This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.
Steve and I both made posts recently that produced a lot of comments about Griffey Jr. and the Hall of Fame. Please read them here and here and then come back to this post to vote.
This entry was posted on Monday, June 7th, 2010 at 10:55 am and is filed under Polls.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
66 Responses to “POLL: Ken Griffey Jr. and the Hall of Fame”
This poll is what we call a sanity check. Some people on Steve's thread implied that he doesn't belong in the HOF. I want to get a baseline for how many people would actually vote yes or no in such a poll.
These polls are unreliable for a number of reasons. One of them is that you commenters are not held responsible for what you say since your identities are essentially anonymous.
Not only does Griffey deserve to get in, but considering they were NEVER implicated in the steroid era, I believe posterity will (appropriately) anoint he and Maddux as the historical faces of their generation. I also believe Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, and Sosa deserve to be, and will probably be, blackballed and, when you filter out their tainted numbers, Junior's accomplishments rise to their proper rarefied levels and he claims his spot somewhere in the top-10.
Anyone who votes either of the middle 2 options is out of their mind. There is no way griffey doesn't make it into the hall. Unresolved steroid questions aside, there is no way griffey doesn't make it in. Even if he is found to have been using 'roids, he will still make I believe
One thing I like to point out to people about Bonds.. if you look at his pre-steroid numbers (assuming he started taking them around the late 90's when he beefed up, his numbers are still legendary. OPS+ over 200 in '92 and '93
No only is a he definite hall of famer, Griffey will almost certainly be elected on his first balloting. Anyone who thinks otherwise is smoking the drapes.
I wouldn't put him in during the 1st year of eligibility (and most certainly not a "1st ballot first year" kind of thing) but he's a candidate for entry a few years after...
Of course these writers and voters put Cal Ripkin in so who knows what they're thinking...?!
I thought his induction was pretty much assumed. I can't imagine a player of his stature not being inducted immediately.
I think the negative comments are the result of the discussion immediately jumping to the debate over whether or not he's the "best ever" or in the "inner circle". Compared to Mays, Mantle, Cobb, Speaker and probably Dimaggio, he clearly falls short. But as to if Griffey gets inducted at all, the bar simply isn't that high. Duke Snider was an easy pick for the HOF and he's in that inner circle either.
How is someone with 630 home runs and and OPS+ of 135 not a first ballot hall of famer? From the looks of it, he won't even have that much competition that year
No doubt, Jim, and you make a great point. Perhaps Bonds was on the way to the Hall before the late-90's, but now, like McGwire, I'd bet he suffers (at least) from association and is silently barred.
Anyone who doesn't vote with the majority here really doesn't deserve to have a vote. It's always possible that there's evidence we don't have re gambling or roids but unless that comes to light he'll be in immediately and deservedly so.
So far, 98% of the votes have been in favor of his election and think he deserves to get in. In the statisitical world, that qualifies and a lock. The remaining 3 votes are statistical outlyers and could just be people voting as a joke
I wonder if Griffey will have a hard time getting elected his first time on the ballot because (i) due to anti-steroids sentiment, the ballot will have well more than 10 amply-qualified candidates by then and (ii) the voters who favor voting in the known steroid users may be embittered enough at the anti-steroid faction that they leave Griffey off of their top 10 choices. We might have so many well-qualified candidates by then that getting 75% consensus regarding which ones to list on the ballot might be harder than we expect.
Probably I'm just imagining difficulties that'll only affect lesser candidates.
Griffey's got to get in based on one thing alone--when adding offensive and defensive contributions together, he's clearly the best CF from the last 20 years by a wide margin. It stands to reason that the best player of each generation at each position should be in the HOF, and although there may be some exceptions to this reasoning, Griffey is not one of them.
Sorry, I know this is a Griffey post, but I've gotta reply to #8...
First off, let's get the spelling right for all HOFers. It's Ripken, not Ripkin...
Secondly, I'll admit that I'm a biased O's fan. I was a 10-year-old when Cal was a rookie and rooted for him until I was nearly 30, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
From your comment, a casual baseball fan would think that Cal was completely undeserving of HOF status. Let's look at a couple stats/awards first:
- 1982 AL ROY
- 2-time AL MVP
- 19-time all-star
- 3184 hits (14th all-time)
- 431 career HR (345 at SS, most all-time)
- 10 straight seasons with 21+ HR (back when 25 HR was a power hitter)
- 2 GG
- 2nd-best single season fielding % at SS (1990, .9956)
Now, let's talk about The Streak. Some have crticized it over the years as hurting him and/or the O's, but I think everyone can agree that playing in every game your team played for 16 straight seasons is pretty remarkable. Plus, after the strike in '94/'95, it was one of the reasons that many people kept watching or even returned to baseball. Some have said that he 'saved baseball.' I'm not sure even I'd go that far, but his attitude and play during the 1995 season leading up to September 6th was magical.
He also changed how people viewed the SS position from one that mostly small, quick, light-hitting players played to one where larger, more powerful players could be used. Guys like A-Rod and even Jeter benefited from Cal playing SS.
I guess if you're only looking at career BA (.276), GIDP (most all time), or range later in his career, you can find some chinks in the armor. But all the other tanglibles and the intangibles point to Cooperstown. Let's also not forget that he didn't squeak in either - his 98.5% is the third highest ever, behind only Seaver and Nolan Ryan.
Oh, and I agree with #7, Griffey is 1st ballot all the way, and will likely be in that 95%+ range for voting %.
Umm, what? If you think he's a first balloter, then why do you begrudge him getting such a high percentage? He's good enough for YOU to vote for on the first ballot but not everyone else?
Only a few stains on another wise stellar career. And they are as follows:
Letting the world know he was leaving Seattle is one thing, it really takes leverage away from ownership in any trade. But by also letting the world know he would ONLY go to Cincinnati was immature and undermined the Mariner's chances of rebuilding. It served no purpose other than hurting the Mariners long term. I lost a lot of respect for him after that. I could see no reason a player would pin the only organization he has ever known and a loyal and loving fan base into a corner. The Mariners had some measure of revenge when Mike Cameron out performed Griffey and they went on to 116 victories, but it seemed an immature vindictive move.
Plus he never had a cozy relationship with the media. Not that an indifferent attitude changes what you do on the field, but it compliments good play. It doesn't take much to give a few sound bites for the fans that pay your check. Ted Williams lost 3 MVPs because of his foul attitude to media and fans alike.
He also would show up pitchers. He often would linger in the batters box for 10 seconds admiring some of his more impressive HRs. More than one pitcher took issue to his "hotdogging." Again this doesn't make you less deserving of the Hall, but sportsmanship should be part and parcel to stats.
There is also many rumors that he did not physically prepare himself before games, i.e. stretching, which led to his 10 years of partial seasons. All that info came from other players and media reports of him skipping team stretches and such, so it may not be true. But I think this is only a reflection of how easy the game was to him in his prime. Players with long, injury free careers are often lucky, but change their style of play and training regiment to reflect their age. I think Griffey was so gifted in his prime, he never developed sound physical routines and relied on pure talent.
One thing that keeps rubbing me wrong is the consensus that Griffey played the game "clean" during the steroid era. Although I see no evidence that he used PEDs, I also see no evidence that he didn't. I'm not saying he is guilty, I just don't know why everyone assumes he was, when he peaked, power wise, during the height of the steroid era. And his late career nagging injuries are all consistent with someone who used PEDs. Having said that, I personally think he was clean, but I just am not sure why so many reporters swear to something there is no evidence for.
There is also this "what-could-of-been" discussion every time Griffey is mentioned. People add these "what-if" stats and scenarios to his already gaudy numbers. But in my opinion, his HR mark is a bit padded. Most guys who produced at his level the last few years would have been cut long ago. He was left in the line up for name recognition and to hit certain milestones, not because he was the best at his position.
But regardless of those issues, for ten years he was the greatest talent I ever saw. He also went back to back with his own father. Watching him play center in the early 90's was magic. He is the only player of my generation that made it look like a natural human action to swing a bat. It was as if he was born to swing.
He deserves the Hall. First Ballot.
Since he only behind Ryan and Seaver, I'm assuming that he got the most votes on the first ballot for a batter of all time. More than other first balloters such as Mike Schmidt, George Brett who, at least in some regard, each had better offensive numbers than Ripken. He even got more votes than power hitting shortstop Ernie Banks.
Perhaps the other candidates in Ripken's year were relavtively weak.
I just want to make a statement on that whole "he's a hall of famer, but not a first ballot guy" that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Either he's a hall of famer or not... no matter what ballot year....
We've had this debate before, Thomas. Sometimes more than 5 years of perspective is needed on a player. The Steroids Era is a great example. There is a lot of indecision about McGwire, Palmeiro, Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, etc. Chances are good that none of these guys will get in on the first ballot. Voters need more time to understand the full ramifications of PED use during that period.
Would you leave Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, or Tom Glavine off your ballot? Probably not. But some 300 game winners had to wait past their first ballot to get in, and what helped them get in was the historical perspective that developed over time that 300 wins was a dying feat--their numbers looked better a little bit longer than 5 years after the fact.
That being said, I generally agree with you. I think a lot of what goes on, with Jim Rice for example, is gradual softening of hearts as opposed to clearer analysis.
Tony Gwynn, who went in the same year as Ripken, got a very high percentage as well (97.6%). By 2007, disillusionment over the steroid era was very high, and I think HOF voters were very happy to vote for players like Gwynn and Ripken who were so likable and highly respected, guys who were perceived as having played the game the right way. I think that context at least partially explains it.
"One thing that keeps rubbing me wrong is the consensus that Griffey played the game "clean" during the steroid era. Although I see no evidence that he used PEDs, I also see no evidence that he didn't."
You say this right after pointing out he was hurt off and on for a good 10 years. Steroids help you recover quicker from injuries.
This debate is a bit of a head scratcher for me as well. As I stated in one of the previous threads about Griffey, he's pretty much the best all-around player I've ever seen, and his statistical accomplishments speak for themselves. Again, yes, the last half of his career was marred by injuries, but even factoring those in, this isn't an issue that I would think even needed to be discussed. It's like asking if the sun will rise tomorrow. As the time of his retirement, he was the active career leader in home runs, RBI, total bases, and intentional walks. He's a 13-time All-Star, a 10-time Gold Glover at a premium defensive position, and a 7-time Silver Slugger. He was the best player in baseball for a decade, and has never been tainted by steroids. He's also a guy who seems to have been well liked throughout the game. What's to discuss? He deserves to be, and I believe will be, nothing less than a near-unanimous first ballot inductee.
Also, I too have to bring up the Ripken issue that has been touched on by a few others here, since I'm similarly surprised that there is any sentiment against his inclusion in the Hall. Ripken is one of the greatest ambassadors and one of the best role models the game of baseball has ever known. With his size and his hitting ability, he basically redefined what a shortstop could be, and paved the way for guys like A-Rod, Jeter, Nomar, Tejada, etc. He also was a Gold Glove caliber fielder (again, at a premium defensive position), and the ultimate gamer. Say what you will, the Streak remains one of the most impressive feats the game has ever seen. Again, really, what's to discuss?
I challenge anyone to go beef up on steroids and try and succeed at the major league level. If PEDs "taint" numbers to the point where players should be "blackballed" from the HOF, then it should be easy to walk right in and have a 500 HR career, right?
Though Griffey is innocent until proven guilty, I'm sure there are some voters--how many, I don't know--who are suspicious of any player who's put up big numbers in the past 15-20 years, whether or not there's any evidence he used PEDs. For that reason, I'm not sure we'll see any player from this era get a Seaver- or Ripken-like percentage of the vote. I don't think it's fair, but in the minds of many people, everyone who played in this era is guilty until proven innocent.
That said, I think Griffey will get in easily on the first ballot, as he should.
Rootbeersoup, you coulndt be more right. I've been making that same argument for years. It still takes talent to hit a ball 2(?) inches in diameter coming toward you at 100 mph from 66 feet away.
I never like the argument that Bonds was a HOF guy before he started using PEDs. First, we really do not know when he started using them. Guessing is only guessing. Maybe that is when he started overusing them. Who knows?
Second, if you use that argument, then Clemens is in and Rose should be in (because he was in before he bet).
More to this post, Grif is a lock.
People don't realize that baseball is much more finesse than it is athletic. It's not like football where you can take a track star and put him in pads and a uniform, and he may go out and have a hall of fame career. The art of hitting a baseball takes years of practice and fine tuning. To even go out and succeed at the A-ball level is an accomplishment in itself. It's something I surely could never do.
Even If I was a CLEAN MLB player, I would be insulted by fans who dismiss other players' careers just because they took steroids. To simplify it so much as to say that you can take PEDs and become successful at the major league level would be a slap in my face. The amount of time these players put in to fine tune their swing is equivalent to those who work more than 40 hours a week. People are making it seem as if guys like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc just took some steroids and then sat in the hot tub until game time.
You guys are acting like the only reason people won't vote for known steroid users is because of statistical padding. I think this sentiment among writers and HOF voters is more for damaging the integrity of the game and deceiving the media and fans. I should note that I disagree with this argument and think Bonds/Clemens/ARod should be obvious Hall of Famers. You still need to consider if guys like Palmeiro/Sosa/McGwire are deserving, because a lot of their candidacy is built upon gaudy home run totals enhanced not only by steroids but by the era they played in.
People always say Bonds became jealous of Mac/Sosa after '98 so here are his numbers through '98 up to age 33! With any reasonable decline you could expect him to finish with 500 HR/500 SB, 3 MVP (should have been 4 with unbiased writers) which would be HOF lock.
Rootbeersoup, Jim, and Mike, I think we're talking about two different things here. The point is not whether any of us could be Major Leaguers if we doped, or if any of these guys would've been a HOF'er anyway without doping. The point, as JGov stated, is simply that, however much doping actually did or didn't help various guys' stats, they cheated, and forever damaged the integrity of the game. Now how much weight you place on that issue is up to you. You could say 'meh, everybody was doping, and there was no testing at the time anyway and a culture of acceptance, so who cares?'. But the HOF voters have obviously shown that so far, they place a lot of weight on that issue, as McGwire's election results so far can attest.
just to chime in a bit on the 1st ballot thing: it took Mathews 5 ballots, DiMaggio 4 (though '45 was a war make-up year, I think?), Berra 2, Snider 11, Killebrew 4, Marichal 3, etc.
Also, voters must have been tougher in past days: Mantle had 88% of the vote, Spahn 83, Gibson 84, F Robinson 89, etc.
(I was surprised to see Williams had a higher % than Musial)
I want to thank everyone who has posted about Griffey in the past few days. I really did forget how great he was earlier in his career. I really thought that his recent performance was going to eliminate him from Hall of Fame considerations. He may not be the best-ever player born in Donora, PA, on November 21, but I'm going to end up voting in this poll, "Yes and he will get in".
Something lost in the Griffey situation, and not necessarily a blemish but interesting that it disappeared from the narrative.. Junior attempted suicide in the minors. In some ways, I wish this was talked about more, as Griffey could be a great spokeman for whatever his demons were. For whatever reason, it seems completely written out of his story. And maybe that's by his choice, which I totally respect. But it's interesting nonetheless. How many other people knew that about him?
Early in his career, I was afraid that Junior would have a shortened or blemished career, a la Jimmy Piersall/Tony Horton. Even then, the particulars were left out {I also respect that apparent wish}; in fact, I never even knew that it was more than "personal issues". This is the first I have heard that there was actually a question of suicidal tendencies -- and the last I plan on considering it, other than appreciating the career that was no ended that way.
That's fine, but the issue I have is that I refuse to believe that the 90s were the only era in which doping occured. Modern day anabolic steroids probably weren't used before then but players have come out saying they were doing some sort of banned drugs around the 70s... Baseball in general should have a huge asterisk saying: Players may have doped. Umpire blow calls. Official scorers have trouble distinguishing hits from errors. Fans interfere at the game. Stats will always be skewed no matter what. It's up to us how they are perceived. Baseball just isn't as perfect as we'd like it to be.
Also, they didn't damage the integrity of the GAME, they damaged the integrity of their respective CAREERS. And while PEDs may have helped them play a few more years or hit a few more HRs, they couldn't have done any of it without their natural talent.
Do I wish Baseball was perfect? Sure, we all do. (or maybe some of us don't) But it never will be. Every day something happens that re-validates how close the game of baseball is to human nature. And although PEDs are little more serious than marking it up to human nature, but to say steroids ruined the integrity of baseball is ridiculous.
Listen, if Jeremy Giambi sucked as a player taking steroids, that should be satisfactory evidence that taking steroids can't make you better if you don't have the talent.
No one on this thread ever claimed that taking steroids can convert a nonathlete into a Hall of Fame caliber baseball player. Arguing against that is attacking a straw man argument.
The best evidence that I am aware of is that batters who take steroid use increase their home run output by 7% - 12%. I don't know of any decent estimates on how much it affects pitchers' performances, perhaps because the main effect would be quicker recovery time from pitchers instead of better performance.
The racial issue is a very tricky one. I have strong doubts that any current media members have a purposeful or conscious racial bias. However, race is race. People are different, have different histories, and different behaviors. A surly Bonds might remind someone of a surly Jim Rice or Eddie Murray and cause someone to treat Bonds differently, perhaps even unconsciously. Even someone like George Brett probably didn't treat everyone the same--he was sensitive to racial differences and intentionally treated people differently. For example he might have spoken more slowly or using simpler terms to a Latino player who didn't know English. (I have no idea if he did that, just making a hypothetical example.) Sensitivity and bias often get blurred when it comes to race, that's my point. Conscious behavior and unconscious behavior often get blurred. The notion that we should all be "color blind" and not see race is ridiculous...people ARE different and we need to be considerate and respectful of those differences. I think this can sometimes lead to bias and even to reverse-bias (ala Rush Limbaugh's argument about Donovan McNabb, which despite my loathing of Limbaugh I think had a strong element of truth.)
Since we are talking Hall of Fame voting, let's look at who votes. There is no doubt that there was (is?) racism among the sportwriters, subtle or otherwise.
And not just in the black/white sense.
It happened when Latinos' words were writtem phonetically in articles. When Clemente was accused of being a hypochondriac (actually, it seemed like he was very in-touch with his body), if he responded to the literal interpretation of "How are you?"...
You got it.
As uncomfortable as it makes us all feel, it's still there. Who do you "roll" with? Do they look just like you, accidentally or otherwise?
We don't all live in a TV-commercial world, where demographics and a corporation's desire to sell product to as large a number of people as possible ensure that actors are appropriately mixed. Show like Friends were accused of being lilly-white, but is that portrayal inaccurate?
It's human nature, to feel more comfortable around those who are perceived to be more like you. But it can also blind you to larger truths.
Once in a blue moon, even Ted Williams might have sat and had a couple of beers after a game with the Boston press corps. Would those same press guys have felt as comfortable plopping down at the bar with Pumpsie Green, and talking about the world (baseball and otherwise) as seen through his eyes? Maybe not.
Anything that rubs us the wrong way, when we see it in someone of a different background, is taken in a slightly different way. There are also plenty of white players who take a moment (or more...) to admire their home runs, before they get down to the business of actually scoring the run.
I hope that the voters won't single out Bonds on the PED issues because of racism. They've already started to take an overall stand, in the case of Mark McGwire. We'll see how they deal with Roger Clemens soon enough.
For the life of me, in a more enlightened, better-informed world, I can't understand why players who knowingly break the law -- willfully, and fully-informed of their choices -- should be enshrined.
PEDs are against the law, pure and simple. Anyone who says that baseball didn't take a firm stand on the issue ignores the fact that it's already a crime. Does baseball have to have their own specific rules against shooting other players?
The PED network of players and suppliers is no different than an international drug cartel. It's scandalous that we allowed baseball to look the other way.
You could complain that the baseball heirarchy was complicit, but you have to have a criminal complaint to base it on. You have to have that initial accusation.
Say what you will about the era of greenies. It was a different time, and we were largely ignorant. No more. We know better now. That excuse shouldn't fly today. We are to blame, every one of us who sat back and admired Mac and Sosa's every blast. Those of who cheered on, as Barry got bigger, against every known performance metric.
Also, on the topic of Jeremy Giambi not getting better, who's to say that some .230-hitting infielder who survived on bloopers over the infield didn't juice, only to become strong enough to hit fly balls to the warning track for routine outs?
On the topic of surly-ness, you can't always treat people with disdain and expect to get even-handed treatment in return. It shouldn't affect the vote, but personal anomosity has been known to enter the arena. Maybe withholding a vote to a sure-fire candidate the first year is a way of saying that the Hall is special, and a true Hall of Famer should act like one.
I actually like that one. I have always believed that character should count for something, in terms of a player's overall contribution to the game.
To me, Buck O'Neil should have been a no-brainer, for all that he did for the game. Character certainly helped Cal Ripken Jr. achieve such a high first-year total. I'm not saying he didn't deserve to get in, but was he really that much better-qualified than everyone else?
Different writers have different reasons. They are not always logical to everyone. But, if those voters are consistent -- year-to-year, candidate-by-candidate -- in how they make their judgments, then you can't just scream "Racism!"
Making someone wait, as a means of deferrence to those already enshrined, may seem out of place, as the player forced to do the waiting has already waited five years. To some writers, however, that wait just started, with the first year of eligibility.
It may be a nod to the many legends who were forced to wait, because there was such a huge backlog in the early years of the Hall. Maybe it's a nod in that direction, to just how special it is, to have made it on the first try.
I know this has been far-ranging. Sorry, but the issue ain't black and white.
Rootbeersoup, I have to disagree. Guys who dope damage more than just their individual careers - they most certainly damage the integrity of the game itself. I never said 'ruin', I said 'damage'. Like the Black Sox in 1919, the Pete Rose situation in late 80's, and the '94 strike, doping has become a major stain on the fabric of the sport, and the importance and impact of this issue should not be minimized.
Doping should not be compared to umpires blowing calls, or official scorers having to rule on plays that could go either way, or fan interference. And while certainly some players have used sketchy substances probably as long as the game has been played, I don't think any reasonable person can look at the era starting in 1994 or so, and knowing what we do now, deny that we're dealing with something not really comparable to other eras here.
I have NO doubt Griffey will be elected with AT LEAST 90% of the ballot, probably 95. In fact, he might get the highest percentage ever, or at least beat Ripken's record for a position player.
The reason great players didn't get as many votes back in the day to me is probably because:
There were often WAY MORE PLAYERS on the ballot than there are now (2010's ballot had 26 players; the ballot in 1954 (picked randomly) had 54 players, 33 of whom are currently Hall of Famers).
Writers may not have been as knowledgable about baseball as they are now- I don't really know, but they may have only cared about the players on their 'own' teams, or didn't bother to check stats. I don't know.
These same writers were probably even more stubborn than the ones we have now. I remember that a lot of people didn't like Babe Ruth because he 'ruined' the game with home runs. Grudges like that were what stole TWO MVPs from Ted Williams.
Masternachos, at the very least, stats were harder to check back then. I don't think there was any easily available reliable collection of historical stats until the Macmillan Enyclopedia c. 1969.
JohnnyTwisto, if that's the case, then no wonder! Wouldn't that mean even more was put into 'he FEELS like a HOFer!'
Anyway, I guess I'll have to apologise for implying that old sportswriters didn't care.
Sorry.
According to Wiki, "Comprehensive, historical baseball statistics were difficult for the average fan to access until 1951, when researcher Hy Turkin published The Complete Encyclopedia of Baseball." I'm not sure why the MacMillan seems to be better remembered -- if it contained more information or was more accurate, or what. I think Alan Schwarz's book The Numbers Game gets into this history, but obviously I've forgotten a lot of the details.
"Would you leave Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, or Tom Glavine off your ballot? Probably not. But some 300 game winners had to wait past their first ballot to get in, and what helped them get in was the historical perspective that developed over time that 300 wins was a dying feat--their numbers looked better a little bit longer than 5 years after the fact."
Glavine is interesting. He's basically a first ballot shoo-in because "DUH 300 wins", but his career ERA+ is the same as Bert Blyleven and over fewer IP. If you ignore his wins, there's nothing to indicate he's a better candidate than Blyleven, and a few things that favor Bert (more IP with same average, slightly better DICE). The win difference is that he played nearly his entire career on winning teams, and a lot of that was on .600+ teams.
In general, this sense of 300W being an impossible feat for future pitchers, I'm not sure I buy. Clemens, Maddux, Glavine and johnson all got 300 and each of them played their whole career in an environment where pitchers almost never started more than 35 games. three of them did it at least once, but only a total of 7 games were started by all three that were over 35/season. (clemens 36 once, maddux 37,36, glavine 36 thrice). So these guys did not get significantly more starts than a pitcher coming up today who stays in 1-3 starter form for 20+ years might expect. What they have in common is that they are HoF caliber pitchers with long careers, who played a lot of their games on very good teams. Yes, guys get pulled earlier today than in 1990, and it's a bit less common to start 34-35 games than it was then, but there's not some giant difference. And Clemens and Maddux got 350+, not just 300.
Is it harder for somebody coming up today to get 300 than it was in 1990? yes. Was it harder in 1990 than in 1970? yes. But it's always been a relatively rare feat, only 24 have ever done it. It will be rarer, but put me down right now saying that somebody who started their career in 2000 or later will win 300 eventually, if the number of starts doesn't go down even further (consistently under 30 say). Glavine (or pettitte or whoever) will not be the last 300 game winner. There may not be anybody in this generation of pitchers, but eventually somebody will have a long enough career on enough good teams to do it again.
Consider this: only 12 pitchers have finished their career after 1950 with 300W. Nobody finished in the 1950s with 300wins. 2 did in the 60s (spahn and wynn). None in the 70s. Then 5 guys did in the 1980s, 1 in the 90s and now 4 have done it who ended in the 2000s. That doesn't seem like something that's destined never to happen again. more guys are ending their careers in this decade with 300 wins than in all the years from 1950-1979 and 1990-1999 put together.
Of course, part of the subtext here is just how awful wins are for evaluating pitchers, unless you find a way to normalize for team strength. It matters to your win totals that you play on a lot of good teams.
Interesting points, about the likelihood of having another 300-game winner. You wouldn't think it likely, given the decline of starters' win totals per season.
Since Bob Welch won 27 games in 1990, the highest total in a season has been 24. Last year, there were no 20-game winners. That's the second time in the last four years. And 2006 was the first year not interrupted/shortened by a strike/lockout that it had happened. Ever.
With the trend toward more and more innings (and, presumably, decisions) going to relievers, starters have become ever more dependent on their teams getting -- and holding -- earlier leads. Welch completed just two games in 1990. But he had the nails combo of Nelson/Honeycutt and Eckersley to pull him through.
It's assumed, however, that most starters will miss out on at least some decisions -- both wins and losses -- simply because they are not there through the end as often as in the past.
Of course, there's also health. The chance to start enough games over a long enough period of time.
Glavine led or tied for the league lead in games started on five occasions. He made 30+ starts in a season 17 times.
Roy Halladay has 159 wins, but he's already 33. Can he win another 141 games? How long will he continue to pitch at or near his current level?
Sabbathia (29) needs 159 wins, Oswalt (32) is 160 shy. It's either too soon or too late to consider anyone else.
Moyer, Pettitte and Wakefield lead the active class, but even Moyer still needs 36 more "W's". If Pettitte pitches as long as Jamie, he might do it. He needs 64 to get there.
Anyone know what the percentage of blown leads after the seventh inning is, and whether that percentage has changed drastically? If those leads stay intact in the late innings, I would imagine the possibility is still there.
Then, it all boils down to longevity, a good team, and lots of luck.
When looking at Glavine, I think it might be useful to examine his peak years between 1991 and 2002. Over those 12 seasons, he had a 134 ERA+, including 140 or better 5 times. Even throwing out the '300 wins is a magic number' argument, he was undoubtedly one of the best pitchers of the 90's. Led the league in wins 5 times, 2 Cy Young awards, and one of the best clutch World Series pitching performances ever, to clinch the Braves' only title of that era. For what it's worth, I think Blyleven should be in the HOF, as well, and I believe he will get there eventually.
I also agree that wins, especially now, are not as important a stat for pitchers as they're usually made out to be. All you have to do is look at Johan Santana the last 3 seasons. He's had 16 starts during that time where he's pitched 7 or more innings, given up 2 or less earned runs, and NOT gotten the win, including, incredibly, 4 of his last 5 starts. In those last 5 starts, he has a 0.74 ERA, and the Mets are 1-4 in those games. That's because they've scored a grand total of 4 runs in those 4 losses.
I sure didn't mean to imply that Glavine doesn't belong in the hall. I thought blyleven should have been a shoo-in, but people who don't understand how horrible unnormalized W/L is as a metric for pitching ability looks at his low winning percentage (and failure to win 300) and assume he can't be as good as most of the guys in the hall, or expected to go there. But he was as good as Glavine (maybe even a hair better), who will be a sure first ballot guy. My point was more about BB (preaching to the choir here, I know) than about Glavine, who I would agree deserves the honor.
That said, I think Clemens, Maddux and Johnson (and pedro) are in a different class: all of them belong in the conversation for best ever, while Glavine (like many HoFers) is a cut below.
"Since 1879, there has always been at least one once or future 300-game winner active."
Assuming Moyer (264) and Pettitte (237) retire soon, and Wakefield (191) gets there, then bows out, we may have the first year with no active 200-game winners at the end of a season since 1879!
Tommy Bond got to 221, went winless in his next two seasons, but was still active. During that time, Bobby Mathews caught up, and ran his total to 291.
The lowest it has dipped since then was 1968, after Whitey Ford retired with 236. Don Drysdale won 13 games in '68 to reach 204 by the end of the season.
Since then, there has been at least one active 200-game winner every season.
Livan Hernandez (161) and Roy Halladay (156) are the next two active hurlers behind Wakefield. If we lose Moyer, Pettitte and Wakefield within the next year, maybe two, that will still leave us a gap of maybe two years before anyone else reaches 200.
Just think: even Halladay, who is already 33, has to average around 15 wins or more for at least 10 more seasons to get to 300.
June 7th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Not quite sure of the purpose of this poll . . . this is like asking "Is grass green?"
June 7th, 2010 at 11:29 am
I don't quite understand this poll. He is as close to an 100% lock that you can come when his vote comes around.
June 7th, 2010 at 11:34 am
This poll is what we call a sanity check. Some people on Steve's thread implied that he doesn't belong in the HOF. I want to get a baseline for how many people would actually vote yes or no in such a poll.
These polls are unreliable for a number of reasons. One of them is that you commenters are not held responsible for what you say since your identities are essentially anonymous.
June 7th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Not only does Griffey deserve to get in, but considering they were NEVER implicated in the steroid era, I believe posterity will (appropriately) anoint he and Maddux as the historical faces of their generation. I also believe Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, and Sosa deserve to be, and will probably be, blackballed and, when you filter out their tainted numbers, Junior's accomplishments rise to their proper rarefied levels and he claims his spot somewhere in the top-10.
June 7th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Anyone who votes either of the middle 2 options is out of their mind. There is no way griffey doesn't make it into the hall. Unresolved steroid questions aside, there is no way griffey doesn't make it in. Even if he is found to have been using 'roids, he will still make I believe
June 7th, 2010 at 11:55 am
@4
One thing I like to point out to people about Bonds.. if you look at his pre-steroid numbers (assuming he started taking them around the late 90's when he beefed up, his numbers are still legendary. OPS+ over 200 in '92 and '93
June 7th, 2010 at 11:55 am
No only is a he definite hall of famer, Griffey will almost certainly be elected on his first balloting. Anyone who thinks otherwise is smoking the drapes.
June 7th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
I wouldn't put him in during the 1st year of eligibility (and most certainly not a "1st ballot first year" kind of thing) but he's a candidate for entry a few years after...
Of course these writers and voters put Cal Ripkin in so who knows what they're thinking...?!
June 7th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I thought his induction was pretty much assumed. I can't imagine a player of his stature not being inducted immediately.
I think the negative comments are the result of the discussion immediately jumping to the debate over whether or not he's the "best ever" or in the "inner circle". Compared to Mays, Mantle, Cobb, Speaker and probably Dimaggio, he clearly falls short. But as to if Griffey gets inducted at all, the bar simply isn't that high. Duke Snider was an easy pick for the HOF and he's in that inner circle either.
June 7th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
How is someone with 630 home runs and and OPS+ of 135 not a first ballot hall of famer? From the looks of it, he won't even have that much competition that year
June 7th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
No doubt, Jim, and you make a great point. Perhaps Bonds was on the way to the Hall before the late-90's, but now, like McGwire, I'd bet he suffers (at least) from association and is silently barred.
June 7th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Anyone who doesn't vote with the majority here really doesn't deserve to have a vote. It's always possible that there's evidence we don't have re gambling or roids but unless that comes to light he'll be in immediately and deservedly so.
June 7th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
So far, 98% of the votes have been in favor of his election and think he deserves to get in. In the statisitical world, that qualifies and a lock. The remaining 3 votes are statistical outlyers and could just be people voting as a joke
June 7th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I wonder if Griffey will have a hard time getting elected his first time on the ballot because (i) due to anti-steroids sentiment, the ballot will have well more than 10 amply-qualified candidates by then and (ii) the voters who favor voting in the known steroid users may be embittered enough at the anti-steroid faction that they leave Griffey off of their top 10 choices. We might have so many well-qualified candidates by then that getting 75% consensus regarding which ones to list on the ballot might be harder than we expect.
Probably I'm just imagining difficulties that'll only affect lesser candidates.
June 7th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Only 3 weird votes so far out of more than 200. You folks pass the test. 🙂
June 7th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Griffey's got to get in based on one thing alone--when adding offensive and defensive contributions together, he's clearly the best CF from the last 20 years by a wide margin. It stands to reason that the best player of each generation at each position should be in the HOF, and although there may be some exceptions to this reasoning, Griffey is not one of them.
June 7th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
If Griffey does not belong then who does? Should the HOF only have 20 players?
June 7th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Sorry, I know this is a Griffey post, but I've gotta reply to #8...
First off, let's get the spelling right for all HOFers. It's Ripken, not Ripkin...
Secondly, I'll admit that I'm a biased O's fan. I was a 10-year-old when Cal was a rookie and rooted for him until I was nearly 30, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
From your comment, a casual baseball fan would think that Cal was completely undeserving of HOF status. Let's look at a couple stats/awards first:
- 1982 AL ROY
- 2-time AL MVP
- 19-time all-star
- 3184 hits (14th all-time)
- 431 career HR (345 at SS, most all-time)
- 10 straight seasons with 21+ HR (back when 25 HR was a power hitter)
- 2 GG
- 2nd-best single season fielding % at SS (1990, .9956)
Now, let's talk about The Streak. Some have crticized it over the years as hurting him and/or the O's, but I think everyone can agree that playing in every game your team played for 16 straight seasons is pretty remarkable. Plus, after the strike in '94/'95, it was one of the reasons that many people kept watching or even returned to baseball. Some have said that he 'saved baseball.' I'm not sure even I'd go that far, but his attitude and play during the 1995 season leading up to September 6th was magical.
He also changed how people viewed the SS position from one that mostly small, quick, light-hitting players played to one where larger, more powerful players could be used. Guys like A-Rod and even Jeter benefited from Cal playing SS.
I guess if you're only looking at career BA (.276), GIDP (most all time), or range later in his career, you can find some chinks in the armor. But all the other tanglibles and the intangibles point to Cooperstown. Let's also not forget that he didn't squeak in either - his 98.5% is the third highest ever, behind only Seaver and Nolan Ryan.
Oh, and I agree with #7, Griffey is 1st ballot all the way, and will likely be in that 95%+ range for voting %.
June 7th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
I like Cal in the HOF for all the reasons you cite except his hitting. He was a good hitter but not HOF based on hitting alone.
June 7th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I'm surprised that Ripken made it with 98.5%. I agree he was a hall of famer and even a first balloter but that is extreme
June 7th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Umm, what? If you think he's a first balloter, then why do you begrudge him getting such a high percentage? He's good enough for YOU to vote for on the first ballot but not everyone else?
June 7th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Only a few stains on another wise stellar career. And they are as follows:
Letting the world know he was leaving Seattle is one thing, it really takes leverage away from ownership in any trade. But by also letting the world know he would ONLY go to Cincinnati was immature and undermined the Mariner's chances of rebuilding. It served no purpose other than hurting the Mariners long term. I lost a lot of respect for him after that. I could see no reason a player would pin the only organization he has ever known and a loyal and loving fan base into a corner. The Mariners had some measure of revenge when Mike Cameron out performed Griffey and they went on to 116 victories, but it seemed an immature vindictive move.
Plus he never had a cozy relationship with the media. Not that an indifferent attitude changes what you do on the field, but it compliments good play. It doesn't take much to give a few sound bites for the fans that pay your check. Ted Williams lost 3 MVPs because of his foul attitude to media and fans alike.
He also would show up pitchers. He often would linger in the batters box for 10 seconds admiring some of his more impressive HRs. More than one pitcher took issue to his "hotdogging." Again this doesn't make you less deserving of the Hall, but sportsmanship should be part and parcel to stats.
There is also many rumors that he did not physically prepare himself before games, i.e. stretching, which led to his 10 years of partial seasons. All that info came from other players and media reports of him skipping team stretches and such, so it may not be true. But I think this is only a reflection of how easy the game was to him in his prime. Players with long, injury free careers are often lucky, but change their style of play and training regiment to reflect their age. I think Griffey was so gifted in his prime, he never developed sound physical routines and relied on pure talent.
One thing that keeps rubbing me wrong is the consensus that Griffey played the game "clean" during the steroid era. Although I see no evidence that he used PEDs, I also see no evidence that he didn't. I'm not saying he is guilty, I just don't know why everyone assumes he was, when he peaked, power wise, during the height of the steroid era. And his late career nagging injuries are all consistent with someone who used PEDs. Having said that, I personally think he was clean, but I just am not sure why so many reporters swear to something there is no evidence for.
There is also this "what-could-of-been" discussion every time Griffey is mentioned. People add these "what-if" stats and scenarios to his already gaudy numbers. But in my opinion, his HR mark is a bit padded. Most guys who produced at his level the last few years would have been cut long ago. He was left in the line up for name recognition and to hit certain milestones, not because he was the best at his position.
But regardless of those issues, for ten years he was the greatest talent I ever saw. He also went back to back with his own father. Watching him play center in the early 90's was magic. He is the only player of my generation that made it look like a natural human action to swing a bat. It was as if he was born to swing.
He deserves the Hall. First Ballot.
June 7th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Let me put it to you this way Andy,
Since he only behind Ryan and Seaver, I'm assuming that he got the most votes on the first ballot for a batter of all time. More than other first balloters such as Mike Schmidt, George Brett who, at least in some regard, each had better offensive numbers than Ripken. He even got more votes than power hitting shortstop Ernie Banks.
Perhaps the other candidates in Ripken's year were relavtively weak.
June 7th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
I just want to make a statement on that whole "he's a hall of famer, but not a first ballot guy" that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Either he's a hall of famer or not... no matter what ballot year....
June 7th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
We've had this debate before, Thomas. Sometimes more than 5 years of perspective is needed on a player. The Steroids Era is a great example. There is a lot of indecision about McGwire, Palmeiro, Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, etc. Chances are good that none of these guys will get in on the first ballot. Voters need more time to understand the full ramifications of PED use during that period.
Would you leave Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, or Tom Glavine off your ballot? Probably not. But some 300 game winners had to wait past their first ballot to get in, and what helped them get in was the historical perspective that developed over time that 300 wins was a dying feat--their numbers looked better a little bit longer than 5 years after the fact.
That being said, I generally agree with you. I think a lot of what goes on, with Jim Rice for example, is gradual softening of hearts as opposed to clearer analysis.
June 7th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Tony Gwynn, who went in the same year as Ripken, got a very high percentage as well (97.6%). By 2007, disillusionment over the steroid era was very high, and I think HOF voters were very happy to vote for players like Gwynn and Ripken who were so likable and highly respected, guys who were perceived as having played the game the right way. I think that context at least partially explains it.
June 7th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Well put DavidJ
Also, if Blyleven makes it into the Hall, he will certainly come up in the conversations for "hall of famer but not first ballot"
June 7th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
"One thing that keeps rubbing me wrong is the consensus that Griffey played the game "clean" during the steroid era. Although I see no evidence that he used PEDs, I also see no evidence that he didn't."
You say this right after pointing out he was hurt off and on for a good 10 years. Steroids help you recover quicker from injuries.
June 7th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Rich, that's conjecture, not evidence.
June 7th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
A player is still innocent until proven guilty.
June 7th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
This debate is a bit of a head scratcher for me as well. As I stated in one of the previous threads about Griffey, he's pretty much the best all-around player I've ever seen, and his statistical accomplishments speak for themselves. Again, yes, the last half of his career was marred by injuries, but even factoring those in, this isn't an issue that I would think even needed to be discussed. It's like asking if the sun will rise tomorrow. As the time of his retirement, he was the active career leader in home runs, RBI, total bases, and intentional walks. He's a 13-time All-Star, a 10-time Gold Glover at a premium defensive position, and a 7-time Silver Slugger. He was the best player in baseball for a decade, and has never been tainted by steroids. He's also a guy who seems to have been well liked throughout the game. What's to discuss? He deserves to be, and I believe will be, nothing less than a near-unanimous first ballot inductee.
Also, I too have to bring up the Ripken issue that has been touched on by a few others here, since I'm similarly surprised that there is any sentiment against his inclusion in the Hall. Ripken is one of the greatest ambassadors and one of the best role models the game of baseball has ever known. With his size and his hitting ability, he basically redefined what a shortstop could be, and paved the way for guys like A-Rod, Jeter, Nomar, Tejada, etc. He also was a Gold Glove caliber fielder (again, at a premium defensive position), and the ultimate gamer. Say what you will, the Streak remains one of the most impressive feats the game has ever seen. Again, really, what's to discuss?
June 7th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I challenge anyone to go beef up on steroids and try and succeed at the major league level. If PEDs "taint" numbers to the point where players should be "blackballed" from the HOF, then it should be easy to walk right in and have a 500 HR career, right?
June 7th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Though Griffey is innocent until proven guilty, I'm sure there are some voters--how many, I don't know--who are suspicious of any player who's put up big numbers in the past 15-20 years, whether or not there's any evidence he used PEDs. For that reason, I'm not sure we'll see any player from this era get a Seaver- or Ripken-like percentage of the vote. I don't think it's fair, but in the minds of many people, everyone who played in this era is guilty until proven innocent.
That said, I think Griffey will get in easily on the first ballot, as he should.
June 7th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Rootbeersoup, you coulndt be more right. I've been making that same argument for years. It still takes talent to hit a ball 2(?) inches in diameter coming toward you at 100 mph from 66 feet away.
June 7th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I never like the argument that Bonds was a HOF guy before he started using PEDs. First, we really do not know when he started using them. Guessing is only guessing. Maybe that is when he started overusing them. Who knows?
Second, if you use that argument, then Clemens is in and Rose should be in (because he was in before he bet).
More to this post, Grif is a lock.
June 7th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Jim,
People don't realize that baseball is much more finesse than it is athletic. It's not like football where you can take a track star and put him in pads and a uniform, and he may go out and have a hall of fame career. The art of hitting a baseball takes years of practice and fine tuning. To even go out and succeed at the A-ball level is an accomplishment in itself. It's something I surely could never do.
Even If I was a CLEAN MLB player, I would be insulted by fans who dismiss other players' careers just because they took steroids. To simplify it so much as to say that you can take PEDs and become successful at the major league level would be a slap in my face. The amount of time these players put in to fine tune their swing is equivalent to those who work more than 40 hours a week. People are making it seem as if guys like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc just took some steroids and then sat in the hot tub until game time.
June 7th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
You guys are acting like the only reason people won't vote for known steroid users is because of statistical padding. I think this sentiment among writers and HOF voters is more for damaging the integrity of the game and deceiving the media and fans. I should note that I disagree with this argument and think Bonds/Clemens/ARod should be obvious Hall of Famers. You still need to consider if guys like Palmeiro/Sosa/McGwire are deserving, because a lot of their candidacy is built upon gaudy home run totals enhanced not only by steroids but by the era they played in.
June 7th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Three facts;
1} Griff DOES deserve the HOF nod.
2} He WILL receive it in '15.
3} Since I passed this test, it isn't a particularly accurate judge of sanity.
June 7th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bondsba01.shtml#1986-1998-sum:batting_standard
People always say Bonds became jealous of Mac/Sosa after '98 so here are his numbers through '98 up to age 33! With any reasonable decline you could expect him to finish with 500 HR/500 SB, 3 MVP (should have been 4 with unbiased writers) which would be HOF lock.
June 7th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Rootbeersoup, Jim, and Mike, I think we're talking about two different things here. The point is not whether any of us could be Major Leaguers if we doped, or if any of these guys would've been a HOF'er anyway without doping. The point, as JGov stated, is simply that, however much doping actually did or didn't help various guys' stats, they cheated, and forever damaged the integrity of the game. Now how much weight you place on that issue is up to you. You could say 'meh, everybody was doping, and there was no testing at the time anyway and a culture of acceptance, so who cares?'. But the HOF voters have obviously shown that so far, they place a lot of weight on that issue, as McGwire's election results so far can attest.
June 7th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
just to chime in a bit on the 1st ballot thing: it took Mathews 5 ballots, DiMaggio 4 (though '45 was a war make-up year, I think?), Berra 2, Snider 11, Killebrew 4, Marichal 3, etc.
Also, voters must have been tougher in past days: Mantle had 88% of the vote, Spahn 83, Gibson 84, F Robinson 89, etc.
(I was surprised to see Williams had a higher % than Musial)
June 7th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
I want to thank everyone who has posted about Griffey in the past few days. I really did forget how great he was earlier in his career. I really thought that his recent performance was going to eliminate him from Hall of Fame considerations. He may not be the best-ever player born in Donora, PA, on November 21, but I'm going to end up voting in this poll, "Yes and he will get in".
June 7th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Griffey is simply a first ballot HOFer and will receive >95% of the vote period. It isn't even debatable. He's perhaps one of the 10 best ever!
June 7th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Something lost in the Griffey situation, and not necessarily a blemish but interesting that it disappeared from the narrative.. Junior attempted suicide in the minors. In some ways, I wish this was talked about more, as Griffey could be a great spokeman for whatever his demons were. For whatever reason, it seems completely written out of his story. And maybe that's by his choice, which I totally respect. But it's interesting nonetheless. How many other people knew that about him?
June 7th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Early in his career, I was afraid that Junior would have a shortened or blemished career, a la Jimmy Piersall/Tony Horton. Even then, the particulars were left out {I also respect that apparent wish}; in fact, I never even knew that it was more than "personal issues". This is the first I have heard that there was actually a question of suicidal tendencies -- and the last I plan on considering it, other than appreciating the career that was no ended that way.
June 7th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Joe,
That's fine, but the issue I have is that I refuse to believe that the 90s were the only era in which doping occured. Modern day anabolic steroids probably weren't used before then but players have come out saying they were doing some sort of banned drugs around the 70s... Baseball in general should have a huge asterisk saying: Players may have doped. Umpire blow calls. Official scorers have trouble distinguishing hits from errors. Fans interfere at the game. Stats will always be skewed no matter what. It's up to us how they are perceived. Baseball just isn't as perfect as we'd like it to be.
Also, they didn't damage the integrity of the GAME, they damaged the integrity of their respective CAREERS. And while PEDs may have helped them play a few more years or hit a few more HRs, they couldn't have done any of it without their natural talent.
Do I wish Baseball was perfect? Sure, we all do. (or maybe some of us don't) But it never will be. Every day something happens that re-validates how close the game of baseball is to human nature. And although PEDs are little more serious than marking it up to human nature, but to say steroids ruined the integrity of baseball is ridiculous.
June 8th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Listen, if Jeremy Giambi sucked as a player taking steroids, that should be satisfactory evidence that taking steroids can't make you better if you don't have the talent.
June 8th, 2010 at 9:30 am
No one on this thread ever claimed that taking steroids can convert a nonathlete into a Hall of Fame caliber baseball player. Arguing against that is attacking a straw man argument.
The best evidence that I am aware of is that batters who take steroid use increase their home run output by 7% - 12%. I don't know of any decent estimates on how much it affects pitchers' performances, perhaps because the main effect would be quicker recovery time from pitchers instead of better performance.
June 8th, 2010 at 9:57 am
The racial issue is a very tricky one. I have strong doubts that any current media members have a purposeful or conscious racial bias. However, race is race. People are different, have different histories, and different behaviors. A surly Bonds might remind someone of a surly Jim Rice or Eddie Murray and cause someone to treat Bonds differently, perhaps even unconsciously. Even someone like George Brett probably didn't treat everyone the same--he was sensitive to racial differences and intentionally treated people differently. For example he might have spoken more slowly or using simpler terms to a Latino player who didn't know English. (I have no idea if he did that, just making a hypothetical example.) Sensitivity and bias often get blurred when it comes to race, that's my point. Conscious behavior and unconscious behavior often get blurred. The notion that we should all be "color blind" and not see race is ridiculous...people ARE different and we need to be considerate and respectful of those differences. I think this can sometimes lead to bias and even to reverse-bias (ala Rush Limbaugh's argument about Donovan McNabb, which despite my loathing of Limbaugh I think had a strong element of truth.)
Like I said, it's complicated.
June 8th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Since we are talking Hall of Fame voting, let's look at who votes. There is no doubt that there was (is?) racism among the sportwriters, subtle or otherwise.
And not just in the black/white sense.
It happened when Latinos' words were writtem phonetically in articles. When Clemente was accused of being a hypochondriac (actually, it seemed like he was very in-touch with his body), if he responded to the literal interpretation of "How are you?"...
You got it.
As uncomfortable as it makes us all feel, it's still there. Who do you "roll" with? Do they look just like you, accidentally or otherwise?
We don't all live in a TV-commercial world, where demographics and a corporation's desire to sell product to as large a number of people as possible ensure that actors are appropriately mixed. Show like Friends were accused of being lilly-white, but is that portrayal inaccurate?
It's human nature, to feel more comfortable around those who are perceived to be more like you. But it can also blind you to larger truths.
Once in a blue moon, even Ted Williams might have sat and had a couple of beers after a game with the Boston press corps. Would those same press guys have felt as comfortable plopping down at the bar with Pumpsie Green, and talking about the world (baseball and otherwise) as seen through his eyes? Maybe not.
Anything that rubs us the wrong way, when we see it in someone of a different background, is taken in a slightly different way. There are also plenty of white players who take a moment (or more...) to admire their home runs, before they get down to the business of actually scoring the run.
I hope that the voters won't single out Bonds on the PED issues because of racism. They've already started to take an overall stand, in the case of Mark McGwire. We'll see how they deal with Roger Clemens soon enough.
For the life of me, in a more enlightened, better-informed world, I can't understand why players who knowingly break the law -- willfully, and fully-informed of their choices -- should be enshrined.
PEDs are against the law, pure and simple. Anyone who says that baseball didn't take a firm stand on the issue ignores the fact that it's already a crime. Does baseball have to have their own specific rules against shooting other players?
The PED network of players and suppliers is no different than an international drug cartel. It's scandalous that we allowed baseball to look the other way.
You could complain that the baseball heirarchy was complicit, but you have to have a criminal complaint to base it on. You have to have that initial accusation.
Say what you will about the era of greenies. It was a different time, and we were largely ignorant. No more. We know better now. That excuse shouldn't fly today. We are to blame, every one of us who sat back and admired Mac and Sosa's every blast. Those of who cheered on, as Barry got bigger, against every known performance metric.
Also, on the topic of Jeremy Giambi not getting better, who's to say that some .230-hitting infielder who survived on bloopers over the infield didn't juice, only to become strong enough to hit fly balls to the warning track for routine outs?
On the topic of surly-ness, you can't always treat people with disdain and expect to get even-handed treatment in return. It shouldn't affect the vote, but personal anomosity has been known to enter the arena. Maybe withholding a vote to a sure-fire candidate the first year is a way of saying that the Hall is special, and a true Hall of Famer should act like one.
I actually like that one. I have always believed that character should count for something, in terms of a player's overall contribution to the game.
To me, Buck O'Neil should have been a no-brainer, for all that he did for the game. Character certainly helped Cal Ripken Jr. achieve such a high first-year total. I'm not saying he didn't deserve to get in, but was he really that much better-qualified than everyone else?
Different writers have different reasons. They are not always logical to everyone. But, if those voters are consistent -- year-to-year, candidate-by-candidate -- in how they make their judgments, then you can't just scream "Racism!"
Making someone wait, as a means of deferrence to those already enshrined, may seem out of place, as the player forced to do the waiting has already waited five years. To some writers, however, that wait just started, with the first year of eligibility.
It may be a nod to the many legends who were forced to wait, because there was such a huge backlog in the early years of the Hall. Maybe it's a nod in that direction, to just how special it is, to have made it on the first try.
I know this has been far-ranging. Sorry, but the issue ain't black and white.
June 8th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Rootbeersoup, I have to disagree. Guys who dope damage more than just their individual careers - they most certainly damage the integrity of the game itself. I never said 'ruin', I said 'damage'. Like the Black Sox in 1919, the Pete Rose situation in late 80's, and the '94 strike, doping has become a major stain on the fabric of the sport, and the importance and impact of this issue should not be minimized.
Doping should not be compared to umpires blowing calls, or official scorers having to rule on plays that could go either way, or fan interference. And while certainly some players have used sketchy substances probably as long as the game has been played, I don't think any reasonable person can look at the era starting in 1994 or so, and knowing what we do now, deny that we're dealing with something not really comparable to other eras here.
June 8th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I have NO doubt Griffey will be elected with AT LEAST 90% of the ballot, probably 95. In fact, he might get the highest percentage ever, or at least beat Ripken's record for a position player.
The reason great players didn't get as many votes back in the day to me is probably because:
There were often WAY MORE PLAYERS on the ballot than there are now (2010's ballot had 26 players; the ballot in 1954 (picked randomly) had 54 players, 33 of whom are currently Hall of Famers).
Writers may not have been as knowledgable about baseball as they are now- I don't really know, but they may have only cared about the players on their 'own' teams, or didn't bother to check stats. I don't know.
These same writers were probably even more stubborn than the ones we have now. I remember that a lot of people didn't like Babe Ruth because he 'ruined' the game with home runs. Grudges like that were what stole TWO MVPs from Ted Williams.
June 8th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Masternachos, at the very least, stats were harder to check back then. I don't think there was any easily available reliable collection of historical stats until the Macmillan Enyclopedia c. 1969.
June 8th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
LOL... there's one "No and he'll never make it" vote! Is Bill Conlin or Jon Heyman hanging around BR-com?
June 8th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
JohnnyTwisto, if that's the case, then no wonder! Wouldn't that mean even more was put into 'he FEELS like a HOFer!'
Anyway, I guess I'll have to apologise for implying that old sportswriters didn't care.
Sorry.
June 8th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
According to Wiki, "Comprehensive, historical baseball statistics were difficult for the average fan to access until 1951, when researcher Hy Turkin published The Complete Encyclopedia of Baseball." I'm not sure why the MacMillan seems to be better remembered -- if it contained more information or was more accurate, or what. I think Alan Schwarz's book The Numbers Game gets into this history, but obviously I've forgotten a lot of the details.
June 8th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
More info here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Baseball_Encyclopedia
The Turkin stats were limited and somewhat inaccurate/incomplete.
June 8th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
The unavailabity of stats was, of course, one of the huge draws for baseball cards in the 50s and 60s, especially collecting the entire set.
June 9th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
"Would you leave Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, or Tom Glavine off your ballot? Probably not. But some 300 game winners had to wait past their first ballot to get in, and what helped them get in was the historical perspective that developed over time that 300 wins was a dying feat--their numbers looked better a little bit longer than 5 years after the fact."
Glavine is interesting. He's basically a first ballot shoo-in because "DUH 300 wins", but his career ERA+ is the same as Bert Blyleven and over fewer IP. If you ignore his wins, there's nothing to indicate he's a better candidate than Blyleven, and a few things that favor Bert (more IP with same average, slightly better DICE). The win difference is that he played nearly his entire career on winning teams, and a lot of that was on .600+ teams.
In general, this sense of 300W being an impossible feat for future pitchers, I'm not sure I buy. Clemens, Maddux, Glavine and johnson all got 300 and each of them played their whole career in an environment where pitchers almost never started more than 35 games. three of them did it at least once, but only a total of 7 games were started by all three that were over 35/season. (clemens 36 once, maddux 37,36, glavine 36 thrice). So these guys did not get significantly more starts than a pitcher coming up today who stays in 1-3 starter form for 20+ years might expect. What they have in common is that they are HoF caliber pitchers with long careers, who played a lot of their games on very good teams. Yes, guys get pulled earlier today than in 1990, and it's a bit less common to start 34-35 games than it was then, but there's not some giant difference. And Clemens and Maddux got 350+, not just 300.
Is it harder for somebody coming up today to get 300 than it was in 1990? yes. Was it harder in 1990 than in 1970? yes. But it's always been a relatively rare feat, only 24 have ever done it. It will be rarer, but put me down right now saying that somebody who started their career in 2000 or later will win 300 eventually, if the number of starts doesn't go down even further (consistently under 30 say). Glavine (or pettitte or whoever) will not be the last 300 game winner. There may not be anybody in this generation of pitchers, but eventually somebody will have a long enough career on enough good teams to do it again.
Consider this: only 12 pitchers have finished their career after 1950 with 300W. Nobody finished in the 1950s with 300wins. 2 did in the 60s (spahn and wynn). None in the 70s. Then 5 guys did in the 1980s, 1 in the 90s and now 4 have done it who ended in the 2000s. That doesn't seem like something that's destined never to happen again. more guys are ending their careers in this decade with 300 wins than in all the years from 1950-1979 and 1990-1999 put together.
Of course, part of the subtext here is just how awful wins are for evaluating pitchers, unless you find a way to normalize for team strength. It matters to your win totals that you play on a lot of good teams.
June 9th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Interesting points, about the likelihood of having another 300-game winner. You wouldn't think it likely, given the decline of starters' win totals per season.
Since Bob Welch won 27 games in 1990, the highest total in a season has been 24. Last year, there were no 20-game winners. That's the second time in the last four years. And 2006 was the first year not interrupted/shortened by a strike/lockout that it had happened. Ever.
With the trend toward more and more innings (and, presumably, decisions) going to relievers, starters have become ever more dependent on their teams getting -- and holding -- earlier leads. Welch completed just two games in 1990. But he had the nails combo of Nelson/Honeycutt and Eckersley to pull him through.
It's assumed, however, that most starters will miss out on at least some decisions -- both wins and losses -- simply because they are not there through the end as often as in the past.
Of course, there's also health. The chance to start enough games over a long enough period of time.
Glavine led or tied for the league lead in games started on five occasions. He made 30+ starts in a season 17 times.
Roy Halladay has 159 wins, but he's already 33. Can he win another 141 games? How long will he continue to pitch at or near his current level?
Sabbathia (29) needs 159 wins, Oswalt (32) is 160 shy. It's either too soon or too late to consider anyone else.
Moyer, Pettitte and Wakefield lead the active class, but even Moyer still needs 36 more "W's". If Pettitte pitches as long as Jamie, he might do it. He needs 64 to get there.
Anyone know what the percentage of blown leads after the seventh inning is, and whether that percentage has changed drastically? If those leads stay intact in the late innings, I would imagine the possibility is still there.
Then, it all boils down to longevity, a good team, and lots of luck.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Since 1879, there has always been at least one once or future 300-game winner active.
This season, teams win 85% of the time when leading after 7. It was 87% in 1990, 84% in 1970...
June 9th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
I suppose that should say, current or future 300-game winner.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
When looking at Glavine, I think it might be useful to examine his peak years between 1991 and 2002. Over those 12 seasons, he had a 134 ERA+, including 140 or better 5 times. Even throwing out the '300 wins is a magic number' argument, he was undoubtedly one of the best pitchers of the 90's. Led the league in wins 5 times, 2 Cy Young awards, and one of the best clutch World Series pitching performances ever, to clinch the Braves' only title of that era. For what it's worth, I think Blyleven should be in the HOF, as well, and I believe he will get there eventually.
I also agree that wins, especially now, are not as important a stat for pitchers as they're usually made out to be. All you have to do is look at Johan Santana the last 3 seasons. He's had 16 starts during that time where he's pitched 7 or more innings, given up 2 or less earned runs, and NOT gotten the win, including, incredibly, 4 of his last 5 starts. In those last 5 starts, he has a 0.74 ERA, and the Mets are 1-4 in those games. That's because they've scored a grand total of 4 runs in those 4 losses.
June 10th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I sure didn't mean to imply that Glavine doesn't belong in the hall. I thought blyleven should have been a shoo-in, but people who don't understand how horrible unnormalized W/L is as a metric for pitching ability looks at his low winning percentage (and failure to win 300) and assume he can't be as good as most of the guys in the hall, or expected to go there. But he was as good as Glavine (maybe even a hair better), who will be a sure first ballot guy. My point was more about BB (preaching to the choir here, I know) than about Glavine, who I would agree deserves the honor.
That said, I think Clemens, Maddux and Johnson (and pedro) are in a different class: all of them belong in the conversation for best ever, while Glavine (like many HoFers) is a cut below.
June 12th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
"Since 1879, there has always been at least one once or future 300-game winner active."
Assuming Moyer (264) and Pettitte (237) retire soon, and Wakefield (191) gets there, then bows out, we may have the first year with no active 200-game winners at the end of a season since 1879!
Tommy Bond got to 221, went winless in his next two seasons, but was still active. During that time, Bobby Mathews caught up, and ran his total to 291.
The lowest it has dipped since then was 1968, after Whitey Ford retired with 236. Don Drysdale won 13 games in '68 to reach 204 by the end of the season.
Since then, there has been at least one active 200-game winner every season.
Livan Hernandez (161) and Roy Halladay (156) are the next two active hurlers behind Wakefield. If we lose Moyer, Pettitte and Wakefield within the next year, maybe two, that will still leave us a gap of maybe two years before anyone else reaches 200.
Just think: even Halladay, who is already 33, has to average around 15 wins or more for at least 10 more seasons to get to 300.
June 13th, 2010 at 3:51 am
Can we exchange our site. My site is http://dailysportpick.com - We provide Daily MLB and NBA Premium Picks.