My eyes are going? :D

If Markakis sticks around long enough to get to 3000 hits, then he’ll most likely also be in the range of 1300+ rbi and runs, 200+ homers, 600+ doubles, 1000+ walks with fairly low strikeout totals for his era, and a solid career slash line. He also was a solid defender with a great arm. Now I’m not sure if that is exactly a hall of famer, but if you showed those career totals along with 3000+ hits and didn’t provide a name or a list of accolades, then most people would atleast consider the person.

He's made all of one all star team, this year.

Nor is it the hall of greatest of the greats but the hall of fame. I never understood that argument. I for one am for a larger hall it is a museum there to tell the games history. so if you are a figure that contributes to the games history put them in. Allow the plaques to tell their level of greatness by their stats and their stories and contributions.

Let Juan Pierre be the cautionary tale and most likely mirror for Markakis. In 11 seasons between 2001 and 2011, Pierre amassed nearly 2,000 hits by age 33.

He then retired 2 years later at age 35 with only just over 2200 hits.

Juan Pierre was a singles hitter with speed. He had no power. He also couldn’t throw. Markakis is a more complete hitter and player and has been incredibly consistent over his career. He is the type of player that I think ages well. Never had a ton of power. So you don’t have to worry about that declining, and he’s always been a contact hitter with a good eye.he keeps himself in shape. I see him being an above average player for atleast 5 more years.

Why do you think that though? He'll be 39 years old in 5 more years. The only active players who aren't pitchers that are 38 or above are Adrian Beltre and Chase Utley. Beltre hasn't been able to stay on the field dating back to last season and Utley is a role player.

I think the all-time record for singles ratio is still the Phillies Roy Thomas. Thomas has lots of cool obscure records because all he ever did was hit singles and walk at an absurd ratio. He had 1,537 hits, 1,377 of which were singles, or 89.5%.

He also played in 110 games or more in only 9 seasons, but led the league in walks 7 times. He played in only 121 games in 1907, but still led the league. Not a Hall of Fame candidate, but a fun player.

Just a gut feeling i guess. Everyone thought he was declining in his last few years in Baltimore. Not many people thought he would have many good years left. Instead he went to Atlanta and has gotten better. His double totals the last 4 years are 38, 38, 39, and 37(so far this year). His RBI totals have gone up the last 3 years, and outside of 2015 his homer totals have stayed fairly consistent. 2015 wasn't a disaster year even though he only hit 3 home runs, he hit .296/370 and had 38 doubles and 181 hits.

The main reason I think he has a chance to get to 3000 hits and remain consistent for at least 5 years is he has remained very healthy for almost his entire career. He has played 155 games or better every season in his career except his rookie year (147) and one season that he got hurt (104). Players who stay healthy have more chances to accumulate stats such as hits. I just see him staying healthy and sticking around long enough to get there.

Does the Hall look at contributions outside of just the stats? Ichiro is pretty much a household name and he brought people to the ballparks, especially in Seattle. I remember shelling out some serious coin just to get standing room tickets to see Ichiro in 2001 when the Mariners were at Fenway. He is a lock IMO, regardless of how you slice and dice it.

And, Peter, I too have always considered Biggio as a top-tier player, and was pleasantly surprised to see how highly regarded he was in Bill James' work. Good stuff!

Nick Markakis and "the Hall of Fame" don't ever belong together in the same sentence unless he's visiting Cooperstown.

Agreed. He is an accumulator just at a much lower pace than Harold Baines let alone Eddie Murray.

Pete Rose

Is it Grich's .266 average that impresses you? He probably could have spent a few more years 'accumulating'. Whitaker 'accumulated' for 19 years as opposed to Biggio's 20, but I don't think another year would have helped much.

I really don't understand the whole Grich thing, past a point, that point being OK maybe he was a guy who was a bit better than his counting stats suggest, but a HOFer? Really?

I really don't understand the whole Grich thing, past a point, that point being OK maybe he was a guy who was a bit better than his counting stats suggest, but a HOFer? Really? Bobby Grich??????

Pete Rose?

Bit of an old post but this has the makings of an interesting conversation in itself.

Do you think its possible that a player could make the HOF based on his playing career without having ever appeared in an all star game (obviously limited to those who played since the All star game was introduced)?

I think Tim Salmon, Kirk Gibson and Eric Karros are the names that come to mind off the top of my head among "best careers of guys who never made an all star team" and they are not even remotely HOF worthy. At the same time though I think they could all reasonably qualify as members of the Hall of Very Good and to have put together decent careers like that without making an all star game suggests it might be possible for someone who, say, played a few more years than they did to amass enough hits or wins or home runs to meet the usual Hall cut offs.


It could happen two ways I think. One way is you have a guy who is consistently good but not great over a very long career and just piles up enough numbers to get the nod (Bert Blyleven comes to mind, having only made 2 all star appearances and never really having been considered among the top pitchers in the game for most of his career).

The second route would be a guy who has a lot of great seasons but is always overshadowed by an even bigger star at the same position whose career by coincidence happens to overlap with his. I'm not really sure who the prototypical player meeting this description would be, but probably there are a lot of first basemen out there who fit the bill.

But do you think this is even a possible accomplishment?

Fred McGriff

I think this is the answer. The all star game is great, majority of the time it shows the greatest players at that time. But it also turns into a popularity contest sometimes. It also doesn't show position weakness any given year. So basically one, a player can become extremely popular and just make the all star team every season, not because they are the best at their position that year, but because they are popular and get voted in. Or two, that specific position was weak that season and the person voted in was just the best of the bunch, not necessarily great. So an example, a mediocre second baseman who is just the best out of a bunch of mediocre players at 2B can have an all star appearance, meanwhile an outfielder having a great season gets beat out by a handful of other great OFs, doesn't get the all star appearance, even though he is a far superior player and has far better stats than the second baseman. It all depends what position you play and who else is playing that position that season. Not necessarily what you do personally, but what everyone else does as well. That is why all star appearances is a terrible way to judge players abilities or career accomplishments.