in that outfield triumvirate, Van Slyke was considered the best player of the three!

Obviously it didn't turn out that way...Van Slyke had peaked and and the other two got better (particularly Bonds, obviously...I'm actually not sure it's terribly clear cut whether you'd want Bonilla's slightly more potent bat or Van Slyke's gold glove in CF).

But if you asked about Van Slyke twenty years ago, you'd get a much more favorable response.

It might be interesting to discuss why some careers fizzle and others blossom.

This is something a lot of people forget and why Van Slyke is not a "joke candidate." Van Slyke was considered by many to be the best player on those teams. Not Barry Bonds (and try to remember that this was pre-roids Bonds).

[SamtheBravesFan]

I concur. Andy Van Slyke played great defense and had a solid bat. If his career was twice as long with slightly better rate stats I might be inclined to vote for him.

Right. But, the sad fact is that he burned out in the 1994 and 1995 seasons. The Pirates kept the wrong man.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

He was absolutely horrific too is the playoffs, although Bonds & Bonilla were as well. Van Slyke batted .190 with 1HR is 100 career postseason AB's.

Van Slyke was a great defensive player but only had 2 HOF caliber offensive season. He was oft injured as well. Career was way too short for consideration. Can we make a rule not to discuss HOF position players going forward unless they have at least 2000 hits? (unless historic play cut stopped short due to freak circumstances)

[jjpm74]

Can we make a rule not to discuss HOF position players going forward unless they have at least 2000 hits? (unless historic play cut stopped short due to freak circumstances)

That would be an arbitrary and very poor way to assess HOF prospects and I hope that never happens. Say what you will about these threads, but at least they are an attempt to discuss great players who don't often show up in HOF discussions.

[leecemark]

I'd be happy to discuss Andy Van Slyke in another thread like "Did Andy Van Slyke Aave HOF Talent" or "Was AVS A Great Defensive Player". But the thread is whether Andy Van Slyke should be a HOF'er, and its ridiculous. Again, if someone posts such clear rubbish on the HOF board he opens himself up to deserved criticism. It obviously posted to provoke a reaction, so I gave mine :waving

--If you think a thread has no merit then don't post in it. It is contrary to BBF's standards to enter a thread just to dump on the author or topic. Please remember that in the future.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

That would be an arbitrary and very poor way to assess HOF prospects and I hope that never happens. Say what you will about these threads, but at least they are an attempt to discuss great players who don't often show up in HOF discussions.

That's the point, they shouldn't be in HOF discussions! They should be in other threads under different headings. But ok I'll stop from now on; just can't help myself from commenting sometimes when I see ridiculous posts!

[jjpm74]

That's the point, they shouldn't be in HOF discussions! They should be in other threads under different headings.

In your opinion. Others disagree with you, including myself.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

In your opinion. Others disagree with you, including myself.

So your saying that you think outfielders with 1563 H - 164 HR - 792 RBI - .792 OPS or thereabouts deserve serious HOF consideration? :sigh: Because that's what this thread is about.

[Cougar]

So your saying that you think outfielders with 1563 H - 164 HR - 792 RBI - .792 OPS or thereabouts deserve serious HOF consideration? :sigh: Because that's what this thread is about.

When serious people thought that player was better than Barry F. Bonds, then it might be an interesting discussion, yeah.

If we were to circumscribe the discussion as strictly as you propose, the HOF forum would be boring, because all the posts would just be variations on "thumbs up" or "thumbs down".

Many* of Cowtipper's threads generate interesting discussions. Good for him.



*And yes, some fall flat. So what?

[jjpm74]

So your saying that you think outfielders with 1563 H - 164 HR - 792 RBI - .792 OPS or thereabouts deserve serious HOF consideration? :sigh: Because that's what this thread is about.

I think that if someone posts a serious discussion thread about a player who was clearly on a HOF path at one point in their career, that they should not be the subject of condescending posts and ridicule. The same is true of someone who posts an atypical justification for their selection. Condescending or belligerent, forceful replies seem to happen way too much around here and are out of place. If you or anyone else don't like a particular thread or response, don't reply to it and it will drop away into obscurity. It really is that simple and would make this forum a much more enjoyable place for all.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

When serious people thought that player was better than Barry F. Bonds, then it might be an interesting discussion, yeah.

If we were to circumscribe the discussion as strictly as you propose, the HOF forum would be boring, because all the posts would just be variations on "thumbs up" or "thumbs down".

Many* of Cowtipper's threads generate interesting discussions. Good for him.



*And yes, some fall flat. So what?


Ok, that's fine. I, like many other before me have pointed out the repeated ridiculous premises of the question. Cowtipper's threads wouldn't generate such negative reactions if the premise was phrased differently i.e. Did AWS have HOF talent or Did Injuries Curtail a Possible HOF Career - somethingof that nature. Under those auspices, a perfectly legitimate discussion could take hold.

But to ask a blatantly obvious question in which not 1 writer voted for him, or quite often any BF members vote for, is setting yourself up for malevolence. Again, I will refrain in the future from posting negative banter on Cowtipper's posts because I really am not a negative person. Point made!

[jjpm74]

Did AWS have HOF talent or Did Injuries Curtail a Possible HOF Career - something of that nature. Under those auspices, a perfectly legitimate discussion could take hold.


This is a good wording suggestion, IMO.

[KCGHOST]

His career was simply too short leaving his counting numbers way shy of what is needed. A really fine player.

It would be a hoot if he and Bonds were elected in the same year, though.

[Eastvanmungo]

A few more years (at least 5) like his 1992 season and then we'd be talking.

[dgarza]

Andy Van Slyke played great defense and had a solid bat. If his career was twice as long with slightly better rate stats I might be inclined to vote for him.Yes, Van Slyke was very underrated, even by myself.

When posting on the "CF 5 Year Peak" poll, I was surprised to learn that Van Slyke's 1988-1992 WARP3 is one of the Top 20-25 all-time.
Compare:
Larry Doby, 1950-1954, 35.0
Jimmy Wynn 1965-1969, 34.9
Wally Berger 1931-1935, 34.2
Andy Van Slyke 1988-1992, 33.8
Kirby Puckett 1986-1990, 31.3

Not bad company.

[jjpm74]

Yes, Van Slyke was very underrated, even by myself.

When posting on the "CF 5 Year Peak" poll, I was surprised to learn that Van Slyke's 1988-1992 WARP3 is one of the Top 20-25 all-time.
Compare:
Larry Doby, 1950-1954, 35.0
Jimmy Wynn 1965-1969, 34.9
Wally Berger 1931-1935, 34.2
Andy Van Slyke 1988-1992, 33.8
Kirby Puckett 1986-1990, 31.3

Not bad company.

Wow, I knew he was on a HOF path earlier in his career, but that is some great company to be in. All those players above and below him regularly show up in HOF conversations here and many garner support in various projects. 2 garner strong support (Puckett, Doby), while the other 2 have their share of supporters (Wynn, Berger). Given that data, I'm surprised to see no maybes being cast by the members here who tend to emphasize peak.

[Fielding Marshall]

Given that data, I'm surprised to see no maybes being cast by the members here who tend to emphasize peak.

I guess...only because I hadn't yet voted.

[dgarza]

Given that data, I'm surprised to see no maybes being
cast by the members here who tend to emphasize peak.I was tempted to cast a MAYBE vote, but it would have been a real stretch of a MAYBE.

[nerfan]

I was tempted to cast a MAYBE vote, but it would have been a real stretch of a MAYBE.

I have to admit that I see the word Cowtipper and vote no, except for Wally Berger.

[mwiggins]

His career was simply too short leaving his counting numbers way shy of what is needed. A really fine player.

It would be a hoot if he and Bonds were elected in the same year, though.

Certainly they both have about the same chance of being elected.

[mwiggins]

I'm gonna say maybe. He did have a great peak, and his career value according to BP, at least, does match up with some current Hall of Famer outfielders.

Career Warp3

Van Slyke - 58.1
Sam Rice - 50.6
Earl Averill - 49.8
Max Carey - 59.1
Chick Hafey - 31.8
Harry Hooper - 57.4
Hack Wilson - 42.8

Wilson's certainly precedent for a guy getting elected for a great 5-year peak, and Van Slyke had a better peak than Wilson. Now, I don't think Wilson belongs, but when you're more worthy than a number of Hall of Famer's it's not absurd to discuss your Hall of Fame chances.

Van Slyke at least had two GREAT seasons, and probably another 6 very good seasons. His best years were at least comparable to Dale Murphy's best seasons, and I don't think anyone considers Murphy a joke candidate.

Congrats on a good selection, Cowtipper. :clapping

[Blackhat]

Van Slyke at least had two GREAT seasons, and probably another 6 very good seasons. His best years were at least comparable to Dale Murphy's best seasons, and I don't think anyone considers Murphy a joke candidate.

Congrats on a good selection, Cowtipper. :clapping

Van Slyke had a fine career and a few very good years. I really don't think you can compare his peak to Murphy though. Not even close.

[mwiggins]

Van Slyke had a fine career and a few very good years. I really don't think you can compare his peak to Murphy though. Not even close.

I didn't compare his peak to Murphy's, nor did anyone in this thread.

But Van Slyke's best years (1988 & 1992) are pretty comparable to Murphy's big MVP seasons, if not equal to them.

Murphy's best year was probably 1983. He had a 149 OPS+ (in 687 PA's), stole 30 bases in 34 attempts, and was a good fielding CF.

In 1988, Van Slyke posted a 144 OPS+ (in 659 PA's), stole 30 bases in 39 attempts, and was a great fielding CF.

In 1992, Van Slyke posted a 151 OPS+ (in 685 PA's), stole 12 bases in 15 attempts, and was a very good fielding CF.

I'd say those are pretty comparable in quality. Murphy had the better peak, probably, because he had more great years, but as his best Van Slyke was as good as Dale Murphy was at his best.

[Blackhat]

OK, I can accept that. When you said best years I was thinking 4 or 5 years. Not two.

[JDD]

Van Slyke had a six year peak from 1987-1992.

Three of those seasons were only partial seasons.

A lot of ballplayers were good between the ages of 26 and 31. Andy included.

But that's about it for him. And the peak was not that great, as he spent quite a bit of time in the trainer's room.

[dgarza]

Van Slyke had a fine career and a few very good years. I really don't think you can compare his peak to Murphy though. Not even close.
WARP3
Van Slyke 1988-1992, 33.8
Dale Murphy 1980-1984, 27.6

WS
Dale Murphy 1982-1986, 150
Van Slyke 1988-1992, 122

OPS+
Dale Murphy 1982-1986, 143
Van Slyke 1988-1992, 132

1987, Dale Murphy's best OPS+ year, was spent in RF, not CF.

[Cowtipper]

Did AWS have HOF talent

I think I'll include something like that on my threads from now on. Good suggestion :)