Andre Dawson - lone HoF inductee

[Jeffy25]

I really don't think it's close at all. Edgar had 11 full seasons of an OPS+ of 130 or better, 8 of those being 150 or higher. Ortiz has 5 seasons higher than 130 and 3 higher than 150. Edgar, for over a decade, was consistently one of the top hitters in the league. Ortiz had a run half as long.

A 13 point OPS+ difference is huge, to say nothing of the 2,600 difference in plate appearances. Ortiz needs about 4 full seasons more to match Edgar in playing time, and barring a miracle, that will mean his OPS+ will drop even further from Edgar since he's clearly in his decline phase.

WAR sees the difference as about as large as the difference between..oh..Bret Boone and Bobby Grich . Ortiz totals 27.4 WAR with 5 seasons above 2 (which is roughly an average season) - four of those above 4 and three above 5. Edgar totals 67.4 WAR with nine seasons of 5 WAR or better and another four seasons between 2 and 5 WAR.

I do think Ortiz will get support disproportionate to his actual value, though, because of the "clutch" reputation.

and isn't Martinez criticized for not having enough playing time?

[HoustonGM]

I am doubtful on Ortiz, and my first response is, faithful Bo Sox fandom.

But I think you have pretty good points and they are at least worth giving merit to.

I have always thought similarly with Jim Edmonds.

I feel Edmonds would be a hall of famer if he could have had two more productive seasons. But I don't think his sabr, nor counting stats are quite enough. Two more of those 40 homer, .300 average, gold glove seasons, and he is in I think.....so basically, skip his injury seasons and replace them with his highest productive seasons

I think Edmonds is easily deserving. He's a top 10 all-time center fielder. Career WAR of 66.6 (), with his best 5 years totaling 36.5.

[200tang]

while I am on it, how close is Rolen to a hall of famer? If it wasn't for Jones and A-Rod he would have been the best third basemen of the decade. Seems like he has had some really productive years with the bat, while being great with the glove.

Statistically Rolen is a HOF.

[HoustonGM]

while I am on it, how close is Rolen to a hall of famer? If it wasn't for Jones and A-Rod he would have been the best third basemen of the decade. Seems like he has had some really productive years with the bat, while being great with the glove.

Rolen's deserving too, in my opinion, but the HoF has historically been brutally tough on third basemen for some reason.

I don't think Edmonds or Rolen will get into the HoF, at least not through the BBWAA, but both will sail into HoM!

[Jeffy25]

Rolen's deserving too, in my opinion, but the HoF has historically been brutally tough on third basemen for some reason.

I don't think Edmonds or Rolen will get into the HoF, at least not through the BBWAA, but both will sail into HoM!

HoM?


Wow, kind of surprised to hear this from both of you guys, I didn't think either would ever make it, I FELT like their peaks just ended a season or two too early for them to be considered in the all time greats.....

I don't think writers will give them the heads up either.

[Jeffy25]

Edmonds > Rolen for HoF merit

[HoustonGM]

HoM?

Hall of Merit
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...hall_of_merit/

Wow, kind of surprised to hear this from both of you guys, I didn't think either would ever make it, I FELT like their peaks just ended a season or two too early for them to be considered in the all time greats.....

I don't think writers will give them the heads up either.

Edmonds had his excellent six year peak with the Cardinals, but he also did fine work in the late 90's with the Angels - not Hall of Fame itself but combine that work with his HoF caliber peak and it adds up to deserving.

Rolen didn't have much of a "peak", per say, but from 1997-2004, eight years, he was consistently a 4-5 win player, and he put up another similar season in 2006. 62.2 career WAR for him and he isn't done - he just put up a 4.8 WAR season.

[kenny1234]

Rolen's deserving too, in my opinion, but the HoF has historically been brutally tough on third basemen for some reason.

This was my recollection, but I wanted to see how true it was - so I took a look at the numbers. To get the list of "unfairly" excluded players, I set the following criteria:

1) Retired before 2000 - Hall eligible, and have been up for at least 5 years
2) At least 55 WAR - roughly the borderline where the majority of players get in
3) Hall eligible (excludes Jackson and Rose).

There are 18 position players that fit this criteria, and 10 pitchers. Of the 18 position players, there are players from all positions, but fully 7/18 are third-basemen (Santo, Nettles, Allen, Bell, Bando, Boyer and Darrell Evans).

If you restrict it to players with 60 WAR, 5/13 excluded are third basemen (as compared to 2 outfielders or 1 first baseman). Just looking at the list of all 13 - it is a very good defensive list:
Reggie Smith 63.1
Dwight Evans 61.7
Bill Dahlen 75.9
Alan Trammell 66.8
Ron Santo 66.4
Graig Nettles 61.3
Dick Allen 61.1
Buddy Bell 60.7
Sal Bando 60.5
Lou Whitaker 69.5
Bobby Grich 67.6
Willie Randolph 60.4
Keith Hernandez 61

As a further note, it appears that the Hall of Merit is similarly hard on third basemen as the only two position players in baseball history(retired by 2000) with 60 WAR that are not in the Hall of Merit are Buddy Bell and Sal Bando.

As others have pointed out before, after catcher, third base is probably one of the more difficult positions at which to judge defense.

[actionjackson]

By the time the voting rolls around for both of these absolutely deserving candidates (Rolen and Edmonds, not Boone and Ortiz), hopefully we'll have even better statistical measurements of defense which the idiot writers can willfully ignore in favour of the "I don't think HOFer when I think of either of them" BS which passes for some of the justifications these days and that's not even accounting for the Mariottis and Conlins of the BBWAA cabal. Or maybe the fact that Rolen "quit playing" (I wish every player could play that well when they "quit playing") for three different managers , one of whom's a surefire HOFer, or the fact that Jim Edmonds wasn't a typical CF in that he only stole 65 bases and didn't reach any of the milestones that BBWAA boobs tend to salivate over.

[kenny1234]

I haven't made up my own mind on guys like Edmonds, and Rolen is still active so it is too early with him. A quick look at the Hall has been that between 50 and 55 WAR was borderline, and most above that get in. Looking at the current crop of players, that is going to admit way too many people. There are 43 players that are either active, or retired since 2000 with that sort of career accumulation, and I can't see the Hall of Fame growing by 4-5 players per year.

My feeling is that a variety of factors have led to players playing longer careers, and thus we need to judge the accumulation of value differently than we did 50 years ago. Borderline for me is now jumping to the group with between 60 and 70 wins. The group over 70 wins seem to be locks for the Hall - with Mussina being the bottom of that group. The group between 65 and 70 includes guys that will get in immediately (Glavine, Pudge), and some that will wait or not get in - Lofton, Edmonds, Walker, Martinez. There are 25 guys with over 65 WAR - that is a more reasonable number to me. Between 60 and 65, there are more questions, and below 60 WAR my initial feeling is that most should miss out.

[actionjackson]

This was my recollection, but I wanted to see how true it was - so I took a look at the numbers. To get the list of "unfairly" excluded players, I set the following criteria:

1) Retired before 2000 - Hall eligible, and have been up for at least 5 years
2) At least 55 WAR - roughly the borderline where the majority of players get in
3) Hall eligible (excludes Jackson and Rose).

There are 18 position players that fit this criteria, and 10 pitchers. Of the 18 position players, there are players from all positions, but fully 7/18 are third-basemen (Santo, Nettles, Allen, Bell, Bando, Boyer and Darrell Evans).

If you restrict it to players with 60 WAR, 5/13 excluded are third basemen (as compared to 2 outfielders or 1 first baseman). Just looking at the list of all 13 - it is a very good defensive list:
Reggie Smith 63.1
Dwight Evans 61.7
Bill Dahlen 75.9
Alan Trammell 66.8
Ron Santo 66.4
Graig Nettles 61.3
Dick Allen 61.1
Buddy Bell 60.7
Sal Bando 60.5
Lou Whitaker 69.5
Bobby Grich 67.6
Willie Randolph 60.4
Keith Hernandez 61

As a further note, it appears that the Hall of Merit is similarly hard on third basemen as the only two position players in baseball history(retired by 2000) with 60 WAR that are not in the Hall of Merit are Buddy Bell and Sal Bando.

As others have pointed out before, after catcher, third base is probably one of the more difficult positions at which to judge defense.

I set automatic induction at 60 WAR, which is a minimum of 15 seasons with an average of 4.0 WAR, or 20 with an average of 3.0 WAR or 12 with an average of 5.0 WAR etc. It just seems reasonable to me to demand an average of 4.0 WAR over at least 15 seasons in order for induction. Guys that are below that, I look at on a case by case basis and pro-rate their WAR to 9750 PA (15 * 650 PA per season) so that George Wright, Buck Ewing, Roger Bresnahan or a little later Mickey Cochrane can shine, or the guys interrupted by war like Joe Gordon and Hank Greenberg. It really shows off guys like John McGraw, who probably should have two plaques in there: one as a player and one as a manager. I'm trying to decide whether to set the induction bar in the prorated guys higher or not, like 70 or 75 WAR, but probably 60 is high enough as Jeff Kent barely squeaks in. The only issue I see is that it knocks out guys like Dave Winfield, Richie Ashburn, Bid McPhee, Zack Wheat etc. Then again it's always sad to see a guy like Winfield hurting his teams like he did over the final 3 seasons of his career while chasing Cooperstown. Still trying to figure out pitchers though. It just doesn't seem like a 60 WAR pitcher is as good as a 60 WAR position player, but maybe I'm just acting like a BBWAA member and determining HOFers by "feel". Thoughts, suggestions, comments my fellow WARriors?

[200tang]

comments my fellow WARriors?

Rec'd.

[actionjackson]

Rec'd.

Forgive my lack of familiarity with texting/interwebs shorthand, but WTF?

[200tang]

Forgive my lack of familiarity with texting/interwebs shorthand, but WTF?

recommended. For being so awesome.

[kenny1234]

Looking back, three groups seem to deserve consideration beyond their value. First, are those that missed time due to war or racism. Second, are catchers who tend to have relatively short careers. Third are relievers, where I think they are rated against each other, and only the very best get in regardless of value.

And the WAR levels that I'm talking about above are for the current crop of eligible players - basically I think that WAR-inflation has occurred, and therefore a WAR of 65 is not as impressive as it used to be.