RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Hall of Fame - Class of 2008

Posted by: JeffG
- Leader [01584348] Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 12:17

2007 discussion

Results announced Jan 8.

This year's ballotees (14 holdovers, 11 newcomers).

• Brady Anderson
• Harold Baines
• Rod Beck
• Bert Blyleven
• Dave Concepcion
• Andre Dawson
• Shawon Dunston
• Chuck Finley
• Travis Fryman
• Rich Gossage
• Tommy John
• David Justice
• Chuck Knoblauch
• Don Mattingly
• Mark McGwire
• Jack Morris
• Dale Murphy
• Robb Nen
• Dave Parker
• Tim Raines
• Jim Rice
• Jose Rijo
• Lee Smith
• Todd Stottlemyre
• Alan Trammell

Gossage had 71% in last year's vote came close. Rice with 63% last year is in his 15th and final season as a BBWA candidate. Blylevn had 48% last year.

The veteran's committee will announce their results on Dec 3. There are two ballots they will review this year: Executives, and managers and umpires. These are reviewed every other year, and are voted on only by a small select appointed electorate.

It is an 'off year' for the veterans committee to review former players who played 1943 and later. Players who played 1943 and before are reviewed every 5 years, next year is the next vote for this category.

Executives Ballot
Buzzie Bavasi
Barney Dreyfuss
John Fetzer
Bob Howsam
Ewing Kauffman
Bowie Kuhn
John McHale
Marvin Miller
Walter O'Malley
Gabe Paul

Managers/Umpires Ballot
Whitey Herzog
Davey Johnson
Billy Martin
Gene Mauch
Danny Murtaugh
Billy Southworth
Dick Williams
Doug Harvey
Hank O'Day
Cy Rigler

Who gets in this year.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
25Species
      Dude
      ID: 07724916
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 14:12
Nice.

Dear BBWAA -

Please revoke the voting priviledges of the writers who cast the following votes:

Rod Beck 2 0.4%
Travis Fryman 2 0.4%
Shawon Dunston 1 0.2%
Chuck Finley 1 0.2%
David Justice 1 0.2%
Chuck Knoblauch 1 0.2%
Todd Stottlemyre 1 0.2%
26ChicagoTRS
      ID: 4110481415
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 15:21
McGwire had the exact same amount of votes from last year to this year...his percentage went up slightly because there were less voters. No first year eligibility penalty...he is a long way off.

Goose deserved enshrinment. Good to see Rice and Dawson make strides forward. Rice gets his last chance next year...missing by only 16 votes he should make it next year. If anything the steroid controversy should help players like Rice and Dawson as their numbers look more hall of fame worthy when you consider they were not on steroids and put up big numbers.
27KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 42926218
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:31
So what do I win? This was a contest... right?

;)

I agree that Rice and Dawson may make it in next year based on the steroid issue, but Ricky Henderson may actually hamper them a bit as he's much more HoF-worthy than the two of them.
28ChicagoTRS
      ID: 4110481415
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 17:59
After Henderson there is no new candidate worthy for awhile...probably no one until maybe Roger Clemens gets his first shot.

I figure Henderson and Rice next year...Blylevin and Dawson should make it 2010 or 2011.

Upcoming classes are pretty weak (especially pitchers)...should give good opportunity for the players that have been on the cusp.
2009: Steve Avery, Jay Bell, Mike Bordick, John Burkett, David Cone, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Charles Nagy, Denny Neagle, Jesse Orosco, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Rick Reed, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams, Mike Williams
2010: Roberto Alomar, Kevin Appier, Andy Ashby, Ellis Burks, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Shane Reynolds, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile
2011: Wilson Alvarez, Carlos Baerga, Jeff Bagwell, Bret Boone, Kevin Brown, John Franco, Juan Gonzalez, Marquis Grissom, Mike Hampton, Al Leiter, Tino Martinez, Raul Mondesi, Hideo Nomo, John Olerud, Rafael Palmeiro, Benito Santiago, Ugueth Urbina, Larry Walker
2012: Vinny Castilla, Bill Mueller, Brad Radke, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, Bernie Williams, Tim Worrell
29Razor
      ID: 53032614
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 22:12
I'd rather no one than Dawson. The guy is not a HoF'er in my book.
30ChicagoTRS
      ID: 344311322
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 00:33
Why not?

Great all around player...power, speed, defense?
31KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 15023167
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 09:02
Razor and I tend to not agree on a lot of subjects, but I do partially agree here. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say no one instead of Dawson, but I'd be pretty close to that becuase I think Dawson really was a "really good" player, just not a "great" player.

He was a 7-time All-Star in 21 seasons (33.3% of his career; a bit more if you discount his last 3 years), 8-time Gold Glove winner, was MVP once and 2nd in MVP twice, was RoY, and that's about it in terms of awards. Now, that's a healthy resume for any player, but it doesn't scream "great" to me.

His power? He hit 49 HR in one season, but he still averaged 26.5 HR every 600 AB. Again, a good power resume, but just not "great," in my opinion.

His speed? He maxed out at 39 SB in an era where single-season SB were routinely getting into Top 50 all-time rankings. 19.0 SB every 600 AB is good, but not "great" for that era.

His defense? His career Range Factor is 2.29. Good, but just not quite "great."

Over and over again, as I look at Dawson's stats, I see a lot of "good," but nothing stands out as being "great" about him. And, to me, the HoF is about greatness; about guys who left a lasting impact on the game that is hard to deny. And you'll note that I'm not comparing him to other players currently in the HoF. I don't do that because I don't think that past screw ups by the voters should allow other players in.

I think the further we get from a player's career, the more we romanticize it. I didn't think of Dawson as a HoFer when he retired and I still don't think of him like that. If there were a AAA of HoF, I think he'd definitely have a spot, but I just don't think he's there for the actual HoF.

That said, I think he has a great shot of making it in because a lot of voters do begin to see things "better" as more years past and because, frankly, the upcoming classes are weak. They'll look at the options and say, "Dawson is clearly better than these other options, so he's in!" There won't be another year of nobody getting inducted (gotta have those tourism dollars), so Dawson has a good shot, regardless of what I think.
32ChicagoTRS
      ID: 4110481415
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 11:02
Here is why I think Dawson should be in...

#1 I think he suffers from spending a majority of his great years in Montreal. He reminds me of Vlad Guerrero before Vlad...

8 time all-star...7 time starter. I think that is noteable...1 MVP...2 2nd place MVP...career ranking 65th in MVP shares...ROY...he was definitely thought of as one of the best in the game in his prime.

8 gold gloves does seem significant to me. That is not a small accomplishment. He had a great arm.

314 career SB and 438 career HRs...while not crazy impressive on their own...in combination it is a rarity. 6th best career power/speed numbers.

His career stats are big...he is top 50 in hits 2774, HR 438, RBI 1591, total bases 4787, at bats, games, doubles, extra base hits...

He has a very good prime from around 1977-1992 where his OPS+ exceeds the league every year. If he just had his prime maybe he is not in but I think his career longevity helps his case...he piled up some big stats. I think the steroid era hurt him because his power numbers looked a litte weak for a big slugger but now that steroids have been exposed I think his power numbers look hall of fame worthy.

The main reason I put him in is the combination as a player...he did everything very well...power hitter check...speed on the basepaths check...great defender check...It is a little more common these days to find players like that but when Dawson went over 400HRs+ 300SBs+ the only other person in that club was Willie Mays...since then Bonds has joined the club but that is it...

I give him a little extra credit for destroying his knees on the turf in Montreal...he was a shell of himself in the later years and really even when he joined Chicago in 87 at age 32 his knees were already shot...

I think he gets in in the next 2-3 years and I think it is deserved.


33Great One
      Sustainer
      ID: 053272014
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 11:10
I often wonder what is the criteria to even get on the list? like why is Rick Reed or Steve Avery or Todd Zeile even "nominated"?
34Nerfherders
      ID: 501035289
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 11:37
From that list, I see Henderson in '09 but in '10 I like Alomar and Larkin's chances, and McGriff will be the hot debate. Bagwell should get in in '11.
35Razor
      ID: 281191313
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 12:12
McGriff is not a HoF'er no matter how many years he tried to hang around to get to 500. He is a fine example of a player who was good for a long time but does not deserve to be a HoF'er. Alomar and Larkin should both make it at some point. I thought Bagwell was a shoe-in during his career, but looking back at the total package now, he may not have done enough at the end of his career to reach HoF'er status.

The reason I don't like Dawson as a HoF'er can be summed up in one number: .323. That's his career OBP, which can only be described as flat out bad. For as much speed as he ran with and as much power as he provided, he still cannot be considered a tremendously valuable player with a career OBP that low. I think he is a classic case of a guy who was overrated throughout his career because the people watching him at the time just didn't know what to look for. He was a Gold Glover in a year where he had 9 errors and 6 assists in the OF. He got MVP votes in a year where he posted a .302 OBP. Dawson was a rare combination of speed and power, but that does not make him a Hall of Famer. One has to be an excellent player for a long time to qualify for that honor, and I don't think he does.
36Karrosinthehall
      ID: 281191313
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 12:14
Speaking of which, is anyone else surprised to see that Mike Hampton is eligible in 2011? I think Mike Hampton himself would be because as far as I know, he was still rehabbing to play again.
37ChicagoTRS
      ID: 4110481415
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 12:30
Agreed the OBP is Dawsons big negative...but he would not exactly be alone in the hall with that number...there are players with worse...couple big name players Brooks Robinson...Luis Apparicio...some others that are very close...Cal Ripken...Ozzie Smith...Gary Carter...Ernie Banks...Fisk...Bench...

I do not think that one neg should keep him out...

While we are talking about OBP...lets get Ron Santo in...he took a walk before we knew how important they were...

38Karrosinthehall
      ID: 281191313
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 14:24
Of the guys you mentioned, all were either among the greatest defenders to ever play the game, played premium defensive positions or both. .323 is tolerable when you are a slick fielding SS. Not acceptable from a corner OF whose job it is to hit.
39blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 14:56
ChicagoTRS - come on, man. You can't seriously be putting Dawson in that group.
40Khahan
      ID: 561119313
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 15:26
Its ridiculous to hold Dawson's OBP against him. He played a large portion of his career at a time when a walk was not just as a good as a hit.
They weren't looking for it back then. For his time period (which is what we should be measuring him by), BA was king.
41Karrosinthehall
      ID: 281191313
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 16:12
There were players who took walks back then. Dawson was not one of them.
42KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 15023167
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 16:27
For his time period (which is what we should be measuring him by), BA was king.

By that standard, he was average. He cracked the Top 10 in NL AVG 5 times with 6th, 7th, 10th, 3rd, and 5th. And his career .279 AVG doesn't sound very HoF-worthy to me.

And I don't see how MON held him back THAT much...

MON: 6039 AB, 225 HR, .261 AVG, 253 SB
CHC: 3262 AB, 174 HR, .284 AVG, 57 SB

As expected, he hit more HR while playing with the Cubs and his AVG increased a bit, but even with a career AVG of .284, I wouldn't think he was HoF-worthy.

As for his fielding, in 2 of the years he won a GG, he had as many Errors as Assists ('82 and '83). In three more of those years, his Assists were only 3 or fewer more than his Errors ('81, '84, and '85). His Range Factor was decent, but again I don't see it as being "great." He's not exactly a guy I'd see teams rushing out to get for his defense.

To me, it's just the same story over and over and over again with Dawson. He was certainly a really good player, but when I just don't see him as having been a great player worthy of enshrinement.
43ChicagoTRS
      ID: 4110481415
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 16:27
I was just listing players with similar OBPs. If you are going to hold that one weak stat against Dawson you have to hold other players accountable. I am sure if you examine a majority of hall of famers you can find an ugly stat or two.

It is not like Dawson was only a hitter or a DH...he did win 8 gold gloves and I would dare to say was one of the better defensive outfielders of his generation.

When I look at Dawsons overall body of work in my opinion it equals hall of famer...it seems 66% of the voters agreed with me and I would bet another 9% will come around in the next couple years.

I think the steroids era continues to hurt some of these late 70s early 80s sluggers...Dawson, Rice, Parker, Murphy. The homerun is severely devalued these days. Just from the comments above I can see people are trying to compare these 80s sluggers to todays sluggers. For example take a player like Parker...his big HR totals were 30, 34, 31...pretty bad right? Heck steroid injecting 2B have that by the all-star break these days. But...he finished 3rd, 2nd, 2nd in total HRs those years...now that we know for a fact how juiced baseball has been the last 20 years it seems fair to only compare players to other players in their era. I think we need to go back and reexamine these guys numbers and realize if you erase the last 20 years their numbers might equal hall of fame.

My criteria for a hall of famer is a solid 10 year prime where he was at the top of the league and then enough longevity after that to pad his career totals. During those prime years I would like to see an MVP or two mixed in with some high MVP finishes...~10 all star appearances...extra credit if he was a good defender...I think more than ever now you can only look at the particular players era.
44Perm Dude
      ID: 3201398
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 17:12
Dawson did have his MVP year. Ironically, by that time his speed numbers were falling off the table.

Dawson is an "on the cusp" player, IMO. He might get in during an otherwise weak candidate year, but that doesn't make him more worthy.
45blue hen
      ID: 16322314
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 17:58
8 Gold Gloves as a right fielder? Do you really think he was as valuable in the field as Brooks Robinson?
46Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 18:16
He threw out Rick Sutcliff at first base once. That's got to be worth something. :)
47KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 421148121
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 21:06
When I look at Dawsons overall body of work in my opinion it equals hall of famer...it seems 66% of the voters agreed with me and I would bet another 9% will come around in the next couple years.

2002 45.3%
2003 50%
2004 50%
2005 52.3%
2006 61%
2007 56.7%
2008 65.9%

So, what's the reason that Dawson is suddenly single digits away from being a HoFer? Is there some miraculous new look at his stats? Do the writers suddenly realize his greatness that they haven't realized for the last 7 years? Have they just been wrong for all this time and are slowly correcting it?

Personally, I think it's this...

Inductees
2002: 45.3% Ozzie Smith
2003: 50% Eddie Murray, Gary Carter
2004: 50% Paul Molitor, Dennis Eckersley
2005: 52.3% Wade Boggs, Ryan Sandburg
2006: 61% Bruce Sutter
2007: 56.7% Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn
2008: 65.9% Rich Gossage

Let's look at the corresponding HoF Monitor from Baseball-Reference for each of these inductees...

2002: 45.3% 142.5
2003: 50% 154.5, 135.0 (144.75 average)
2004: 50% 165.5, 172.0 (168.75)
2005: 52.3% 267.0, 157.5 (212.25)
2006: 61% 91.0
2007: 56.7% 236.0, 277.5 (256.75)
2008: 65.9% 126.0

To me, it's pretty obvious that Dawson was actually helped by Boggs and Sandburg in 2005. Up until that point, he was pretty consistently getting around 50% of the vote (mid-200s votes). He managed to still get around 50% in 2005 despite being up "against" Boggs/Sandburg.

Then, along comes Sutter in 2006 and a lot of players look like a HoF candidate when held next to Sutter, so Dawson sees a huge jump to 61% (317 votes; a jump of 47). Now, baseball writers being human, why vote for a guy one year, then not the next, right?

Well, in 2007, it was clearly Ripken/Gwynn, so it was unlikely for Dawson to add any votes that year. And he pretty much maintained at 309 (a small drop to 56.7%).

Then, along comes another Sutter-like pick (at least compared to Ripken/Gwynn) and what happens? Dawson sees another jump to 358 votes. That's a jump of 49 votes, just like in the Sutter year.

This back-and-forth of obvious candidates and not-so-obvious candidates, in my opinion, is far more responsible for Dawson's increases than anything else. And next year he'll very likely get about 350 votes as Rickey Henderson (186.5 HoF Monitor) is an obvious pick.

Then comes 2010 with Alomar (193.5) and Larkin (118.5). Dawson will likely see a small jump in votes, but I think it'll put him in the low 70s. Just short.

And then comes 2011, when Dawson will get inducted with Jeff Bagwell (149.5) as he'll be seen as comparable after being compared to Alomar/Larkin the year before.

At least that's the way I see it. ;)
48ChicagoTRS
      ID: 344311322
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 21:41
Why does any player that does not make it in their first year go up or down in votes?

I think sometimes it just takes momentum and debate/campaigning to eventually push a player over the top. Weak classes are definitely also a factor. I do agree Sandburg was a boost for Dawson since they were teammates it brought attention. It is not like it is only a Dawson phenomenom...many players have went 10 years plus before picking up enough support.

--------------
>8 Gold Gloves as a right fielder? Do you really think he was as valuable in the field as Brooks Robinson

Absolutely not but Dawson was a better offensive player by pretty much all measures (as he should be in RF).

I think Brooks is one of the most overrated players in the past 50 years...though I do think he is a legitimate cusp type hall of famer...mainly because of his D and longevity. If I needed to pick a 3B from the same era for one season give me Santo...MUCH better offensive player and close defensively at 3rd...just does not have the career longevity but much better prime years. Career .723 OPS vs .826 OPS.
49KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 15023167
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 08:42
Why does any player that does not make it in their first year go up or down in votes?

Going up tends to be a result of a) having survived a tough class (like Dawson with Boggs/Sandburg), b) campaigning, and c) nostalgia.

The nostalgia aspect cannot be overlooked. People (baseball writers and fans) tend to look more favorably upon a player's career the further away from the career that they get. This tends to be especially true for "nice guys," like Dawson. It doesn't seem to happen so much for the jerks of the game.

Going down? That's usually a result of voters moving in and out of the pool. Again, I can't imagine a large number of voters suddenly deciding that the guy they voted for last year is no longer worthy without some extraordinary information surfacing.

These two sides of things are why you'll more likely see significant gains compared to significant losses. I haven't done the research, but I imagine finding a player who had significant losses without some sort of news (like the discovery that he was taking steroids his entire career) is pretty difficult. The flip side is present almost every year because of the reasons I listed above.

Personally, I wish they'd lower the years of eligibility to five.
50Toral
      ID: 575542418
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 10:20
People (baseball writers and fans) tend to look more favorably upon a player's career the further away from the career that they get. This tends to be especially true for "nice guys," like Dawson. It doesn't seem to happen so much for the jerks of the game.

This isn't exactly the same point but I think that players who don't talk to the media/whom the media doesn't like do tend to be looked on more favourably as time goes on. (Not talking to the media does not equal being a jerk, I would agree.)

There is one obvious reason for this: the peak of Jim Rice's career was thirty years ago. Every year there are fewer and fewer BBWAA writers who were active at the time when Jim Rice was annoying reporters for whatever reason. Writers of the following generation hold no bad personal memories of Jim Rice and are more willing to treat his relationship with the media as most fans consider it, an irrelevancy to the question of whether Rice belongs in the HoF. (I believe you can see this in the fawning article SI.com put out on the day of the announcement.:
Rice also may have delayed his induction by keeping reporters at arm's length -- or worse. Sometimes snarling and usually unapproachable, he alienated many of the electors; however, several of the Boston beat reporters who covered Rice most closely said they have voted for him each year since he became eligible in 1995.

"They didn't have any trouble out of me. The trouble came when you wanted to talk about the team," Rice said. "That was my trouble: Do not come to the ballpark to find out all the negative stuff. I didn't have any trouble per se with the media, I had trouble because I didn't give them scoops."The question is, do you want a guy that could play, or do you want a guy that can give you stories?"

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

BTW, note Joe Sheehan's article also at SI.com rejecting Rice as worthy of the HoF. This paragraph is kind of eerie:
This will please many and frustrate a few, for Rice's candidacy has become something of a battleground between analysts and the voting pool. For weeks now, the idea that Rice was "the most feared hitter in baseball for 12 years" has been pounded into our heads....[T]hat one phrase, and the single word feared, have become the club by which Rice's supporters are beating their hero's way into Cooperstown
I say it's eerie because the "the most feared hitter in baseball" argument is exactly the argument that was used on this board in support of Rice. (And the argument Sheehan assembles against Rice are those used by those here not supporting his candidacy.)
51blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:02
No eerie. We are sheep. I read Joe Sheehan regularly.

Sometimes we see multiple people with the "most feared" title. Anyone want to make a list of the most feared hitters over certain periods?
52Toral
      ID: 575542418
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:04
I was thinking about "most feared".

Frank Howard definitely goes on the list. (Even though he was by and large a "gentle giant" type.)
53Perm Dude
      ID: 3201398
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:06
Bonds, by far, IMO. Anyone who is intentionally walked with the bases loaded gets the "most feared" crown.
54Seward Norse
      ID: 297412913
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:09
Feared - Barry Bonds. Back acne will do that... IBB stats should show fear pretty clearly I'd think.
55Seward Norse
      ID: 297412913
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:09
Posted 54 before seeing 53...
56Perm Dude
      ID: 3201398
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:11
According to baseball reference, Bonds is the career leader in IBB. In fact, it isn't even close. Bonds has 688, and Aaron (once again in second) has 293.
57Seward Norse
      ID: 297412913
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:11
IBB link
58Toral
      ID: 575542418
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:15
I'm not arguing about Bonds, but would say that the "most feared" title is not just about ability, but actual fear. Jim Rice was a big, surly looking black man known to have power. As someone else once says "he looked like an RBI at the plate".

A "most feared" appellation has to go to someone who is physically feared. Who a pitcher is afraid will hit one back through the box and decapacitate him. A kind of player like...I don't remember who the hitter was, but Ken Boyer (very fine defensive 3rd baseman) for some reason was playing in when this huge right-handed slugger got a nice fastball, a little bit inside, which he took. Ken Boyer supposedly went to the pitcher's mound and said, "If you ever throw an inside fastball again to this guy while I am playing in I will personally beat the **** out of you."

That kind of player.
59Toral
      ID: 575542418
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:17
I'm not arguing about Bonds, but would say that the "most feared" title is not just about ability, but actual fear. Jim Rice was a big, surly looking black man known to have power. As someone else once says "he looked like an RBI at the plate".

A "most feared" appellation has to go to someone who is physically feared. Who a pitcher is afraid will hit one back through the box and decapacitate him. A kind of player like...I don't remember who the hitter was, but Ken Boyer (very fine defensive 3rd baseman) for some reason was playing in when this huge right-handed slugger got a nice fastball, a little bit inside, which he took. Ken Boyer supposedly went to the pitcher's mound and said, "If you ever throw an inside fastball again to this guy while I am playing in I will personally beat the **** out of you."

That kind of player.
60KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 15023167
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:49
Mo Vaughn always struck me as being pretty intimidating at the plate, just from appearance. The bat always seemed to look like a toothpick in his hands.

Personally, I don't think IBB is a good indicator because it relies so much on the lineup around a player. For instance, is David Ortiz really so tame of a hitter that he only deserves 12 IBB? Only 73 IBB for his career? Or is that a function of being part of a stacked lineup and him having "protection" behind him?

Also, IBBs are more of a modern era part of the game, particularly with regards to stats. For instance, how many IBBs did Babe Ruth have? Surely, it wasn't 0.

For me, I'd go with SLG as an indicator. A guy with a high SLG is going to do damage one way or another. Whether he's hitting home runs or legging out doubles, he's driving in runs and causing general panic for the opposition.

With that, I'd go with Ruth, the career leader in SLG by quite a margin.

Bonds should be feared, but he's only as feared as he is right now because he's not in a lineup that is feared. You just have to look at David Ortiz, Alex Rodriguez (11 IBB last year; 70 career), or Albert Pujols (22; 120) to see this.
61blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:58
Hell, Roger Maris had zero in his best season. Clearly, IBBs are only so-so.

But seriously, Rice "looked like an RBI"? Does that mean he always had men on base?

By the time I started following baseball closely, Rice was a shell of his former self. But Dave Stewart was the "most feared" pitcher for a long time AND won 20 games four times. Now, I don't put much stock in either category, but I'm really curious why some people in this thread aren't bringing up Dave Stewart.
62blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 13:03
Also, I was just looking up Rice. Compare him to Dawson sometime. If Rice is on the cusp, Dawson seems far below.
63Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 13:10
Jim Rice once broke a bat checking his swing... the ball didn't hit the bat. That's fearsome.
64KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 15023167
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 13:27
RE: 61, I actually think Eckersley was the most feared pitcher on that team (and even MLB) during that era.

Stewart was clearly great, but his WHIP and ERA suggest that hitters were able to get to him a bit. His strikeouts also weren't in the range of where I'd consider him the most feared pitcher in baseball.

Eckersley, on the other hand, was virtually untouchable. His MVP and CY-winning season in '92 saw 51 saves and a 0.913 WHIP... and that was one of his WORST years as an OAK closer, IMHO.

Consider 1989...
33 saves, 1.56 ERA, 0.607 WHIP

A 0.607 WHIP?!

And what does he do in 1990?...
48 saves, 0.61 ERA, 0.614 WHIP

Those stats are just flat out ridiculous and the only reason he got the CY/MVP in 1992 was because he was consistently putting up those kinds of numbers and the voters finally had to remove their heads from the sand (or other area).

To me, WHIP and K/9 determine a pitcher to fear. Here are Eck's stats for the 5 years he dominated MLB...

1988: 45 Sv, 72.2 IP, 2.35 ERA, 0.867 WHIP, 8.67 K/9
1989: 33 Sv, 57.2 IP, 1.56 ERA, 0.607 WHIP, 8.58 K/9
1990: 48 Sv, 73.1 IP, 0.61 ERA, 0.614 WHIP, 8.96 K/9, 41 H, 5 ER, 4 BB
1991: 43 Sv, 76.0 IP, 2.96 ERA, 0.908 WHIP, 10.30 K/9
1992: 51 Sv, 80.0 IP, 1.91 ERA, 0.913 WHIP, 10.46 K/9

And let's not forget that his pitches looked like they were literally coming from left field. For a right-handed batter, Eck's pitches started where the batter was standing. Can you imagine being a hitter and having a pitch looking like it's coming straight at you and knowing that the stats are saying you have little shot at doing anything with it anyhow? THAT's fear.
65KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 15023167
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 13:31
Oh, and facing this look would probably have me crumbling in fear.
66Great One
      Sustainer
      ID: 053272014
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 13:43
Jim Rice once broke a bat checking his swing... the ball didn't hit the bat. That's fearsome.
As a Sox fan, I love that. But it also reminded me of something the way it was worded.

Jim Rice does not sleep. He waits.
Jim Rice once visited the Virgin Islands. They are now The Islands.
Jim Rice does not hunt because the word hunting implies the probability of failure. Jim Rice goes killing.
Jim Rice' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night he checks his closet for Jim Rice.
67Toral
      ID: 575542418
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 13:53
Funny, kkb, I was thinking of RJ as a corresponding pitcher type.

Now it is possible that some guy like Greg Maddux might be a demonstrably better pitcher than Johnson. (I'm not trying to start any Maddux v, Johnson argument, just trying to illustrate different styles of pitching.)

But John Kruk never came up in an ASG and turned his helmet around when he was facing Greg Maddux. People didn't "get the flu" and sit out when Maddux took the mound.

So RJ is more feared. How much does that mean for the HoF (fearsomeness as a general category) ?

Ryne Duren might have been the most feared pitcher in the AL for a year or so because he threw harder than anyone else in the league, couldn't see well (wearing 4" thick coke-bottle-bottom type glasses, which he sometimes took off on the mound, for effect), had little control over his pitches, often putting them into the screen or first row, didn't mind brushing players back and made it known, and to top it off, was often in a nasty hungover mood when he took the mound. He didn't make the HoF or come remotely close.

Maybe fearsomeness should be worth a point or 2 to someone on the margins of the HoF, but fearsomeness isn't really what winning in BB is all about, IMO.

Toral

68ChicagoTRS
      ID: 4110481415
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 13:55
Feared...some pitchers...Bob Gibson...I always here old players talk about how Gibby would plunk a player if you looked at him funny. Don Drysdale was another. Randy Johnson seems to be an intimidating presence on the mound and will hit a player or 10. Pedro Martinez is another that purposely will hit a batter or two.

Any pitcher that throws very hard and has suspect control...Ryan, Wood, Clemens...
69barilko6
      ID: 3103879
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 13:57
I think one of the most feared pitchers ever has to be Bob Feller, hands down.

Dave Stewart was definitely scary until you heard him talk with his squeeky voice. But he was still very feared.

And Al Hrabosky.
70Toral
      ID: 575542418
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 13:59
Koufax even more than Drysdale, IMO.
71Perm Dude
      ID: 3201398
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 14:02
I've probably related this before, but the Indians had a guy name Jim Kern in the mid-70s as their closer. While warming up (and he had a big fastball--easily 95-98 MPH), he would sometimes fire off the last one way over the head of the catcher right to the backstop.

With Clemens you knew he was pretty much in control. When you stepped into the box against Kern, there was that niggling feeling that maybe there wasn't a lot of control there.

Facing a guy with throws 98 MPH without control--that's fear!
72ChicagoTRS
      ID: 4110481415
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 14:16
> Also, I was just looking up Rice. Compare him to Dawson sometime. If Rice is on the cusp, Dawson seems far below.

I really do not see a big difference between the two...Rice has better prime offensive years, Dawson has better career totals (longevity), Dawson was a far better defender...rice was below average in the field, Dawson has 300+ SBs...Rice has 30. Rice career OPS+ 128 - Dawson 119. I think if Rice played until he was 41 like Dawson his career averages would fall x% and be almost right in line with Dawsons numbers. They seem to be similar players when I compare their stats. Their gray ink, HOF Standards, HOF Monitor numbers are very close...

I think both are legitimate hall of famers...not first ballot...not golden circle guys but also neither would be close to the worst inductions.
73Khahan
      ID: 486552412
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 07:17
I am feared.
74ChicagoTRS
      ID: 4110481415
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 09:38
Koufax 18 hit batters in his career...
Drysdale 20 hit batters in 1961...154 in career...

Who do you think was more feared ;-p
Rate this thread:
5 (top notch)
4 (even better)
3 (good stuff)
2 (lightweight)
1 (no value)
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.

If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.

If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.

RotoGuru Baseball Forum

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread




Post a reply to this message: Hall of Fame - Class of 2008

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Click here to insert a random spelling of Mientkiewicz
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours22
Last 7 days64
Last 30 days1814
Since Mar 1, 2007321716461