I was just going to comment on this in today's Cup of Coffee, but then my comment started to get pretty long. In related news, it's apparently impossible for me to not care about HOF arguments.
As a fan, viewing him strictly through the media, Jeff Kent has always seemed like a prick to me, so I've never been a huge fan. But he did have a remarkable career on the field.
Going strictly by the numbers, my intuition is that Kent should have a good case for the Hall, but it is very hard for second basemen to get into the Hall. Because it was one of the first articles to show up, and it uses the WARP data available on the current DT player cards, I am going to calculate JAWS scores based on this old 2006 article by Jay Jaffe. JAWS turns out to mirror HOF voting reasonably well. (To within a Blyleven here and a Trammell there.)
First, some preliminaries. At least back in 2006, the average HOF 2B had a higher JAWS score than any other position, suggesting that they are held to a higher standard than everyone else. This kind of makes sense to me--I think that second basemen are often looked at as failed shortstops and unless you're vertically challenged and play in a big media market, you usually don't get much press as a second baseman.
Two BBWAA 2B snubs that come to mind are Lou Whitaker and Bill Mazeroski. Mazeroski finally got in through the Veteran's Committee, but in my opinion, it was pretty silly that the BBWAA didn't vote him in in the first place. On second glance, even with pretty strong fielding numbers from FRAA, Mazeroski's numbers are really underwhelming and he looks like a pretty typical VC pick. However, that Lou Whitaker didn't even get enough votes to make a second year on the ballot is freaking criminal.
Going back to the average HOF JAWS scores for 2B, they have an average PEAK* of 67.1, about 3-4 wins higher than any other position. They have an average career WARP3 of 114, about 2 higher than any other position. I've calculated some JAWS scores for notable second basemen under this rather crude formula that happens to mirror the voting fairly closely.
*Here defined as the sum of their seven best WARP3 scores.
PEAK, CAREER, JAWS -- Dude
89.0, 165.3, 127.1 -- Joe Morgan
75.0, 132.6, 103.8 -- Roberto Alomar
62.7, 129.9, 96.3 -- Lou Whitaker
68.2, 123.0, 95.6 -- Craig Biggio
67.1, 114.1, 90.6 -- Average HOF 2B
71.8, 108.7, 90.3 -- Ryne Sandberg
64.8, 110.2, 87.5 -- Jeff Kent
66.6, 83.9, 75.3 -- Chuck Knoblauch
57.2, 91.0, 74.1 -- Bill Mazeroski
61.3, 80.2, 70.8 -- Bret Boone
Morgan from '71 to '77 is really one of the most remarkable stretches of baseball that anyone has ever put together. It was a pleasure just to calculate his peak value, I can't even imagine how great it must have been to be a Reds fan during that time, though maybe Joe Posnanski's next book will shed some light on that.
Going back to the future, Alomar and Biggio seem to me like obvious choices for the Hall, and I suspect that both will make it in pretty easily, though Alomar won't make it first-ballot largely because of the umpire spitting incident. We see that Whitaker was right up there with those guys, and I'm kind of baffled why he got so overlooked. Maybe it was just that he had a lot of good teammates, I don't know.
Then we get to Kent, who is definitely in the discussion by this metric. His case really relies on those seasons in San Francisco from 2000-2. You know, those seasons where he showed a late peak and was teammates with noted killer-of-American-youths Barry Lamar Bonds. Even though his statistical case is much better than Boone's, I kind of wonder if he won't get lumped together with Boone a bit. Both have fairly loud whispers about PED usage--and whether or not I think that matters, a lot of the voters clearly think that it matters, and I think it will taint his case. Combine that with the fact that I don't think he stacks up will against Alomar and Biggio, the general high standards that second basemen are held to, and some potential questions about his character, and I don't really see Kent winning over the BBWAA electorate. From a strict "Hall of Merit" viewpoint, though, he would be a pretty deserving choice.
The other thing I want to address here is what to make of Edgar Martinez's case, since that subject was recently raised over at USS Mariner, and (independently?) by Rob Neyer. Dave Cameron thinks that Edgar should obviously be in, and Neyer said that he thinks Edgar is a legitimate borderline case--someone he wasn't sure if he would slightly raise or slightly lower the standards of the Hall. (Neyer belonging to the school of thought that each new inductee should at least meet the standard of an average current inductee.)
Here are some notable DH/1B types and their JAWS scores:
PEAK, CAREER, JAWS -- Dude
90.7, 191.5, 141.1 -- Stan Musial
80.7, 134.2, 107.5 -- Frank Thomas
73.9, 127.2, 100.6 -- Jeff Bagwell
65.5, 134.4, 100.0 -- Eddie Murray
66.6, 123.4, 95.0 -- Gary Sheffield* (age 40)
67.1, 114.1, 90.6 -- Average HOF 2B
62.7, 116.9, 89.8 -- Manny Ramirez* (age 37)
67.9, 109.8, 88.9 -- Mark McGwire
62.3, 111.0, 86.7 -- Jim Thome* (age 38)
81.1, 89.8, 85.5 -- Albert Pujols* (age 29)
64.4, 104.4, 84.4 -- Edgar Martinez
60.9, 100.4, 80.6 -- Average HOF 1B
63.4, 90.0, 76.7 -- Jason Giambi* (age 38)
59.3, 94.1, 76.7 -- Carlos Delgado* (age 37)
61.5, 84.3, 72.9 -- Don Mattingly
61.0, 75.3, 68.2 -- Todd Helton* (age 35)
47.8, 86.2, 67.0 -- Mark Grace
47.2, 76.0, 61.6 -- Kent Hrbek
Sheffield is kind of cheating, because he'll go on the ballot as an outfielder, but he came to mind as a DH thanks to his recent duties with the Tigers. And defensively, I figured that it would be more fair to put Manny in this group than the OF group. If Helton stays healthy and plays another 6-7 seasons, which seems plausible, he would probably wind up about where Edgar is.
Looking at all of those guys, here are some thoughts:
- Frank Thomas wore the wrong uniform, but he has an incredibly awesome case for induction.
- Bagwell and Sheffield seem like fairly easy choices to me.
- Manny could fairly easily pass Sheffield as long as he doesn't decide to call it quits right now.
- I'm guessing Thome ends up in the ~95 JAWS range, and will be well-qualified for induction.
- My guess is that Giambi ends up right about where McGwire is and Delgado winds up about there, too.
So, as far as this rough measure goes, if Edgar deserves enshrinement, then I figure that statistically, Albert Pujols, Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Gary Sheffield, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, Carlos Delgado, and Todd Helton will all eventually deserve enshrinement. Now, obviously some of those guys should go in--maybe a lot of them--but all of them? I don't know, but even excluding Manny and Sheff, that's nine players. There are already 27 first basemen in the Hall, and that would pump the 1B/DH number all the way to 36, which seems pretty crazy when you've got positions like 3B with just 19 players.
For my tastes, the current standard for what makes a HOF first basemen is a little too low. I would basically be okay with setting the borderline for performance at McGwire (which is also where I think Giambi will be.) I would put McGwire in because his '98 good-for-baseball points balance his more recent bad-for-baseball scandal points. I don't see where Giambi gets any bonus points to balance out his non-admission admission, so I'd leave him on the outside. Overall, provided nothing crazy happens in the next few years, I would go with:
In: Pujols, Thomas, Bagwell, Sheffield, Manny, Thome, McGwire
Out: Giambi, Edgar, Delgado, Helton
It would be a pretty high bar to meet, and the four guys I'm leaving out had extremely good careers, but I'd rather not open the floodgates to a sea of 1B/DH's.
Another Grich hater ... ;-)
Grich's seven best WARP3 seasons: 11.8, 11.6, 11.0, 10.7, 10.5, 9.7, 8.9 = 74.2
Career = 123.9.
JAWS = (74.2+123.9)/2 = 99.05
so, shouldn't he be in the discussion? :-)
Absolutely. I've just never really heard of him....
And Grich was a tough mo-fo. A grievious error to overlook him, for sure.
A guy on XM today (I think it was Holden Kushner) was talking about how Kent was one of the first players to speak out against PEDs and was considered "clean."
This is a good example of why arguments about steroids should be thrown out except for instances like Palmeiro, who was caught, or Giambi. It's ridiculous to try to guess who was using and who wasn't. And if they were all using steroids, then they were all playing on a level field.
And as far as Palmeiro, that still seems fishy to me. He would have to be the dumbest jock in the world to get caught like that, or he was set up just as he claimed.
It is ridiculous to try to guess who was using and who wasn't. However, the BBWAA is ridiculous. I mean, come on, they just put Jim Rice in the HOF largely because a bunch of players in the '90s used steroids. Kent's not gonna make the cut.
He would have to be the dumbest jock in the world to get caught like that, or he was set up just as he claimed.
Some people think they are bullet-proof.
Kent was basically a nobody until he exploded onto the scene in SF at the age of 32. Very freaking suspicious in my book. Wax on the truck, wax off.
Points to Giambi for shaving off his moustache in the middle of a game. (It would have been more points had he been playing 1b during the game rather than DH.) (Lew Ford gets some of these points, too, although removing scruff is less noticable than Giambi's 'stache.)
Points from Giambi for that deodorant commercial, and being a Yankee.
I actually think Kent will get in, and that he should, barring specific "revelations" about PEDS that would turn off the voters. Hell, the press HATED Jim Rice, and he still got in eventually, and Kent has a stronger case.
As for Edgar...very tough. I generally agree with your thought that we don't want a flood of 1B/DH types in the Hall--but a question is raised. To wit: did we just have a historical level of great firstbasemen whose careers centered around the 1990s? I mean, there are all those guys you listed, plus Palmeiro, plus Fred McGriff who you didn't mention. Regardless of how many of those guys get into the Hall, that's a pretty remarkable group. Was it due to steroids? I doubt it, but what do I know?
Great baseball players aren't evenly distributed through history. I don't like the idea that just because a deserving player happened to play at the same time as a lot of other great players, that he doesn't get in. I mean, I could make a strong case, I think, for Fred McGriff, who you didn't even mention. The guy had an excellent, extended peak (look at his 1988-1994), had many other good seasons, was very durable (basically full seasons for 15 straight years), was excellent in the post-season, is better than modern 1B entrant Tony Perez, and at least the equal of Orlando Cepeda, but my guess is he won't come close to getting in.
As an aside, what's interesting is that there are a number of really mediocre firstbasemen in the Hall already--some of the weakest enshrinees. Guys like George Kelly, George Sisler, Jake Beckley, Jack Bottomley probably don't belong, and really shift the standards of firstbasemen,
To wit: did we just have a historical level of great firstbasemen whose careers centered around the 1990s?
I don't think the stats really back that up. If I just set the bar for first basemen where it is for second basemen, then even McGwire would miss the cut and strictly of the '90s first basemen in the discussion, you would have just Thomas, Bagwell, and Thome. (And probably Palmeiro.) Even just four people at the same position for the same decade is a pretty large concentration, it seems to me. We've got, say 90 years of players who played from 1900 to 1990 and have been Hall eligible, and 27 first basemen made the cut--and as you mention there are some pretty questionable VC choices in that group. That would give us 3 1B/decade, so 4 would be above average. If you look at third basemen, it's more like 2 3B/decade, so by that standard, to have 4 players from one decade would be very high. Considering the 3 1B/decade rate, adding Edgar, McGwire, and McGriff to the group would give us a fairly absurd 7 1B from the '90s, with Pujols, Thome, Giambi, Helton, and Delgado on the horizon--for 12 1B/DH over 2 decades. That really doesn't feel right to me.
I think the main issue is that the bar is set really low if you are a first baseman. I think this is probably because hitting value is obvious and fielding value is less obvious. If all of your value is concentrated in hitting, then it is easier to reach big, round counting stats even if your overall value was just the same as a better defender who didn't get the big, round counting stats. And the big, round counting stats are easy to defend in a newspaper column. (This is essentially the same reason that Mauer gets the shaft as compared to Morneau. Morneau's got better big, round numbers than Mauer, so consequently the writers focus more on him.)
Hell, the press HATED Jim Rice, and he still got in eventually, and Kent has a stronger case.
Jim Rice's induction is an aberration and I think everyone involved realizes that on some level. He was around 30% for the first five years he was in the ballot, and apparently he had an amazing season in 1999, because on the 2000 ballot, he went up to about 50%. Rice pretty much oscillated between 50% and 60%, and then on the 2006 ballot--the one after the Congressional hearings on steroids--he shot up to 65%. Eventually the "most feared hitter" meme showed up and he wound up making it in. (There was probably some anti-stats sentiment that helped push him over the top.)
I think the better comparison is Bert. A lot of people seem to have thought he was a jackass, and had he pandered more to the media, he probably would have gotten better press, and many fewer people would say things like "I saw him pitch and he never seemed like a dominant pitcher."
and at least the equal of Orlando Cepeda
You can't really set the bar at Orlando Cepeda, or you would really have a huge rush of entrants into the Hall. His PEAK was around 58 and his JAWS score is around just 73.5. If that's the bar, then Don Mattingly and I'm sure a ton of other guys could make it in. There could have been some non-performance reasons to put Cepeda in--and the Hall of Fame is not the Hall of Merit--but the bar really has to be higher than that.
I mean, I could make a strong case, I think, for Fred McGriff, who you didn't even mention.
McGriff scores 60.8/106.6/83.7--about the same as Edgar--and would be in if you use the current low bar for 1B, but would be below my bar of McGwire. Palmeiro, who you mentioned, is at 63.1/130.1/96.6 and was the bigger omission on my part. His peak wasn't anything special, but Palmeiro was pretty much Eddie Murray, who also deserved to go in.
Forget JAWS: Palmeiro got 3000 hits and 500 HRs. If he doesn't get a positive drug test, he's in without question.
C'mon SBG, you know he was just a compiler.
I like to think of him more as an executor. Or maybe a compiler/executor.
It's easy to play in the field as an old man if you are playing first base. Thus, more time to pile up big numbers.
Yeah, I'm not actually advocating on behalf of McGriff; I agree with you that there are too many damn 1B in the hall and on the cusp. I just wanted to point out that you could make a decent case even for a guy as far down the list as McGriff, especially with the established standards at 1B (which I entirely agree are too low).
However, I think we did have a remarkably strong group of 1B in the 90s--probably the best in history. If there are 4 of them deserving of the Hall (using the 2B standards), you have to figure that, using that standard throughout history, there would be many fewer already in the Hall. Without running the numbers, presumably 1-2 per decade, as opposed to the 4 we are looking at, in addition to a large swath of HoVG--all those guys you and I talked about.
I wonder if some of that is the maturation and acceptance of the DH position.
I agree that there was a remarkably strong group of first basemen in the '90s. I guess I would point more towards acceptance of weight lifting and strength training in general than acceptance of the DH position. Bulking up used to be a big no-no in baseball, but it started happening a lot more in the mid-to-late 80s. And certainly PEDs played some role in this, the extent of which we'll never really know. Bulking up probably helps 1B more than any other position.
Would the "Big Numbers Guys" (typically 1B/DH) not also be the ones to most benefit from the expansion era pitchers, too?
In theory. I'm not sure in practice how much expansion hurt overall pitching effectiveness. Around the same time they went to the 5-man rotation, which potentially limited injuries, increasing the pool of available pitchers. Opinions differ on whether or not pitchers are more effect on 3 or 4 days of rest, too.
So those are kind of murky waters if you want to wade into them.
fwiw, in 2008, Major League starters had a 5.17 ERA in 76 starts on 3 days rest, 4.38 ERA in 2482 starts on 4 days, and 4.45 ERA in 1449 starts on 5 days.
76 <<<< 1449 < 2482
Probably the best place to look would be in the interim years when teams had different ideas about how many starters should be in the rotation.
Here's a ranking of all the Retrosheet-era second basemen which (I believe) includes hitting and fielding and a more reasonable replacement level than what was used to calculate the WARP numbers I cited in my post:
Knoblauch crapped out early. I'll say. He was done at about the same age that Jeff Kent peaked. Knobby doesn't have the career, but he's got the peak. If he plays until 36 or 37 with a regular looking decline pattern, he's at least a borderline HOFer. His 1996 season is 12.9 WARP3, which may be the best Twins season, ever. I looked at Carew, Killer, Puckett, and Santana. None of them had a 12.9 WARP3 season.
yah. Through his first two seasons in NY, Knobby was very comparable to Alomar.
Way to Earl Battey Bert, however, Boss.
top WARP3 Twins's seasons:
Kirby Puckett, 1992, 11.0
Johan Santana, 2006, 11.0
Rod Carew, 1975, 11.1
Frankie Viola, 1988, 11.2
Rod Carew, 1977, 11.3
Mike Marshall, 1979: 11.5
Joe Mauer, 2008: 11.8
Johan Santana, 2003, 12.3
Chuck Knoblauch, 1996, 12.9
Bert Blyleven, 1973, 13.6
Camilo Pascual had an 11.0 as a Senator in 1959.
Notable omissions include Hrbek's '84 2nd-place MVP finish, Morneau's '06 1st-place MVP finish, and Morneau's '08 2nd-place MVP finish. Not that BBWAA writers would ever overvalue first basemen...
it is kind of funny/sad to note that 1984 wasn't even Hrby's best season (by OPS+ standards, although it was his top WARP3 season) and that he wasn't an All-Star that year, despite finishing 2nd in the MVP voting.
In fact, his rookie season was his long AS game appearance, despite three other seasons with 140+ OPS+ marks (1984, 1987, 1988).
He was one of 4 1Bs on the 1982 AL squad (Cecil Cooper started, Carew and Eddie Murray were the others). The starters for the rest of his career were: Carew, Carew, Murray, Joyner, Mattingly, McGwire, McGwire, McGwire, Fielder, McGwire, Olerud and FThomas.
It always annoys me when approximately half the All-Star team seems to be 1B.
Nine shutouts in 1973 for Bert. He was just 11-17 in games that he didn't pitch a shutout that season.
so, basically, he wasn't the kind of guy who could make his teammates better. No wonder he's not in the HOF.
I wonder if he would have had a better winning percentage if he didn't complete so many of those games. These days, the team would protect his arm more, pull him around the 6th-7th inning, and even if the team ultimately lost, there would probably be some games where his team took him off the hook. I mean, he had 3 ND that year in 40 starts. Tim Hudson's often cited for his great career W%, but he has 80 ND in 303 starts. With 6.5 IP/start in ND, Hudson's team had plenty of time to let him off the hook. It might be interesting to look through Bert's gamelogs (with some kind of database query) to see how often the lead changed in the late innings of his starts. (It's possible that he picked up some wins by sticking around longer, but it seems more likely to me that we would eliminate more L's than W's this way.) Also, he might have had more wins if he had someone like Joe Nathan or Mariano Rivera to come in and finish off the game, rather than having to pitch tired at the end of the game. It looks like he had about a 3.21 ERA in the 9th inning, so having a relief ace help him out could definitely have pushed him past 300 wins.
Rice gained a lot of votes through the whole "back when ballplayers were real men" nostalgia, so appealing to the idea that Bert's record may have been tarnished because he was a tough SOB might gain some traction.
Actually, this goes to a larger question of whether or not teams are better at holding late-inning leads than they used to be. It would be interesting to chart something like winning percentage for home teams with an R run lead going into the 9th inning vs. season. I feel like I haven't seen that anywhere? That would seem to be a strong indicator of whether or not modern bullpen usage is better than old-school bullpen usage.
maybe Joe Posnanski's next book will shed some light on that
09/09/09.