Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[HistoricNewspapers]

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.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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

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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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/

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Look at his HR totals up to age 26.

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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".

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

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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

But Bonds’ head grew two hat sizes….

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

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.

[molenick]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[Jason19th]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

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.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by molenick

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.

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.