Comments on: Ken Rosenthal's Hall of Fame ballot is A-OK

By: screen printing

screen printing — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:56:05 +0000

Yeah babyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!! The saints won the Super Bowl! what do you guys think? I’m asking different bloggers and different posts.

By: Arden Huckabaa

Arden Huckabaa — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:28:12 +0000

This is an interesting read, I believe you’ve got a great outlook on points!

By: rick

rick — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:58:35 +0000

“Based on OPS+ and runs created Edgar Martinez is supposedly a better offensive player than Joe DiMaggio, Harmon Killebrew, Rod Carew, Ernie Banks, Carlton Fisk, Reggie Jackson, Ken Griffey Jr., Tony Gwynn, etc.”
As a matter of fact, DiMaggio has a higher OPS and OPS+ than Martinez. Joe D has .977 OPS and 155 OPS+ to Edgar’s .933 and 147.
As for runs created, Martinez has 1631 to Joe D’s 1569. But considering that Martinez had a longer career, it isn’t all too shocking that he would retain a slight edge over Joltin Joe in this cumulative stat.
As for the other players mentioned, again there are other factors involved as to why Martinez might have a higher OPS+ or more Runs created.
Not the least of which being that Martinez was a damn good hitter.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:08:37 +0000

“I don’t merely dismiss them for what they are but for what they imply.”
Statistics don’t “imply” anything. They are merely the results of mathematical equations. All a statistic can tell us is what the result is.
The nonsense doesn’t come from any implication made by the statistic but rather from the inference one makes from that statistic. Or more simply put, the BS comes from the interpretation of the statistic, not the statistic itself.
If someone wants to take John Kruks’s career OPS+ and say that, because it is higher than Rod Carew’s or Wade Boggs then Kruk was the better player, they are certainly welcome to do so. But they would be wrong. Just as wrong as if someone were to say that since Harold Baines has more career hits than Ted Williams, then Baines was the better hitter.
Perhaps there are people who use OPS+ or Runs Created, or whatever, as the final word in evaluating players. And if we lived in a vacuum where everything was equal and there was no such thing as context, that would be true. But we don’t.
Kruk may have the higher OPS+, but there are other factors to be considered. Mainly that Kruk played a much shorter career than Boggs and Carew and that his decline was short and not too damaging to his career stats.
In any case, I don’t know anyone making such a claim about Kruk. Perhaps you do. In that case by all means ridicule that person and throw in a few barbs for me, as that person is quite stupid.

By: bob, CT

bob, CT — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:00:20 +0000

How can it be a real hall of fame when it wont let true greats in, like Pete Rose and Mark McGwire.Big Mac did nothing to break the rules at the time and still is black balled, gimme a break. Rose is maybe the best hitter ever and he is not in. Maybe he should have done drugs or smacked his wife around then the voters would have given him the nod. Vote for what they do on the field already!

By: ronjon

ronjon — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:34:55 +0000

If you have to make an argument for a guy to get in the hall of fame, what does that say? To me, he doesn’t belong. The HOF is only getting weaker in representing baseball’s best.

By: diamondduq

diamondduq — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:12:22 +0000

“What we get isn’t so much a number of runs a player is worth but more a rate of a players offensive contributions.”
I don’t merely dismiss them for what they are but for what they imply. Based on OPS+ and runs created Edgar Martinez is supposedly a better offensive player than Joe DiMaggio, Harmon Killebrew, Rod Carew, Ernie Banks, Carlton Fisk, Reggie Jackson, Ken Griffey Jr., Tony Gwynn, etc. John Kruk has a higher career adjusted OPS+ than Rod Carew, Wade Boggs and Carl Yastrzemski, by any reasoning you come up with that alone discredits the validity of using OPS+ to measure a player’s HOF credentials. So yes, I dismiss these random statistical concoctions but not based on the ideological logic surrounding their conception but the obvious lack of credibility in their results.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:48:03 +0000

Put all those guys in the HOF and you will have to rename it the Hall of the Pretty Good.

By: rick

rick — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 02:17:28 +0000

“Someone formulated OPS+ and runs created to fit some ideology they had about what’s important in baseball,”
OPS is on base percentage plus slugging percetnage. You can quibble with what a players OPS, like Martinez career OPS of .933, specifically tells us, but even you would have to admit that OBP and SLG are two statistics that fit any ideology about what’s important in baseball. And OPS+ is a measure of a players OPS that takes into account a wide array of factors (such as era the player played in, the ballpark a player played in, etc). It is hardly some slim viewpoint of cherrypicked stats put together to make a player look better than he is.
As for Runs Created you can argue that they are not as important as runs scored or driven in, but the statistic works more as a measure of a players positive offensive contributions. Runs created takes into account positive offense (such as hits, total bases, walks) measured over plate appearances. What we get isn’t so much a number of runs a player is worth but more a rate of a players offensive contributions. How is that not important?
You don’t have to put too much stock in sabremetrics if you don’t want to, but it would behoove you to know what those metrics measure and not simply dismiss them as the biased viewpoint of their creators.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:45:54 +0000

lol, McGwire. Bloated and unethical, like American media.

By: Juice

Juice — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:10:13 +0000

As a 60′s baby growing up in New York, I grew up watching the Yankees & the Mets. There are 2 opposition players who we couldn’t stand to see play against them…
Bert Blyleven & Dale Murphy
Despite what many people seem to be suggesting, back in the 70s, Blyleven was indeed considered to be amongst the BEST PITCHERS of his time. Perhaps he wasn’t as ‘sexy’ as Seaver, Gibson, Marichal or even Ryan, but a look at his stats are very revealing.
People knock him for being merely a .500 pitcher, but what gets lost in all of that is something which gives a more accurate pictures of just how good he is…his ERA.
In his example, it appears as though the fans who are judging him today, are either too young to have remembered him from the 70s, or are seduced by the 80s & all of those inflated stats that were put up & a generation where ESPN told us what represented ‘greatness’.
Bert belongs!
As for Dale Murphy, his career is an exercize in illusion.
Just check his stats from 1976 to 1981. You’ll see a GOOD hitter, but certainly nothing which warrants the words HALL OF FAME. He struck out a lot, didn’t walk very often & 1980 was the first years where he showed that he could perhaps be a special player, earning his first All-Star berth & hitting 33 home runs. Of course, the strike year didn’t give him the benefit of a full season, but up to that point, he was merely a DECENT player, not a Hall Of Famer.
What skews things a bit is the fact that he had a spectacular run from 1982 to 1987. A SIX-YEAR run of excellence, after which, he simply tailed-off & fell to the middle of the pack. His batting average was low & his strikeouts were high. From 1988 to 1993, he hit 24 hrs 3 times, 20 once, 18 & a total of 2 over his last 2 injury plagued seasons.
To be honest, until I checked, I thought that his career was much better than the record bears it out to be. He’s an example of a player whose reputation was much greater than the actual stats reveal it to be. And he in retrospect, he WAS NOT the best hitter of his generation. A guy who hit some home runs? Yes, A former catcher who became an excellent outfielder? Yes. A GREAT player? NO!
You simply don’t get the Hall Of Fame nod for 6 excellent seasons within an 18 year career. He was basically a .260 hitter with some pop.
Average out the numbers of his career & you’ll be as shocked as I was because I had always believed him to be a much better-than-average hitter.

By: diamondduq

diamondduq — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:56:49 +0000

“It is time and Edgar Martinez is a good beginning. He was a great person, a hard working team member and respecteed by all who played with him.”
What does any of that have to do with the HOF? How did you come to the conclusion that 1B aren’t measured against players of other positions? All players are measured against the players of their era and historical players alike. Saying the best DH should get into the HOF simply because he’s the best DH is like saying the best offensive pitcher of an era should get into the HOF for being the best offensive pitcher, it’s a ridiculous argument!

By: YouAreAllRight"Mostly"

YouAreAllRight"Mostly" — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:02:15 +0000

Since I started reading these articles a few days ago I decided to take a look at who is in the Baseball Hall Of Fame. If you haven’t checked this list out yet you should. My own conclusion is that the Hall has a lot of old time players in it but not many from the last 50 years. There are many players who are MVPs, Cy Young Winners, World Series Heros, Multiple Year All Stars, and record setters of one kind or another but are not in the Hall. Maybe you have a favorite player you think should be in there but is not. Maybe the Hall should allow more deserving players in.

By: Smerlap

Smerlap — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:44:53 +0000

The HOF voters have to decide on some objective criteria for the DH position. We have had the DH position in the AL since the 1970′s but yet no DH has ever been voted into the HOF. If you have a position, then those who play in that position must be considered for induction. I notice we don’t measure 1st base against 2nd and 3rd basemen, so why do we insist on measuring the DH against all others on the team. It is time and Edgar Martinez is a good beginning. He was a great person, a hard working team member and respecteed by all who played with him.
For those who ask why Edgar should go in ahead of Griffey Jr….DUH! Ken Griffey Jr is still an active player and not eligable for HOF consideration.

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:39:10 +0000

If we are going to talk about other things than stats that determine whether you get into the HOF then look at Babe Ruths life off the field. He was a known womanizer, who sent his wife and child off to a farm in the boonies, and then rented a whole floor of a New York hotel and entertained who knows how many women, he was known to frequent whorehouses all across the country, he was an alcoholic, he gambled on just about anything, he was banned from the league a couple of times for his antics on and off the field, and so on and so on! There are no saints out there…………in any sport. Maybe the only way to do it is just go by the stats and let the chips fall where they may !

By: Area 51

Area 51 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:00:14 +0000

Steroids screwed the whole HOF up. We may never actually know all who took them. So you may as well vote for stats and thats it. It was sign of the times and we have to live w/ it. Bob

By: DiamondDuq

DiamondDuq — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:37:05 +0000

At first I didn’t think you were this dense but you’re begining to convince me. I didn’t say DH’s are inherently better hitters than position players, for example if Joe Mauer would suddenly stop catching and become a DH that he’d be a better hitter. Nor did I say it was easier to hit as a DH, though the extra reps they should be getting during fielding practice probably don’t hurt. What I did say was that to induct a DH into the HOF, he had better be a hands down better hitter than a HOF position player since he doesn’t have the added duties of contributing defensively. I don’t do anything near holding “the DH’s task to a higher esteem”, in fact quite the opposite. The reason it is a valid argument to compare a SS or a C to other SS’s or C’s from their era is because those positions are historically defensive positions so their offensive numbers may not be on par with a corner infielder or corner outfielder from the same era since those are historically offensive positions, which by no means diminishes the offensive contributions of SS’s or C’s but respects the defensive difficulties that come with those positions. The reason it is invalid to only compare DH’s to other DH’s and not other hitters is because it’s a strictly offensive position, they don’t do anything else, there’s no job responsibility that would diminish their offensive numbers as there is with historically defensive positions. In summary, for your convenience, DH’s aren’t inherently better hitters than position players but a HOF DH needs to be a hands down better hitter than a HOF position player to compensate for his lack of defensive contribution.

By: Casey

Casey — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:59:19 +0000

To clarify, Murphy led the majors in HR and RBI during the entire 10 year span from 81-90, not every single year.

By: Casey

Casey — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:57:01 +0000

Why do so few people talk about Dale Murphy. I’ve noticed him mentioned a few times in the comments, but not nearly enough by the baseball world as a whole. How can a guy who won 5 consecutive Gold Gloves (82-86), 2 consecutive MVP awards (82-83), 4 consecutive NL Silver Sluggers (82-85) be ignored. He was a 7 time All-Star (80, 82-87), had a 30-30 season, and led the majors in HR and RBI from 81-90. He was durable, as well, playing in 740 consecutive games between 1981 and 1986. Those sure sound like HoF numbers to me.

By: NYY fan

NYY fan — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:14:47 +0000

Which is it? DiamondDuq, so you “didn’t say that a player can hit better as a DH than as a position player”, yet you say “DH, since as the name suggests is a designated hitter, they’re essentially a hitting specialist and should therefore hit better than non-designated hitters.”
What is it about a DH that makes it easier to hit a baseball? Do DH’s get more ABs? An extra strike?
And since you hold the DH’s task to a higher esteem, why isn’t it valid to compare the hitting statistics of one DH to other DHs?

By: Jonah Keri

Jonah Keri — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:54:43 +0000

Craig, you said no ballot is perfect. Ken Davidoff’s is exactly what mine would look like:
Raines, Blyleven, Larkin, Alomar, Trammell, Edgar, McGwire

By: J Nuts

J Nuts — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:08:22 +0000

Its amazing how voters excuse defense altogether (i.e. gold glove winners like Dale Murphy), but when it comes to a batting, a Full-Time DH gets votes. If Martinez had to deal with the grueling duties of fielding everyday, theirs a big question mark on how his health (and stats) would hold up. Dawson’s career would have lasted longer (and been better) if he didn’t have to play on Montreal’s concreate-like astroturf.
Its also important to note how Martinez’ HR and RBI’s ballooned in the late 90′s/early 2000′s when everyone else’s was too. He hit 37 homers one season during that time. Doesn’t anyone else notice this too?

By: Joe M 2

Joe M 2 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:09:00 +0000

The argument that Martinez belongs in the Hall because he’s the best DH makes me ask “Who was the best DH before Martinez and why isn’t he in the Hall of Fame?”

By: diamondduq

diamondduq — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:25:16 +0000

I didn’t say that a player can hit better as a DH than as a position player, I said their only responsibility is to hit and therefore they should excel at hitting. It’s similar to saying that if someone is a left-handed specialist then they should be better against left-handed hitters than non-left-handed specialists. A DH, since as the name suggests is a designated hitter, they’re essentially a hitting specialist and should therefore hit better than non-designated hitters. Regardless, my main point was that comparing the hitting statistics of a DH only to other DH’s isn’t valid, as it is with positions that are historically defensive in nature, such as SS and C, and that they should be compared to any hitters regardless of position. Edgar Martinez has no major milestones (3000 hits, 500 homeruns, MVP’s) and has fewer career RBI than Paul O’Neill, Tino Martinez, Moises Alou, Ruben Sierra, Gary Gaetti, the list goes on, hardly HOF caliber players. There is nothing, aside from manipulated, empty statistics to point to him being anything other than a very good player but very good is not great and not great means not HOF.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:19:45 +0000

Blyleven:
Give me a break – the guy is 13 wins from 300, where we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. If he had played one season for the Yankees (or a good team, not Cleveland) for a couple years, he would have been a first-ballot choice.
This whole “but, but…he didn’t do ____!” crap is just that: crap. One more win per year and he is in. Arguing he should be excluded despite compiling numbers better than all but a handful of the thousands of men to play this game is the definition of arbitrary.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:13:00 +0000

The only argument I’ll accept for why Dawson doesn’t belong in the HoF is that injuries prevented him from being a shoo-in (please note, everyone: it really IS “shoo-in” not “shoe-in” — I keep seeing the latter here). Besides being an awesome power hitter, he played a great RF and doesn’t receive credit from most people who write about HoF voting. Arm like a cannon, I tells ya! No, seriously, he was good. Better than Sosa, if that means anything. BUT, having said that…as much as I really, really, REALLY want him in the Hall, Dawson simply did not play long enough or produce enough to be in. Damn. I don’t believe in giving “credit” for guys who had bad knees, or a bad back, or whatever, because it’s antithetical to the spirit of the game of baseball itself — you can’t assume anything. It’s right there in the rules. Andre Dawson is eliminated from true HoF contention not because of the numbers he put up, but those he didn’t. All those days off to drain fluid from his knees probably did him in as far as this goes. “Hall of Very Good” is asinine; Dawson is simply the best case I’ve ever seen of “what coulda been.”

By: NYY Fan

NYY Fan — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:02:11 +0000

The AL adopted the DH position in 1973. If you argue that the task of the DH is only to hit and thus should excel at hitting, then we should see in the record books. Yet, the only DH to ever win a batting title is Martinez (he won it once as a 3B in 1992 and another time as a DH in 1995). And how do you make the argument that a player can hit a baseball better as a DH than as a positional player?

By: DiamondDuq

DiamondDuq — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:13:16 +0000

“The names around Martinez in both categories do give one pause, though. Some Hall of Famers, sure. But also Todd Helton, Jason Giambi, Fred McGriff, Harold Baines, and Carlos Delgado.”
This quote exemplifies what I said about making statistics say whatever you want them to. Someone formulated OPS+ and runs created to fit some ideology they had about what’s important in baseball, however, as evident by some of the other names you have listed, the numbers are hollow and have no true bearing on a player’s greatness, the key word being GREATness, not “verygoodness” and I agree with your assessments of both Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell being better than Martinez. I do however disagree with your statement that he should be judged against other DH’s. That philosophy works for SS’s and C’s because they are tasked with so much more than just hitting that sometimes their offensive numbers must be weighted by their defensive responsibilities and thus comparing them to others who play the same position is not only valid but necessary. However, for a DH, they are only tasked with hitting and thus should excel at hitting and it’s perfectly conceivable that they would be and should be compared to anyone who hits, whether those hitters play 1B or OF or any other position is irrelevant. If you’re just going to hit, which is all a DH does, then that DH had better be one of the best hitters of all time to be included in the HOF since that’s all he does and while Edgar Martinez was a very good hitter, it takes a lot of statistical manipulation to put him in that company.

By: NYY fan

NYY fan — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:49:16 +0000

Sorry for the double post. Rob Neyer has a similar take to DiamondDuq, but came to a different conclusion:
“What I’m not fine with is this argument: “Designated hitter is a position just like any other position. Further, just as the best first baseman and the best shortstop belong in the Hall of Fame, so the best designated hitter belongs in the Hall of Fame.”
That’s nonsense. The best players belong in the Hall of Fame, with “best” measured by runs and (by extension) wins. The best DH doesn’t automatically belong in the Hall of Fame any more than the best pinch runner or left-handed setup man belongs in the Hall of Fame.
With that out of the way, let’s talk about Edgar Martinez.
He was of course a devastating hitter. Since 1900, there are 47 players with at least 7,500 plate appearances — Edgar finished with 8,672 — and at least 50 percent of their time at first base or DH. Among those 47, Martinez ranks sixth in OPS+ and ninth in runs created.
The names around Martinez in both categories do give one pause, though. Some Hall of Famers, sure. But also Todd Helton, Jason Giambi, Fred McGriff, Harold Baines, and Carlos Delgado. Martinez was a better hitter than all of those fellows…
I’ve been going back and forth on Edgar Martinez for years. Today, though, I’m convinced. He belongs. He wasn’t nearly as valuable during his career as Frank Thomas or Jeff Bagwell, both of whom richly deserve enshrinement. But he was valuable enough.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/1636/should-edgar-be-halls-first-dh

By: NYY fan

NYY fan — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:24:28 +0000

Martinez's career should be compared to others who played the position (DH), and in the historic context. Michael Weddell of Baseball Analysts does a great job reviewing Martinez's relatively short career to other notable short-career HOFers as well as to other DHs. http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/12/edgar_martinez.php Interestingly, Martinez's best season isn't necessarily 2000 if you look at OPS+: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martied01.shtml