Hall of Fame debate fodder

Bert Blyleven

2008-01-14T11:25:00.000-05:00

There was not a more polarizing candidate on this year's Hall of Fame ballot than Bert Blyleven. It seems like everybody who had a remote interest in the Hall of Fame vote had a strong opinion on the qualifacations of Blyleven. Supporters of Blyleven will point out that Bert won 287 games, is 5th all-time in strikeouts with 3,701, and is 9th all-time in shutouts with 60. Detractors of Blyleven will point out that he only made two All-Star games, only received Cy Young votes in four years, only had one 20 win season, and he only had such impressive numbers because he stuck around so long. This year, Blyleven received 61.9% of the vote, his highest total yet. He had four years left on the ballot before he's thrown to the mercy of the Veteran's Committee. With Blyleven's supporters becoming more and more vocal, there is a chance he will be elected in the next four years. Let's look at Blyleven's case and see if he is a true Hall of Famer.

Pros: 5th All-time in strikeouts, 9th in shutouts.
Cons: Only a two-time All-Star, never had too many "big" seasons

The List:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No, after all, he was only selected to two All-Star games. In Blyleven's day, he wasn't perceived to be one of the best pitchers in the game. There could be a number of explanations for that, such as the fact that Blyleven didn't play in any of the large market cities, he was traded often, and his W-L record was usually not very gaudy. He only had one twenty win season whereas Gaylord Perry and Ferguson Jenkins, peers of Blyleven, had five and seven, respectively.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Bert Blyleven started with the Minnesota Twins, playing there from 1970-1976. He was usually their best pitcher, but the Twins had Rod Carew during that time, so Blyleven wasn't neccesarily their player. During the 1976 season, he was traded to Texas, where he pitched alongside Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry. Let's see who was better during that time, shall we (courtesy of baseballmusings.com):

Blyleven with Rangers (1976-1977): W-L: 23-23, GS: 54, SHO:11, IP: 437, BB:, 115 (2.37/9), K: 326 (6.71/9), ERA: 2.74

Perry with Rangers (1976-1977): W-L: 30-26, GS: 66, SHO:6, IP: 488.3, BB:, 108 (1.99/9), K: 320 (5.90/9), ERA:3.30

It's a close call, Perry had the better record, but Blyleven's ERA was over a half run lower than Perry, and both men were pitching in the same conditions. I'd give the edge to Blyleven here.

From there, Blyleven was traded to Pittsburgh. He was good there, probably their best pitcher, but he didn't quite do as well in Pittsburgh as he did in Minnesota and Texas. Plus, Dave Parker was tearing things up back then, so he was probably their best player. In 1981, he was traded to Cleveland, where he spent 4 1/2 half years. Blyleven is the only viable Hall of Fame candidate to play for those teams, so I'm thinking he probably was their best player. He was traded back to Minnesota during the 1985 season, a team which had Kirby Puckett and Frank Viola. Blyleven pitched well for the Twins, except in 1988 (10-17, 5.43 ERA, 1.404 WHIP). He gave up a lot of home runs there, however, allowing 50 in 1986 and 46 in 1987, although his ERA+ was over 100 both years, showing that Blyleven was still an above average pitcher. Blyleven was probably the Twins' best pitcher in 1985 and 1986, but Viola was better in '87, and '88. From there, Blyleven signed with the California Angels. He had a great year in 1989 (17-5, 2.73 ERA, 140 ERA+), but age and injuries made him an average pitcher the next two seasons. Still, he was the Angels' best player in 1989.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

If you looked at the era Blyleven played in, people would say that Steve Carlton or Tom Seaver were the best pitchers of that era, some might say Jim Palmer or Nolan Ryan were the top pitchers of that era. Blyleven wasn't usually mentioned in that class, but there were very few pitchers during that time that you could definitely say were better than Blyleven. I mentioned Ryan earlier, let's see how he compares to Blyleven:

Blyleven: W-L: 287-250, Wpct: .534, GS: 685, CG: 242, SHO: 60, IP: 4970, BB:, 1322 (2.39/9), K: 3701 (6.70/9), ERA: 3.31, WHIP: 1.198, ERA+: 118

Ryan: W-L: 324-292, Wpct: .526, GS: 773, CG: 222, SHO: 61, IP: 5386, BB:, 2795 (4.67/9), K: 5714 (9.55/9), ERA: 3.19, WHIP: 1.247, ERA+: 111

Obviously, Ryan has a huge edge on strikeouts, but Blyleven has a huge edge on walks. Ryan has more wins, but Blyleven has a slightly higher winning percentage. Ryan's ERA was lower, but, if you take park effects into question, Blyleven had a better ERA+ (118 to 111, meaning, theoretically that they were 18 and and 11 percent better than the average pitcher in their league). Ryan was a slam-dunk, first ballot Hall of Famer, but Blyleven measures up very well to him.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Not a whole lot, as Blyleven usually pitched for teams in the second division, so to speak. However, he had a few years in the sun. In his rookie year, 1970, the Twins won the American League West. Blyleven pitched well in September of that year (2.53 ERA in seven starts), but only went 2-3. In the 1970 ALCS, Blyleven only pitched two scoreless innings in relief as the Twins fell to the Orioles. Blyleven wouldn't be involved in another pennant race until 1977 with the Rangers, who finished eight behind the Kansas City Royals in the AL West. Blyleven only had 3 starts in September of 1977, going 2-1 with a 3.06 ERA in 17 2/3 innings.

In 1978, Blyleven's Pirates only finished 1.5 games back of the Philadelphia Phillies, and Blyleven pitched exceptionally well in the season's last two months. He went 5-4, with an ERA of 2.34, and struck out 69 batters in 92 innings. In 1979, the Pirates won their division, and then went on to win the World Series. Blyleven was pretty average during the final two months of '79, going 3-1 with a 3.77 ERA and 12 starts in 76 1/3 innings. In the postseason, Blyleven pitched a one-run complete game against the Cincinnati Reds in the NLCS, striking out nine, while in the World Series against the Orioles, Blyleven pitched two games, starting one and winning another game in relief. In all, Blyleven pitched 10 innings in the World Series, allowing only 2 earned runs and striking out 4 batters. In 18 innings of postseason play that year, Blyleven struck out 13 batters, and had an ERA of 1.50.

It would be another eight years until Blyleven was involved in another pennant race, this time with the 1987 Twins, who also won the World Series that year. Blyleven had a poor August, but was awesome in September, starting seven games and putting up a 2.47 ERA. He won two games and struck out 44 batters in 54.3 innings that month. In the 1987 ALCS against the Detroit Tigers, Blyleven won both his starts, but had an average ERA of 4.05. In the World Series, Blyleven pitched very well, having a 2.77 ERA and striking out 12 batters in 13 innings while going 1-1 against the St. Louis Cardinals. 1989 would be Blyleven's last pennant race, but his Angels finished eight games behind the Oakland Athletics that year. He did what he could to help, however, going 7-3 with a 3.22 ERA in 12 starts during the season's final two months.

Overall, Blyleven didn't find himself in a whole lot of pennant races, but when he did, he usually pitched very well.

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

Yes, Blyleven was a solid pitcher on the Twins during the late 80s, when he was in his mid 30s, and had one of his finest seasons at age 38 with the California Angels in 1989.

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

I certainly believe that he's one of the best. A lot of people think that he is the best eligible player not yet inducted in the Hall of Fame.

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Of Blyleven's ten most comparable players according to baseball-reference.com, eight are Hall of Fame pitchers (Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, Ferguson Jenkings, Robin Roberts, Tom Seaver, Early Wynn, Phil Niekro, and Steve Carlton). The other two are Tommy John and Jim Kaat, who have had their share of support, but, like Blyleven, did not have a ton of "big" seasons.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Blyleven's HOF Monitor stat is 120.5, whereas a likely Hall of Famer will have a 100 mark. His Grey Ink is 235 (average Hall of Famer: 187), His HOF Standards stat is 50, which is the mark for an average Hall of Famer. His Black Ink is 16, an average Hall of Famer's is 40. Black Ink is basically a metric counting up all the times a player led the league in different categories, and Blyleven usually did not lead his league in a lot of categories. That aids one of the points his detractors make in that he wasn't a dominant pitcher.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Blyleven pitched most of his career in home parks which were either neutral or favored hitters. He had a .534 winning percentage despite pitching for teams with a combined winning percentage of .502, so he was .32 points better winning games than the rest of his team. More importantly, his ERA+ , an era and ballpark adjusted stat is 118. That's the same as Warren Spahn, and better than Hall of Famers such as Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Ferguson Jenkins, Phil Niekro, Jim Bunning, Robin Roberts, and Nolan Ryan.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

Some people have said that Jack Morris is the best pitcher not yet enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Well, let's compare the two, shall we,

Blyleven: W-L: 287-250, Wpct: .534, GS: 685, CG: 242, SHO: 60, IP: 4970, BB:, 1322 (2.39/9), K: 3701 (6.70/9), ERA: 3.31, WHIP: 1.198, ERA+: 118

Morris: W-L: 254-186, Wpct: .577, GS: 527, CG: 175, SHO: 28, IP: 3824, BB:, 1390 (3.27/9), K: 2478 (5.83/9), ERA: 3.90, WHIP: 1.296, ERA+: 105

If you look at win-loss records, Morris looks better. However, if you look at every other statistic, Blyleven holds a large advantage over Morris. Morris was also known as a money postseason pitcher, and his record in the playoffs (7-4, 3.80 ERA, including a 10-inning complete game in game 7 of the 1991 World Series) is stellar, but Blyleven also has a good postseason record (4-1 2.47 ERA) even if he didn't have a defining moment like Morris did.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Blyleven only received MVP votes in two years, 1973 (20-17, 2.52 ERA, 258 SO, 25 CG, 9 SHO, 158 ERA+) and in 1989. He received Cy Young votes in 1973, 1984 (19-7, 2.87 ERA, 170 SO, 144 ERA+), 1985 (17-16, 3.16 ERA, 206 SO, 24 CG, 293.67 IP, 134 ERA+) and 1989. He finished as high as third in 1984 and in 1985. There were probably a few more years where he should have gotten a Cy Young vote, but we'll tackle that in the next question.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

Blyleven only played in two All-Star games, 1973 and 1985. He should have played in at least six. He wasn't named to the All-Star in the aforementioned 1984 and 1989 seasons, even though he received Cy Young votes in those seasons. He led the A.L. in WHIP in 1977, but was not an All-Star despite these stellar numbers (14-12, 2.72 ERA, 182 SO, 15 CG, 5 SHO, 151 ERA+, 1.065 WHIP). He was 51 percent better than the average American League pitcher in 1977, but was not named to the All-Star team, but they got Mark Fidrych in, even though he only pitched 11 games, and Bert Campaneris, whose first half OPS was .669.

For six straight years, Bert Blyleven struck out 200 or more batters (1971-1976). He had an ERA below 3.00 in all seasons but one (1975), and his ERA that season was right at 3.00. Yet during this time, he was named to only one All-Star game. Part of this might be explained because Blyleven, for some reason, was a better pitcher in the second half of the season. His career ERA in the second half was 3.12, in the first half, it was 3.47. In the first half of the season, Blyleven was 1o games over .500 (150-140). In the second half, Blyleven was 27 games over .500 (137-110). Perhaps that can help explain why a pitcher of Blyleven's caliber only pitched in two All-Star games.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

I believe so. Pennants have been won by teams whose best players were worse than Blyleven, so I don't see why not.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

He was part of baseball's first ever four-team deal, which was the deal that sent him to Pittsburgh. He was also the finest player ever born in the Netherlands, although he spent much of his youth in California. There are experts that say that he had the finest curveball ever, so if you want to include that as historical impact, than go right ahead.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

He forced at least two trades, one by threating to retire if wasn't traded from Pittsburgh. But overall, there's no reason to keep him out based on his character.

Conclusion: I have one final comparison. Let's see how Blyleven stacks up with three Hall of Fame pitchers, Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, and Phil Niekro:

Blyleven: W-L: 287-250, Wpct: .534, GS: 685, CG: 242, SHO: 60, IP: 4970, BB: 1322 (2.39/9), K: 3701 (6.70/9), ERA: 3.31, WHIP: 1.198, ERA+: 118

Sutton: W-L: 324-256, Wpct: .559, GS: 756, CG: 178, SHO: 58, IP: 5282.3, BB: 1343 (2.29/9), K: 3574 (6.09/9), ERA: 3.26, WHIP: 1.142, ERA+: 108

Niekro: W-L: 318-274, Wpct: .537, GS: 716, CG: 245, SHO: 45, IP: 5403.3, BB:,1809 (3.01/9), K: 3342 (5.57/9), ERA: 3.35, WHIP: 1.268, ERA+: 115

Perry: W-L: 314-265, Wpct: .542, GS: 690, CG: 303, SHO: 53, IP: 5350.3, BB: 1379 (2.32/9), K: 3534 (5.95/9), ERA: 3.11, WHIP: 1.181, ERA+: 117

The only disadvantage Blyleven has is number of wins and innings pitched. He has more shutouts, more strikeouts, and a better ERA+ than any of these fine pitchers. I don't really see how you can keep Blyleven out, really. He has more strikeouts than all but four pitchers in baseball history, Blyleven is the only eligible pitcher with more than 3,000 strikeouts not in the Hall of Fame. He's also the only pitcher, period with more than 50 shutouts who is not in the Hall. Bottom line is, Bert Blyleven should have been in the Hall of Fame years ago. Maybe in the next four years, enough people will realize that so that Blyleven can take his rightful spot in the Hall of Fame.

Thanks to baseball-reference.com, baseballmusings.com, and wikipedia.org for their assistance.

Andre Dawson

2008-01-10T12:06:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, Andre Dawson received 65.9 percent of the vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Last year, Dawson received 56.7 percent of the vote. If his vote totals go up at the same rate next year, Dawson would get 75.1, which would put him into the Hall of Fame. So, Dawson, who has eight years of eligibility remaining, is close to obtaining induction, and at this rate, it could happen over the next 2-3 years. Well, that's all fine and dandy. But the question here is not if Andre Dawson will go into the Hall of Fame, but should he get in. Well, let's try to answer that.

Pros: No eligible player has more extra-base-hits, total bases, eight-time Gold Glove winner, eight-time All Star.
Con: On-base percentage awfully low (.323) for a player of his supposed caliber.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

I don't believe that anyone ever made that claim. He was usually regarded as one of the the best players in the game during his career, but it would be hard for anyone to make a case for him being the best player in baseball. You can't really say that Dawson was better than Schmidt, Brett, Henderson, Ripken, or, towards his later years, Barry Bonds.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Dawson played with two Hall of Famers for much of his career, Gary Carter and Ryne Sandberg. Let's compare Dawson to the two. First, here are Dawson's and Carter's numbers from 1977-1984: (courtesy of baseballmusings.com)

Dawson: Ab: 4518 R: 689 H: 1279 2B: 232 3B:62 HR: 182 RBI: 662 BB: 283 SLG: .483
OBP: .329 BA: .283

Carter: Ab: 4177 R: 589 H: 1150 2B: 228 3B:20 HR: 191 RBI: 682 BB: 446 SLG: .477
OBP: .346 BA: .275

During this time, Carter went to six All-Star games (1979-1984), while Dawson went to three (1981-83). Then again, Dawson played a position with more competition in Center Field, while Carter was considered the best catcher in the National League. Dawson got MVP votes in five different years (1979-1983), as did Carter (1979-82, 1984). Dawson got as high as second in the MVP balloting, finishing second in both 1981 and 1983, while Carter's highest finish was second place in 1980. Dawson won five Gold Gloves, Carter won three. Overall, it's a close race between the two, especially when you factor in that Carter played a more demanding position. Forced to choose, I go with Dawson.

In 1987, Dawson signed with the Cubs, who just happened to have a superstar of their own and Ryne Sandberg. They played six years together (1987-92) Here's a comparison: (courtesy of baseballmusings.com)

Dawson: Ab: 3262 R: 431 H: 929 2B: 149 3B: 27 HR: 174 RBI: 587 BB: 198 SLG: .507
OBP: .327 BA: .285

Sandberg: Ab: 3559 R: 582 H: 1037 2B: 167 3B: 28 HR: 157 RBI: 491 BB: 377 SLG: .486
OBP: .358 BA: .291

During their time together, Dawson went to five All-Star games (1987-91), Sandberg went to six (1987-92). Again, Sandberg had an edge over Dawson because there are not as many All-Satar caliber second basemen as there are outfielders. Dawson received MVP votes in 4 years (1987-88, 1990-91), winning the award in 1987. Sandberg also received MVP votes in 4 different years (1989-92) finishing as high as fourth in 1989 and 1990. Dawson won two Gold Gloves, Sandberg won five. Again, it's a close, but this time I go with Sandberg. Overall, though, the fact that Dawson was more than able to hold his own with two different Hall of Fame teammates is a good sign.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

In his days as Montreal's center fielder, Dawson may have been the best center fielder in the land. There were a couple of years where Dale Murphy was better, but overall Dawson would have to be considered the top center fielder in the game.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Dawson's first pennant race was in 1979, when the Expos finished 2 games behind the Pirates in the NL East. Dawson did well in the final month (.283/.329/.478 6 HR), but the Expos just fell short. In 1980, the Expos came up one game short of the Phillies, but Dawson had a very good September (.323/.346/.569, 19 XBH, 26 R). In 1981, the Expos finished one game ahead of the Cardinals in the second half of the season, which led them to the division playoff against the Phillies in the strike-shortened 1981 season. Dawson's OPS in September was 200 points than it was in the season's other months (.754 compared to .962), but he did hit five home runs and drove in 18 runs. In the playoffs that year, Dawson hit .300 against the Phillies, but only went 3-20 against the Dodgers in the NLCS.

In 1982, the Expos finished 6 games out of the lead, but Dawson did well in the season's final two months (.309/.356/.535 15 SB, 10 HR). Dawson wouldn't be involved in another pennant race until 1989, when his Cubs won the Eastern Division. Dawson didn't have a very strong season in 1989 (.252/.307/.476), but he did hit 7 home runs and compiled a .526 slugging percentage during September. In the NLCS against the Giants, Dawson was awful, hitting only 2-19 and striking out 6 times against Giants pitching. That was Dawson's last pennant race, as the Cubs faded quickly in 1990.

Overall, Dawson did a lot to try and get his teams to the postseason, but it's hard to ignore that .128 batting average in LCS play.

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

Dawson was a regular until 1994, where he was the Red Sox's DH. He was very productive in Chicago after his prime years were over, and, while he wasn't great, he didn't embarrass himself in Boston. Dawson spent the last two years of his career as a bench players with the Florida Marlins, where he was ok, but nothing special.

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No, not with Santo and Blyleven still on the outside. However, I'd say Dawson compares pretty well with Jim Rice, but we'll get to that later.

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Of Dawson's 10 most comparable players according to baseball-reference.com, five (Billy Williams, Tony Perez, Al Kaline, Ernie Banks, and Dave Winfield) are Hall of Famers. Furthermore, Williams and Perez are the most comparable to Dawson, and, like Dawson, both players spent a few years on the ballot before getting in.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

According to the numbers on baseball-reference.com, Dawson's Grey Ink (164) and HOF Monitor stats (118) are above the average Hall of Famer, but his Black Ink (11) and HOF Standards (43.7) are below that of an average Hall of Famer. Although Dawson never reached 3,000 hits or 500 home runs, there are very few players with over 2,700 hits or 425 home runs who are not in the Hall of Fame, and, as stated before, Dawson has more total bases and extra-base-hits of all eligible players who are not in the Hall of Fame.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Dawson's home stadium in Montreal, Olympic Stadium, was a pretty neutral park. However, Dawson spent six years in Wrigley Field, which is a hitter's park through and through. In 1987, 1991, and 1992, Dawson's OPS was at least 200 points higher in Wrigley Field than it was on the road (Curiously, Dawson's OPS at Wrigley was more than 200 points lower at Wrigley than it was on the road in 1989). Dawson hit 31 home runs in 1991, 22 came at Wrigley. During his years in Chicago, Dawson finished among the top ten in OPS three times (1987, 88, 90), but in OPS+, a park adjusted statistic, Dawson did not place in the top ten any of those years. Over those six years, Dawson's OPS+ was 125, meaning he was still an above average player, but not a star player. Alvin Davis had a 125 OPS+ during that same stretch, and nobody's ever going to campaign for him to be in the Hall of Fame (In case you're wondering, Dawson's OPS+ was 119 in his career, and 122 during his Montreal years.) In terms of career OPS+ Dawson's 119 is tied with guys such as Richie Hebner, Sal Bando, Chris Hoiles, and Harry Davis. I'm not saying that that kills Dawson's chances completely and that OPS+ is the end all be all statistic, but it certainly is a blow.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

As far as outfielders go, maybe. Jim Rice and Dawson finished two and three in the balloting this year, let's see how they stack up.

Dawson: Ab: 9869 R: 1367 H: 2758 2B: 501 3B: 98 HR: 436 RBI: 1577 BB: 587 SLG: .483
OBP: .323 BA: .279 OPS+: 119

Rice: Ab: 8225 R: 1249 H: 2452 2B: 373 3B: 79 HR: 382 RBI: 1451 BB: 670 SLG: .502
OBP: .352 BA: .298 OPS+: 128

Dawson went to eight All-Star games, so did Rice. Dawson received MVP votes in nine different years, winning one (1987) and finishing second twice (1981,83). Rice received MVP votes in eight different years, winning the 1978 AL MVP and finishing in the top five five other times. Dawson won eight Gold Gloves, Rice was a below average defensive player. Overall, Rice was probably the better hitter, but Dawson's speed and defensive edges over Rice make him the better all-around baseball player.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Dawson won the MVP in 1987, even though his team finished last in their division and there were at least four players more deserving that year, but I digress. Dawson was second in the MVP balloting in 1981 and 1983, losing to Mike Schmidt and Dale Murphy, respectively. Overall, Dawson received MVP votes in nine different seasons (1979-83, 87-88, 90-91).

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

Dawson played in eight All-Star games (1981-83, 1987-91). He probably shouldn't have gone in 1989 (.252, 21 HR, 77 RBI). Then again, Dawson put up All-Star Caliber numbers in 1979 (.275, 25 HR, 92 RBI, 35 SB) and in 1980 (.308, 17 HR, 87 RBI, 136 OPS+). So, according to my estimation, Dawson had 9 All-Star type seasons. As for people that have played in eight All-Star games, about half are in the Hall of Fame, and a couple of active players (such as Derek Jeter and Vladamir Guerrero) have played in eight thus far and are on their way to Hall of Fame careers.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Well, he was pretty much the best player on his Expos teams, and they didn't win a pennant. That probably isn't his fault, as the Expos were usually a player or two short anyways. I believe that a team with Dawson as it's best player could win a pennant, but he wasn't the type of player who could carry an average team to a division crown or anything like that. Then again, there are few players like that in baseball history.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Well, he did win the Rookie of the Year award in 1977, and the MVP in 1987, so his name is in the record book, anyway. He once was intentionally walked five times in a game in 1990, which is an interesting record. He was also one of the free agents most effected by the owners' collusion practices during the 1986 off-season. In an ill-fated attempt to drive salaries down, Dawson, and many other free agents at the time, weren't getting any offers from owners. So, during spring training in 1987, Dawson and his agent showed up at Cubs' camp in order to get a contract. It developed to the point where Dawson handed the Cubs a blank contract, asking Cubs GM Dallas Green to fill in the numbers himself. Dawson got a 500,000 base salary, with 250,000 in incentives, such as starting the All-Star Game and winning the MVP award, which of course, he did that year. What impact that had on the game, I'm not sure, but I thought it was an interesting story.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Dawson won the Hutch Award in 1994, which is an award given to the player who best embodies the competive desire to win. I'm not sure how they determine such an award, but Dawson was thought highly enough to be given the award, so there you go. In his Hall of Fame speech, Ryne Sandberg praised Dawson, saying that no player in baseball history worked harder or suffered more (due to his chronic knee injuries) than Andre Dawson. Dawson was, and is a high-character guy and more than upheld his end of the bargain when it came to sportsmanship and character.

Conclusion: I must say that I am a little biased in this, as Andre Dawson was one of my favorite players when I was a child. So, obviously, I would like to see him in the Hall of Fame. But, his low OBP of .323, and the fact that his statistics don't seem so impressive in context definitely hurt his candidacy, as does his lack of postseason success But he did a lot of things very well. He combined power and speed (only one of six players with 300 home runs and 300 steals), and was one of the greatest defensive outfielders of the past 30 years (eight gold gloves). I think you could definitely make a good case against him, but I'd say he did enough to get in. It's close, but I think Andre Dawson should be in the Hall of Fame and probably will be in the next couple of years.

Thanks to www.baseball-reference.com, www.baseballmusings.com, and wikipedia.org for assistance in this post.

Jim Rice

2008-01-09T11:34:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, Jim Rice received 392 votes from the Baseball Writers Association of America. He fell 16 votes short of being the next member inducted into the Hall of Fame. Next year will be Rice's last year of eligibility, and the only candidate in next year's class that should get in Rickey Henderson. I know it's hard to predict now, but I have a feeling that we are only 364 days away from calling Jim Rice a Hall of Famer. After all, no one has gotten this close and not gotten in before. I did a write-up on Rice last year, and my opinion on the man hasn't changed, so I'm not going to do one today. Here is a link to last year's Keltner List on Jim Rice: http://hofodder.blogspot.com/2007/01/jim-rice.html.

I will, however, say this. During his career, as short as it may have been, Jim Rice was one of the most feared hitters of his time. In 13 Full Seasons, Rice went to eight All-Star games, and finished in the top 5 of the MVP balloting 6 times, including an MVP in 1978. During his prime years (1975-1986), Rice led the American League in runs, hits, home runs, total bases, and slugging percentage. Yes, he may have grounded into a lot of double plays, and his defense was not very good, but Rice was too good of a hitter not to be in the Hall of Fame. Anyway, that's my opinion. Tommorow, I hope to do a Keltner List on Andre Dawson, whose candidacy has seemed to divide the old-school baseball followers, who believe Dawson should be in, and the new-school sabermaticians, who believe Dawson's low on-base percentage (.323) among other things, should keep Dawson out of the Hall.

Goose Gossage

2008-01-08T12:22:00.000-05:00

For the past eight years, Goose Gossage has been kept out of the Hall of Fame, and he has not taken it lying down. In fact, he has been quite vocal in his belief that he should be in the Hall of Fame. Many people would agree with him, and, as of today, the BBWAA agrees as well, as Gossage was elected to the Hall of Fame with 86% of the vote. Gossage was one of the most productive and most feared pitchers of his era. When he came into to close out a game, it usually meant curtains for the other team. There are only four other relievers in the Hall of Fame, Hoyt Wilhelm, and two of Gossage's contemporaries, Rollie Fingers and Bruce Sutter, and Dennis Eckersley, who was a starter during Gossage's prime years. So, the question is, does Gossage belong with them in Cooperstown? I'd say yes, but let's take a deeper look to see if Gossage is what he says he is, a Hall of Famer.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No, usually nobody considers a person in Gossage's role to be the best player in baseball. Nobody would say that Gossage was a better player than Mike Schmidt or George Brett, for example.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

He might have been on those White Sox teams he played for in the 70s, but Gossage usually was not considered the best player on his team. Of course, he had Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield, and Tony Gwynn as teammates, so there's no real shame in finishing behind those guys.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

From 1975-1986, Gossage had at least 18 saves in all seasons but one. He only had one in 1976 because the White Sox, in dire need of rotation help, converted Gossage into a starter, where he was below average. Below is a table of the top five closers, according to saves, during that period(Table and data courtesy of Baseballmusings.com):

Player	Games	GF	W	L	Sv	IP	H	ER	HR	BB	K	ERA	K9	BB9	HR9
Bruce Sutter	623	486	67	67	286	996 2/3	830	304	73	298	821	2.75	7.41	2.69	.66
Rich Gossage	630	498	90	78	275	1263 1/3	975	353	74	464	1121	2.51	7.99	3.31	.53
Rollie Fingers	587	492	70	74	249	946 2/3	827	301	64	272	743	2.86	7.06	2.59	.61
Dan Quisenberry	506	451	47	42	229	846	829	236	49	124	295	2.51	3.14	1.32	.52
Gene Garber	724	483	74	85	178	1131 1/3	1062	390	83	296	755	3.10	6.01	2.35	.66

Among these relievers. Gossage had more wins, more games finished, more strikeouts, more strikeouts per 9 innings, tied for the lowest ERA, and allowed the second fewest home runs per 9 innings. During that stretch, Gossage went to nine all star games and received Cy Young votes in five different years. By comparison, Bruce Sutter went to six All Star games, Rollie Fingers went to five, and both players won Cy Young awards, (Sutter in 1979, Fingers in 1981). It's a tough call, but if you said that Gossage was the best closer of his era, than you would have one hell of a case.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Was he ever. Gossage pitched in three World Series and four League Championship Series. The first few years of his career, Gossage wasn't involved in many playoff races. In 1977, Gossage's Pirates finished 5 1/2 games out of first in their division, but in September of that year, Gossage pitched 22 scoreless innings. In 1978, Gossage was a factor in the Yankees' making up 14 games to the Red Sox in the standings, as he had a 1.64 ERA and 15 saves in the second half. In the postseason that year, Gossage racked up two wins, while allowing only one run in ten innings. In 1980, Gossage saved 19 games in the last two months of the season, as the Yankees held off the Orioles in a tight division race. However, Gossage allowed a huge home run to Kansas City's George Brett during that year's ALCS, which propelled the Royals over the Yankees.

After the strike shortened 1981 season, in which Gossage had an 0.77 ERA and 20 saves in 46.2 innings, Gossage saved all three wins for the Yankees against the Brewers in the ALDS, striking out eight and not allowing a run a 6.2 innings of work. Gossage also gathered three saves and didn't allow a run in 7.2 innings in the ALCS and World Series, although the Yankees lost the World Series to the Dodgers. In 1983, the Yankees finished 7 out of the Eastern Division lead, and Gossage pitched decently in the final month, with 7 saves and a 3.52 ERA (although the previous four months of that season, Gossage had an ERA of 1.16)

In 1984, Gossage went to the Padres, and helped them win their first ever division crown. He won five games, saved five more, and had a 3.04 ERA during that season's final two months. Gossage did not pitch well in the post season, allowing 6 runs and 6.2 innings. Gossage was also on the 1992 A.L. West champion Oakland A's, although he only pitched 2.2 innings in the second half that year.

Overall, Gossage pitched pretty well during the year's later months, and did more to help his teams win pennants than hurt.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

After 1987, Gossage pitched for six different Major League teams, and spent 1990 in Japan. While wasn't the Gossage of old, he did have some effective years, including a sub 3.00 ERA in 1989 with the Giants and Yankees, and in 1992 with the Athletics. So, to answer the question, yes.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

He's not better than Pete Rose or Joe Jackson, but those are special cases. Overall, I'd say that Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven are better, but Gossage was one of the best players not to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Of Gossage's 10 most comparable players according to baseball-reference.com, only two are in, Rollie Fingers and Hoyt Wilhelm. Then again, there are only four other relievers in the Hall of Fame overall, and all 10 of Gossage's comparables are relievers, so take that for what it's worth.

8. Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

The Hall of Fame doesn't seem to have any set standards for closers. Perhaps they will one day, but Gossage did have 310 and had a career ERA just over 3 (3.01), so those numbers would look pretty good on a plaque.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Gossage spent much of his career in home parks that were pretty neutral towards pitchers, so I can't see how he was any better or worse than what his statistics showed.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

Yes, no doubt about it. Some people might say Lee Smith is, simply because of his high number of saves. Let's compare the two with another table courtesy of baseballmusings.com:

Player	Games	GF	W	L	Sv	IP	H	ER	HR	BB	K	ERA	K9	BB9	HR9
Lee Smith	1022	802	71	92	478	1289 1/3	1133	434	89	486	1251	3.03	8.73	3.39	.62
Rich Gossage	1002	681	124	107	310	1809 1/3	1497	605	119	732	1502	3.01	7.47	3.64	.59

As you see here, Gossage pitched over 500 more innings than Smith, even though Smith pitched twenty more games. Their per/9 stats look quite similar, except for Smith's huge edge in K/9. But still, I'd go with Gossage simply because, while both were very effective, Gossage did more work.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Gossage had MVP votes in five seasons, 1975, 1978, 1980, 1981, and 1984. He finished third in the balloting in 1980, when he had 33 saves, 101 strikeouts, and a 2.27 ERA in 99 innings. What strikes me as sort of curious is the fact that Gossage didn't get a single MVP vote in 1977, which was his greatest year from a statistical standpoint. In that year, Gossage saved 26 games, had a 1.62 ERA, a 0.96 WHIP, and struck out 151 batters in 133 innings. His Pirates team contended for a pennant all year, yet Gossage didn't get one vote. Besides that year, Gossage's 1982 and 1983 seasons were also similar to the years he recieved MVP votes, even though he went voteless in 1982 and '83.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

Gossage was selected to nine All-Star games (1975-78, 1980-82, 1984-85). He also put up All-Star caliber numbers in 1983 (2.27 ERA), but wasn't selected. Then again, Gossage shouldn't have been an All-Star in 1976 (9-17, 3.94 ERA, 29GS 15 CG), so I guess it all evens out. Most players who have been selected to 9 or more All-Star Games are in the Hall of Fame, although there are a few exceptions. However, no eligible pitcher not in the Hall has more All-Star game selections than Gossage.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

If they had decent enough starting pitching and a good offense, than I could see it, sure. They certainly wouldn't lose a pennant due to Gossage.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

His effectiveness and style helped to glamorize the closer position. In fact, I would say if it wasn't for guys like Gossage and Rollie Fingers, the closer role wouldn't be as valued as it is today. Before them, the bullpen was usually where the pitchers who failed to make the rotation landed. Now you see pitchers like Johnathan Papelbon being moved from the rotation into the closer's role because of how valuable a top-notch closer has become in the modern day of baseball. So I'd say Gossage, and the way he was used, had a large impact on the way the game is played today.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

He once got injured in a clubhouse fight with Cliff Johnson, but that's definitely not any reason to penalize his candidacy or anything. I never heard of him getting into any trouble with the law, and, he was a good teammate from what I understand.

Conclusion: I think the writers got it right this year. I don't see how you can put Bruce Sutter in and not have Goose Gossage. From my view, they are too similar, and, even though Sutter is a deserving Hall of Famer, I think Gossage was better. It's good to see that Goose Gossage got the recognition and respect that he deserves.

Thanks to baseballmusings.com, baseball-reference.com, and wikipedia.org for assistance. Also, sorry if this looks a little screwy due to the tables.

Update

2008-01-07T14:19:00.000-05:00

With the Baseball Hall of Inductions being announced tomorrow, I figured it would be a good time to start this blog up again. Of course, it would have been better if I started it back a month before, but I digress. Anyway. tomorrow I will put up a Keltner list on whomever is elected. If more than one person is elected, I'll do them the next day. I will also try to do an overview of a few players who didn't make the cut this year. So, look out for all of that. I will try to keep this blog more updated in the future, but I can't make any promises. By the way, I think only one person will get elected tomorrow, and that's Goose Gossage, according to everything I have heard. So chances are I'll probably have something up about him tomorrow.

pro football hall of fame: 2007

2007-02-01T09:02:00.000-05:00

On Saturday, the Pro Football Hall of Fame will announces this year's inductions into the Hall of Fame. Here are the 17 finalists that the voting committee will choose from.

Fred Dean, Defensive End, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers. 1975-85. Two time All-Pro, Nearly 100 career sacks.

Richard Dent, Defensive End, Chicago Bears, San Francisco 49ers, Philadelphia Eagles, Indianapolis Colts, 1983-97. 137.5 career sacks, 4 Pro Bowls, Super Bowl 20 MVP.

Russ Grimm, Guard, Washington Redskins, 1981-91. Four straight All-Pro selections (1983-86). Member of NFL All-Decade team for the 1980s.

Ray Guy, Punter, Oakland-L.A. Raiders, 1973-86. Seven Pro Bowls, considered by many to be the best punter of All-time.

Gene Hickerson, Guard, Cleveland Browns, 1958-1973. Named to All-NFL Decade team for the 1960s, seven pro-bowls, six first team All-NFL selections.

Michael Irvin, Wide Receiver, Dallas Cowboys, 1988-99. 750 career catches, member of the NFL All-Decade team for the 1990s, three time Super Bowl champion.

Bob Keuchenberg, Guard, Miami Dolphins, 1970-84. Six Pro Bowls, two time All-Pro. Starter on two Super Bowl championship teams.

Bruce Matthews, Guard,Center, Tackle, Houston Oilers, Tennesee Titans, 1983-2001. 14 Pro Bowls (tied for most all-time), Nine time All-Pro selection, Named to NFL All-Decade team for the 1990s.

Art Monk, Wide Receiver, Washington Redskins, New York Jets, Philadelphia Eagles, 1980-95. 940 career receptions, 3 Pro Bowls, Two-time All-Pro, three time Super Bowl champion.

Andre Reed, Wide Receiver, Buffalo Bills, Washington Redskins, 1985-2000. 951 career receptions, seven Pro Bowls, 85 career postseason receptions.

Charlie Sanders, Tight End, Detroit Lions, 1968-77. Seven Pro Bowls, Named to NFL All-Decade team for 1970s

Paul Tagliabue, Commisioner, 1989-2006. Under his leadership, NFL grew to heights once thought of as impossible. Responsible for most lucrative television deal in sports history.

Derrick Thomas, Linebacker, Kansas City Chiefs, 1989-99. 126.5 career sacks, nine Pro Bowls, Named to NFL All-Decade team for 1990s.

Thurman Thomas, Running Back, Buffalo Bills, Miami Dolphins, 1988-2000. 12,074 rushing yards, 16,532 yards from scrimmage, 1,000 yard rusher eight straight seasons, five Pro Bowls.

Andre Tippett, Linebacker, New England Patriots, 1982-93. 100 career sacks, five Pro Bowls, named to NFL All-Decade team for 1980s

Roger Werhil, Cornerback, 1969-82, St. Louis Cardinals. Five time All-Pro, seven Pro Bowls, named to NFL All-Decade team for 1970s.

Gary Zimmerman, Tackle, Minnesota Vikings, Denver Broncos, 1986-1997. Seven Pro Bowls, Named to NFL All-Decade team for 1980s and 1990s.

One Man's Opinion:

Under the NFL Guidelines, you can select no more than six players to go into the Hall of Fame. So, that's what I'll do. Irvin should have been elected last year, and Matthews looks like a near-lock to get in sometime, if not this year. There are four pass rushers on the ballot, and in my opinion, Derrick Thomas was the best of the lot. Thurman Thomas is one of the best all-purpose running backs of all-time, so he should be in. Gene Hickerson played at a high level for a number of years, and blocked for Jim Brown and Leroy Kelly, two Hall of Fame running backs. He should join them. Lastly, I have a hard time choosing between Monk and Zimmerman, as both men were among the greatest to ever play their respective positions. In the end, I go with Monk simply because he's waited longer.

So here are the six men I would vote for, if I had a vote:

Gene Hickerson
Michael Irvin
Bruce Matthews
Art Monk
Derrick Thomas
Thurman Thomas

Bernard King

2007-01-28T12:50:00.000-05:00

In doing a project such as this, I must admit that I have a few beliefs and biases coming into this 'project'. For example, I truly believe that Bert Blyleven and Goose Gossage should be in the Hall of Fame already. The same applies for Bernard King. King was a superstar who played in the world's biggest market (New York), and on top of that, he made one of the most improbable comebacks in the history of professional sports. King tore out his ACL in his right knee on March 25, 1985, which caused him to almost two years. However, he came back to the point where he was elected as an All-Star game starter in 1990-91 with the Washington Bullets, finishing that season 3rd in scoring (28.4). So, why isn't Bernard King in the Hall of Fame?, and should he be in the Hall of Fame? Well, let's see for ourselves.

Pros: A dominant scorer, an inspiration due to his comeback
Con: Not much of a defender

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in basketball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in basketball?

No, King was a level below guys like Larry Bird and Magic Johnson.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Usually, he was. From 1977-78 through 90-91. King was probably the best player on his team whenever he played a full season, whether it with the Nets, Warriors, Knicks, or Bullets. With the possible exception of 1987-1988, where King was still recovering from his knee injury and was on a Bullets team with Moses Malone. King was the best player and biggest threat on his team.
3. Was he the best player in basketball at his position?

He shared a position with Larry Bird, Dominique Wilkins, and Alex English during his career, just to name a few. I have a hard time putting him ahead of those three guys, but you could make an argument he was the second-best small forward of the 1980s, behind Larry Bird.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of playoff runs?

King's "crowning moment", so to speak came during the first round of the 1984 Playoffs against the Detroit Pistons. In five games, King averaged 43 points a game. In one of the greatest games of all time, it was King and his 44 points that put the Knicks over the top in game 4, despite Isiah Thomas scoring 16 points in the last 93 seconds of regulation. King and the Knicks then took the Boston Celtics, the eventual champions, to seven games in the Eastern Conference Finals. Other than that season, King played only 16 playoff games in his career, with mixed results.

5.Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

King played a few games with New Jersey in 1992-93, averaging 7 points a game off the bench. Those were the last games he ever played, and he played on a sporadic basis, so no. If his knee wasn't hurt, maybe he would have played a few more years.

6. Is he the very best player in basketball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

According to the HOF Monitor stat on databasebasketball.com, King has the fourth-highest total (135) of anyone eligible not in the Hall of Fame. Two of three ahead of him are Paul Westphal and Spencer Haywood, and I'd take King over both of them. So King's the second-best player not in the Hall of Fame, with Artis Gilmore being first.

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

The ten-most statiscally comparable players to King, according to databasebasketball.com, are:

Mark Aguirre
World B. Free
Rick Barry
Rolando Blackmon
George Gervin
Juwan Howard
John Drew
Walter Davis
Lou Hudson
Earl Monroe

I have no earthly idea how some of these guys are comparable to King, but there you go. Anyway, three of the ten (Rick Barry, George Gervin, Earl Monroe) are in the Hall of Fame. Of those not in, Lou Hudson probably has the best case, but none of these guys are getting in anytime soon.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

King's HOF Monitor is at 135, an likely HOF should have a mark of 130. Furthermore, the only eligible player to average more points per game than King and not be in the Hall in Fame is Adrian Dantley, a player with a very similar case to King, but that's for another time.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Critics of King say that he put up his numbers in a high-scoring era, and wouldn't look as impressive if he played in an environment of lower scoring, like right now. I say that's not the case. King put up his best season in 1984-85, scoring 32.9 points a game. Unlike Kobe and guys that score in high numbers today, King was very efficient, shooting at a .530 clip from the field. The previous year, King shot 57% from the field while averaging 26.3 points a game. The great thing about King was not just that he scored, but that he didn't need a huge number of shots to put up 30 on you.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

Now that Dominique is in, then yes, King is the best small forward not in the Hall of Fame, with apologies to Adrian Dantley.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

King was named MVP by the Sporting News in 1984, when he averaged 26.3 points and pretty much dragged the Knicks into the playoffs despite having little talent around him. He finished 2nd in the voting for NBA MVP that year. He finished 7th in 1985, despite only playing 55 games (32.9, 1st in scoring). Other than those two years, King was never really close, as his teams usually weren't very good.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

King played in four All-Star games, 1982 (23.2 ppg, 5.9 rpg, All-NBA second team), 1984 (All-NBA First Team), 1985 (All-NBA First Team), and 1991 (28.4 ppg, All-NBA Third Team). King put up an All-Star type year in his rookie year in 1977-78 (24.2 ppg, 9.5 rpg) and averaged more than 20 points per game in 1979 (21.6), 1981 (21.9), 1983 (21.9), 1989 (20.7), and 1990 (22.4), but was not named an All-Star any of those seasons.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the championship?

When King was the best player on his team, the team usually didn't make the playoffs. However, if King was at his mid-80s peak, and had a strong supporting cast around him, then that team would probably contend for a championship.

14. What impact did the player have on basketball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Other than coming back from an injury which was thought of as impossible to come back from, I can't think of any.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

King had problems with substance abuse early in his career, to the point where he missed most of the 1979-80 season because of it. He also was charged his sexual assault in 1980. However, King conquered his substance abuse problems in Golden State a couple of years later. He wasn't the most media friendly player during the 1980s, and the fact that he kept, and still keeps, a low profile might have cost him some votes. I don't know for sure, I'm just speculating.

Overview:

King may of had his faults on defense, and he wasn't the most explosive athlete who ever lived. But everyone that ever played against Bernard King, everyone that ever saw Bernard King play, all say the same thing. That Bernard King was one of the most powerful offensive forces in the history of the game. He's got the numbers, he's got the reputation to back those numbers up, and everyone that ever saw him play say that he was a great player. I have no idea why Bernard King isn't in the Basketball Hall of Fame, but he should be.

Art Monk

2007-01-23T12:55:00.000-05:00

Here's something I did last year on Art Monk. Some of the statistics cited may have changed, specifically for active players (i.e. Marvin Harrison), but my opinion on the matter has not changed.

In case you haven't heard, Art Monk was not elected to the Hall of Fame yet again, despite having a lot of people both inside and outside the NFL who feel that he should be in. Although he's not in yet, Monk will probably eventually get in (after all, it took Harry Carson over 10 years, and he was a stronger canidiate than Monk). But I thought it would be interesting to look at Monk's Hall of Fame case using a device known as the Keltner List. The Keltner List was thought up by noted baseball researcher Bill James as a way to measure a player's Hall of Fame credentials. It was actually created for baseball, but the questions are general enough so that it could be used for other sports. The list is 15 questions long, and if a player scores strongly on eight of them, than they could be considered as a strong Hall of Fame candidate. Now, onto the list.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in football? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in football?

Not that I know of. It would of been hard to make such a case for Monk when there were players like Dan Marino, Lawrence Taylor, Eric Dickerson, and Joe Montana around. So no.

2. Was he the best player on his team? (amended to split into offense and defense)

From 1984-1986, either Monk or Russ Grimm were the best player on offense, depending on how much value one places on offensive lineman. You could make a case that Monk was also the offense's best player in 1988-1989, and in 1991, but, in my opinion, Gary Clark was the superior player during those years.

3. Was he the best player in football at his position? Was he the best player in the conference at his position?

Monk was the NFC's best wide receiver from 1984-1985, but Steve Largent was better in the AFC. Once Jerry Rice established himself, Monk was no better than number two in his conference. So, if you consider two years to be a significant amount of time, than the answer is yes.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of playoffs and playoff races?

Monk played in 15 playoff games during his career, and would of played in more if he wasn't hurt during the 1982 playoffs. If his team didn't make the playoffs, they would finish close twice (1985, 1989) missing the playoffs by tiebreakers despite finishing with 10-6 records, and Monk having big years those years. Monk was usually a solid performer during the playoffs, including a 7 catch, 113 yard performance in Super Bowl 26.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Monk played until he was 38. At 34, where most NFL players are over the hill, he put up excellent numbers (71, 1049, 8 ). He caught 40 or more passes each in the next three years.

6. Is he the very best football player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

He's one of the best, but of the players out of the Hall of Fame off this year's final 15, I'd say that Michael Irvin, Gary Zimmerman, and Thurman Thomas were all better than Monk.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

The closest comparison to Monk's career totals (940, 12,721, 68, 16 yrs) would be Jimmy Smith (862, 12,287, 67, 13 yrs), who's not yet eligible, but if he retired right now, he'd have a good chance of getting in. Other guys that are close to Monk include: (stats in catches, yards, touchdowns, years) Irving Fryar (851, 12,785, 84, 17 yrs) Andre Reed (951, 13,198, 87, 16 yrs) Steve Largent (819, 13,089, 100, 14 yrs) Michael Irvin (750, 11,904, 65, 12 yrs) Keenan McCardell (825, 10,680, 62, 14 yrs) Marvin Harrison (927, 12,331, 110, 11 yrs) Henry Ellard (814, 13,777, 65, 16 yrs) Of those players, Largent is in, Reed and Irvin will probably get in, and Harrison will get in once he's eligible. McCardell has solid numbers, but nobody's mentioned him as a future Hall of Famer or anything like that. Fryar and Ellard don't seem to have a good chance of getting in.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

No eligible player has more receptions than Art Monk, and no Hall of Famer has more catches than Art Monk.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Quite possibly. For one, the amount of passing teams do has gone up consistently since the 80s, and because of that, active receivers like Smith, Harrision, and McCardell put up numbers that either match of dwarf Monk and his peers' numbers. It's not whether or not they're better, it's just that, as a whole, today's receivers are thrown the ball than the were the 1980s. Also, Monk doesn't have a spectacular yards per catch average, but that be more of a result of the Redskins' usage of Monk as a possession receiver, rather than any weaknesses of Monk's. After all, the Redskins had Charlie Brown, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders as their speed receivers, so they might have needed Monk more in a short yardage role, such as the way Cris Carter was used in Minnesota once they got Randy Moss.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

I'd say Michael Irvin was better, but Monk's second.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

1984 (106, 1372, 7) was probably the only year where he'd be considered a legit MVP contender.

12. How many Pro-Bowl-type seasons did he have? How many Pro Bowls did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many Pro Bowls go into the Hall of Fame?

Monk played in three Pro Bowls (1984, 1985, 1986), He had two other seasons in which he was deserving, 1989 (86, 1,186, 8 ), and 1991. Three Pro Bowls is a little low for a Hall of Fame receiver, although that's how many Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, and Charlie Joiner played in, and they're Hall of Fame wide receivers.

13. If this man were the best player on his team's offense or defense, would it be likely that the team could go to the Super Bowl?

I believe so, but he'd need a least a solid quarterback like a Jake Delhomme to get him the ball.

14. What impact did the player have on football history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Well, for a few years he did hold the all-time receptions record and the most consecutive games with a catch record. He was also the first NFL player to catch over 100 passes in a season, so I'd say he had at least some impact on football history.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Easiest questions yet. Everyone that talked about Art Monk talks about how classy and professional he was as much as they do his on-the-field achievements.

Looking at the list as a whole, I have come to conclusion that Art Monk has a very strong case, and probably should be in the Hall of Fame already. I believe that he will eventually get in, although it still could take a couple of years, as he'll have to contend with Irvin and Andre Reed, and that might crowd things up. But yes, Art Monk should be a future Hall of Famer.

Ellis Burks

2007-01-22T13:53:00.000-05:00

Ellis Burks is not eligible yet. He probably won't be elected to the Hall of Fame. Yet he ranks 70th all time in home runs and 72nd in Slugging Percentage. That's got to count for something, right?

Pro: Good Power-Speed Combination
Con: Injuries shortened his career, played in an offensive-heavy era

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No, I can't remember anyone even suggesting that Ellis Burks was a top-10 player in baseball.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Burks spent his career playing with Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens, Frank Thomas, Larry Walker, Barry Bonds, Roberto Alomar and Jim Thome. It's pretty hard to be better than those guys.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Not for a consistent time period, no. He was the best left fielder in the National League in 1996, but couldn't keep it up.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Quite a few, as Burks played in the postseason 6 different times. In 1988, the Red Sox won the A.L. East, despite less than stellar hitting from Burks (.265/.356/.402 in September, .235/.235/.294 in the ALCS). In 1990, the Red Sox won the A.L. East by two games, though Burks was just average down the stretch (.252/.292/.415), and in the ALCS (.267/.312/.400). In Burks favor, there was no way the Red Sox where going to beat the A's in the '88, and '90 ALCS.

In 1993, Burks' White Sox won the A.L. West by eight games, in spite of Burks' hideous .238 slugging percentage during the month of September. He did make a good account for himself in the ALCS (.304/.407/.478), though the White Sox fell to Toronto. In 1995, the Rockies made the playoffs as a Wild Card, and Burks did an okay job down the stretch to get them there (.279/.351/.426 in Sept.). He only had 6 at bats in three games in the NLDS. During the 1998 season, Burks was traded to San Francisco, where the Giants lost to Chicago in a play-in game for the wild-card spot. Perhaps if Burks had hit better than his .246/.316/.387 line, the Giants could have won the Wild Card outright. In 2000, the Giants won the division by 11 games, with Burks hitting .344 during the regular season. Burks went 3-13 with a home run during the NLDS against the Mets.

Burks moved on to Cleveland in 2001, helping the Indians hold on to the A.L. Central crown with solid hitting (.308/.453/.615) during the final months of the season. Burks went 6-19 against Seattle in the ALDS, but the Mariners won in five games. In 2004, Burks was on the Red Sox, though he had no impact whatsoever on the team that year. Overall, Burks usually performed below his normal standard during the pennant race, and was rather ordinary (.280, 3 HR, 11 RBI in 93 at-bats) during the postseason. Overall, Burks was 0-6 in the postseason, never winning a playoff series. It can be argued that had Burks performed better in the 2000 NLDS, the Giants might have won that series. The rest were really out of his control.

5.Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

Burks played until he was 39, and was a good player until he was 37, hitting 32 home runs and driving in 98 runs as the DH of the 2002 Cleveland Indians.

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Not even close.

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Duke Snider has somewhat comparable career numbers to Burks, and he's in the Hall of Fame. Nobody else with comparable stats are in, although Burks's numbers are similar to Jim Rice's, who's received a lot of support for his Hall of Fame candidacy.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

No, but he does come close in one metric, HOF standards (41.3, an average Hall of Famer has 50).

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

On one hand, Burks suffered a litany of injuries during his career. On the other hand, some of Burks' best season came at Coors Field and in an era where offense was up. So I'd say not really, although it'd be interesting to see what numbers Burks could put up if he stayed healthy.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

He's not eligible, but of those eligible in 2007, Andre Dawson, Rice, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Harold Baines, and Albert Belle were better than Burks.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

The closest he came to winning an MVP was finishing 3rd in 1996, and Burks had one hell of a year in 1996, hitting .344/.408/.639, with 40 home runs, 32 stolen bases, 142 runs, 211 hits, and winning a Gold Glove. The numbers may be a little skews by the Coors Field effect, but that's a hell of a year nonetheless. Burks got MVP votes in 1990 (.296, 21 HR, 89 RBI, Gold Glove), and in 2000 (.344, 616 SLG, 96 RBI) but finished outside the top 10 in both years.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

Burks played in two All-Star games (1990,96). You could make arguments that he had All-Star caliber years in 1988 (.294, 18 HR, 93 runs, 92 RBI, 25 SB), 2000, and in 2002 (.301, 32 HR, 91 RBI). Burks was usually too hurt to put together an All-Star caliber year.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

To be honest, probably not. For one, he couldn't stay healthy enough, and for most of his career he was protected by better hitters in the lineup. Pitchers respected Ellis Burks, but they usually feared someone else in his lineup moreso.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Not that I know of.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

As far as I know, Burks never had troubles with the law nor was he considered a clubhouse cancer.

Overview: Burks was a very good player. But the only way he makes the Hall of Fame is that it is discovered that 95% percent of baseball players were using steroids during his career, and Burks wasn't one of them, making his numbers seem impressive by not cheating during an era where everyone else was. I doubt that will ever be discovered, so Burks will get a few votes on his first ballot, probably not enough to stay on, than fade into the sunset.

Jim Rice

2007-01-11T13:38:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, Jim Rice fell short yet again for induction into the baseball Hall of Fame. He appeared on 63.5% of the ballots cast, short of the 75% needed for induction. He has two years left on the writers' ballot, and, should he fail, Rice would have to receive induction from the veterans committee. However, the next two classes of newly eligible candidates are weak, so Rice should have a good chance of picking up the needed votes. What I want to determine is simple, should Jim Rice be in the Hall of Fame.

Pro: 1978 AL MVP, One of the best power hitters of the 70s and 80s
Con: Not a very long career.

Keltner List

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

I don't see how he could be, what with Brett and Schmidt and Henderson playing, just to name a few. Rice was at a level below the elite, but still very highly regarded.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

From 1977 through 83 or 84, Rice was the best player on the Boston Red Sox.

3.Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

From 1977-80, I would say that Rice was the best left fielder in baseball. Then Rickey Henderson developed, and Dave Winfield moved to left field after signing with the Yankees, and both players were better than Jim Rice in my opinion. Let's see if the numbers prove that

Jim Rice 1981-86
BA: .299
OBP: .355
Slug: .490
Runs: 508
Hits: 1039
2B: 160
HR: 155
RBI: 620
SB: 8

Dave Winfield 1981-86
BA: .288
OBP: .350
Slug: .498
Runs: 536
Hits: 949
2B: 174
HR: 151
RBI: 608
SB: 62

Rickey Henderson 1981-86
BA: .290
OBP: .398
Slug: .448
Runs: 702
Hits: 907
2B: 153
HR: 93
RBI: 338
SB: 527

Henderson was the best defender of the three. If I had to take one, it would be Henderson. Rice and Winfield are very close. Here are their OPS+, a park adjusted stat.

Rice
1981 : 117
1982 : 131
1983: 141
1984: 112
1985: 123
1986: 137

Winfield
1981: 138
1982: 142
1983: 138
1984: 154
1985: 118
1986: 120

judging by those numbers, I'd go with Winfield, but you could just as easily take Rice as the second best left fielder of the 80s.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Rice was a big part of the 1975 Red Sox, which won the pennant. However, Rice suffered a wrist injury and was not able to play in the postseason that year. During the second half of 1975, Rice put up a .332 batting average and a .857 OPS. In 1977, the Red Sox finished 2.5 games out of first, and they wouldn't have gotten that close if it wasn't for Rice. In 1978, the Red Sox blew a huge lead, only to rally and force a one game playoff against the Yankees, which they lost. Rice had a decent September, but below the standard he set earlier in the season (.270/.324/.524)

Boston wasn't involved in another pennant race until 1986, where they won the A.L. East. In September of that year, Rice hit .319, with seven home runs, 27 RBIs, and a .936 OPS. His best month that year. In 1988, the Red Sox won the A.L. East by one game, but Rice struggled down the stretch.

In postseason play, Rice had a .225 career average, with 2 home runs, both coming in the 1986 ALCS. Rice did hit .333 in the 1986 World Series, however. Overall, Rice had an impact on five pennant races, and I'd say he had a positive impact on four of them.

5.Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

Rice's career ended at 36. Towards the end of his prime, around 1986-87, Rice was a one-dimensional player, and was finished after suffering an injury-plagued season in 1989.

6.Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

I wouldn't say so.
7.Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

The player with the most comparable numbers to Jim Rice is Orlando Cepeda, who is in the Hall of Fame. Rice also has somewhat comparable numbers to Hall of Famers Duke Snider, Billy Williams, and Willie Stargell. Let's compare Rice to another left fielder, Hall of Famer Billy Williams

Rice:
BA: .298
OBP: .352
Slug: .502
OPS+: 128
Runs: 1249
Hits: 2452
2B: 373
HR: 382
RBI: 1451
SB: 58

Williams
BA: .290
OBP: .361
Slug: .492
OPS+: 132
Runs: 1410
Hits: 2711
2B: 434
HR: 426
RBI: 1475
SB: 90

Overall, Rice isn't too far off from Williams at all.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Rice had a 33 Black Ink Total, a 176 Gray Ink Total, and a 146.5 HoF Monitor total, all of which are above Hall of Fame Standards.

9.Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Rice was a right-handed hitter in Fenway Park, which is great for right-handed hitters. To say that didn't have a positive impact on Rice's numbers would be a lie. He also hit into the 5th most career double plays, an extraordinary 311 in 16 years. However, and this is a large part of his current case, Rice played in an era where 30 home runs a season were a big deal, and his numbers today aren't very spectacular compared to the numbers put up in the 90's and beyond, which is referred to by some as the Steroid era. The fact that Rice put up the power numbers that he did in an era which is considered to be offensively-challenged by today's standards may suggest that Rice was a better hitter than the numbers show.

10.Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

Rice is the best eligible left-fielder who is not in the Hall of Fame.
11.How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

In 1978, he won the MVP (.315, 46, 139), and he finished in the top 5 in voting 5 other times: 1975, (3rd, .309, 22, 102) '77 (4th, .320, 39, 114), '79 (5th, .325, 39, 130), '83 (4th, .305, 39, 126), and '86 (3rd, .324, 20, 110). In 14 full seasons, Jim Rice had a top five finish in the MVP balloting six times. For nearly half of his career, Rice had an MVP caliber season.

12.How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

Rice went to eight All-Star games (77-80, 83-86) and had an All-Star caliber year in 1975.

13.If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

I believe so.

14.What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Not that I know of.

15.Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Rice is remembered as a guy who was a jerk to the media. Plus, he once got into a shoving fight with Red Sox manager Joe Morgan over playing time. However, I don't believe that teams (mainly the Red Sox) would be bringing Rice in as a coach if he didn't have some character. He also contributed heavily to charities throughout his playing career. Overall, I'd say Rice isn't as bad of a person as some people make him out to be.

Overview:

It seems as if the main reason Rice isn't in the Hall of Fame is because his career was too short to compile higher career totals. Yet for 12 years, Rice was consistently one of the top 5-10 hitters in baseball. No, he wasn't fast, and there are those that believe the staggering amount of double play balls Rice hit diminished his hitting contributions heavily, but the fact of the matter is that Rice was one of the most dangerous hitters of his era. It is my opinion that Rice's peak value overrides his lack of longevity and that he should be in elected to the Hall of Fame.

Ted Simmons

2007-01-04T12:03:00.000-05:00

Pros: Most hits ever by a catcher (2472), stats comparable to Bench and Carter.
Cons: Overshadowed by Bench and Carter, defensive reputation less than stellar.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No

2. Was he the best player on his team?

From 1973-1978, Simmons was the best player on the St. Louis Cardinals.

3.Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Actually, you could make the argument that from 1974-1979, Simmons was the best catcher in the National League. Compare:

Simmons
BA .298
OBP: .374
Slug: .473
Hits: 954
Runs: 427
2b: 187
HR: 112
RBI: 540

Bench
BA .269
OBP: .355
Slug: .486
Hits: 799
Runs: 445
2b: 171
HR: 153
RBI: 575

It's close, with Bench's home run edge and Simmons having a batting average over 30 points higher. I'd go with Bench due to his defensive edge, but Simmons is very close otherwise.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

In 1973, the Cardinals finished a game in a half behind the Mets, even though Simmons .391 in September. In 1982, Simmons' team, the Milwaukee Brewers finished a game ahead of the Orioles, even though Simmons wasn't that great in September (.255/.294/.436). He did hit well in July and August of that year (.314/.351/.515) In the playoffs in 1981-1982, Simmons hit .186, but he did have two home runs in the 82 World Series. So, in 21 seasons, Simmons was involved in three pennant races (73,81-82), which is pretty low for a player of his caliber.

5.Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

He remained a valuable contributor to the Brewers and Braves until 1988, although he last was a starter in 1985.

6.Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No

7.Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Nobody's stats are truly comparable to Simmons. The most comparable player, according to baseball-reference, is Alan Trammell. Also somewhat comparable are Hall of Fame catchers Gary Carter and Carlton Fisk. Let us compare

Simmons
BA .285
OBP: .348
Slug: .437
Hits: 2471
Runs: 1074
2b: 483
HR: 248
RBI: 1389

Carter
BA .262
OBP: .335
Slug: .439
Hits: 2092
Runs: 1025
2b: 371
HR: 324
RBI: 1225

Fisk
BA .269
OBP: .341
Slug: .457
Hits: 2356
Runs: 1276
2b: 421
HR: 376
RBI: 1330

In the eight categories listed here, Simmons has an edge in five of them.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Simmons rates as a Hall of Famer according to the HOF Monitor metric (124.5, a likely Hall of Famer would be at 100 or above). Simmons has better offensive numbers than at least half of the catchers enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

9.Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

His home ballparks were pretty neutral, though Milwaukee's County Stadium usually favored pitchers. There are those, including his former manager Whitey Herzog, who felt that Simmons was not a very good defensive catcher, and that led to his trade to the Brewers. The defensive stats, such as they are, show Simmons as an average defensive catcher.

10.Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

I'd say yes, though others argue that Joe Torre or Bill Freehan is the best catcher on the outside looking in.

11.How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Simmons finished in the top 10 in MVP Balloting twice, 1975 (6th, /332/18/100) and 1977 (9th, .318/21/95). Other than that, I wouldn't consider any more of his seasons to be MVP Caliber

12.How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

Simmons played in eight All-Star Games (72-74, 77-79, 81, 83). I have no idea why Simmons wasn't an All-Star in 1975, which was his best season. Simmons also had All-Star caliber seasons in 1976, 80, and 82. His eight All-Star games are lower than Bench (14), Carter (11), and Fisk (11), and are the same amount as Lance Parrish.

13.If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Maybe, if the team had strong pitching. Simmons wasn't the type of player who would carry a team to the pennant, but there are very few players capable of that. I'll say yes, but would need at least one more potent bat and some good pitching.

14.What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

In 1972, Simmons played four months without a contract. If he had finished the season without signing, Simmons could have become baseball's first free agent. As it is, Simmons had a very minor role in the demise of the Reserve Clause. Other than that, he was one of the first big names to have long hair in baseball, although I don't know how much impact that had on the game.

15.Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

I believe so.

Overview: Coming in to this, I wasn't so sure about Ted Simmons' qualifications for the Hall of Fame. I just knew he should have got more consideration than the 17 votes he received in 1994. After analyzing his career, I honestly believe that Ted Simmons should be a Hall of Famer. He compares very well to his peers, Carter and Fisk, and they both are deserving Hall of Famers. So, with all of that said, I do believe that the induction of Ted Simmons into the Hall of Fame, should it ever happen (which seems to be unlikely), would be appropriate.

Thanks to baseball-reference.com and baseballmusings.com. Another arguement for Ted Simmons can be viewed at http://baseballguru.com/jmordock/analysisjmordock01.html .

Albert Belle

2007-01-02T16:44:00.000-05:00

Pros: One of the most feared hitters of his time, very consistent.
Cons: Career shortened by hip injury, very unpopular player.

Analyzing Albert Belle

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was
active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

I don't remember anyone suggesting that Albert Belle was the best player in baseball. At his peak, Griffey, Bonds, Maddux, and probably Frank Thomas were considered to be better than Belle, and Mark McGwire was considered to be more powerful. So the answer is no.
2. Was he the best player on his team?

From 1991-1996, Belle was the best player on the Cleveland Indians, who were a very talented team.
3.Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the
league at his position?

Bonds was better at left field in the National League. I would consider Belle to be the best left fielder in the AL from 1993-1998.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races and playoff runs?

The Indians would have won the division in 1995 in 1996 without Albert Belle. In 1997, Belle's White Sox finished six games behind Cleveland, and Belle hit .247/.303/.447, in the second half, which were low numbers for him. I don't think his performance would have made too much of a difference that year, however.
In the playoffs in 1995 and 1996, Belle hit .230, but he did have a .405 on base percentage and a .557 slugging percentage, so that's kind of a mixed bag there. Overall, in Belle's 11 full seasons, he had an impact on three or four (counting the shortened '94 season, where Cleveland was 1.5 games back of Chicago at the time of the strike). So overall, Belle had an impact on a few races, but not many.

5.Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing
his prime?

Thanks to a degenative hip, Belle didn't play too much after his prime. His skills, and the players Belle best compares to (according to his baseball-reference.com page) seem to suggest that Belle could have been productive for 3-4 more years, but that's all speculation.

6.Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No, not with Blyleven, Gossage, Dawson, and Trammell still on the outside.

7.Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Most players with comparable stats to Belle are still playing. The player most comparable to Belle is Juan Gonzalez, who isn't a sure-fire lock for the Hall of Fame. Hank Greenberg, the eighth-most comparable player to Belle, is in the Hall of Fame, but nobody else among Belle's ten-most comparable players are questionable candidates, with the exception of Vladamir Guerrero.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Belle's HOF Monitor, a metric made by Bill James in order to predict a player's Hall of Fame chances, is at 134.5. A typical Hall of Famer has a total of 100. Belle's HOF Monitor is higher than both Robin Yount and Willie McCovey. Belle's career totals aren't very spectacular, due to his career ending, but his career slugging percentage (.564) is the highest of any eligible candidate not in the Hall of Fame. Overall, Belle's career numbers compare very well to a lot of players that are in the Hall of Fame.

9.Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse
than is suggested by his statistics?

Belle played in the "most-powerful" era in baseball history, so his numbers may look a lot different if he had played in conditions compared to the 70s and 80s. Plus, his bat may have been corked for some of his career, depending on who you believe.

10.Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

I would consider Jim Rice to be a slightly better left fielder than Belle, and Rice of course is not in.

11.How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not,
how many times was he close?

Belle finished in the top 10 in the A.L. MVP ballots five times (1993-96, 98) and put MVP caliber numbers in 1992 and in 1999. In 1995, Belle should have won the MVP, but the writers gave the award to Mo Vaughn because they considered Belle to be a jerk. It was a really ridiculous decision, as Belle outpaced Vaughn in every offensive category except for RBIs (which they tied) and became the first player to ever hit 50 home runs and 50 doubles in the same season, even though he played in a shortened season. Belle finished in the top three for three straight years (94-96) and could have won the MVP in each of those years without causing much controversy.

12.How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he
play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

Belle played in five All-Star games (1993-97) and had three more years (92, 98, 99) in which he put up All-Star type numbers. Five all-star games is somewhat low for Hall of Fame outfielders.

13.If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could
win the pennant?

Absolutely, after all, Cleveland won the 95 pennant with Belle as its best player.

14.What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any
rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any
way?

His 5 year-$55 million dollar contract with the White Sox was a big deal at the time and called attention to baseball's skyrocketing salaries, but Belle was more of a beneficiary of the system than anything else. He introduced new and exciting ways to piss off the media, and to get rid of trick-or-treaters, but overall, Belle didn't change the fabric of the game or anything like that.

15.Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall
of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Hell no. But there are at least 20 hall of famers that were worse people than Albert Belle.

Overview:
There are two things holding Albert Belle back. One is the fact that his career was rather short, and he was unable to reach important milestones such as 500 homeruns. The other thing is that the voters of the Hall of Fame despise Albert Belle, due to the way Albert Belle carried himself during his career. Honestly, I think that Andre Dawson is more deserving than Belle, but if I had a vote, I'd probably vote yes to Albert Belle. I think that, if you look at his numbers, you'll see that, for eight years, he was one of the most dominant hitters in the game. So, even though there is no chance of it ever happening, Albert Belle should be a Hall of Famer.

introduction

2007-01-02T13:50:00.000-05:00

Hi. This blog will be about sports hall of fame debates, such as debating whether or not a guy like Harold Baines deserves to be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame. Mainly I will be dealing with baseball, although I will delve into other sports from time to time. To do this, I will be using a tool developed by renowned baseball researcher Bill James known as the Keltner List, which you can find more information about here. I will be using this tool (or shamelessly stealing, whatever you prefer) because it is designed to be subjective. The first case to be examined will be mercucial slugger Albert Belle, whose career was short but spectacular. That will be up sometime today or tommorow.