Was McGwire GOOD Enough?

by froggiethegremlin on Nov 30, 2006 6:14 PM PST

Forget about holding steroid or supplement use against him.

You say performance enhancers are an unfair advantage, that that they un-level the playing field?

There has never been a "level playing field." Sandy Koufax, Whitey Ford, and Gaylord Perry made sure of that. Koufax use illegal pain-killers, Ford and Perry brazenly doctored the ball. Aaron and Schmidt needed a boost to get through doubleheaders, and Mantle got help from his friends, like racketeer Denny McClain.

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker bet on games. Do you think they were the only ones?

Tommy John, on the current list of nominees, got a new arm, and a new career, as have hundreds of surgery-enhanced pitchers since baseball's first bionic experiment. And today's stars, Bonds, Clemens, Giambi, Sheffield, and on and on, haven't they have been just following in the tradition of those illustrious enhancers before them?

The real question is: Was Big Mac, a one-dimensional Sunday slo-pitch softball hitter, with that really ugly bottom hand swing, good enough to be voted into the Hall of Fame, regardless of what he had on his cereal?

Resoundingly, NO!

He couldn't run, catch, or throw while while he was getting all those home runs. And that sullen face at the Congressional hearings wasn't the first time we saw a joyless expression on this super-wealthy ballplayer who wasn't having fun doing what most of us would have gladly done for free.

Where's my ballot? I want to write in Dave Kingman.

Here's the real meat of it to me: I suggest that there are four semi-scientific and highly arguable criteria--which constitute, in essence, a rubric for evaluating a player's suitability--for selection to the Hall of Fame:

Did the player reveal an exuberance and "respect for the game" in their exploits on the field?
Was the player "worth the price of admission"?
Has the nominee been associated with winning teams and clutchiness/situational ability?
Did the nominee display command of at least three, and preferably four, of the classic five tools (for HITTERS: hitting for average, hitting for power, speed, throwing, and catching the ball . . . for PITCHERS: competitiveness,velocity, intelligence, control, stuff)

I believe these four criteria really simplify and focus the selection process.

They also explain why players like Willie Mays, Reggie Jackson, George Brett, and Tom Seaver seemed like such obvious first ballot choices. And why Jose Reyes, Ichiro, and Milton Bradley might be some day.

The above criteria really simplify the decision on McGwire. What do you think?

Imagine if these criteria were now the standards and former Hall inductees were re-evaluated. We can get rid of Jim Bunning, and install Luis Tiant to his rightful place in the Hall as one of the clutchiest, most exciting pitchers in the second half of the twentieth century.

The new standards would happily provide a rationale for evicting Gary Carter, Ryne Sandberg and Bill Mazeroski, for example, three recent inductees, and among the most atrocious choices ever made.

By the above criteria, Steve Garvey--possibly the most deserving position player, along with Tony Oliva, who has not been selected--is a first ballot. Jim Rice gets in. Rich Gossage, yeah.

Bert Bleyleven was kind of pedestrian, but he did throw 60 shutouts, and he was really effective for a hell of a long time. In.

Would you really call Jack Morris a great pitcher, a player "worth the price of admission"? That 3.9 ERA is hard to swallow. And would you have passed up the premier of Jaws if he was pitching on the Game of the Week? No way he gets in in front of Tiant.

Ah, Hall of Fame selections, the filet mignon of Hot Stove League arguments!

Tweet Comment 99 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If Big Mac doesn't go, then Sammy doesn't go.

Was Sammy good enough?

Let's GO OAKLAND!!!

by OaktownRajah on Nov 30, 2006 6:34 PM PST reply actions

No.

No, he was not.

"That's one osteoporitic offense." - Jeepers, on the SF Giants

by Ozzz on Dec 1, 2006 10:43 AM PST up reply actions

Yes, his numbers are good enough.

"He couldn't run, catch, or throw while while he was getting all those home runs."

Run - No he could not, but frankly, that doesn't bother me at all. Neither could Ted Williams or a lot of other guys who are very good at baseball.

Catch - Over his career at first base, BP has him as costing the team 21 runs compared to an average MLB 1B. That's not exactly killer, especially considering he was -31 in his last four years, meaning he was slightly above average for most of his career.

Throw - He was a first baseman, big freakin' deal.

The point is, the guy could mash. And he wasn't a big defensive liability. A career .983 OPS(with a near .400 OBP). A career WARP3(which takes defense and SB among other things into account) of 109.5. That's pretty freakin good for such a short, injury-filled career.

Oh, and he also has the best AB/HR ratio of all-time. By quite a bit. Top 4 all-time:
Big Mac - 10.61
Babe - 11.76
Bonds - 12.95
Thome - 13.58

by SuperBean on Nov 30, 2006 7:36 PM PST reply actions

Thanks for the meaty reply . . .

That's a very thorough statistical break-down.

But what about observing, without Bill James looking over your shoulder, a player and knowing who is good and who is not so good (although of course, the not-so-good guys would, when compared with the rest of us, be just dazzling, completely unbelievable, in their routine skills if you were out on the field with them). Do we really need all these stats to tell us who can run, hit, and throw? I don't think so. I will trust my eye. Bill James liteally claimed that Craig Biggio was the best player in baseball three or four years ago. Look it up in his Historical Baseball Abstract, which I'm guessing is about two feet away from you right now. I could not believe all the ANers who were dismissing the Gary Mathews, Jr. acquisition by the Angels as some kind of huge mistake and asset to the A's because of some god-know-what stats that people were throwing around. Gary Mathews, a dynamic leadoff heater that just melts Jason Kendall, is one of the two or three best looking CFers in the game right now, and it's just two bad the A's didn't really go after him, becaue the whole 2007 AL West, already pretty much conceded to the much superior Angels, was probably once-and-for-all decided by that deal. I don't know about this MBA (Master of Baseball Analysis) approach to the game. I am amazed how many people on AN would rather talk about what so-and-so is worth over six years, and make their case with a lot of very untested data. Some kinds of players, once called gamers, just seem to be in the middle of important stuff all the time in big games, like a Scutaro for instance, while some guys never are and fatten up their stats on meaningless situations. I guess the stats said Jason Kendall was worth $13M. Or that Jermaine Dye wasn't worth $5M or so, which is what he made with the Chisox each of the last two years. What kind of stats are they? Do they tell us a lot. McGwire just wasn't a very good player--by my standards--for most of his career, although he was a pretty decent one in his early, non-adulterated/relatively injury free years(?) with the A's

by froggiethegremlin on Nov 30, 2006 8:20 PM PST up reply actions

He was far better in his Cardinal years

His Cardinal years resembled Alex Rodriguez with more power.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Nov 30, 2006 9:22 PM PST up reply actions

What were

your eyes telling you when he hit a home run every 11th AB? Were they transfixed by his allegedly ugly swing and failed to follow the ball over the fence?

by mikeA on Nov 30, 2006 9:25 PM PST up reply actions

OK, we'll use stats if you insist . . .

What about .217 and 14 RBIs in 129 post-season at-bats. More impressive, possibly, is a .188 BA with 2 RBI in 48 World Series at-bats. But he probably had a dynamite season series against the Phillies in '98.

You are supposed to be a great player to get into the Hall. Derek Jeter, for instance, is a great player. Reggie Jackson was a great player (see my standards). Mark McGwire was a big leaguer, actually a pretty good one.

by froggiethegremlin on Nov 30, 2006 10:09 PM PST up reply actions

My Historical Abstract is only a foot away ...

[it's not my fault my desk is next to my bookshelf ...]

and what it says is, "Biggio has the best 'little stats' of any player in baseball history, this being one of the reasons he has been tremendously underrated."

You clearly do need stats to tell you who can throw. McGwire had an excellent arm. He was a pitcher in high school and college.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Nov 30, 2006 10:19 PM PST up reply actions

Biggio

My Historical Abstract is in the garbage, so I will have to trust you . . . I really thought James did actually say, in addition to the little stats thing, that he was currently the best player. I could be wrong, as I am about many things, so whay change now?

by froggiethegremlin on Nov 30, 2006 10:29 PM PST up reply actions

self-efacing humility

or outright arrongance ... you're an odd chap, batman ...

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Nov 30, 2006 11:58 PM PST up reply actions

Hooray for oddity! And controversy!And New Jersey!

Not being sarcastic, Devo, about often being wrong. Who isn't? Unfortunately, it's not a common admission around AN or this culture in general. Anyway, sportswriting is just a close cousin of bar talk. Anything goes, the truth, exaggeration, passion, humor, I guess even sarcasm, as long as it's in a friendly spirit and we realize that things like the Hall of Fame selection and how good Big Mac was aren't the end all-be all, or something like that. I'm just killing time for another ten years to see if Milton Bradley makes it to the other side, then we'll really have something to talk about, huh?

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 12:11 AM PST up reply actions

Was Pete Rose GOOD Enough?

Was Shoeless Joe Jackson GOOD Enough?

If players who disgraced the game are now going to get the green light for the Hall of Fame, Jackson and Rose should get in first; they've been waiting a helluva lot longer than McGwiroid.

MJB

by MJB on Nov 30, 2006 9:43 PM PST reply actions

Actually

Jackson stopped waiting quite a few years ago.

by mikeA on Nov 30, 2006 9:46 PM PST up reply actions

Not if you like Field of Dreams.

"That's one osteoporitic offense." - Jeepers, on the SF Giants

by Ozzz on Dec 1, 2006 10:45 AM PST up reply actions

OT...

I have a question regarding some comments I read in the other McGwire thread about Cal Ripkin. Did Canseco really say that Ripkin was a user? Because I thought that he had a squeaky clean rep.If he did say it... what details did he give?

by IM4Oakgal on Nov 30, 2006 10:03 PM PST reply actions

wow

This post is the worst I have read on the main page in a while. <shakes head>

Anybody who thinks that McGwire was nothing more than Dave Kingman really needs to have a reality check.

If you feel that "McGwire just wasn't a very good player--by my standards--for most of his career..." your standards need a definite reevaluation. By your standards, based upon what little I can understand of them from your ramblings, you think F. Thomas, D. Ortiz, M. Ramirez, T. Hafner, and <fill in with any other slugger that isn't fast with a overhyped defensive reputation from one catch> aren't "very good players". Yet you think that Gary Mathew's Jr is?

I can only hope that this entire post of yours was fueled by the mixing absolutely INSANE amounts of cheap vodka and tequila. Otherwise I don't know what to think.

ps - To say that McGwire was pretty decent in his early years is also ignorant of the stats, which you so easily dismiss. I guess we should just install a new stat called SSTGOTIT (some shit this guy on the internet thinks). BEST STAT EVAR!!!1

by chri5 on Nov 30, 2006 11:01 PM PST reply actions

Let me ramble a little more . . .

The plyers you mention - Hurt, Ortiz, Ramirez, and Hafner - in fact are all game-breaking, clutch hitters. McGwire was not. That's why I referred to his horrid World Series and post season stats, as little as I like to give in to numbers. This is fun, because a lot of the opposition is driven by an addiction to stats and an ignorance, sorry, about who is good. I'm sorry, but you probably thought Bobby Crosby was going to win the MVP last season didn't you. Or that Jay Payton is a "really good outfielder." The standards that I proposed are not intended to be The Four Commandments or anything, just an effort to call attention to traits that the really great players seem to share. They're not absolute, and specifically I suggest that a inductee should have at least three, preferably four, of the classic five tools. Is that unreasonable for a Hall of Famer. We're not talking about some dumb thing now like the National Honor Society, we're talking about grace and beauty. How many tools did Mac have, you tell me?

by froggiethegremlin on Nov 30, 2006 11:19 PM PST up reply actions

Babe Ruth only had three of 5 tools ...

Ted Williams and Ozzie Smith (.262 career hitter, career slg lower than his obp) only had two ... Reggie Jackson had one just to name a few off the top of my head.

It's not about what boxes you fit into or how many highlight reels you make. It's about how good you are. McGwire was a hell of a player. He also had two and a half of the traditional skills (power, throwing arm, above average for his position with the leather).

There are no stats that say JayPay was a "really good outfielder" unless you're only talking about D.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 12:09 AM PST up reply actions

Ruth had four

Unbelievably, he had 123 career stolen bases, so that gives him the power, the average, the arm, and the speed.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 1, 2006 8:45 AM PST up reply actions

Then there was Ruth the Cy Young Winner . . .

They didn't have a Cy Young award yet, but I think Ruth beat Cy Young with a two-hitter in 12 innings in 1917 . . . just kidding. But, Gees, Ruth was possibly the top lefty in baseball before he came to the Yankees. I think we can make room for him, while steill conforming to the spirit of those standards those damn standards I proposed (actually, this is a lot of fun. I am going to have to send up these balloons for target practice more often. . .)

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 9:22 AM PST up reply actions

Plus

You have to consider that Ruth stole 123 bases while being a drunk fat man. If fitness had been invented during his time, he would have been pretty speedy. I have read that he was thought of as fleet of foot by his contemporaries.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 1, 2006 9:24 AM PST up reply actions

So there's still hope for Jeremy Giambi yet!

"That's one osteoporitic offense." - Jeepers, on the SF Giants

by Ozzz on Dec 1, 2006 10:47 AM PST up reply actions

Babe was not

a drunk fat man during his whole career, just the last part of it. He was the best left handed pitcher in baseball right up until he started playing outfield so he could be the best hitter in baseball. No one else has ever even come close to doing that.

by Humboldt As Fan on Dec 1, 2006 1:02 PM PST up reply actions

Except Elvis

Egg Nog

by Ice Cream on Dec 1, 2006 2:20 PM PST up reply actions

That averages to about 10 a year

in other words, approximately Jason Kendall. Now, Kendall runs well for a catcher, but that's not what is meant by one of the "tools." Ty Cobb had speed as a tool. I, frankly, would never say that Ruth or Kendall could count speed as one of their tools. Sorry, that's just not enough.

by IndianaAsfan on Dec 2, 2006 9:01 AM PST up reply actions

Devo, you're right, up to a point

I completely agree with the spirit of what you said about boxes nad highlight reels. Those standars are not sacred, or even accepted by anyone but me! But Reggie is such an obvious Hall of Famer, possibly one of the five greatest players of all time - here comes another column!- that I will have to contrive specially tailored standards for him, such as "Is the nominee the single player in the history of baseball who every manager, peanut vendor, and fan would choose to be batting for the home team in the bottom of the ninth in a game situation?" Actually, that sound like my "clutchiness" standard. By the way, can a sabermetrics expert tell me if there is any attention or effort made to relate to clutch in their data and stats? a serious question that I havee always wondered about. I don't think Moneyball had anything to say about that, did it? Back to Reggie. He was kind of weak on the basic five tools, but he was so strong over all - think in terms of a point total (there's those stats again), where a nominee gets points under each standard. Reggie would lead the league, or be tied in at least two, possibly three of the standards: "associated with winning/clutch,"worth the price of admission" and maybe "exuberance," although I think Willie probably tops him--and maybe some of those Gas House Gang types that I never saw . . .

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 9:34 AM PST up reply actions

Studies of 'Clutchiness'

have shown that it is very rarely repeatable. The best clutch hitters tend to be the best hitters overall and the players who do rise above their normal performance levels tend not to repeat it in future years.

In short, while true 'clutchiness' may exist -- it is probably very rare.

I do have a theory, though. The best 'clutch' hitters are really just really good fastball hitters. Clutch situations tend to come against late inning relievers, who tend to be high end fastball guys who come right after the hitter. If a player were particularly well suited for such matchups, his clutch performance would rise, not out of clutchiness but out of favorable matchups.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 9:55 AM PST up reply actions

Variation

Clutch hitters are guys who aren't "mistake" hitters. They can hit the pitcher's best offering, and don't have to relying on smacking a hanger or a poorly located fastball.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 1, 2006 10:01 AM PST up reply actions

Devo and Jeepers, very interesting theory . . .

I think you might have something there. I don't want to get carried away, but have either of you noticed what a dead fastball hitter Marco Scutaro is? Your theory really may explain his success in the clutch. And he does have trouble with waste pitches and pitch selection, which also goes along with what you are saying . . . I do think there is such a thing as a clutch hitter, witness the repeated (and dreadful) heroics of David Ortiz for instance . . .

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 10:10 AM PST up reply actions

Or the baffling post-season success

of Scott Spiezio.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 1, 2006 10:12 AM PST up reply actions

BPSSSS, for short

People wanted Washington because he would do a better job of establishing the run. -- andeux @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 1, 2006 10:37 AM PST up reply actions

Re: this diary

Just to reiterate the tools a player should have, and I quote,

HITTERS: hitting for average, hitting for power, speed, throwing, and catching the ball . . . for PITCHERS: competitiveness,velocity, intelligence, control, stuff

How can you be taken seriously after that? pitchers should have stuff - what in god's name is stuff? also, average is quite likely the most overrated state, OK, maybe less than RBIs.

This has to be some kind of joke right? Did I fall for it? I hope I did.

"Swinging and missing to me is like 'Jesus, what happened?'" Hatty

by Razr on Nov 30, 2006 11:27 PM PST reply actions

Websters' on "stuff"

According to Webster, STUFF is "the ability to make a baseball do things with the horsehide that confuse and confound the hitter, thus tying him/her in knots and sending them back to the dugout kicking dirt."

If you don't know what stuff is, silly, then maybe you ought to stick to the rotisserie leagues, or the NFL . . .

by froggiethegremlin on Nov 30, 2006 11:34 PM PST up reply actions

Actually

I've not heard the five tools for pitching before. I rather like it.

"San Jose A's of Fremont" is embarassing

by ArakSOT on Dec 1, 2006 9:57 AM PST up reply actions

The five tools of pitching are...

Roger Clemens...what a tool!
Curt Schilling...what a tool!
Kenny Rogers...what a tool!
AJ Jerkzinski...ok, technically, he's a catcher, but what a tool!

Ok, that's all I've got.

"...sometimes I can't tell the difference between baseball and magic."- salb918 "Ellie plowed into him like an evil, pink unicorn."-ArakSOT

by McFood on Dec 1, 2006 10:20 AM PST up reply actions

Todd Jones?

"San Jose A's of Fremont" is embarassing

by ArakSOT on Dec 1, 2006 10:23 AM PST up reply actions

John Rocker!

Is he still pitching somewhere?

"That's one osteoporitic offense." - Jeepers, on the SF Giants

by Ozzz on Dec 1, 2006 10:48 AM PST up reply actions

Question

On what planet are Sandberg and Carter not Hall of Famers? Both men are top five all-time at their position.

And Steve Garvey is a Hall of Famer? Oh god, I nearly pissed myself laughing at this one.

I am a bitter Red Sox fan.

by FlynnSox on Dec 1, 2006 12:18 AM PST reply actions

Sandberg, Carter, and Garvey

OK, Sandberg is the easiest one to dispose of first. I think he must of sent a lot of Xmas cards to the writers every year or something. How he won nine gold gloves, without moving, is to me one of the great mysteries of life. Did you catch the look on Andre Dawson when Sandberg was giving his induction speech, it was like, "Hey, give me that speech, that's mine!"

A lot of people think Gary Carter was Hall of Fame catcher. I think he got in because once you induct Carlton Fisk, for his longevity, then every one above Jim Sunberg is a shoe-in.

Simply put, Garvey was a great player, or a near-great player, certainly a better player than McGwire, a model Hall of Famer who did almost everything exceptionally well, very clutch, and caused any team he was on to be a lot better, i.e. the World Series Dodgers
of '76,'77, and '81, and the Padres team that he almost carried to a world title.

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 12:38 AM PST reply actions

I know I probably shouldn't bring up numbers...

But in 1984, when Garvey "almost carried" the Padres to the world championship, he had probably the worst year of his career since his rookie year, hitting .284/.307/.373. That's last year Kendall bad. From first base!

I'll give you he did hit .400/.429/.600 in the NLCS to help them get to the series. But, once he got them there he must have decided he had enough being clutch, falling back down to .200/.200/.300.

by SuperBean on Dec 1, 2006 12:50 AM PST up reply actions

You have zero idea what you're talking about

Virtually none.

Carter was a well above average hitter for a catcher for 10 years, and occasionally approached being the best hitter in the league from the catcher's position. He won three gold gloves for defensive excellence (and more or less deserved them). He drove in 100 runs four times (leading the league in 1984). He hit thirty home runs twice, both in poor hitter's parks. His career wasn't short by a catcher's standards and he was the best player on a pennant contending team.

Comparing him to Jim Sundberg is insulting. Sundberg was a singles hitter who didn't walk much. Huge difference.

As for Sandberg, 1984 was one of the best seasons a second baseman has ever had, as Sandberg did everything well, hitting .314 with 19 home runs and 19 triples, 200 hits, 36 doubles, 32 stolen bases and the gold glove award for defensive excellence (again, he deserved it). Sandberg then repeated this level of play for several seasons, hitting 30 then 40 home runs, hitting .300 three times, stealing bases at a consistently good rate, hitting over 30 doubles four times, and playing good defense.

He is a better player than Andre Dawson, easily.

I am a bitter Red Sox fan.

by FlynnSox on Dec 1, 2006 10:29 AM PST up reply actions

Jerry Remy was better than Sandberg

Do you have a sense of humor? I know you are from Boston, but this isn't all that serious.

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 10:32 AM PST up reply actions

Sandberg

On the other hand, I want to get serious. You actually said that Sandberg was a better player than Andre Dawson? You can take all the innumerable outlandish statements I have made in a long life of watching baseball and none of them even appoaches that one. I was wrong, you do have a sense of humor!

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 10:35 AM PST up reply actions

And those damn numbers

given their relative positions, say that Sandberg was a slightly better player than Dawson:
Sandberg/Dawson
WARP3
112.9 / 109.5
EQA
.283 / .285

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 10:46 AM PST up reply actions

Here's them numbers again ...

Mark McGwire only had one more or less healthy season where his OPS+ was worse than Garvey's career OPS+. He only had one other season where his OPS+ was worse than Garvey's best season. On a list of the top ten OPS+ seasons by Garvey and McGwire, you would find all of 0 seasons from Garvey, along with ten from McGwire.

Garvey was a good player but a HOFer he was not and he certainly couldn't hold a candle to Mac.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 10:40 AM PST up reply actions

A Garvey syllogism:

Wilt was the greatest basketball player of all time, due in large part to his "stats."
Wilt is deservedly in the hall of fame.
Garvey competed with Wilt in the most important "stat" of all.

Therefore:
4. Garvey belongs in the hall of fame.

by mikeA on Dec 1, 2006 1:33 AM PST reply actions

I'm down with that.

Huzzah for the new Man-Slut Wing of the Hall!

"That's one osteoporitic offense." - Jeepers, on the SF Giants

by Ozzz on Dec 1, 2006 10:49 AM PST up reply actions

McGwire was good enough

Not overwhelmingly so, but definitely good enough. Here are his most similar players, per baseball-reference.com:

Jim Thome (833)
Jose Canseco (807)
Carlos Delgado (788)
Harmon Killebrew (782) *
Willie McCovey (767) *
Manny Ramirez (753)
Juan Gonzalez (738)
Norm Cash (737)
Jason Giambi (737)
Dave Kingman (730)

Most similar by age:

Willie McCovey (932)
Mark Teixeira (963)
Mark Teixeira (941)
Nate Colbert (942)
Nate Colbert (933)
Richie Sexson (916)
Cecil Fielder (924)
Cecil Fielder (954)
Cecil Fielder (943)
Cecil Fielder (919)
Willie McCovey (886)
Willie McCovey (874)
Harmon Killebrew (847)
Willie McCovey (831)
Harmon Killebrew (827)

It IS pretty interesting how his comps improve later in his career (granted, they also start out very well).

His results on various Jamesian HOF tests are mixed, but still point to inclusion (and James' standards are pretty high):

Black Ink: Batting - 36 (41) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 110 (189) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 42.0 (126) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 169.5 (60) (Likely HOFer > 100)

McGwire wasn't a complete player, but he was dominant enough at a couple of facets of the game to warrant inclusion--if we're just talking about numbers.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 1, 2006 8:54 AM PST reply actions

The age comps caught Nate Colbert and

Richie Sexson in their best seasons. There are plenty of guys out there that look like HOFers for a year or two. It's the guys who keep it up until later in their career -- and, thus, the guys we can compare them to -- that actually make it. Well, them and Kirby Puckett.

Gwynn has guys like Ginger Beaumont, Jack Tobin and Harry Rice among his age comps -- decent enough slap hitters who batted .300 and did little else, not HOFers by a long shot.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 9:18 AM PST up reply actions

Puckett makes it for me

Posting the highest BA by a right-handed hitter since Joe DiMaggio, making the All-Star team 10 times in 12 years, winning six Gold Gloves, and being the fastest player ever to reach 2,000 hits--those are all good things.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 1, 2006 9:21 AM PST up reply actions

I've got no problem with Puckett

being in ... though it would be curious to know how the various post induction revelations about his personal life would have affected his entry.

He's in easily, Belle's on the outside and likely never coming in.

Belle/Puckett
OBP
.369/.360
SLG
.564/.477
HR
381/207
BB
683/450
RBI
1239/1085

Despite 1400 fewer ABs, Belle topped Puckett in all of those counting stats. Puckett beat him in doubles and hits -- but Belle was on a pace to easily top Puckett's doubles tally and to pass 2000 hits, if he had gotten the same number of PAs.

Their effective careers (it took Puckett a couple years to get going, Joey hit in his first full season) were just about the same length and Belle was clearly the vastly superior player.

Puckett was a heck of a player and I have no problem with him being in -- but the fact of the matter is, much of the reason he's there are his pretty smile and his skeletons stayed silent.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 9:37 AM PST up reply actions

True enough

The fact that the writers (who uniformly hated Belle) vote on this really hurts his candidacy. Puckett was a superior defender, though, and a bit better on the basepaths, too. He also hit for a lot better average (.318 to .295). I think so much has been made of OBP thanks to Moneyball that BA has actually become undervalued. It's still better to get on base with a hit than it is a walk, in my opinion.

Belle is a legit candidate--it's ironic that the post-strike numbers of players such as McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa are going to hurt his candidacy, since their counting power numbers are going to look so much better--at least if you don't remember that Belle played only 12 seasons.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 1, 2006 9:47 AM PST up reply actions

Batting Average is important

and a hit is somewhat better than a walk -- but it seems to me that looking at it as OPS corrects for this, since it double counts batting average, which plays a significant factor in both OBP and SLG.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 10:13 AM PST up reply actions

AS/GG/MVP

(OK, I know you didn't mention MVP awards/votes, but bear with me.)

Am I the only one frustrated and confused by the deployment, by otherwise empirical-minded folks, of All Star Game selections, Gold Gloves won, and MVP awards/votes won in HOF debates?

As we all gnash our teeth so regularly regarding the dubious value year in and year out of such qualitative awards, how is it that they become burnished with the patina of time?

Yes, granted, there is something to the cumulative effect of, say, multiple consecutive GGs to a Brooks Robinson or an Ozzie Smith, when they otherwise might not be considered HOF-worthy due to sub-par batting statistics and/or the historical paucity of reliable fielding metrics.

But we all know how ultimately silly the GG awards can be, with incumbency and "rep" carrying gerrymandered US House of Representatives-level weight among voters.

And All Star selections (especially in the fan-voting era) and MVPs (and Cy Youngs, for that matter, with their overemphasis on Ws) generally serve to confirm established biases and reps and/or to heap extra rewards on players who already compile HOF-worthy stats.

People wanted Washington because he would do a better job of establishing the run. -- andeux @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 1, 2006 10:48 AM PST up reply actions

Well, see, it depends ...

if the awards line up with my position then they are clearly solid evidence but if they don't it's only because the writers are idiots.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 11:00 AM PST up reply actions

What an incredibly fair viewpoint

Once again you've raised the bar for civility towards those that are so pathetically beneath you!

Why yes. I am a ray of warm and fuzzy sunshine.

by grover on Dec 1, 2006 10:03 PM PST up reply actions

For me

the HOF is far from a purely empirical institution--and that's a good thing. Statistics need to be considered relative to their eras to be useful, and part of what considering ASG, MVP, and GG awards does is give you an idea of how a player was viewed relative to his peers. The ASG distinction is becoming a lot less useful recently, due to the advent of Internet ballot-stuffing, but for the current candidates, it still has some use.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 1, 2006 11:05 AM PST up reply actions

empirical doesn't have to mean statistical

I'm not advocating a 100% by-the-numbers approach to the HOF (and with the rampant innumeracy of the eligible voters, that's 100% unlikely anyway).

Now, if we're talking about projecting the likelihood of HOF election, than, yes, absolutely, the GG/ASG/MVP/CY criteria present the clearest evidence of the prevailing wisdom among sportswriters, and therefore should line up with their HOF votes.

People wanted Washington because he would do a better job of establishing the run. -- andeux @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 1, 2006 11:16 AM PST up reply actions

To me ...

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Greatness.

Clearly, that's one of the reasons a guy like Bert Blyleven isn't in and a guy like Kirby Puckett is. Blyleven's career was clearly much more impressive than Puckett's (Even after adjusting Puck's numbers to represent a normal length career). And that's fine.

Catfish Hunter did not have a HOF caliber career in terms of productivity and, frankly, it wasn't even close. But he was one of the stars of his time, a much beloved player who was one of the key players you think of when you think 1970s baseball. So there's nothing wrong with him being there.

AS, MVP, GG, etc are a good representative of the 'Fame' portion of the Hall of Fame.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 11:28 AM PST up reply actions

On that note....

I think the Hall of Fame is getting over-crowded with borderline undeserving memebers. I think the new standards should be that someone has to be considered, and referred to at least fifty times, in the main newspaper of each state, as a "no-doubt, first ballot Hall-of-Famer". Guys like Rickey. If there's any doubt, and they don't make it on the first ballot, then they don't get in.

There, that's my ass-hat opinion and I'm sticking to it.

"...sometimes I can't tell the difference between baseball and magic."- salb918 "Ellie plowed into him like an evil, pink unicorn."-ArakSOT

by McFood on Dec 1, 2006 11:50 AM PST up reply actions

There aren't many BW inductees who are borderline

The Veteran's Committe has made a number of questionable selections, but, overall, the Writers have done a darn good job.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 11:55 AM PST up reply actions

A new standard has emerged !!!!!

Now you're talking, McFood. I am ready to throw out my four criteria and immediately adopt the 50 times/50 states sytem that you propose . . . thatis perfect! I have always maintained that everyone really knows who the great players are, if they just watch. And I also agree with some of Devo's sentiment that it really is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Greatness . . .That's why Roger Maris should be in (And you McGwirephiles, don't start saying "if Maris, then McGwire." Maris won the MVP the year BEFORE he hit 60, as he did in the year he hit sixty, was very good outfielder who could throw with the best, and was an important part of two different franchises' world series victories . . .

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 11:59 AM PST up reply actions

re: Maris

It's hard to figure how a guy who was almost solely a power hitter (.260 career BA, .345 OBP, 21 sb) could get in with only 275 career homeruns and only 3 seasons over 30.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 12:04 PM PST up reply actions

I guess you don't get Maris . . .

See, to me Maris is one of the shining examples of statistics not being enough and sometimes being misleading. He was a near-great player. He won the two consecutive MVPs. He did virtually everything well, except hit for average. And he looked like a ballplayer . . .

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 12:16 PM PST up reply actions

Well, if he looked like a ballplayer ...

I guess that's that.

He was a very good player, but he wasn't great. He also didn't have longevity on his side. He was a very ood player, but not quite good enough.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 12:19 PM PST up reply actions

The only argument for Maris

is the "fame" argument you posited earlier. His involvement in one of the most storied occasions in history--the Mantle/Maris battle to catch Ruth--is the only compelling reason.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 1, 2006 12:37 PM PST up reply actions

Maris and Mantle

OK, don't tell my brother I said this but in the early '60s (some people think the 1961 Yankees were the best team of all time, but let's not get started on that one . . .) Maris had similar importance to the Bombers that the Mick did. There may not have been equivalency, but it was close. He was a tremendous player, although it's true that his lack of longevity undermined his legacy and his suitability for the Hall. But Bill Mazeroski? Jim Bunning? Gary Carter? Where does the "Fame" angle come in with them?

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 12:42 PM PST up reply actions

Mazeroski?

He only hit one of the most memorable home runs, the only World Series Game 7 walk-off home run. It lifted the Pirates over the Yankees in the 1960 World Series.

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Dec 1, 2006 1:52 PM PST up reply actions

If one HR qualifies Maz

surely 61 would qualify Maris.

Neither should be there, though -- I don't care how many Gold Gloves Maz won, he had an 86 career OPS+ and didn't steal any bases or do backflips and wasn't the face of his organization.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 1:58 PM PST up reply actions

I absolutely agree.

Maz was a terrible selection. But I was answering batman's question as to fame.

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Dec 1, 2006 2:01 PM PST up reply actions

ah, good ... you had me worried there for a sec ..

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 2:02 PM PST up reply actions

For those couple of years

Mantle was a HOF caliber player.

It generally take 8-10 years at that caliber of play to qualify one for the Hall.

Mazeroski and Bunning were Veterans Committee selections and, with the exception of the Negro Leaguers, very very few VC inductees actually belong there.

Gary Carter's career counting stats were better than Maris' and he did it as a catcher. He is probably at the low end of the HOF, but he definitely belongs ahead of Maris.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 1:53 PM PST up reply actions

You know what's funny?

I bet there are going to be plenty of idiots who don't vote for Henderson, on the basis that he wasn't a "complete" player or a "team" player. He'll still get in on the first ballot, but not as overwhelmingly as you might think.

"Look its either batman or batman and robin not robin w/o batman robin isn't sh@#."--cchefz71

by jeepers on Dec 1, 2006 12:01 PM PST up reply actions

Well.

It's shorthand. If a guy won six gold gloves, he's almost always a very good defensive player. In fact, there probably aren't any players worse than pretty good who have won several Gold Gloves. Unfortunately Cap'n Jetes, who is maybe the 4th best shortstop on his own team, looks to change this.

Also it takes into account that no one is a perfectly reliable narrator, not even statistics. Sure, the writers make plenty of mistakes, but so do statistics (Win Shares has rated Jim Rice as a better defender than Carl Yastrzemski - preposterous when you remember a young Rice was often DHed in favor of an elderly Yastrzemski in big games in left field). If you can reach a consensus, then it's usually true. Stats and scouts and writers basically agree that Maz was an acrobat, Ozzie was amazing and Brooks Robinson was a vacuum cleaner in the infield. And Keith Hernandez could do anything because he's Keith Hernandez.

It's when there's vast differences in opinion that a better argument is needed. This comes from both sides. I've seen the occasional argument trying to rehabilitate Dick Allen's candidacy from the statistical community, and I just can't buy it. Almost anybody involved with Dick Allen during his playing career found him to be a colossal jerk and the fact a hitter of his caliber played for five different teams in the pre-free agency era (including two one-season stays - suspicious) really says a lot. He's a borderline candidate as is (he wasn't much of a defender, and he had a short career) and his character really is a big minus point in his factor.

I am a bitter Red Sox fan.

by FlynnSox on Dec 1, 2006 4:07 PM PST up reply actions

There are definitely a lot of bad

defensive stats out there -- but as you pointed out earlier, the fact that a guy's management chooses to put him in the more important defensive position (Jeter v A-Rod) doesn't necessarily make him the better defender.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 4:27 PM PST up reply actions

Flynnsox, what do you know about Dick Allen

Here we go again with the racist menacing black troublemaker myth . . . are you from Southie? (that's South Boston for anyone who is interested)The home of a lot of knowledgeable but also delusional fans. I personally heard Gene Mauch say that Richie Allen was the bewt team player that he had ever managed. What do you think of that, wiseguy?

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 8:35 PM PST up reply actions

I am old enough to remember...

so I have to disput some of your facts. Yaz had 47.2 winshares or 2.65 per 1000 innings as an OFer. Rice had 35.6 winshares and 2.63 per 1000 innings.

In 1977 Yaz, as a 37 year old dead man walking did play LF as Rice Dh'd but by 1978 Rice was the starting LFer. Many of the games that Yaz did start in LF that year found Rice not DHing , but rather playing the more difficult RF. As a matter of fact in the run that the Sox made in the last two weeks of the season to catch the Yankees, only to lose in the playoff game, Rice started in RF every game.

by IM4Oakgal on Dec 2, 2006 8:40 PM PST up reply actions

Dispute too

by IM4Oakgal on Dec 2, 2006 8:50 PM PST up reply actions

DEAR Devo, Jeepers, and SuperBean

You guys are great. Thanks for the fun argument!! Can we start going to games together. No, I am not kidding!!! And anybody else who is not into insulting and taking themselves too seriously, and can stand my running off at the mouth, come on with us!

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 9:40 AM PST reply actions

My brother is mad at me . . .

He wants me to change the deleterious (?) reference to Mickey Mantle in the post above. It's a religious wuestion to him. I was just trying to illustrate that no9body is pure or ever has been. Agreed?

Anyway, can someone recommend this article jsut for the sake of keeping it up there on the list so we can keep slugging it out?

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 9:48 AM PST up reply actions

I'll give it a rec, because I like the spirit!

"...sometimes I can't tell the difference between baseball and magic."- salb918 "Ellie plowed into him like an evil, pink unicorn."-ArakSOT

by McFood on Dec 1, 2006 10:22 AM PST up reply actions

McFood, thanks

Can you join us at the bar? (actually, I don't drink, but maybe I would if we could continue this!) I so totally agree that Clemens is a tool . . .

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 10:28 AM PST up reply actions

I dunno about nobody being pure.

The Rockies are making a stab at it.

"That's one osteoporitic offense." - Jeepers, on the SF Giants

by Ozzz on Dec 1, 2006 10:51 AM PST up reply actions

Just glad to see most everyone...

is keeping this going in good-natured debate. Off-season AN has a tendency to fall into name-calling and third grade mentallity.

Just different point of views. Well, to be exact, WAAAY different point of views. But that's okay, cause like the MVP, it can be hard to define. Is it the Hall of "Fame" or of "Greatness."

Last but not least, one more stat. Number of seasons(at least 300 PA's) with an OPS+ over 200:

Kingman - 0
Garvey - 0
Dawson - 0
Reggie - 0
Mantle - 3
McGwire - 4
Bonds - 6
The Babe - 11(Ed. Note. Wow!)

by SuperBean on Dec 1, 2006 11:52 AM PST up reply actions

Seasons of 150+

Kingman - 0
Garvey - 0
Dawson - 1
Reggie - 7
McGwire - 8
Mantle - 12
Bonds - 17
The Babe - 17 (hey, a guy can only play so long)

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 12:01 PM PST up reply actions

mcgwire =/ kingman

and it's hard to take seriously someone who thinks Milton f-ing Bradley should be in the Hall of Fame. Kingman was a career .236 hitter with a career .302 OBP who hit 40 homers in a season once. McGwire had a .394 career on base percentage, hit fifty or more homers five times, drew 100 or more walks six times and finished with a SLG almost 100 points higher than Kingman. On stats alone, McGwire is CLEARLY a hall of famer.

by Nick86 on Dec 1, 2006 11:20 AM PST reply actions

Hey, Nick86, notice that others are having fun?

Nobody is proposing that Kingman is on a level with McGwire, including me. That was a joke. And what's with the dubious reference to MB, who, by the way, I mentioned in the context of what might happen ten years down the road? Soem of you may not remember the villification of Rickey at one point in his career, and right now I don't think there is anyone in baseball, or in Argentian for that matter, who would challenge him being a first ballot H of F-er . . .

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 12:05 PM PST up reply actions

Was he good enough?

Well, do bears shit in the woods?

Of course he was good enough. Listen, if you want to debate whether Mac should be voted in because of maybe using steriods that's one question. But asking if his numbers were "good enough", or whether he was a "good enough ballplayer" thats rather foolish and a pure waste of time.

If ya want my take on if he should be voted in: yes. Do I think he'ii be voted in? No. Why? Well, becasue for the first 15 yrs the media vote and then the Vets Co take over. Never trust the media my friend. They'ii screw with ya every time. It was the same media types who would've given their left nut to interview Mac during his homerun chase. It was the media who were drooling over the guy after he broke the record. And now its the same media types piously judging the man for possibly taking steriods while playing baseball when no rules were in place for steroid use. No one; the media, congress, the courts NEVER EVER DETERMINED HE USED STEROIDS. Period. End of story. And before anyone gets on here and starts taking about ANDRO...FYI, ANDRO is NOT a STEROID.In fact, during that time I couldv'e puchased Andro at my local GNC.

I wasn't a huge Mac fan after he left Oak. Did I think he mightv'e been on 'roids? Sure. Did I have proof? No. Did I care? No. I say leave the man alone. Vote him in. He can't be any worse then the other drunks, drug abusers, wife beaters, compulsive gamblers, wife cheaters, income tax cheaters, spitballer throwers, corked bat users, and crossdresser that are already in there.

"If the fans don't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them."- Yogi Berra.

by bigelephant on Dec 1, 2006 2:08 PM PST reply actions

Huh, what does steroids have to do with it?

If you wouldn't mind going back and reading the post, the whole premise is: Who cares about steroids. Let's just talk about whether Mac was GOOD enough? OK?

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 2:18 PM PST up reply actions

ya, i got it:

"The real question is: Was Big Mac, a one-dimensional Sunday slo-pitch softball hitter, with that really ugly bottom hand swing, good enough to be voted into the Hall of Fame, regardless of what he had on his cereal?

Resoundingly, NO!"

This is a really foolish arguement to make. Therfore i'm just assuming that the steroid issue is blinding any common sense you may have. Otherwise you'd be on here with the majority praising his accomplishments and the fact he's be a first ballot shoe-in.

"If the fans don't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them."- Yogi Berra.

by bigelephant on Dec 1, 2006 8:41 PM PST up reply actions

Andro actually is a steroid ...

what it's not is an anabolic steroid. Cholesterol, for example, is also a steroid so the distinction is relevent.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 1, 2006 2:22 PM PST up reply actions

yes, i know

i also know you and i are spiltting little fine hairs.

andro, much like DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone), it can have provide powerful effects for the user. DHEA is two steps away from becoming testosterone. however, unlike DHEA, andro is only one step away from testosterone. by itself, it is not a muscle builder. but after the liver converts it to testosterone it does have an effect.

plus, we both know andro is naturally produced in men and women. but it's actually found in Scotch pine trees. and this simple fact classified it as a dietary supplement. that is until the fed's banned it in jan of '05.

"If the fans don't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them."- Yogi Berra.

by bigelephant on Dec 1, 2006 9:02 PM PST up reply actions

Scotch pine trees, huh?

I did not know that. So all this controversy is the Scotts fault? It makes sense that they'd be out to get a good red haired, rosy cheeked Irish name bearing guy like McGwire.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 2, 2006 9:26 AM PST up reply actions

Mantle and Maris

The actor who played Maris in Billy Crystal's movie about the summer of 1961 looked like a ballplayer too -- sign him up.

The greatest contribution Maris made was getting the fans off of the Mick's back. Mantle was reviled by many, for not being Dimaggio. Then Maris came along and he was a better target for the boo-birds. Even in Maris' best 2 seasons ('60 & '61) he did not compare to Mantle. Perhaps the most remarkable stat on the '61 Yankees belonged to Bobby Richardson. He failed to score 90 runs while making over 700 plate appearances, as lead-off hitter, for the team that set a HR record. However, he cetailnly looked like a scrappy 2nd baseman who should bat lead-off.

I have fond memories of the '61 Yankees -- I was 16 years old.They were in a dog fight with Tigers until Labor Day week-end. The rotation was led by a person you cited as cheater and Richardson, Kubek and Boyer would all be 9th place hitters in the DH era. Hector Lopez, who played hard, was still a worse fielder than Manny. So this isn't the best team of all-time.

Oh yeah McGwire is a HOFer.

by NoeValley on Dec 1, 2006 2:13 PM PST reply actions

'61

Everyone knows that Ellie doctored the ball for Whitey. That was part of the game, and always will be. As for most remarkable stats, that's quite a innocuous one about Richardson. How about John Blanchard hitting 21 homers as a third string catcher behind Howard and Yogi, who was I guess mostly a leftfielder by that time. Has there ever been that kind of depth behind the plate? I completely agree that today's players are much better, so what's the point about Kubek, Boyer and the rest . . . baseball fans know implicitly that when we talk about "the best team of all time," we are talking about the msot dominant team for the era it played in. Actually, the '62 Giants may have been even better than the Yankees . . .

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 2:34 PM PST up reply actions

The pitfalls of observation

My point, probably obscure was that Richardson looked like a lead-off hitter -- small, middle infielder, no power. Just the kind of guy a Dusty Baker would bat lead-off, but he stunk.

McGwire was on the 1984 Olympic team. There was a guy from that team who fit your evaluation criteria, until it came to performance. When the sample size is large enough the number's don't lie. That's why we won't see Odibe McDowell on this year's HOF ballot.

I will tuning into the Colbert report hoping the word is "clutchiness."

by NoeValley on Dec 1, 2006 3:13 PM PST up reply actions

obviously

I knew that you recognized Kingman was not as good at McGwire, but it's silly to assume that McGwire was only good at hitting home runs, like Kingman. Kingman was good at one thing: hitting home runs, while McGwire was good at hitting home runs, hitting doubles, getting on base, and even hit .300 once or twice.

If Bradley looks like a hall of famer ten years down the road, he'd probably have gotten off to the slowest start of any HOFer, ever. Through Bradley's age 28 season (most player's best seasons come at 27-28), he has a career .270/.354/.429 line with in 630 games coming off a .276/.370/.447 season, having never played in an all-star game. Basically up until his prime he's been slightly above average when healthy. When Rickey was 28, he hit .293/.421/.497, his OBP was well over .400, he had played over 1,000 games, and had played in an all-star game every year. Up until age 28, Milton has been more Derek Bell than Rickey Henderson.

by Nick86 on Dec 1, 2006 8:06 PM PST reply actions

"Big Game" Milton Bradley

I can't argue with the HOF profile that you present,and I don't really think he is going to make it to those lofty heights. One thing is his apparent injury prone-ness. On the other hand, that seems almost universal these days, without exaggeration. MB hasn't even had a really big year yet, much less a career. But for about two weeks in the fall he was literally the best palyer on the planet.

by froggiethegremlin on Dec 1, 2006 9:02 PM PST up reply actions

see Maris, Roger

even if Milt does achieve those heights over a full season or three, it is almost too late in his career for him to have any chance of sustaining it long enough to have a chance at the Hall ... Two or three high end years just don't cut it.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Dec 2, 2006 9:23 AM PST up reply actions