The New Hall of Fame

[flota89]

Hey folks. I have been doing a little research on possible Hall of Fame caliber currently active and have ran into a lot of fringe/close calls. Based on what I'm reading in a lot of articles, the majority of writers/bloggers don't seem to give credit to modern players where it seems to be due.

Few examples... Hits/HR/RBI/SB/AVG/OBP/SLG

Player A stats: 1842/360/1200/86/.296/.409/.545
Player B stats: 2011/359/1337/28/.312/.397/.562

Player A is a current player never associated with steroid use yet widely considered to fall short of the Hall of Fame and player B is in the Hall of Fame.

Player C stats: 2160/383/1311/230/.313/.400/.565
Player D stats: 2116/407/1333/99/.295/.380/.540

Player C is a recent player who received just over 20% of the vote in his first crack at the Hall of Fame. Player D is a Hall of Famer.

Player A is Lance Berkman. Player B is Johnny Mize. Placer C is Larry Walker. Player D is Duke Snider.

My question: Where is the love for the current stars?

I'll attach a poll to this thread, but I look forward to seeing what everyone thinks.

[flota89]

Option 2 should read "No - Steroids cloud the whole generation."

[earlywynnfan]

I think any Rockie is going to have a tough time getting in unless they set some unreal hitting statistics. That park warped stats more than any park in history.

Ken

[xpress34]

I think any Rockie is going to have a tough time getting in unless they set some unreal hitting statistics. That park warped stats more than any park in history.

Ken

Ken -

When I hear this statement - which I hear a LOT living in Denver - I have to respond that if that is the case, then what about pitchers who may get HOF consideration that pitched in parks that are considered 'Pitcher's Parks'?

Walker left and had success in St Louis - in fact in the 2004 WS, he was the only Cardinal who actual brought his offense to the plate.

Holliday has had success since leaving the Rockies as well - also to St Louis - so does that mean that there must be something with St Louis and player's from there should have their stats skewered too? :p

The point being that player's have long played in stadiums that are either hitter's parks or pitcher's parks or even built to certain player's strengths (AT&T Park and Barry Bonds - the stadium was designed to play to his HR strength).

If the 'Coors Field' effect as it has become known is going to be used to adversely affect any Rockies player's chance of being elected to the HOF, then to be fair, stats for any player that has been here with a visiting team that is being considered for the HOF should be stricken from their record such as HR's (and the ensuing RBI's attached to them).

An example would be budding star Michael 'Giancarlo' Stanton and the fact that he hit a HR in each of his 1st six games played at Coors Field. Has anyone else done this at any other park?

Finally, if Hitter's are going to be Penalized for batting here, then Pitcher's should be given Extra Points for pitching here to 'level the playing field' as it were.

Just my .02

- Smitty

[xpress34]

Great article by Jim Caple:

Don't blame Larry Walker for Ballpark (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&id=5966163)

Smitty

[xpress34]

And finally - these notes taken from Tim Kawakami's Talking Points article:

A's - Holliday Notes (http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2008/11/10/as-holliday-notes-the-homeroad-split-reality-the-flip-possibilities-gunning-for-the-angels/)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are Holliday’s stat lines…

-Career home: 84 HRs, .357 BA, .423 OBP, .645 SLG, 1.068 OPS.

-Career road: 44 HRs, .280 BA, .348 OBP, .455 SLG, .803 SLG.

In 2008 he was hurt for a bit–the numbers narrowed, mostly because he brought his road numbers up (and his home numbers fell some):

-2008 home: 15 HRs, .332 BA, .413 OBA, .584 SLG, .997 SLG.

-2008 road: 10 HRs, .308 BA, .405 OBA, .486 SLG, .892 SLG.

Those are the numbers. People are correct to be wary of this, because the A’s stadium is notably hitter-unfriendly with those big foul territories.

But I also believe that, while Coors/non-Coors splits are something to note, like always, no numbers are universal proof of anything, just as raw numbers. (Sorry, FJM!)

I’ve thought for a while that, while hitting regularly at Coors definitely helps Rockies batters, they also get unfairly disadvantaged by just slapping up their road games as a true measure of their abilities. Why?

-Because they play in the NL West, where three of the opponent parks are not friendly to hitters (Giants, Padres and, to a lesser extent, Dodgers) and every one of the opponents have had good to great pitching staffs of late.

Basically, a guy like Holliday gets two or three extra shots at Tim Linceceum, Brandon Webb and Jake Peavy, for example, instead of Brandon Backe or Whoever the Nationals Trot Out to the Mound.

Again: These stats aren’t there in a vacuum. You have to put them into perspective.

-The Rockies hitters DON’T get Coors Field in their “road” category. So while every other NL hitter gets to include Coors in their road at-bats, the Rockies singularly CANNOT do that.

-One example, and the only real example I could find of late, since the Rockies have made so few changes to their regular line-up…


In 2004, Larry Walker was traded mid-season from Colorado to St. Louis, the last season of the old Busch Stadium, which was a neutral to tough hitters park.

You’d think Walker’s stats would be grossly affected–same (aging) hitter, moving from Coors to Old Busch, right in the middle. Fairly good test case.

-Walker in 38 games as a Rockie: 6 HR, 20 RBIs, .324 BA, .464 OBP, .630 SLG, 1.094 OPS.
-Walker in 44 games as a Cardinal: 11 HRs, 24 RBis, .280 BA, .393. OBP, .510 SLG, .903 OPS.

Slight down-tug in St. Louis, but not tremendous. I didn’t go back to see if there was a tilt in the sample size (for instance, did Walker play a sizable amount of his early games AWAY from Coors?), but you can see where I’m getting at.

Given the Rockies position in the tough-pitching NL West, with tough parks, in an unbalanced schedule, I don’t know if that home/road split is the only way to judge a hitter.

Let Holliday get 9 whacks at that Texas Ranger pitching staff in Arlington, instead of taking 9 turns at Petco. That’s a very, very big difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to your regularly scheduled 'Coors Field Effect' debate... ;)

Smitty

[godwulf]

How about a fifth option on that poll? Something along the lines of "A national Baseball HOF is an idea whose time has passed"?

Should eligibility be strictly a matter of stats? Should personal character play no role whatsoever? (And when we say "character", what are we talking, and not talking, about? Is a guy who beats his wife potentially in, while a guy who bets on Baseball or took some shots is eternally out?) Can a player's presence in, and impact on, The Game be such that he is Hall-worthy, even if his stats don't approach those of many already inducted? Should the voting itself be taken away from sportswriters - whose idea was that in the first place? - and be determined by somebody else...the fans, the managers, or even (God forbid) MLB?

I guess my point is not to argue for or against any of those propositions, or even to answer any one or all of those questions, but simply that as long as none of those questions is really resolved to the satisfaction of even most of the Baseball-loving world, a HOF seems kind of pointless.

[flota89]

I'm a Cardinals fan, but I put a former Rockie in my example for a reason. For one, I find it unfair to disregard stats just because a player performed well in a certain ballpark. Though players tend to hit more home runs in Colorado, there have still only been a few guys to do it well for a long time (Helton, Walker, Holliday). With the exception of Helton, these guys have performed well in other parks as well.

I remember the Cardinals getting Hollidya back in 2009 and hearing the constant talk that he was only an elite hitter because he played in Colorado. Then, when he STILL hits .300+ with 25+ home runs and 90+ RBIs, it became because he had Albert in front of him. Now that Albert is gone, the excuses have partially stopped and everyone has realized that he is an elite hitter. A park doesn't make a hitter HOF worthy ... his performance over time does.

As far as character plays into the hall of fame, that seems to be misunderstood as well. With more media in today's world, players are constantly watched. They can't make a mistake without it being well documented, and for this they are deemed unworthy of the Hall of Fame.
What about older generations of players famous for doctoring balls and gloves, corking bats, and taking other forms of performance enhancers.

Here is a clip from Zev Chafets's book on the Hall of Fame:


"In 1961, during his home run race with Roger Maris (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Roger+Maris/), Mickey Mantle (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Mickey+Mantle/) developed a sudden abscess that kept him on the bench. It came from an infected needle used by Max Jacobson, a quack who injected Mantle with a home-brew containing steroids and speed. In his autobiography, Hank Aaron (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Hank+Aaron/) admitted once taking an amphetamine tablet during a game. The Pirates' John Milner testified at a drug dealer's trial that his teammate, Willie Mays (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Willie+Mays/), kept "red juice," a liquid form of speed, in his locker. (Mays denied it.) After he retired, Sandy Koufax (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Sandy+Koufax/) admitted the he was often "half high" on the mound from the drugs he took for his ailing left arm."


But even though greats like Mantly, Aaron, and Koufax found their own way of "cheating," they are still considered superior to modern cheaters like Bonds.


Players have always tried to cheat, and it is ignorant to believe they wouldn't cheat in any way that they could. I'll leave this with the words of Mike Schmidt.


"Let me go out on a limb and say that if I had played during that era I would have taken steroids. ... We all have these things we deal with in life, and I'm surely not going to sit here and say to you guys, 'I wouldn't have done that.'"





Check out this link. I got some of the information from it. Great read on the subject.
http://www.aolnews.com/2009/06/22/just-a-reminder-baseball-players-have-always-cheated/

[godwulf]

As far as character plays into the hall of fame, that seems to be misunderstood as well. With more media in today's world, players are constantly watched. They can't make a mistake without it being well documented, and for this they are deemed unworthy of the Hall of Fame.

How about going into the stands to beat up or stab a fan? Or refusing to play with or against non-White players? Personally, I'd like to see a player stand up and refuse to be considered for induction until Cobb and his ilk are turned out. Sure, those guys played in a different era, when most of America either didn't know about their views and behavior or agreed with them...so why pretend that there's any comparability between the criteria for Hall of Fame consideration today and eighty, or even fifty years ago?

[earlywynnfan]

Has anyone ever looked at Lance Berkman and said "There goes a HOFer!"??

Ken

[earlywynnfan]

Plus, you need to look at the context of the era. While Berkman and Mize and very similar, there are some noticable and, IMO, important differences between the two. Berkman had a quality season last year, but seems to be tailing off faster than Mize did,meaning his lifetime average is going to drop even farther below Mize. Mize is all over the leaderboards, meaning what he did as opposed to his contemporaries is more impressive. Berkman has reached or surpassed the totals Mize may have put up, but Mize lost 3+ nearly-prime seasons to fight in a war. Really, looking at pure totals, the only thing Berkman did better than Mize is hit doubles and walk. Many of those categories aren't even close. (Mize led the league in triples?? Who knew?)

Ken

[joelsabi]

I'm a Cardinals fan, but I put a former Rockie in my example for a reason. For one, I find it unfair to disregard stats just because a player performed well in a certain ballpark. Though players tend to hit more home runs in Colorado, there have still only been a few guys to do it well for a long time (Helton, Walker, Holliday). With the exception of Helton, these guys have performed well in other parks as well.

I remember the Cardinals getting Hollidya back in 2009 and hearing the constant talk that he was only an elite hitter because he played in Colorado. Then, when he STILL hits .300+ with 25+ home runs and 90+ RBIs, it became because he had Albert in front of him. Now that Albert is gone, the excuses have partially stopped and everyone has realized that he is an elite hitter. A park doesn't make a hitter HOF worthy ... his performance over time does.

As far as character plays into the hall of fame, that seems to be misunderstood as well. With more media in today's world, players are constantly watched. They can't make a mistake without it being well documented, and for this they are deemed unworthy of the Hall of Fame.
What about older generations of players famous for doctoring balls and gloves, corking bats, and taking other forms of performance enhancers.

Here is a clip from Zev Chafets's book on the Hall of Fame:


"In 1961, during his home run race with Roger Maris (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Roger+Maris/), Mickey Mantle (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Mickey+Mantle/) developed a sudden abscess that kept him on the bench. It came from an infected needle used by Max Jacobson, a quack who injected Mantle with a home-brew containing steroids and speed. In his autobiography, Hank Aaron (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Hank+Aaron/) admitted once taking an amphetamine tablet during a game. The Pirates' John Milner testified at a drug dealer's trial that his teammate, Willie Mays (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Willie+Mays/), kept "red juice," a liquid form of speed, in his locker. (Mays denied it.) After he retired, Sandy Koufax (http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Sandy+Koufax/) admitted the he was often "half high" on the mound from the drugs he took for his ailing left arm."


But even though greats like Mantly, Aaron, and Koufax found their own way of "cheating," they are still considered superior to modern cheaters like Bonds.


Players have always tried to cheat, and it is ignorant to believe they wouldn't cheat in any way that they could. I'll leave this with the words of Mike Schmidt.


"Let me go out on a limb and say that if I had played during that era I would have taken steroids. ... We all have these things we deal with in life, and I'm surely not going to sit here and say to you guys, 'I wouldn't have done that.'"





Check out this link. I got some of the information from it. Great read on the subject.
http://www.aolnews.com/2009/06/22/just-a-reminder-baseball-players-have-always-cheated/

thanks for the link and summary