Make Joe Posnanski A One-Man Hall Of Fame Selection Committee
The title is only half-kidding -- there are other Hall of Fame voters with strong ballots and reasoning behind their selections. Ken Davidoff is one. But Posnanski is the perfect voter. He's intellectually honest, consistent in his standards and cares more about how good a player actually was rather than how he was perceived.
Posnanski has been writing about the Hall of Fame all week and today he posted his "definite" selections. If you care about the Hall, you've probably read it already. But if not, please do. It's a satisfying combination of insightful analysis and thinly veiled ether directed at some of his bozo BBWAA colleagues.
There are too many memorable passages to recount but my favorite is this one, about top-five first baseman of all-time Jeff Bagwell:
I would say this to those people who would not vote for Jeff Bagwell because they simply believe he used steroids, based on how he looked or some whispers they heard. I have a better idea: Let’s just burn him at the stake. If he survives, you will know you were right.
It's a terrific response to sanctimonious voters like Dan Graziano of FanHouse, who wrote the following about excluding Bagwell from his ballot:
No, I didn't vote for Jeff Bagwell for the Hall of Fame. Yes, it's for the reason everybody loves to hate. I don't know for sure that Bagwell took steroids or any other performance-enhancing drugs to help him attain his Hall of Fame-caliber numbers. I don't have evidence...
The withholding of a Hall of Fame vote based on suspicion of illegal activity is not the same as writing a newspaper story accusing someone of illegal activity. I'm not accusing Jeff Bagwell of taking steroids or any other performance-enhancing drug.
Umm, yes that is an accusation, semantics aside. I'd advise anyone standing trial to ensure Graziano isn't included on the jury. Graziano and his ilk are the equivalent of Juror #3.
It's unfair to generalize the entire BBWAA as a group of holier-than-thou flat-earthers. But it's really hard not to, when the Grazianos are the norm and the Posnanskis are the exception.
And here is Posnanski's ballot of "definites" -- he has two more borderline selections which he will write about tomorrow:
Roberto Alomar
Jeff Bagwell
Bert Blyleven
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
49 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Bagwell
He certainly had hall of fame numbers. There are two things at play here that are interesting to me:
1. Poz is right that we can not convict the man of using steroids based on appearances and whispers, but I have never seen any normal human being go from this:


To this:


With just a normal gym routine. You can not fault people for drawing what appears to be an obvious conclusion.
2. Does it matter? Poz is very consistent in that he (correclty) votes for McGwire as well. We dont know who did or did not use PEDs so we should judge based on on-field stats. Bagwell makes the cut.
"There’s talent in these here waters. Alderson just has to clear up the algae around the edges." - RJ Anderson / Fangraphs
by Dandy Salderson on Dec 30, 2010 11:23 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
you need to hit the gym more
that’s not really a dramatic transformation…you’d be amazed what you can do when you’re making enough money to afford a nutritionist and top flight sports supplements.
putting on 20 to 30 pounds of muscle mass over a career isn’t particularly hard to do, most guys could put on 10 pounds in a year if they made a science out of it.
10
Actually, those are only his 8 ‘definite’ selections. He said he filled out the ballot with 10.
-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan
Joe Posnanski is just awesome, period.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 453 posts (10/03/10)
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 30, 2010 11:54 AM EST reply actions
I'm convinced that there's an alternate universe
Where people laud Jon Heyman and bash Joe Poz, and show great indignation at how “the internet lobby” can’t understand how impact! and perception during your playing years is THE criteria for the Hall. It’s too shitty a thought for it not to be true.
by pkyankeefan on Dec 30, 2010 11:57 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I'm not accusing Bagwell of taking steroids
But I’m not voting for him because he took steroids.
Wait, he’s from Fanhouse? Do they give votes to Bleacher Report writers, too?
by Jeffrey Paternostro on Dec 30, 2010 12:00 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Lol, have to recommend this
Next thing you know, Murray Chass will be voting!
by pkyankeefan on Dec 30, 2010 12:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Don't let Murray hear you say that.
I am willing to wait to build a world class franchise (h/t to millsy)
by BobbyV_Incognito on Dec 31, 2010 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
The only reasoning I can't get on board with is Trammell
I just can’t buy into the fact that he deserves to be in based on historical standards for the position. He was a really good player, but I just can’t see that he’s had the career to warrant the hall of fame.
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 30, 2010 12:17 PM EST reply actions
69.5 fWAR and 66.9 rWAR over his career
That’s quite good. Seems like a Hall-of-Famer to me.
"The Mets are gonna be amazing!" - Casey Stengel
I have a hard time buying into those stats personally
I’m not really a big believer in Totalzone data, especially prior to 1989 when much of the data required wasn’t available (Smith used historical batting trends in place of actual batted ball data to come up his figures for much of this period). I look at his .343 career wOBA and come away thinking he was a good but not great offensive player. I really don’t put much stock into older defensive numbers, so I’d be tempted to wait and see if the next several years give us a system to better evaluate defense prior to 1989. If they do, great…I could always be convinced to vote him in later. As of now though, I just don’t see his case being strong enough to warrant consideration based on a case built around historical Totalzone data.
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 30, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
Is it built around Totalzone data though?
By all accounts, he was a good defender at a tough position. Not all-time great, but he won 4 Gold Gloves. His dWAR is 7.5, so it’s above average but not so outrageous that it raise eyebrows.
His oWAR is 59.4, good for 90th of all-time. That’s ahead of Ryne Sandberg, Pee Wee Reese, Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Dwight Evans, Vlad Guerrero.
by James Kannengieser on Dec 30, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
And way ahead of Ozzie Smith, obviously
He’s at 43.0 oWAR.
by James Kannengieser on Dec 30, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
Honestly though, I don't know if any of those guys would make the cut if I was voting either
It’s also worth noting that historical oWAR gives SS’s an enormous positional adjustment throughout his time period. He really wasn’t that great an offensive player, he was just very good at a generally terrible position during a barren time period for shortstops. I credit that more to the game having too many “old school” mangers during his era that started guys at SS who would struggle to make a modern roster. I just don’t see Alan Trammell as one of the all time greats in the game of baseball, just one of the best at his position in a period of time where the position wasn’t very good.
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 30, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
What use are statistics without a benchmark for comparison?
Those positional adjustments aren’t arbitrary, there’s a basis for them. It’s not like Sean Smith decided he would pump up shortstops of the 80s a few runs because he felt like it. Being good during a barren time period for a position is reason to think more highly of a player, and the positional adjustment reflects that. If there’s less gold, that doesn’t make it less valuable, to quote Sandy Alderson.
And after looking at it, the adjustment wasn’t really that “enormous” at all. Trammell had 9375 PAs in his career and the adjustment was +118. That’s +7.55 per 600 PAs. For comparison, Derek Jeter has 10548 PAs in his career and his adjustment was +114. That’s +6.49 per 600 PAs. A run per season difference.
Just seems unfair to dock a guy because of what old school managers may or may not have done during his era. He’s not as much of a slam dunk as some of the other guys on the ballot though, I’ll say that.
by James Kannengieser on Dec 30, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know that WAR is my favorite stat to look at it with the hall though.
I kind of look at the hall in the way the NFL hall is structured positionally. There are less kickers and guards that are hall of fame level players than there are quarterbacks and running backs, just because the qb’s and such tend to have more impact. Trammell was a great SS, and using a stat that levels the position out with others will make him look better than he actually was in comparison to all players. Really, without being a truly elite defender, was a .343 wOBA enough to be considered as one of the top 1% of all players? He looks great compared to other SS’s, but without the positional adjustment WAR gives him, he’s no where near HOF caliber raw numbers.
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 30, 2010 9:40 PM EST up reply actions
Even ignoring WAR.
I think everyone judges a player based on his position. Otherwise we’d have next to no Catchers of Shortstops in there.
I’m not even 100% on Trammell, but the only valid way to evaluate a player is looking at his peers at that position. If one guy is a league average hitter at C for a decade while everyone else was crap than he was an exceptional player.
You're not making any sense
By this reasoning we’d have only 1B and RF in the Hall.
by James Kannengieser on Dec 31, 2010 3:06 AM EST up reply actions
There would likely be more 1B, SP, and outfielders than Catchers and SS's, but I can't say that would be a poor representation of the best baseball players ever
One of the real values of WAR is it let’s us take any player on the team and see how much value we get from playing him as compared to replacement level at his position. A guy with slightly above average defense and a .343 wOBA might be one of the best players of all time at his position, but that doesn’t make him one of the best 1% of all time.
Just for the sake of argument, lets compare his career with Keith. Keith was considered one of the best ever at his position defensively (as opposed to Trammell who was somewhere above average to good), and his .365 career wOBA was considerably better than Trammell. IMO, Keith was the better overall baseball player of the two, but played a position where value stats compare him to a better group of players making his case look weaker using WAR. There are certainly going to be SS’s who’s play rates them in the top 1% of all players, but to use WAR you are only getting a picture of how they rate versus the other players of their ERA at the same position. That’s certainly a piece of data that should be considered, but I really don’t think it’s the type of stat you build a hall of fame case on by itself.
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 31, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
The difference is a SS field like 4x as many balls as a first basemen.
A great defensive 1B can only save so many runs even if he’s awesome. An above average SS in any era has saved more runs than Keith ever has. And if that SS saved more than enough runs with his glove vs a 1B to make up for their offensive difference than the SS is more valuable.
If you're into WAR at all. . .
Out of the 16 seasons that all four of those players were eligible, Trammell has the best “nth Best Season” WAR 5 times and if their six best seasons are looked at, Trammell had the best peak. Also note: Ozzie’s in the Hall, Jeter’s a shoe-in, and Larkin is probably as well. Trammell is neck-and-neck with those guys.
His only selection I have a problem with is McGuire
and yes, it’s because he cheated. Honestly, I don’t see how a cheater can be eligible (precedent set back in 1920) while Pete Rose is not.
How confident are you
That none of the current HOFers used PEDs?
"There’s talent in these here waters. Alderson just has to clear up the algae around the edges." - RJ Anderson / Fangraphs
by Dandy Salderson on Dec 30, 2010 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
If it was discovered —
not just alleged — that they had, I’d have no problems kicking their sorry asses out the door.
To answer your question, about 80%.
For what it's worth
I think Pete Rose should be in too.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
The only non starter there is McGwire for me.
We know he cheated his whole career. And I think the roids are the only difference between him and Dave Kingman.
It’s kind of a funny after a bunch of years of only 2 guys getting in the HoF, we’re going to be getting a ton deserving players on the ballot in the next couple year.
Really?
I could’ve sworn McGwire said he started using drugs in 1994 after he had been dealing with injuries. And McGwire was a far superior hitter than Dave Kingman ever was. I personally don’t penalize anyone who used drugs in MLB before rules were put into effect.
What's that about?
That's what he says.
But he grew a lot larger earlier than that. Take a look at pictures of him from 86 to 88 and we’re not looking at a guy who filled out as he grew into manhood.
As much of a scumbag Canseco is, he doesn’t seem to be much of a liar on usage.
That's how I look at it
Technically, those MLB rules didn’t apply back then, so technically, he wasn’t violating the rules.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 453 posts (10/03/10)
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 30, 2010 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
Kingman and McGwire are similar, yes.
But this is what you see when you get to the bottom line:
McGwire: .263/.394/.588 162! OPS+
Kingman: .236/.302/.478 115 OPS+
What happened during the offseason between 1986 and 1987 in Oakland that allowed McGwire, in his rookie season, to have a better season in terms of BA, OBP, SLG, HRs, walks, and just about everything than Kingman ever had?
I understand the opinion of people in your camp, the only problem is the we don’t know who cheated. We don’t even know when it started. Bodybuilders started using anabolic steroids in the 60s, so is our rough estimate of the steroid era in baseball 1970-2000? 1980? 1990? Do we know? Will we ever know? How many pitchers used steroids, something that people rarely consider? What happens if pitcher A faced more beefed-up players than pitcher B? Is that fair?
All I know is that a “lot” of players used steroids in the 90s. That’s what I’m told. We don’t know exactly who, what, or how much. All I do know is that McGwire comes out as the second best offensive player of that generation, and somewhere within the top 25 of all time. To keep him from being recognized as such because we “know” he (and a lot of his peers) did something to make themselves better that broke no rules doesn’t make sense.
To go back to your original point that steroids are the only difference between McGwire and Kingman, are they really? If steroids make the difference in 30+ points of BA, over 90 points of OBP, and over 100 of slugging percentage, wouldn’t we have a lot more players with the insane stats of McGwire? I think they made him better, but not any more than they helped everyone else. Like I said, he still comes out as the 2nd best offensive player of that generation.
Kicking knowledge in the face.
by BlackOps on Dec 31, 2010 1:15 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Nice
90 obp points is the difference between Tony Gwynn ans Rey Ordonez. You cant compare McGwire to Kingman at all.
"There’s talent in these here waters. Alderson just has to clear up the algae around the edges." - RJ Anderson / Fangraphs
by Dandy Salderson on Dec 31, 2010 1:19 AM EST up reply actions
Because you mentioned him, I looked up Ray's stats on Fangraphs
His TZ for 1999 was an astounding +33. I was looking up a bunch of other defensive-oriented shortstops to see if anyone topped that, but couldn’t find anyone. The closest was Ozzie Smith, who had a +32 in 1989.
Jeeze…
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 453 posts (10/03/10)
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 31, 2010 1:26 AM EST up reply actions
It's not the perfect comp, McGwire is better with or without the roids.
But taking roids makes you stronger which leads to more homers (SLG). More homers are BABIP independent which drive your BA. And hitting more homers gets you more walks from scared pitchers which drives ones walks.
The argument is how much so. And since McGwire most likely took steroids for his whole career we can’t even just give him the Clemens/Bonds argument that they were HOFers before they apparently started to do them.
It’s all very subjective, the key problem is that he got caught and was most likely doing his whole career. I have no problem putting in most likely juicers who didn’t get caught. And honestly I wouldn’t care if McGwire eventually gets in.
McGwire was never "caught"
He never tested positive when punishments were in place. Stop being spoon-fed by the mainstream media.
by James Kannengieser on Dec 31, 2010 3:07 AM EST up reply actions
Eh, semantics, he admitted it.
Directly so after indirectly doing so years earlier in front of Congress. The latter of which was a total joke to have even taken place.
Great article. Probably one of the best.
Two problems though:
McGwire and Bagwell. I would give a definite no to McGwire. And Bagwell, well you don’t really know. I kind of want to believe he didn’t, but you just don’t know. I mean if Pos is voting for McGwire, I’d be surprised if he didn’t vote for Bagwell. Then again, you don’t want to condemn a man for a rumor.
Basically, I’m conflicted.
John Franco better be in that last two…
And Bagwell, well you don’t really know. I kind of want to believe he didn’t, but you just don’t know.
That’s the point, you don’t know.
Just like you don’t know about David Wright, Ryan Howard, Jose Bautista, Miguel Cabrera, etc.
…ok, there’s testing now, but there are loopholes and cheating on the tests themselves.
Even more important, from the Pos Piece itself:
Jeff Bagwell — though he never tested positive for steroids, never was implicated in any public way, was not named in the Mitchell Report or by anyone on the record as a suspected user, and is not even on this rather comprehensive list of players linked to steroids or HGH — seems to have become in some voters’ minds a player who used performance-enhancing drugs.
"..."
by Thaddeus Ballpheasant on Dec 30, 2010 8:37 PM EST up reply actions
We are a country where you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
I’m not stupid, there’s a good chance that guys like Bagwell, Piazza, etc were probably juicing. I have no proof of it, so in my eyes they’re HOFers.
Second this, and…
I looked McGwire and Kingman up at Baseball-Reference.com, and they’re really very similar. Kingman is even listed as one of the most similar players to McGwire, though not vice versa.
The differences seem to be McGwire being four or five runs a year better in the field (though they’re both below average), thirty points or so better BA (could be a difference in era + c. 200 fly balls turned to homers?) and an enormous difference in OBP. The latter is harder to discount, though around thirty points of it is due to the BA difference + more intentional walks, which I call an era difference. I don’t think there’s any getting around McGwire having a MUCH better eye.
By the way
I do realize that holding this position could result in the unintended consequence of supporting a liar’s HOF candidacy and not that of an ‘honest’ cheater’. sigh Still a few bugs in the system.
Your concious should be clean as McGwire was forced into it after being outed.
Same as Giambi.
Bagwell, Piazza or whoever else have never faced a credible accuser. That sounds wrong reading it, but you get what i mean. I’m not saying they did. They have my unofficial HOF vote lol.
It would be interesting if someone just came out of nowhere and admitted it on their own just to see how people take it.
If There Was A Formula....
…. that definitively decided who should be and who shouldn’t be in the Baseball Hall of Fame, there wouldn’t be much to talk about, and then where would we all be? All of discussion and arguing that’s happening in the blogs, the press, and everywhere else people are talking about it, is what makes it all so interesting.
Keep the debates alive— keep the criteria vague!!
"We praise or blame as one or the other affords more opportunity for exhibiting our power of judgment." Friedrich Nietzsche, "Human,All Too Human" (1878)

by 




























