I generally agree with your post, but “pass” was Bill James full comment on Jeff Bagwell in the aforementioned baseball abstract.
Yup, that was a real good defense of Bagwell, but I was just riffing on the Historical Abstract article. It’s sort of become a meme at some baseball sites.
Two quibbles with your analysis - one is that I think Greenberg’s better than Bagwell, but I’ll admit it’s close.
And when all’s said and done, Pujols will probably be at least #2.
Now to be constructive: If I had a ballot, I’d vote for Alomar, Blyleven, Bagwell, Trammell, Raines, Larkin and Edgar. I would probably eventually vote for McGwire, but not yet.
If I had the vote, I’d select Alomar, Bagwell, Blyleven, Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Morris, and Trammell.
I think Alomar, Bagwell, and Blyleven are the candidates most likely to be chosen by the HOF voters this year. Palmeiro has the stats but, like McGwire (and later Bonds), the steroid factor is going to loom large for years to come.
I have that book, but haven’t flipped it open in years (hoping for a revised edition). Note Bill James was Bags’ biggest fan, after one of his annuals “predicted” that Bagwell would win the batting title as a rookie-he didn’t do that, but he did win RotY.
Yes, Pujols belongs up there, but is still active, the main reason I didn’t include him.
Maybe. I have a feeling it will die down quicker than most think. But that may be wishful thinking on my part.
Bumped for the HOF selections. Alomar and Blyleven got in. Jeff Bagwell, who I incorrectly expected to either get selected or finish close, ended up in sixth place with 41.7% of the vote. Apparently, his lower-than-expected tally is due to steroid rumors.
On the topic of steroids, Mark McGwire had 19.8% and Rafael Palmeiro had 11%.
I’m glad Blyleven finally got in. Alomar not so much, but even I have to admit that he had the numbers, just an irrational hatred of the man.
Bagwell got jobbed. Period. McGwire will get in and Palmeiro will likely get in. Sooner or later the steroid stuff will be acknowledged and forgiven, and when it happens they both have the numbers.
Larkin’s going to get in next year. If he doesn’t, the writers might not elect anybody in 2012. I think Bagwell is going to get there, but it’ll take a four or five years.
Edgar Martinez better get in. A career OBP of .418 and OPS of .933 are pretty spectacular, and even if you subtract a little for not playing a defensive position, he still stacks up well against Hall hitters. Put him in any of the traditionally good-hitting positions (like 1B or OF), and his numbers are still above the average HOFer. Plus, if you like intangibles, he was the heart and soul of the Mariners for a good long while, and stuck with the team for his entire career, a very rare thing in this day and age.
Jeff Bagwell should also definitely be in, but I’m not worried about his chances. His resume speaks for itself, and he doesn’t have the stain of being a DH or an asshole against him. I say he gets in next year.
Why does the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame selection committee keep snubbing Ozzie Canseco and Steve Jeltz?
One of the happy side affects of the steroid squabble is that it has led to a realization that hitting 500 home runs is not automatically the sign of a Hall of Fame player, a realization that would have come sooner had Dave Kingman been signed for maybe two more years.
One of my votes will be cast for Danny Graves, who singlehandedly won me a fantasy baseball title in 2005 with his SP-eligibility.
For your consideration:
Player A: 50th all-time in IP
Player B: 48th all-time in IP
Player A: 478th in ERA+ (105)
Player B: 321st in ERA+ (110)
Player A: 909th in HR/9
Player B: 585th in HR/9
Player A: 267th in K/9
Player B: 237th in K/9
Player A: 28th all-time in K’s
Player B: 31st all-time in K’s
Player A: 140th in career WAR
Player B: 44th in career WAR
Player A: 5 All-Star games, 5 top-5 Cy Young finishes
Player B: 2 All-Star games, 1 top-5 Cy Young finish.
Now, to me, neither of those players is worthy of the Hall of Fame, but if I had to pick one, Player B would come out on top. A 105 ERA+ means that you were an only-slightly-above-average pitcher over the course of your career, and Player A did not compensate with spectacular individual seasons. In fact, his best single-season ERA+ does not appear in the top 500 pitcher-seasons all-time. (Player B has one such season.)
Those pitchers would have had to have done something extraordinarily spectacular to merit HoF consideration. In fact, Pitcher A, amidst an otherwise mediocre post-season resume, did pitch one beautiful, complete-game 1-0 gem to win Game 7 of a World Series. While a famous moment, that’s clearly (to me) not enough to boost a pitcher from “barely above average” to “Hall of Fame worthy,” and yet Pitcher A, whose name most of you now can guess is “Jack Morris,” is doing quite decently in the balloting.
Besides that one game, Morris’s great strength was that he was a consistent innings-eater, staying healthy and enjoying a long career. But if you look at that 15-year stretch, from 1979 to 1993, Morris was an average or worse than average pitcher in 7 of those 15 years, with ERA+ ranging from 70 to 102 in those seasons.
The arguments for his induction – the All-Star games and Cy Young votes, and his one spectacular post-season victory – seem to pale in the shadow of his long but average career.
Player B, by the way, despite having performed on the mound at least as well as Morris, and probably better, seldom gets mentioned at all in HoF discussions. How unfair, I suppose, to Mr. Jerry Koosman.
I don’t quite understand this. Was there ever an illusion that 500 home runs alone was an automatic ticket to the Hall of Fame? If, as you point out, Dave Kingman had gotten to 500, he wouldn’t have been elected. But if we agree that that was the case then the writers weren’t labouring under the assumption that 500 homers was an automatic ticket.
Every player before the steroid era with 500 homers was put into the Hall of Fame, but the thing is, they all deserved to be. There wasn’t anyone who got in just for hitting 500 homers. Prior to the steroid era, who was the WORST 500-homer man? Ernie Banks? Harmon Killebrew? Eddie Mathews? No cheapies in that group.
As to the election, I’m pleased Alomar and Blyleven made it.
The Bagwell thing is interesting. The assumption is that it’s a steroid thing, but I think there’s more to it than that. Bagwell himself has never been implicated in a story, or even been the subject of a serious rumour, about steroids. I think the reason he got “only” 42% of the vote - a number that suggests he will be elected eventually - is that there’s just a lot of power hitter noise right now; there’s all kids of first basemen on the ballot and coming onto the ballot who were quite similar to Bagwell, and using the simple stats, he doesn’t stand out from them. He didn’t get to 500 homers or set any big records, and he was never the game’s pre-eminent, no-doubt-about-it star at his own position. I think that in the shuffle, he got lost. I also think he will be elected someday.
I expect he’ll get a noticeable bump when Biggio appears on the ballot, if he isn’t in already.
Parthol:
Well, that’s what the Veterans’ Committee is for. (see “Mazeroski, Bill”)
As a Reds fan, I’ll kindly ask that you never mention that name again.
Also, Larkin got jobbed.
Interesting point. There was certainly a backlash against writers who supposedly didn’t vote for him because they were suspicious he used steroids, but I don’t know how many people came out and said they were not voting for him for that reason. This guy says he didn’t vote for Bagwell (although he doesn’t mention him by name) for this reason: “it’s just strong suspicion, or word of mouth. It’s nothing I can prove, and nothing I’d feel professionally comfortable writing in a story.”
I think Biggio will be eligible in 2013.
Just to be clear, I meant that I think Bagwell will get a noticeable bump when Biggio appears on the ballot, if (Bagwell) isn’t (by the time Biggio reaches the ballot, that is, 2013) in already by that time.
Well, the “if he isn’t in already” part would mean he gets elected next year. I don’t think there’s any way he wins over an additional third of the voters in 2012. Is it time to start a Class of 2012 thread?