Baseball: Hall of Fame Debate

Yeah, God knows a man shouldn’t be able to sell his services for what they’ll bring. How 'bout you think of it as indentured servitude sometime?

2003:
Murray and Sandberg. I can’t see Lee Smith as I don’t think the actual value of a relief pitcher has ever been truly defined. The closest we’ve come is to determine that a ‘closer’ is by far the most overrated player on the roster. And poor Fernando just didn’t have the long term dominance. And 174 wins just ain’t gonna make it.

2004:
Molitor for sure. Christ, could that man hit. I remain on the fence with Eckersley. The man was a God when he became a reliever and he was a good starter, too. But how the hell do you evaluate the combination?

2005:
Boggs is going to walk right in. It’s true that the hat thing is a crime but he’s not the only one who did it.

2006:
None. Of them the only one who’s there is Hershiser. And I just can’t see one astonishing season and a bunch of good ones getting him in. I freely acknowledge that his numbers are as good as some others in the hall but I’ve always liked a high bar for induction.

2007:
The best class since Yount/Brett/Ryan. McGwire, Gwynn and Ripken all sail right in. The only question is whether all three will be unanimous. I may try to go up there that year.

My bad. Yes, I meant Hornsby. Severe brain cramp on my part.

I still have to disagree with you on Alomar. I don’t think he has all the tools Ryno did and after watching Alomar for years as a Blue Jay, I was never as impressed with his defence as everyone else seemed to be. Also, at his best he was never the best player on the Jays, whereas Ryno was the straw that stirred the Cubs drink for years, including the unusual seasons when they were actually good.

Roberto Alomar:

Ryne Sandberg:

I’d have to give the edge to Alomar.

Oops, that’s annoying. Sorry, I should broken the stats in half. Would a mod take pity and fix it?

Don’t forget that you have to take relative eras into account. Alomar is playing primarily in the 90s offensive era whereas Sandberg played in the deadball 80s.

Jonathan Chance, I would think that a comparison of each player to his contemporaries would be a valid measure of performance. Alomar has outplayed his contemporaries by a larger margin than did Sandberg.

What do you base that on? I think that offensively Sandberg compares better to the hitters of his day (and not necessarily just other 2nd basemen) than Alomar does to the hitters of his day.

Alomar has a Black Ink score of 3, and a Grey Ink score of 95. Sandberg has a Black Ink score of 14 and a Grey Ink score of 135. This is through 2001, which means Sandberg has 2 more years on Alomar, but that’s not a huge advantage. Sandberg was MVP once (1984), lead his league in runs three times ('84, '89, '90), triples once ('84), total bases once ('90) and HRs once ('90). Leading his league in HRs was an especially impressive achievement for a 2nd baseman. By contrast the only signficant category Alomar has ever lead his league in was runs once ('99).

Alomar hit for a better average (even considering the difference in eras) and was a better base stealer, but Sandberg was unquestionably the better power hitter. It’s relatively close, but at this moment I’d have to give the edge to Sandberg.

Thanks for an excellent synopsis, Amok. If we call it a dead heat comparing them defensively (I’d still say Ryno had the edge there, although the numbers make them virtually identical), Sandberg comes out on top. And if we start comparing on-field behaviour (Sandberg having an excellent reputation as a classy guy, Alomar going down in history as “spit boy”), Ryno pushes even farther ahead.

Don’t get me wrong, Fatwater, I think Alomar is a future HoFer, but I don’t rank him up with Sandberg. Rather, I rank him with his contemporary, Craig Biggio, just behind Ryno.

Jeez, guys, I pretty sure I’m not reading the numbers wrong. According to the stats I found (as posted above, specifically Special Batting) at Baseball-Reference, Alomar ranks higher through 2001 in almost every category compared to his league average than Sandberg did compared to his.

I don’t think we’ll see that. Jose Canseco was probably the only guy that could really test the unwritten ‘500 HR’ rule. Since he stopped well short… Had he not been so bad with the glove, it wouldn’t have been as issue. But to hit 500 HR’s, you have to be really good and pretty durn consistant.

This is not to say they will all get in on the 1st ballot, or on any ballot. It they are not voted in, IMO, the veterans committee will get them in.

We’ll find out soon enough. Rafael Palmeiro is just a few HR’s shy of 500, and he’s no lock for the Hall unless he has two or three more solid seasons.

Fred McGriff’s not too far off, either; another one noted for a lot of “solid” seasons.

Sandberg won an MVP and led his league in seven offensive categories over his career (according to Baseball-Reference). Also, he broke 900 total chances in the field once and broke 800 on five other occasions.

Alomar, by contrast, has only led the league in an offensive category twice (once being sacrifice hits) and has only reached 800 TCs once.

I still have to say those numbers put Ryno well ahead of Robbie.

Dread Pirate Jimbo, I think we have fundamentally different opinions on the validity of defensive stats in general, and on the weight which should be placed on MVP standings in regards to the HOF, as well as on what it means to lead your league in any one category in any one season.

I’m not saying raw numbers aren’t important, I’m saying that to compare players from different eras we have little recourse but to look at how they performed relative to the rest of their league.

Although Alomar has shown some slight power in his career – in an era which featured such premium offensive players as McGwire, A-Rod, Belle, Thomas etc – it was damn near impossible for him to lead his league in any offensive category; yet he still managed to play higher above the league average than did Sandberg.

I do agree Sandberg belongs in the HOF.

So, how about them Trappers?

In fairness,

  1. Alomar’s overall numbers ARE better than Sandberg’s, especially in terms of his ability to get on base.

  2. Alomar, IMHO, should have won the MVP Award in 1992, and would have been a reasonable pick in 1993.

  3. Total chances is a pretty sketchy way of measuring defensive ability.

  4. Sandberg has an MVP, but Alomar does have two World Series rings, and has finished in the top ten in MVP voting five times.

Up until now, I’d say Sandberg and Alomar are awfully close; their batting numbers are extremely close, with Alomar a bit ahead in a slightly longer career. As of 2001 Sandberg was Alomar’s second closest match (Craig Biggio was the closest, and he should go to the Hall of Fame, too.) When all is said and done Alomar will have more weight behind his career.

**2003: **
Eddie Murray is in. Despite his rocky relationship with the press, the number of his teammates (e.g., Cal Ripken) who speak highly of him as someone who’s taught them a lot about the game ought to count for something. Statistically, it’s awfully hard to challenge his credentials.
Ryne Sandberg gets in as well, in my opinion. If not, he’s one of the best players not in the Hall. It is the Hall of Fame, and he was unquestionably one of the marquee players of the 1980s, for good reason.
Lee Smith at first doesn’t seem like he’s quite there, but on reflection, I have to wonder why. When you have a guy who’s the career leader in the key stat for his position, and who was among the top five in his league in that stat practically every year for over a decade, you really have to justify leaving them out rather than putting them in. To be sure, some of his achievement is due to longevity, but it’s not as if he hung around for years after he was no longer effective simply to rack up numbers, a la Pete Rose; Smith was second in the AL in saves in 1995, and retired after 1997 – only 7 of his career 478 saves came in his last two seasons. For fifteen years or so, there were never more than a couple of GMs or managers who wouldn’t have taken Smith in favor of whoever they had closing for them, all other considerations (money, etc.) being equal. Part of the problem is that the role of closer was still being formed during the early part of Smith’s career, and we don’t yet have well-formed mental benchmarks for what consititutes HOF-caliber performance for closers like we do for hitters and starting pitchers (3000 hits, 500 HR, .300+ career BA, 250-300 wins, etc.). Considered objectively, I think you either have to say Smith’s in, or no one who’s primarily a closer ever should be.
Fernando! Nope. Outstanding pitcher for most of a decade, but not HOF-caliber.

2004:
Joe Carter. No. Don’t get me started again on this.
Paul Molitor. Yes. For all you may want to discount his numbers for being a DH, he’s still unquestionably the equal or better of a whole lot of other guys who’re in. And it’s not as if he was completely hopeless with the glove; his career FP is only slightly below average, his range factor was generally above the league average, he did see action at every defensive position except pitcher and catcher (most often at 2B and 3B, both skill positions), and from 1978 until 1991 he appeared at a defensive position in more games than at DH in every season except 1987. Certainly the option of being a DH prolonged his career, and allowed him to improve his overall totals, but again he wasn’t a worse player than most possible replacements during that time – he still had a .390 OBP in 161 games at age 39.
Dennis Eckersley. Yes. Has the advantage over Smith of having had outstanding success as a starter before becoming a closer, so the conventional comparisons are more applicable.
El Presidente. No. Much as I enjoyed his farewell tour with the Braves, and his 10- or 11-hit shutout to pass Marichal’s record for wins by a Latin-American pitcher, his is an example of longevity for its own sake. A valuable, inning-eating starter for most of his career who could be counted on for 12-15 wins per season, but rarely exceeded that, and never by much. In 23 seasons, he was an All-Star only four times, and finished fifth in Cy Young balloting twice – the only two times he was in the top ten.
Jimmy Key. No. Statistically, he’s Dennis Martinez with a slightly higher peak (won 18 once and 17 twice, ERA around 3.5 instead of 3.7) and eight fewer seasons.

2005:
Wade Boggs. Yep. Don’t care for it much, but career BA of .328 and OBP of .415 and over 3000 hits gets you in.

2006:
Albert Belle has about as good a case as anyone could possibly make in only 10 full seasons. Certainly, he had as much fame as any player of his time, but for all the wrong reasons; if public opinion about him were even neutral, I’d say he’d get in. As it is, I doubt it. And that’s probably as it should be.
Will Clark is just a bit shy of the standard, in my estimation. If he had some memorable record chase, or had been a key member of a team that won a World Series or two, he’d probably get in. As it is, an outstanding player but not a Hall-of-Famer.
Orel Hershiser initially seems to me like a relatively strong candidate, but on reflection I realize that’s mainly due to the attention he got during the Dodgers’ successful years in the late 80s, the scoreless inning streak, etc. Lost at least half of three seasons to injuries, and pitched pretty well despite losing records(10+ wins, sub 3.75 ERA, approx. 2/1 K/BB ratio, 200+IP) for two mediocre/bad Dodger teams in the early 90s. There are plenty of guys with a better case based on the numbers who aren’t in yet, but there are also guys who are in who don’t have as strong a case; Hershiser getting in at least wouldn’t embarass the Hall.
Darryl Strawberry: No. It’s neither the Hall of Potential nor the Hall of Infamy. Only ten full seasons spread out over 17 years. Over the last nine seasons he was active, had a total of 55 HR, appeared in more than 100 games only once, and never had over 300 AB. He had half of a HOF career, and pissed away the rest.

2007:
Tony Gwynn is in. No question.
Big Mac likewise.
Cal Ripken, Jr. ditto.

It amazes me, but there will be people who’ll actually argue with one or all of those. Each occupies a unique and enduring niche in the history of the game. Each will be subject to having their outstanding accomplishments on the field overshadowed by other considerations. Each, in his own way, established himself as having not only unparalleled talent in certain facets of the game, but also character, grace, and humility at a time when the game and sports in general desperately needed it. There hasn’t been another “class” of three players becoming eligible in the same year that’s comparable; Ryan, Brett, and Yount is similar, but not quite at the same level.

If you combine Paul O’Neill’s record of being on teams that win in the postseason with Will Clark’s career stats, you’ve probably got a Hall-of-Famer. Clark was just a notch better overall (approx. twenty points better BA, OBP, SLG). As popular as he was, O’Neill doesn’t quite make the grade.
Eric Davis was probably a Hall-of-Fame-caliber talent, but injuries and health problems prevented him from having a Hall-of-Fame-caliber career. Never played more than 135 games in a season, and only had nine seasons in which he appeared in more than 100. Averaged 313 AB/season over his 17 year career.

Eddie Murray was also one of the greatest clutch hitters of all time. He was a big RBI producer because he did his best hitting when it counted most. Over a 20 year career, he batted over .400 when the bases were loaded and was second all-time to Lou Gehrig for grand slam home runs.

Eddie Murray is also the only player in the history of MLB to have 20 consecutive seasons with 75+ RBIs (including a couple of strike-shortened seasons)–he surpassed the previous record of 19, which was held by Hank Aaron.

Alomar’s numbers are better than Sandberg’s, but not if you factor in the era. As Alan Schwarz notes in “Ultimate Sports: Baseball 2000”:

Re: Home Runs:

Re: Batting Average:

If I were to adjust Ryno’s stats up to recent standards, he’s a .300 hitter with a .359 OBP and a slugging percentage of .500, with 375 HRs, give or take. Those numbers are as good or better than Alomar’s.

IMHO, Sandberg should have won in 1990. The fact is he did win in '84, and he didn’t in '90, nor did Robbie in '92 or '93.

I have yet to see a defensive measure that can’t have holes shot through it. Total chances can be skewed by ground ball ratios and strikeouts; Range Factor can be skewed in the same way; Zone Rating loads middle infielders up artificially if they have a lot of double play opportunities and is biased against players who play on astroturf. In any event, Sandberg did run up some seasons that are unmatched from a TC standpoint, his Range Fator is higher than Alomar’s (5.10 to 4.82) and his fielding percentage is better (.989 to .984). I haven’t been able to track down career zone ratings for the two (damn STATS Inc.)

[quote]
**
4. Sandberg has an MVP, but Alomar does have two World Series rings, and has finished in the top ten in MVP voting five times.
**

[quote]

If we have to start counting World Series rings, we have to throw out a lot of current Hall of Famers, including Ernie Banks and Ted Williams for starters. And again, being nominated for the MVP award and actually winning it are two very different creatures. Additionally, I think we can all agree that the MVP voting is weighted heavily on whether or not you play for a winner (ask Alex Rodriguez or Tony Gwynn). Ryno’s Cubs were doormats a lot during his career, while Robbie has always played for winners. I would again remind you that Sandberg led his league in a number of categories throughout his career, while Alomar has not.

Anyway, we could debate this endlessly. I stand firm on my convictions, both statistically and observationally, that Sandberg was the better player of these two future Hall of Famers. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I think Palmeiro IS a lock if he has 500 HR’s. He’s been a great and consistant hitter for 15 years. Plus, he’s got hisself 3 gold gloves. And if he has 3 more solid seasons, he may have 3000 hits as well.

That doesn’t match the actual facts. Relative to his league, Alomar does, in fact, have superior numbers. His career OPS is 19% better than his league average, while Sandberg’s is 14% better. Alomar’s advantage is almost all in OBP, so he’s made fewer outs, which increases his value on top of the adjusted OPS, and on top of that he’s a much better percentage and volume basestealer (which is saying a lot, since Sandberg was a terrific baserunner.)

Bear in mind that Sandberg played in a terrific hitter’s park. You can find their adjusted numbers at baseballreference; I linked to Sandberg’s page.

The adjusted OPS figures at baseballreference DO adjust for era, as well as ballpark, and Alomar’s are better.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying Sandberg WASN’T a better defensive player. He might have been. Actually, I suspect he was. But I think it can be objectively demonstrated that Alomar was a better hitter, so to prove Sandberg was better the onus is there to demonstrate Sandberg was a superior fielder.

This is an illogical, false dilemma objection. I never suggested that anyone without World Series rings should be excluded from the Hall of Fame, so it’s silly to imply I think Ted Williams isn’t a Hall of Famer. However, it’s part of the overall package. Winning a batting title or hitting 500 home runs aren’t yes/no criteria, either, but they’re part of the evidence. In comparing two closely matched players like Alomar and Sandberg I think it’s fair to give a little bit of weight to the fact that Alomar contributed to many championship teams, while Sandberg only played on two first-round losers. It’s a possible tiebreaker. It’s not Sandberg’s fault he played for the Cubs, but Alomar deserves a little credit for the fact that his teams have won a lot. He has two rings and had one of the best playoff series a player has ever had; that counts for something, even if it’s just 1% of the package.

After all, my point was in response to the point that was made that Sandberg won an MVP Award and Alomar didn’t. That’s an interesting point, but I didn’t take it to mean that any player without an MVP Award shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame. I think we can agree that Eddie Murray is a better HoF choice than George Bell. I simply think that comparing contributions to championship teams is as important as looking at MVP votes.