Article: Future Hall-Of-Famer Cards: Sure Thing Hitters

[Mike D.]

I just had my first article published on Cardlines.com: Future Hall-Of-Famer Cards: Sure Thing Hitters

https://www.cardlines.com/future-hal...thing-hitters/

Take a peak if the topic is of interest to you. It was fun to write. The pitching version of the article is coming soon!

[David W]

Interesting article.

Thanks for posting

[frankhardy]

Very good article. Well written. Loved to see Pujols and Molina on the list. Being a Cardinals fan I am hoping like crazy that the Cardinals sign Pujols for one last go around. It would be awesome to send off Pujols, Molina, and Wainwright at the end of 2022 with a World Series Championship!

[Mike D.]

Thanks for looking! I appreciate it!

I agree that while the baseball reasons for bringing Pujols back to St. Louis for one more year are iffy at best, it just makes too much sense from a marketing perspective NOT for the Cardinals to explore.

I'm not sure if he's game for that reduced of a role, but it'd be a lot of fun for Cardinals fans, and really all baseball fans, to have those players back in St. Louis for one last go-around.

[steve B]

A very long time ago I put aside cards of players I figured had a shot in some way. From just popular players with decent stats, or guys with a chance at 300 wins, 3000 hits or 400Hr. Which were all the big landmarks at the time.

The steroid era and more recently the swing for the fences and don't worry about strikeouts made 400HR pretty much a losing thing.

I found that box a while ago, and looked. Only a few had made it. Yount and a handful of others.
Many did not. Like Johnny Ray, who seemed on the path to 3000 hits, being generally well over 150 a year. ended up at 1502 after 10 years, including his first when he only had 31 games. I suspect a lack of power and the then common thing of releasing veteran players who were solid enough to get paid well in favor of kids who might be better or worse but at least were cheap finished him off.

It's an interesting box to go through.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Good list. Surprised it's such a short one.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Good list. Surprised it's such a short one.

Thanks! The pitchers list is also fairly short as well (4 names). I'm hoping to do another few on players who are on the Hall of Fame path...from the very close (Votto) to those further away (Machado).

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's an interesting box to go through.

I bet...it really goes to show that it takes a while to really know. If you were to try to pick from all the rookies in a given time period which would be hall of famers, you'd probably not be very close (Todd Van Poppel, Bryan Taylor)

If you go a few more years, the numbers get better but a lot of misses still (Gooden, Eric Davis).

It's only after 10 years you'd probably hit on 50% (Mattingly), and 15+ years when guys are "sure things". It's a marathon, not a sprint!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Thanks! The pitchers list is also fairly short as well (4 names). I'm hoping to do another few on players who are on the Hall of Fame path...from the very close (Votto) to those further away (Machado).

Presumably Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer and Greinke?

I think Votto is pretty close, Harper, and scandal aside you could surely write in Altuve.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I bet...it really goes to show that it takes a while to really know. If you were to try to pick from all the rookies in a given time period which would be hall of famers, you'd probably not be very close (Todd Van Poppel, Bryan Taylor)

If you go a few more years, the numbers get better but a lot of misses still (Gooden, Eric Davis).

It's only after 10 years you'd probably hit on 50% (Mattingly), and 15+ years when guys are "sure things". It's a marathon, not a sprint!

I would think at 10 years you could do better than 50 percent?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would think at 10 years you could do better than 50 percent?

Maybe 50% is too low...but it's certainly not all that close to 100%. I bet we could do some analysis, but it'd be a lot of research.

A few names that jump out as "people thought they were in at 10 years" might include Mattingly, Garvey, Murphy, Joe Carter, Albert Belle, and a whole buncha steroids guys that probably skew the results and should be ignored.

On the other side of the coin, I think of guys already in like Eck, Lee Smith, and of course Harold Baines (maybe we should ignore that one too), and future likely inductees like Billy Wagner, Kenny Lofton, Carlos Beltran.

An example with a couple guys named Adrian- at 10 years into their careers, you'd think Adrian Gonzalez was a likely hall of famer, and Adrian Beltre nowhere near a HOFer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of that list I think Garvey and Carter didn't so much drop off as history came to take a dimmer view of their status with the advent of metrics.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of that list I think Garvey and Carter didn't so much drop off as history came to take a dimmer view of their status with the advent of metrics.

Yes, that's a fair point...player performance is one variable, but there are others. The rise of analytics changed the way we look at the game. The steroid era blew up the old standards - 500 HR, 3,000 hits, etc. The game has changed a lot, too...and changes constantly.

I'm only 45, but the baseball I watched as a kid was different than the baseball of the mid-90's-mid-2000's, which was different than the baseball of the mid 2000's to mid-2010's, which is different than the baseball of today.

Lots of variables, for sure...and it all makes prediction difficult. Plus, hamstrings, elbow ligaments, and eyeballs all can go bad at rates that are tough to figure out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Yes, that's a fair point...player performance is one variable, but there are others. The rise of analytics changed the way we look at the game. The steroid era blew up the old standards - 500 HR, 3,000 hits, etc. The game has changed a lot, too...and changes constantly.

I'm only 45, but the baseball I watched as a kid was different than the baseball of the mid-90's-mid-2000's, which was different than the baseball of the mid 2000's to mid-2010's, which is different than the baseball of today.

Lots of variables, for sure...and it all makes prediction difficult. Plus, hamstrings, elbow ligaments, and eyeballs all can go bad at rates that are tough to figure out.

Speaking of which, Mike Trout and his strained calf muscle. I mean, is he EVER coming back?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Yes, that's a fair point...player performance is one variable, but there are others. The rise of analytics changed the way we look at the game. The steroid era blew up the old standards - 500 HR, 3,000 hits, etc. The game has changed a lot, too...and changes constantly.

I'm only 45, but the baseball I watched as a kid was different than the baseball of the mid-90's-mid-2000's, which was different than the baseball of the mid 2000's to mid-2010's, which is different than the baseball of today.

Lots of variables, for sure...and it all makes prediction difficult. Plus, hamstrings, elbow ligaments, and eyeballs all can go bad at rates that are tough to figure out.

I personally think we've gone too far in the direction of 4 hour games with 8 pitching changes on each side, and a lifetime between pitches. There was a lot to be said for the pitcher getting the ball back, looking in for the sign, and serving up the next pitch.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I personally think we've gone too far in the direction of 4 hour games with 8 pitching changes on each side, and a lifetime between pitches. There was a lot to be said for the pitcher getting the ball back, looking in for the sign, and serving up the next pitch.

I don't disagree...in particular, I find slow working pitchers painful.

The reduced workload of starting pitchers along with the recent trend of de-emphasizing closers (no 40 save seasons in 2021) and I wonder how we'll define a hall of fame pitcher in 20 years.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by steve B

A very long time ago I put aside cards of players I figured had a shot in some way. From just popular players with decent stats, or guys with a chance at 300 wins, 3000 hits or 400Hr. Which were all the big landmarks at the time.

The steroid era and more recently the swing for the fences and don't worry about strikeouts made 400HR pretty much a losing thing.

I found that box a while ago, and looked. Only a few had made it. Yount and a handful of others.
Many did not. Like Johnny Ray, who seemed on the path to 3000 hits, being generally well over 150 a year. ended up at 1502 after 10 years, including his first when he only had 31 games. I suspect a lack of power and the then common thing of releasing veteran players who were solid enough to get paid well in favor of kids who might be better or worse but at least were cheap finished him off.

It's an interesting box to go through.

LOL, I was a big Johnny Ray mark back in the day to. Socked away all my Johnny Ray and Steve Sax rookies. They were 1-2 in the ROY voting in '82 (and I played 2nd base in Little League at the time).

Johnny was more under the radar though, so I thought I had a diamond in the rough that nobody else was paying attention to. He was probably a more well rounded player then Sax was also.

Pretty good ballplayer, but not exactly "generational".

I had a soft spot for 2nd basemen. Willie Randolph was my favorite player for awhile, and I remember hoarding Damaso Garcia Rookie cards for some unknown reason.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I bet...it really goes to show that it takes a while to really know. If you were to try to pick from all the rookies in a given time period which would be hall of famers, you'd probably not be very close (Todd Van Poppel, Bryan Taylor)

If you go a few more years, the numbers get better but a lot of misses still (Gooden, Eric Davis).

It's only after 10 years you'd probably hit on 50% (Mattingly), and 15+ years when guys are "sure things". It's a marathon, not a sprint!

My criteria skewed it more towards established players, and not many rookies.
I was figuring the "rookie" thing would go away once people realized that things were way past the stage where more of them got tossed when a kids collection got dumped by Mom.
So hardly any rookies unless I just happened to end up with them.

If I remember right, I was WAY under 50%.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don't disagree...in particular, I find slow working pitchers painful.

The reduced workload of starting pitchers along with the recent trend of de-emphasizing closers (no 40 save seasons in 2021) and I wonder how we'll define a hall of fame pitcher in 20 years.

Don't get Burkett started again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I don't disagree...in particular, I find slow working pitchers painful.

The reduced workload of starting pitchers along with the recent trend of de-emphasizing closers (no 40 save seasons in 2021) and I wonder how we'll define a hall of fame pitcher in 20 years.

I was stunned to see how many times during the playoffs all star and even Hall of Fame caliber starting pitchers who looked pretty strong still were yanked early in the game in favor of a cast of journeymen. Dave Roberts seems especially prone to this, but by no means was he the only one. I really did not get it, and more often than not it seemed to backfire. To me, a first principle of baseball has always been that by definition your starters are better pitchers than your relievers (POSSIBLE exception of superstar quality closer but even then not necessarily) and therefore if a starting pitcher is in command you leave him alone.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I was stunned to see how many times during the playoffs all star and even Hall of Fame caliber starting pitchers who looked pretty strong still were yanked early in the game in favor of a cast of journeymen. Dave Roberts seems especially prone to this, but by no means was he the only one. I really did not get it, and more often than not it seemed to backfire. To me, a first principle of baseball has always been that by definition your starters are better pitchers than your relievers (POSSIBLE exception of superstar quality closer but even then not necessarily) and therefore if a starting pitcher is in command you leave him alone.

I must be getting old, because when I was a kid in the 80's, looking at pitching lines from prior decades made them seem so....unreal. I mean even stuff from the 60's with 300 IP were crazy, but looking at the early pre-war stuff was even more nuts.

A kid today watching today's game would think the same about the baseball I grew up...200-275 IP seasons? 20 game winners? Jack Morris (and John Smoltz!) in Game 7 in 1991. It must seem like a different age!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I just don't get the thinking. You have the likely #1 or 2 guy for NL Cy Young and lock HOFer in Scherzer, who's pitching a reasonably good game and has good stuff, and you yank him in the 4th or 5th inning for some fungible guy who's pitched undistinguished middle relief for 5 teams in 8 years or whatever. I mean what is that?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I just don't get the thinking. You have the likely #1 or 2 guy for NL Cy Young and lock HOFer in Scherzer, who's pitching a reasonably good game and has good stuff, and you yank him in the 4th or 5th inning for some fungible guy who's pitched undistinguished middle relief for 5 teams in 8 years or whatever. I mean what is that?

The thinking is that the third time through a lineup, a starting pitcher gives up significantly higher OPS than the first two.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the thinking...especially if you have an ace pitcher who's dealing. An ace pitcher doing worse, even significantly worse, than his normal self, still could be better than a mediocre reliever.

Of course, back in the day, middle relievers were mediocre. Now they all throw 100 mph for 20 pitches, then fall apart.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

The thinking is that the third time through a lineup, a starting pitcher gives up significantly higher OPS than the first two.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the thinking...especially if you have an ace pitcher who's dealing. An ace pitcher doing worse, even significantly worse, than his normal self, still could be better than a mediocre reliever.

Of course, back in the day, middle relievers were mediocre. Now they all throw 100 mph for 20 pitches, then fall apart.

Only anecdotal but it didn't work out so well for Roberts against Atlanta, did it? I'm a traditionalist and for as long as I've watched the game, 3rd time around not as effective or not, the wisdom has been leave in a starter with good command.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Only anecdotal but it didn't work out so well for Roberts against Atlanta, did it? I'm a traditionalist and for as long as I've watched the game, 3rd time around not as effective or not, the wisdom has been leave in a starter with good command.

Well, those are data points...maybe if it happens often enough, the conventional wisdom will change! It's like science!

[TheAck]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Only anecdotal but it didn't work out so well for Roberts against Atlanta, did it? I'm a traditionalist and for as long as I've watched the game, 3rd time around not as effective or not, the wisdom has been leave in a starter with good command.

I think it's less about the effectiveness in any one game as an organization trying to protect an asset over the long term. They all seem to think that an arm has an exact number of pitches in it and if you keep the count down to 80-90 a game you'll get 5 more years out of a guy. Which is insane BS. I don't consider myself a traditionalist, but I must be... I hate pitch counts, quality starts, the runner on second in extra innings, the shift, and starting by committee. I blame Joe Maddon.

-Ben

[RayBShotz]

Originally Posted by steve B

A very long time ago I put aside cards of players I figured had a shot in some way. From just popular players with decent stats, or guys with a chance at 300 wins, 3000 hits or 400Hr. Which were all the big landmarks at the time.

The steroid era and more recently the swing for the fences and don't worry about strikeouts made 400HR pretty much a losing thing.

I found that box a while ago, and looked. Only a few had made it. Yount and a handful of others.
Many did not. Like Johnny Ray, who seemed on the path to 3000 hits, being generally well over 150 a year. ended up at 1502 after 10 years, including his first when he only had 31 games. I suspect a lack of power and the then common thing of releasing veteran players who were solid enough to get paid well in favor of kids who might be better or worse but at least were cheap finished him off.

It's an interesting box to go through.

I would not have guessed in a million years that Johnny Ray got 1500+ hits.
Wow. RayB

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by TheAck

I don't consider myself a traditionalist, but I must be... I hate pitch counts, quality starts, the runner on second in extra innings, the shift, and starting by committee. I blame Joe Maddon.

-Ben

Quality starts is a funny one…not that long ago, people used to rail about 6 IP / 3 ER not being “quality” enough.

The game has passed that right by…in the postseason this year 6 IP / 3 ER was an epic performance, not simply “quality”.

[RayBShotz]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Quality starts is a funny one…not that long ago, people used to rail about 6 IP / 3 ER not being “quality” enough.

The game has passed that right by…in the postseason this year 6 IP / 3 ER was an epic performance, not simply “quality”.

Heh.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Quality starts is a funny one…not that long ago, people used to rail about 6 IP / 3 ER not being “quality” enough.

The game has passed that right by…in the postseason this year 6 IP / 3 ER was an epic performance, not simply “quality”.

Pretty soon a quality start will be making it all the way into the 3rd before yielding to the endless committee of journeymen.

[D. Bergin]

Not to beat a dead horse, but Mark Fidrych had more complete games and almost as many shutouts in 1976, as Max Scherzer has had in his entire career.

On the other hand, Fidrych was DONE after a season and a half, and I still remember Billy Martin ruining a pretty talented staff for the A's between 1980-81 by making his guys finish almost every game they started (his leading closer had 6 saves in 1980) on a 2nd place team.

I guess there should be a middle ground...but analytics say otherwise, and the only way to really curb the recent trend is to cap the number of pitchers you can keep on a roster at any one time, and maybe limit the number of minor league options you can use for your true journeymen guys.

[Mike D.]

The scary thing is, relievers are changing too...the "journeyman" of the past all threw 88-92 MPH. If a squad had one guy throwing in the high 90's, it was something to see.

Now, it seems like teams are sending guys out there inning after inning throwing 95-100. I swear Tampa Bay makes those guys in a little back room of the Trop out of empty seats and stuff that falls off the catwalks.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

The scary thing is, relievers are changing too...the "journeyman" of the past all threw 88-92 MPH. If a squad had one guy throwing in the high 90's, it was something to see.

Now, it seems like teams are sending guys out there inning after inning throwing 95-100. I swear Tampa Bay makes those guys in a little back room of the Trop out of empty seats and stuff that falls off the catwalks.

I saw the Yanks just signed Lucas Luetge for under a million bucks. If he had his breakout year at age 24, instead of age 34, he might have cost $7 million a season.