Perhaps, but I’m not sure this scandal has that much staying power, as the fired managers (beyond Beltran) both got re-hired a year after being banned.

IMO - Helton and Votto are easy HOFers

McGriff is right on that line of HOF and HOVG

Now if we are throwing out names of personal favorites that need a little more consideration...he's probably a HOVG guy but I loved Michael Young.

On the pitching side, surprised Pettite so far has gained so few votes.

Keith Hernandez is the greatest defensive first baseman in MLB history. Period.

I won't argue with that but it doesn't seem to have persuaded many people as he never got more than about 10 percent of the vote.

Sweet Lou
 

I personally believe that if Lou Whitaker played for the Yankees his whole career, like he did for the Tigers, he would have already been in. His career WAR of 75.1 is higher than Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar who played during the same era. A career batting average of .276 isn't great and another World Series title with that core group of mid 80's Tigers would have benefitted his argument, as well.

Garvey's biggest unsung attribute is that he played every game and didn't take days off against tough pitchers to save his percentages. Guys like Willie Stargell and McCovey in the second half of their careers routinely sat against left handers on their days off and that helped save their percentages.

In Garvey's case, he 'suffered through' the 1 for 4 against the tough RH pitcher instead of taking the day off and passing the 0 for 4 onto the backup that would be playing in his stead.

So in that sense, Garvey did help his team win more than his stats show.

However, your premise on walks is pretty flawed, especially since half of your at bats come with nobody on base and walking in those cases is every bit as good as a single. Walks have about 2/3 the value of a single when you take into account ALL the situations, including men on.

Garvey did however do a good job hitting with men on base, and there is some merit for him getting a hit with men on instead of passing it to a lesser hitter behind him...if indeed there was a lesser hitter behind him.

However, some hitters are soo good that the pitchers simply will not let the hitter get any good pitches to hit, and swinging at those pitches will simply play into the pitchers hand. So they walk a lot more than everyone else. That is a good thing. The bad thing is if the management is dumb enough to not get a good enough hitter or two behind them to take advantage of that rare ability to hit for power AND get on base at an elite level. Garvey was not elite like that.

What is the case then if the hitter behind Garvey is just as good as him, and then he is passing it to the next hitter who now has MORE guys on base to hit? Those walks would take on even MORE value then. SOme years Garvey had some good hitters behind him where giving them more scoring opportunities would have helped win more, not less. Some years he had much lesser hitters behind him, but I don't think he ever had putrid hitters behind him. Certainly not like players who were batting 7th or 8th in the NL where the walks truly do mean less.

Somewhat ironically, Whitaker’s being a Tiger is now probably an asset. “Trammel’s in, Whitaker should be too” will, I think, now end up putting him in.

It's hard enough to hit pitches on the corners. When pitches are outside the strike zone, the pitcher has a HUGE advantage if the batter swings. Walks may be unglamorous, but hitters who lay off pitches out of the strike zone even when a hit would be much better than a walk are a huge asset. This is a key premise of SABRmetrics.

+1

Garvey was nails in the post season too.

Curt Schilling, Keith Hernandez, and Ross Barnes are my top 3.

Which means he was doing something right for a long time...

And FUTURE want to be statisticians, using as yet unheard of stats at that...

Walks, on base, home runs, slugging percentage. the stats being used against Garvey were known in his time.

WAR doesn’t think he was great too, but I’m not using that against him. There are a lot of first basemen with better old stats than Garvey, some of which have already been highlighted.

I’d still love to see a logical argument for Garvey using any math, old or new. Surely there is a decent case to be made since he has quite a bit of support.

He performed well in the post season, he gets points for showing up every day and playing 162 games which I frankly think is underrated and works to his benefit. The problem is why he is better than dozens of other players with similar batting stats? Why should he leapfrog numerous players with better stats, old and new, to merit HOF induction?

It's funny timing on this conversation, and that I didn't edit my post to be less player specific, because I meant my comment to be more of a general comment.

Night before last I had a conversation with a fellow baseball fan and said "I'm a Garvey guy, he's the entire reason I've been a Dodger fan since I was 10 years old, but sadly, I don't see him as a hall of famer, he's right there on the steps, but I can't let him in."

Sorry Steve, I still love you.

Rocky
 

I love this post. Don't knock the Rock! Rocky is still alive and well and I would expect that it galls him to see guys like Baines, Ted Simmons, Tim Raines, Larry Walker have gotten in.

Well if Whitaker is in, Randolph is right there too. It's a slippery slope. And I am not saying Randolph should be in...

There is a balance between greatness and longevity when looking at hall of fame, for sure.

But does being “above average” for a long time make you a hall of famer? In the case of Baines and him mostly being a DH with some time in the OF, the lack of awards and recognition, times leading the league, etc…simply suggest “no”.

What about the Super Chief
 

Allie Pierce Reynolds. The Super Chief.

The ace of the staff for a team that won 5 consecutive World Championships in the golden age of baseball (early 1950's). Won 6 world series. 6X all-star. ERA title. 2x strikeout title. 7-2 record in World Series games with 3 saves as well. 137 complete games, 36 shutouts. 2 no hitters in 1952. 182-107 record plus 48 saves. WAR is lower than most pitchers in HOF, but taht doesn't include post-season where he shined.

Traded for by the Yankees from the Indians for another HOF player (Joe Gordon) because one of the greatest hitters in the history of the game (Joe DiMaggio) wanted him on his team rather than having to face Allie.

A bit shorter career than most HOF pitchers. Career cuth short a bit after struggling through his last two seasons with back and knee pain due to a team bus that crashed into a bridge.

To show how well he was thought of in his time, check out the 1961 Fleer All-time Greats set which includes the Super Chief.

The argument really stems from memory and perception. Those of us who followed the game at the time, for better or worse, thought of Garvey as a superstar, fueled probably by the many 200 hit seasons and All Star selections, the All-American image and charisma (until that imploded), and his apparent clutch hitting ability. He surely was portrayed that way. And people weren't thinking SABRmetrically. I doubt anyone was thinking, man Garvey doesn't walk. Classic example of a player who suffered for the evolving understanding of statistics.

That was the point I was trying to make (generally, not specifically about Garvey).

Thanx for Peter for wording it better than I was able to.

Ah yes, I remember it well.

http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2012/...e-in-paradise/

Not true. He played 1B in 72, before Garvey was a starter. He played amost exclusively in OF in 73 and 74. Not a valid comparison to Garvey.

He was a 1B for 6 of the 8 years from 72 to 79. How is that not "mostly a 1B"?

If Garvey was so great at driving runs, why did he drive them in at a rate 12% lower (91 per 162 vs 103 per 162) than Trout despite hitting 4th while Trout hits 2nd & 3rd? If Garvey was such a tremendous winner, why didn't he win more than 1 World Series? Why didn't he ever win one during a full season? Why are you blaming Trout for not winning a title in his first 9 seasons when it took Garvey 12 to win one?

As for Trout, maybe his not winning has something to do with playing for teams like the 2019 Angels that just barely missed being the first team to have no one throw 100 innings.

Erm - are you serious?
 

I agree Tommy John should be in the conversation for the nearly 300 wins, but for the surgery????? Did he do the surgery on himself?


And Steve Garvey? Really? Retrosheet.org has him -6.1 in BFW (Batter/Fielder Wins) - admittedly it's a harsher measure than WAR, but even Baines is +13.7 by that same measure. Trout is +54.3 in half a career.

There has been a push to induct Dr. Frank Jobe, who developed and performed that surgery.

But not Canseco's pharmacist.

How is surgically altering a pitching arm praised, while chemically altering muscle tissue is banned? What, really, is the difference when it comes to using modern medicine to gain a competitive advantage?

Has anyone ever questioned Koufax' regime of cortisone (steroid) injections?

It's a slippery slope, isn't it?

I guess people would say John and Koufax underwent procedures to "cure" something wrong whereas Bonds et al were simply seeking to enhance performance but were healthy?

Maybe for Koufax, but when guys can throw harder after having Tommy John surgery, I don't think that point holds.

Bonds could say his substances "cured" his insufficient muscle mass and relative lack of power.

People always defend and distinguish amphetamines, but if they didn't improve performance, why did guys use them?

Sabermetrics are not what has kept Garvey out. When Garvey was up for election, it wasn't the sabermetric stats/voters that kept him out. He was being voted on during a time when the old school measurements were the deciding factor.

272 home runs just wasn't good enough for a corner position player. Several 200 hit seasons was certainly considered, but ending up with less than 3,000 hits and zero batting titles, those 200 hit seasons lost their luster a little, and weren't enough to make up for the non elite power.

He simply did not have the old school type counting stats and/or leaderboard stats to get in.

Garvey's peak wasn't good enough to overcome that. For example, Guys like George Foster and Greg Luzinski have hitting peaks that were as good or better better than Garvey's during that time. Pedro Guerrero has a better hitting peak too, though he was hurt a little more often.

Some people feel they need a cup of coffee to start the day. Chemically or psychologically, maybe it helps them get going.

From 1975-1981 George Foster's averages per 162 games are:

.297 BA
38 HR
126 RBI
99 Runs scored
149 OPS+

Garvey's best 7 year run 1974-1980:
.311 BA
24 HR
106 RBI
88 Runs scored
130 OPS+

Cecil Cooper best 7 year run 1977-1983
.316 BA
26 HR
109 RBI
99 Runs Scored
137 OPS+

Kent Hrbek 1984-1990
.288
30
102
86
134 OPS+

Seems those arguments about Garvey being a run producer belong to someone else. Foster has him beat in old school measurements and sabermetric measurements during their peaks that happened at basically the exact same time. Cooper has him beat too.

Garvey's peak isn't that special and there are guys who are not in the HOF that have just as good or better peaks. Foster and HRbek are also both two time WS champions.


Dwight Evans is really the player from that era that has the best case to be inducted.

And what, after all, is psychology if not chemistry?

Exactly.

If a pill makes you more alert - allowing you to make decisions a split second quicker, how is that not performance enhancing? I would argue that faster reaction time aids a hitter more than additional muscles.

But is chemistry cause or effect?

Dave Parker was solid at the plate and in the field....others would include

Keith Hernandez
Gary Sheffield

Sheffield has the PED problem, right?
Parker is another one of those guys who, to me anyhow, seemed better at the time than the metrics showed in hindsight.

A huge part of the increased velocity is that the arm is actually in better shape because of all the rehab the pitcher does. It's grueling rehab and the player ends up in much better shape (all over) if they do it correctly, hence added velocity.

I forget if it was here or over on the PSA boards but someone made a post basically detailing that Koufax was a PED user by pretty much every definition of the word.

If Bonds, Clemens and Canseco had been more likeable people, you wonder if the whole perception would be different. See example of Big Papi.

I think being likable helps...that's why Pettite gets some HOF love and some others don't.

On Ortiz...I just don't put "leaked positive for something on an anonymous test before there was real testing" in the same category as "positive test after when testing became a thing".

Plus, of note...all the "good" part of Ortiz's career came AFTER testing was put in place.

Look at his HR totals up to age 26.

https://sports.cbslocal.com/2016/05/...eroid-red-sox/

There are two (at least two) ways to look at this. I don’t really like the "this [bad selection] is in and this guy was better so he should be in" approach. I call this the "Baines and Haines Problem". There are hundreds of pitchers better than Jesse Haines that are not in the Hall (at least according to Baseball Reference rankings), but that doesn't mean they all should be in. I like the "Magee Method" where there is a player you can make a reasonable argument is the best at his position not in the Hall.

I am not smart enough to determine what "best" means so I will just present for your consideration the highest ranked player at each position (as per Baseball Reference) eligible for the Hall who is not tainted by either accusation or proof of steroid or HGH use. Pete Rose and Joe Jackson are not eligible so they are not included below, nor are active players (since they are not eligible yet).

c Thurman Munson (Joe Mauer ranks higher but has not been retired for five years)
1b Todd Helton
2b Bobby Grich
ss Bill Dahlen
3b Scott Rolen
lf Sherry Magee
cf Kenny Lofton (Carlos Beltran ranks higher but has not been retired for five years)
rf Dwight Evans
sp Jim McCormick
rp Bobby Shantz

The last one was a surprise to me but Shantz pitched in 537 games and started 171, so I guess he qualifies as a relief pitcher. However, over 25% of his career WAR came from his MVP season as a starter. After him is Tom Gordon, who was also both a reliever and starter (890 games, 206 starts) but whose WAR was more evenly distributed. After him is Firpo Marberry, who I was surprised to see had about the same game splits as Shantz (551 games, 186 starts) and who I think is the best candidate of the three.

I have never understood how Grich gets so high up in those WAR/JAWS ratings. Here are his other Baseball Reference metrics.


Something does not add up for me.


Black Ink
Batting - 8 (355), AverageHOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink
Batting - 40 (784), AverageHOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 42 (504), LikelyHOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 32 (305), AverageHOFer ≈ 50


And even more telling:
Similar Batters
1.Toby Harrah (908.6)
2.Brandon Phillips (898.2)
3.Jay Bell (894.8)
4.Bret Boone (892.6)
5.Jhonny Peralta (884.1)
6.Asdrubal Cabrera (883.7)
7.Chase Utley (882.6)
8.Sal Bando (879.9)
9.Ian Kinsler (876.1)
10.Travis Fryman (871.6

Right, and if steroids were something you took and you became good at baseball your entire career, it'd be concerning. But since they don't work that way, I see it as "the good part of his career came when testing was in place, and he never tested positive for anything".

I mean, I know they tested "randomly", but you know guys like Ortiz and the other HR guys got tested more than the 160 pound utility infielders.

Now Manny...don't get me started on that sad story.

Yeah, I wish BB-R wouldn't list relievers with a significant number of starts on the list...it really skews things. It also really shows just how amazing Mariano Rivera was, with only 10 career starts (in his rookie year, when he had a 5.51 ERA).

I think the next pure reliever to get elected is Billy Wagner. I think Joe Nathan may eventually get in, as well.

3 percent of his career offensive output through age 26. Doesn't look good.

I see that...but are we to assume he started using steroids and just never got caught?

I wish whatever NY writer leaked that he was on the list had the decency to let us know what he tested positive for.

Neither Bonds nor Clemens ever failed a test administered by MLB.

Big Papi looks the same today as he did when he played, unlike say McGwire, who looks like he shrunk.

But Bonds’ head grew two hat sizes….

That's true...but there's some pretty good public evidence that they used, including what, when, and how.

But maybe the point should be just that we simply do not know who did what and when, and how much it affected their careers.

Did guys like Raffy and Manny only use late in their careers, or for many years? Does it matter? And let's not forget, when they finally started testing, more pitchers tested positive than hitters. What an era....maybe we just need to stop playing "morality police" and just elect the best players of that era.

I'm not sure it holds up to analysis, but I would still keep out Sosa and Palmeiro. I think my gut tells me those guys were just OK players without cheating whereas Bonds and Clemens and possibly McGwire were HOF caliber anyhow. Hard to know what to make of guys like Ortiz who I really like but strongly suspect, and strongly suspect he wasn't that great without. Manny, just no clue.

This is true. My list of suspected users is a lot longer than most. I'm in the Ken Caminiti & Jose Canseco camp that says a big percentage was using.

Jeff frickin' Kent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on now!!!!!!!!!!!

Pardon my outrage, but...
How the hell is the all-time leader in RBIs and HRs for a second baseman NOT a first ballot HOFer??????????????????? He was a run scoring monster at a position that's not noted for knocking guys in!!! He had 1,500 RBIs as a second baseman!!! He won an MVP!!! And he's going to drop off the ballot? Why, because the ridiculous sportswriters don't like him?? Boo f_cking hoo!!!!!! What a joke!!!

And save me the stupidity of advanced theoretical stats to pretend he doesn't belong. We all watched him play and know what a stud he was. On any all-time greats baseball team, he would be playing second base.

Oh, and Dave Parker.

Jesse Tannehill’s career stats deserve a serious look.

Wes Ferrell.
6 time 20 game winner and the best hitting pitcher of all-time by a wide margin.

How wide?

Yeah obviously Ruth, but I guess I hadn't been paying attention to Ohtani. He's already got 78 HR? What a beast. I remember seeing a clip of him hitting a ball through the stadium roof in Japan. So maybe Ferrell is the third best hitting pitcher ever...

Two factors explain Grich’s war vs other metrics

1. 16.8 of his war is from defense

2. He was very consistent. Never had a bad year and never had a crazy good year. Therefore he was always valuable but didn’t lead the league in much

Also the fact that 2B was not exactly an offensive position during Grich's career. He had a lot of 13 homer, 50 RBI seasons that just don't look all that impressive.

Maybe the numbers don't support me but I would rather have Jeff Kent or Chase Utley in the Hall than Grich. Whitaker too.

I like Grich a lot, but also prefer Kent and Utley over him for the Hall. I would put Whitaker on a par with Grich. I prefer a smaller HOF, but would not mind if all four of them eventually got in. Some of the recent inductees would bug me more than all 4 of those second baggers getting in.

Buck ONeil

I think it comes down to offense vs. defense, peak vs longevity, with a touch of era/recency bias. That being said, looking at Utley and Kent’s raw numbers, they do feel more like HOFers. I honestly think all four belong.

My borderline personal 2B case is Pedroia. Borderline WAR total, but pretty much done at 33 due to injury. Strong rate stats for the position, ROY, MVP, WS wins, great defense, and a fun “gritty underdog gamer” vibe.

Pedroia needed a couple of more years. If that dirtball Machado hadn't Ulf Samuelson'd him, he would have been a HOFer.

Here's another "team" for your consideration. These are the (non-steroid/HGH) players at each position who got the highest percentage of votes in a given year but who are not in the Hall (the number is their single highest %). This was based on looking at roughly the top 100 players at each position and clicking on the ones I thought were good candidates for the list, so I may have missed someone. Since Baseball Reference does not show the recent Veteran's Committee voting, these totals are not included. My understanding is that, among others, Bill Dahlen came close one year. If I can find a list of all those ballots I will update the team.

I found the recent VC results and have added them below. Only one position was changed but some players did get a higher % from the VC.

Dick Allen would be ahead at 1b or 3b depending on what you consider him. He had more games at 1b but had more WAR at 3b (at least that's how I interpret Baseball Reference ranking him under 3b).

C Elston Howard 20.7
1b Gil Hodges 63.4
2b Jeff Kent 32.4
ss Omar Vizquel 52.6 (Dahlen 62.5 VC)
3b Scott Rolen 52.9
lf Minnie Minoso 21.1 (56.3 VC)
cf Andruw Jones 33.9
rf Tony Oliva 47.3 (68.8 VC)
sp Curt Schilling 71.1
rp Billy Wagner 46.4
1b/3b Dick Allen 68.8 VC

The only player on both of my lists is Scott Rolen. He does have a good combination of "advanced" stats and traditional stats (over 300 HRs, five 100+ RBI seasons) and was a 7-time All-Star and 8-time Gold Glove winner. The ballot will be less crowded soon (Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens only have one year of eligibility left) so I'm thinking he will get in one day.

If you consider the VC voting, Dahlen is also on both lists.

Don Newcombe swung a pretty good bat. The Dodgers used to use him as a pinch hitter.

I think Ferrell edges him out, but Red Ruffing was also a good hitter who was often used a pinch hitter.

As a fellow Sun Devil I love DP. But he's no HOF.

Pedroia was 34 when that happened and would of barely gotten over 2k hits if he remained healthy to play into his 40s. He Batted over 300 5 of his 12 healthy seasons & truly only played 150+ games 5 times in 14 years.

Even in 08 when he got the mvp, it was controversial (.326 /17hr/83 rbi). Morneau got robbed that season & Rodriguez had 62 saves that season which was more deserving.

His 51.6 war is impressive but there are 45 position players with a WAR better than Pedroia’s 51.6 who are not in the Hall call. 7 of them are 2nd baseman. Grich, Whitaker, Randolph, Kent, Utley, Cano & Kinsler.

Watch the video, Machado's cleat pops up from hitting the bag, barely touches Pedroia who is in a bad defensive fielding position. Taking a throw from from SS behind 2b instead of in front of it is little league stuff. Machado was in his base path which is his right. Aggressive within your right and dirty are too different things.

Want to see an intentionally dirty slide, watch Utley obliterate Miguel Tejada 2 feet from the bag in 2015.


Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

I didn't study the whole thread and don't know if Albert Belle was mentioned.
During his 9-10 year run he was as dangerous and productive a hitter as anyone in MLB.
Career cut short by debilitating injury and wasn't exactly beloved by the Press but Albert could rake.
Take a look at his stats from the strike season. Can you just imagine where that season would have finished amongst the others from the era.
RayB

94 the last of the Kevin Mitchell years. Him, Griffey, Belle, Thomas and Bagwell where hitting HRs and high BA.

Lofton stealing bases any time he wanted and getting hits like no ones business.

But no one was as hot as Tony and his .394 average. K'd only 19 times in 475 PA. That's 2 weeks for Javy Baez.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

Amazing how quickly everyone "forgot" about Palmeiro. He was on crappy Baltimore and Texas teams but he had probably the second smoothest left handed swing (behind only Griffey, Jr.) of all time. Maybe you're right about him being just "okay" without the 'roids, but I don't think so.

It's hard to argue with 3,000+ hits, 550+ HRs and 1,800+ RBIs. Oh, and did you know that he walked more than he struck out for his career? A career .371 OBP ain't too shabby.

You know how many players are on the exclusive 3k hit and 500 HR club? Only 6. Aaron, Mays, E. Murray, ARod, Pujols, and Palmeiro. That's rarified air there, my friends.

Well…no. Pedroia is 37 NOW.

These are solid points and appreciate the perspective. He would have been an interesting case if he had been able to carry on for a few more years. Regarding Machado's slide, certainly debatable but I still feel it was dirty especially in consideration of his pattern of behavior throughout his career, including a very dirty moment in the 2018 WS.

I just watched the Machado slide and it's basically nothing. Pedroia's positioning is fine, Machado's leg pops up and he spikes Pedroia. Doesn't even really make strong contact with Pedroia's leg. I'm seeing online descriptions saying that Pedroia's knee "buckled" and so on - nope. He got spiked, his leg popped up, and then he went down. If it truly ended his career, it's an amazingly innocuous play for that to happen on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbAYcXPhIUE