What stats most important for HOF?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

The team(s) played for matter more than anything, IMO.

Jeter played a premium position on the biggest stage in baseball and excelled while walker played in relative obscurity in Montreal and Colorado.

How many HOF votes does Phil Rizzuto get had he spent his career outside of NY?

I don't know about that. How do you explain Thurman Munson, Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams not being in, if team matters more than anything?

[bdk1976]

I don't think any of those three belong in, but guessing some/all might eventually make it in the way things are going - in no small part because of where they played. Hell, now that guys like Baines have been voted in, I don't see how the three you listed (not to mention scores of other good but not HOF players) are kept out moving forward via various committees, etc.

If Mattingly/Williams/Munson had all played in somewhere like Seattle or Oakland or Kansas City we wouldn't even be having his conversation!

[packs]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

I don't think any of those three belong in, but guessing some/all might eventually make it in the way things are going - in no small part because of where they played. Hell, now that guys like Baines have been voted in, I don't see how the three you listed (not to mention scores of other good but not HOF players) are kept out moving forward via various committees, etc.

If Mattingly/Williams/Munson had all played in somewhere like Seattle or Oakland or Kansas City we wouldn't even be having his conversation!

Mattingly played for the Yankees when the Yankees were terrible. What kind of boost does he get for playing in New York for horrible teams? He also happened to be the best first baseman and maybe even best all around player in his prime. Did that count for nothing?

Bernie Williams was a great guy to have on your postseason roster, but it's not like Curt Schilling's candidacy doesn't heavily rest on his postseason record. He didn't play for the Yankees.

[bdk1976]

Originally Posted by packs

Mattingly played for the Yankees when the Yankees were terrible. What kind of boost does he get for playing in New York for horrible teams? He also happened to be the best first baseman and maybe even best all around player in his prime. Did that count for nothing?

Bernie Williams was a great guy to have on your postseason roster, but it's not like Curt Schilling's candidacy doesn't heavily rest on his postseason record. He didn't play for the Yankees.

Schilling isn’t getting voted in because he is a dipshit off the field nowadays.

Mattingly was a very good player - and will eventually get into the HOF. He already gets a boost from his NYY career as evidenced by even being in this discussion. Like I said we wouldn’t even be talking about him in the HOF had he played his career in a place like Cleveland.

Best all around player in his prime? I’ll have some of what you are smoking!

Lots of guys over the years who are great to have on a playoff roster yet are not HOF worthy. Bernie is indeed one of them.

[Majestic]

Always found the stat similarities interesting

Mattingly 7003 ab 2153 hits 222 hr 1099 rbi .307 avg 9 gold gloves
Puckett 7244 ab 2304 hits 207 hr 1085 rbi .318 avg 6 gold gloves

Played same time frame. Both careers cut short by physical ailments. Both very popular players. Both top 3 in MVP 3 times. Both led league in batting once. Both led league in RBI once. Puckett led league in hits 4 times to Mattingly's twice. Puckett has post season advantage while Mattingly has managerial career.

Seems like a very even career. Puckett was first ballot with 82% Mattingly never got more than 28%. Maybe voters prefer a more consistent career (Puckett was never bad)over a top heavy Mattingly's 5 great seasons and 8 mediocre/avg/bad seasons.

[Republicaninmass]

75% of the vote

[the 'stache]

This is a great question, insidethewrapper, and one I've been mulling over since Jeter and Walker were announced as the sole inductees. The short answer? I don't know, as I think it can vary greatly from one member of the BBWAA to another. Each individual with a ballot is going to have their own biases that play into their vote. Something that one voter might place a premium on, another voters might not care as much about. Remember, you're going to have a variety of voter ages. Older voters may place more of an emphasis on counting stats, while younger ones might place more faith in advanced metrics.

Greg Wyshynski, the senior hockey writer for ESPN, had a phenomenal article in November of 2017 that addressed the same question for induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Though the methodology might need to be a bit different for baseball, I really like how he set out his examination of 43 current NHL stars. He devised a "four-quadrant test" for each player. Basically, these quadrants break down thusly:

1. Individual production: encompassing a player's stats, and their statistical records within their era.

2. On-ice impact: what did that individual performance mean for the player's team and teammates?

3. Prestige: could this player be considered among the top three in his position at any time during his career?

4. Cultural impact: the fame aspect of the equation, but also the most subjective one. Did this player revolutionize his position or cause others to emulate him? Was he considered a star? Was there something transcendent about this player?

Quadrant 3 is the one area that might need the most tweaking. In the NHL, they love handing out trophies. So many that it's hard to keep track of them all. Best goalie wins the Vezina Trophy. The best defenseman wins the Norris Trophy. The best defensive forward wins the Selke Trophy. Then you have the Hart Memorial Trophy, the league MVP as voted on by the Hockey Writers. The Lindsay Award is given to the "most outstanding player in the NHL" as voted on by the players in the league. The Conn Smythe goes the the MVP of the playoffs. The Calder Trophy is essentially the rookie of the year equivalent. The Maurice Richard, unsurprisingly, is given to the top goal scorer. Also know, informally, as the "Ovi". The Lady Byng Trophy recognizes sportsmanship and "gentlemanly conduct" in concert with a high standard of playing ability. The King Clancy Trophy is based on leadership on and off the ice, and humanitarian contributions.

And then there are the All Star teams. With multiple tiers.

There are, of course, some similarities. But there's no best catcher award. No best all around defensive player in the league. Silver Sluggers and Gold Gloves recognize excellence, but a lot of them are given out.

I would apply this same line of thinking to the two guys that got in. Jeter ticks off the first quad. 3,465 hits, 1,923 runs. Yup. The second? Jeter was the Captain of the Yankees for twelve years. During his time playing for the Bronx Bombers, they won four World Championships, and he played at a high level in the post season. He was the consummate professional, and his example set a high standard for his teammates. He checks this box, clearly.

The third quadrant is a bit hazy, for me. First, was he ever considered one of the best three players at his position? Well, that would take some examining. He had a few MVP caliber seasons, no doubt. But at that time, was he clearly top three in baseball, American and National Leagues combined? This is where I start to find some tenuous footing. Derek Jeter's career peak was very, very short. Per Baseball-Reference, between 1998 and 1999, his bWAR combined at 15.5. Is it Mike Trout-love fest WAR? No, but it's still outstanding. The problem is, the seasons surrounding them were pretty average. Before that two year period, he was really just starting out. That's understandable. Robin Yount, who is in my head unquestionably one of the best five shortstops, had a slow period that lasted six years out of the gate. Some of that is understandable, as he hit the Bigs running at age 18. It wasn't until 1980, when he finally got serious about baseball, and started hitting the gym, when he started to become a superstar. For the next five years, Yount was 40% above league average with his OPS, and put up 35.7 WAR (and 7.9 dWAR). When you remember that the 1981 season was shortened by strike, his 4.9 WAR across 109 team games becomes 7.3 in a full season. That leaves a 38.1 bWAR for 5 seasons, or 7.6 bWAR per season. Jeter's best 5 year peak, 1997-2001, adds up to only 30.3 bWAR. Now, obviously they didn't play in the same era, but it shows how Jeter stacks up against one of the guys being linked to him in a discussion of all-time greats.

So, what about Nomar Garciaparra? If Jeter's peak is between 1997 and 2001, Nomar should be compared at the same time. 1999 was Jeter's closest to winning an MVP. He had an 8.0 bWAR. Garciaparra? A 6.6. But here's the thing. Both guys had a 153 OPS+. Garciaparra's OPS is higher than Jeter's (1.022 to .989), but park adjustment levels them out. And defense? Jeter had a -0.1 dWAR, while Garciaparra had a 0.2. It was the one season where he didn't have a clearly superior defensive rating (his dWAR in 1997 was 2.0, in 1998 1.9, in 2000 it was 1.6. He was hurt in 2001, but put up a 2.5 in 2002, and a 1.5 in 2003. Clearly Nomar's defensive win contribution far exceeds Jeter's.

Jeter would win if this was the final comp for 1999. But Garciaparra only played in 135 games. If he plays the same 158 games Jeter does, his bWAR comes out to 7.75, virtually identical to Jeter's when you consider plae appearances. Jeter has an additional 43 plate appearances, all things being considered. In other words, in Jeter's best season, Garciaparra is his equal. Better defensively, and very strong with the bat. Nomar led the AL with a .357 AVG, hit 42 doubles and 27 home runs.

Just looking at this one season, early indications are that Garciaparra, in a down year for him defensively, is Jeter's equal. In other healthy seasons, I would expect Garciaparra to pull ahead.

What about Alex Rodriguez? He puts up a 37.4 bWAR. Here are his annual WAR totals

1996 9.4
1997 5.7
1998 8.5
1999 4.8
2000 10.4
2001 8.3
2002 8.8

Between 1996 and 2007, Rodriguez has seven seasons better than the best Jeter ever had. Clearly, Rodriguez tops Jeter, as well.

What about Barry Larkin? Larkin was in the latter stages of his career at this point, and missing time to injury. In 1997, he put up a .913 OPS. In 1998, a .901 OPS. Both better than Jeter. And Larkin is an outstanding defensive shortstop, winning three Gold Gloves between 1994 and 1996. For their careers, Jeter had a -8.3 dWAR, while Larkin was at 14.4.

It's hard to say, with Larkin missing time. He was the National League MVP in 1995, though his 1996 season blows it away. Larkin hit .298 with 33 home runs, stole 36 bases, OPS'd .977 with a 155 OPS+. That's better than Jeter's career high of 153.

The argument could be made that Jeter was not one of the top three shortstops in baseball during his prime. Rodriguez is light years ahead of him. A healthy Garciaparra outpaces him, and Larkin it would take more looking at, but I think even at that late stage, he's still Jeter's equal.

Some interesting things to consider here, I think.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

Best all around player in his prime? I’ll have some of what you are smoking!

For once I'm smoking the same stuff as Packs. There was a period during Mattingly's career where I would have bet the house he was a shoe-in for the HOF. Then the injuries hit and his career ended quickly - too quickly. If he had pulled a Koufax or Jim Brown, he'd be in. Or we could subtract his best four years and replace them with twelve of his lesser years, for a total of twenty-two, and he'd get in as an 'almost great' via longevity, ala Phil Niekro, Bert Blyleven, Gaylord Perry or Don Sutton.