Printable View
2012 is an interesting year. You got Bagwell, I'm not even going to touch the Palmerio issue, you can scratch Sosa off till at least 2013. Franco has a shot depending on how people's minds change in the next few years about relievers. I personally also like Percival but he is very unlikely to get in especially since alot better relievers haven't made it in yet. I think santiago is an interesting case. I think he has shot of gettin in. the fact that he played catcher should help him alot.
I don't know that the reason for voting or not voting for McGriff is the identity thing, I'm guessing here. He also just missed Toronto's titles which probably would have given him more clout. If given back the strike time, he'd have surpassed 500.
Given the full '94 season, in which McGriff played 113 of 114 possible games with Atlanta, he was averageing one homerun every 3.32 AB's. I assume that at his rate of games played, he'd have missed one more, so I used 160 games as the base. Now, he had 34 homeruns at strike time,and he was getting 3.75 AB per game. So I'm seeing it as him losing 172.6 AB's which would have given him a total of 597 AB. In that scenario McGriff bangs out 51.98 homeruns which becomes 52.
1995 had the season shortened by 18 games and spring training was a joke, so the players were rusty when they came back. Using the season as a whole though, given the 18 missing games back, (he also made every game this season) he winds up with 30.37 or 30 HR's for the season (I'm far too lazy this morning to figure out the career average vs. 1995 to figure the difference in a "normal" season output).
Given back that which was beyond his control, McGriff potentially retires with 514 homeruns. Which gets him in by ballot eventually.
Benny also had the steroid issue hit him. I'm guessing that he's out because of it. He's never been a marquee player, otherwise they couldn't ignore him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
That's a lot of if's and's and maybe's. The same could be said for players who missed time in 81. I don't buy that, not that it matters 493-500... what's the big deal, are round numbers really that important? McGriff was a good player, but if guy's like Baines, Dawson and Canseco aren't in, McGriff shouldn't be either. He is a distant 4th in that foursome, imo. It's especially not that impressive when you consider he had his career extended by playing through expansion and the Juiced ball era (A luxury Jim Rice and Andre Dawson didn't have). Combine that with being a 1B... I don't know if I'd vote the guy in, and like I said I really like the guy back from following him in his Blue Jays stint, and I tend to be way more inclusive than most, and I'm not factoring in his vagabond like career at all. He may get in, but I would be seriously surprised if he didn't spend the better part of a decade sweating it out...
The point is, that in order to be classified as a "dominant" player, you should be significantly above the average. All OPS+ does is adjust for league and park factors. It is useful in comparing players from different eras.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I mean, Albert Pujols is surely a star. His 2005 stats: .330/.430/.609, 41 HR, 117 RBI...OPS+ of 167. Carl Yastrzemski in 1970: .329/.452/.592, 40 HR, 102 RBI. They had nearly identical years, yet you can look at OPS+ and see that Yaz was a better player in comparison to his league than Pujols was, as he had a 178 OPS+.
The whole point is that it accounts for differences in leagues. Take the deadball error and say Honus Wagner. He had a year with an OPS+ of 168, basically the same as Pujols 2005. His line was .339/.416/.459, 2 HR, 71 RBI. If you look purely at those stats, you would be like "sure, Wagner had a good season, but Pujols was astronomically better. The fact is, Wagner's year was just as good as Pujols' given the era he played in.
I agree with that. The point that I was making is that you simply can't say that two guys that played in different era's and/or leagues with the same OPS+ were had about the same performance. A percentage (which is basically what OPS+ ends up being) is meaningless if you don't know what 100% is, and especially so when making comparisons where the 100% value could be vastly different.
I have a real problem with OPS+ standing on it's own, is all. If presented with the highest value and the average value for that player's league and season, it's extremely meaningful for comparison. If it's completely on it's own, as it's usually presented, it can be extremely misleading.
My bad. I don't think that he gets in eventually because of the adjusted stats. I should have said that if he'd accumulated the extra homeruns, he'd be voted in by the BBWA.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolfanar
500, 1500, 3000, they're just the baseline by which players are judged. I think that there should be a lot more focus on the defensive side as well as hitting. Eventually they're going to run into a career DH with numbers that meet the minimum/s, and I can't wait to see how they handle that one. ;)
I think quite a few HOF voters stop at 3-4/yr. Having Gwynn and Ripken on the ballot gave them two automatics. So I would not be surprised to see several borderline Hall candidates do better next year.
As for McGriff, I've said he is a bellweather on other first basemen. I don't know how you induct Jeff Bagwell (who many claim will get in) and leave out McGriff. Sure, Bagwell had some better overall skills but he's almost 50 career homers and 150 hits behind McGriff during virtually the exact same time period. This will also be a factor with Frank Thomas unless Thomas reaches 500 homers.
Baines is another interesting case because he may be setting the bar for modern-day hitters who don't get in despite over 2,850 hits (Pete Rose notwithstanding). His being a DH for much of his career seems to be working against him. That doesn't bode well for Edgar Martinez or other hitters who DH much of their careers.
Here is a fun one. This is the All-Time HOF futility report. The all-time top Vote getters (cumulative) up to 2006 (So this years voting not included) who AREN'T in the HOF.
Man... Hodges hung in there, didn't he?Code:Name Years Votes Ballots PCT
Gil Hodges 15 3010 5665 53.1
Andre Dawson 5 1302 2510 51.9
Jim Rice 12 2824 5900 47.9
Rich Gossage 7 1633 3526 46.3
Lee Smith 4 829 2038 40.7
Tony Oliva 15 2138 6435 33.2
Steve Garvey 14 2197 6780 32.4
Bert Blyleven 8 1214 4023 30.2
Roger Maris 15 1642 5955 27.6
Maury Wills 15 1680 6222 27.0
Jack Morris 7 941 3526 26.7
Ron Santo 19 1749 6571 26.6
Marty Marion 18 870 3519 24.7
Harvey Kuenn 15 1502 6175 24.3
Tommy John 12 1205 4954 24.3
Jim Kaat 15 1359 6086 22.3
Allie Reynolds 19 816 3884 21.0
J. Vander Meer 27 562 3258 17.2
Don Mattingly 6 497 3026 16.4
Alan Trammell 5 393 2510 15.7
Dave Parker 10 777 4969 15.6
Dale Murphy 8 586 4023 14.6
Minnie Minoso 31 957 6627 14.4
Phil Cavarretta 14 537 3785 14.2
Lew Burdette 15 836 5907 14.2
Alvin Dark 15 738 5367 13.8
Ken Boyer 20 838 6256 13.4
Luis Tiant 15 918 6937 13.2
Dick Allen 15 787 6088 12.9
Joe Torre 15 795 6539 12.2
Dave Concepcion 13 765 6356 12.0
Hank Gowdy 24 436 3782 11.5
Mickey Lolich 15 660 5737 11.5
Orel Hershiser 1 58 520 11.2
Roy Face 15 671 6119 11.0
^^^ wow that is an amazing list. It's interesting to see how long some guys hung in there but didn't quite make it. Some guys having over 20+ years. Minoso had over 30 years!! athough that was before the rule change. The guy that really stands out to me is Dick Allen. He is the dominant player in mogul in the late 60's early 70's. And Baltimore always dominates.
That is one of the coolest lists that I've seen in a long time...
:)
Yeah plus the voting wasn't really consecutive. Minoso was first up in the late 60's and didn't come up again until the 80's. Weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoBoy
Man, I'm almost tempted to say 3000 votes should be like 3000 Hits. Let them in! :p That would put Rice (with this years votes) and Hodges in atleast.
About the same performance above league average...Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
The average OPS+ is always 100. And, of course no stat should ever stand on its own, but OPS+ is a quick, simple way to show "dominance."Quote:
I have a real problem with OPS+ standing on it's own, is all. If presented with the highest value and the average value for that player's league and season, it's extremely meaningful for comparison. If it's completely on it's own, as it's usually presented, it can be extremely misleading.
Bagwell had 960 LESS at bats than McGriff, and that more than makes up for the difference in counting stats. Look at rate stats. Bagwell's career line is .297/.408/.540, while McGriff's is .284/.377/.509. McGriff's OPS+ is 134, Bagwell is 150. Bagwell's peak was ridiculously higher than McGriff's as well. I really wish we could've seen what Bagwell's 1994 would've been without a strike. .368/.451/.750 with 39 HR and 116 RBI in 400 at bats is just plain ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
That actually is an interesting thought. Someone who gets at least that much support, over that many years, is obviously special somehow...
ah, good point...Quote:
The average OPS+ is always 100. And, of course no stat should ever stand on its own, but OPS+ is a quick, simple way to show "dominance."
Still, that's average for that season, in whatever league the player played in. Since the average value changes and is different every year and for every league, I don't see how comparing the OPS+ values of two players from different years and/or leagues actually means that much. It can show that player's difference from the rest of his league at the time, but that doesn't mean that the guy's season in the 1970 AL with a 150 OPS+ is better or worse than another guy's season in the 2001 NL with a 140 OPS+. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
MAybe they need to open up a "Hall of Almost Fame"? You could set up in the parking lot of Coopestown!Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law