I am betting no one thought of Brian Giles as a generational talent but if you look at his career averages over the 15 years he played, he averaged 25HR, 95 RBI, 98 Runs, 36 doubles, five triples, had a batting average of .291 and and OPS of .902 with three years over 1.0. It will be interesting to see this comparison in the future, but I'd take Giles on my team any day.
Now on to the HOF voting.
What brilliant sportswriter deemed Ichiro Suzuki not worthy of a HOF vote preventing him from a unanimous election? Yes, there have been a large group of players who should have been unanimously elected (Tom Seaver, Ken Griffey Jr., and Derek Jeter to name a few), but some writers clearly missed the boat. Votes should be cast on what the player did on the field and either they are HOF worthy or not. The can't be a unanimous entry
At the other end of the spectrum, how could any self-respecting sportswriter vote for Ian Kiinsler, Brian McCann, Russell Martin or Troy Tulowitzki. Also, Curtis Granderson, perhaps the most likeable player in the last 20 years, got three votes. Great guy, but not HOF worthy. Loved seeing David Wright get enough votes to go on for another year, but despite my not being objective about him, he deserves the upcoming honor of induction into the Mets HOF, but did not have the stats to make it to Cooperstown.
Lastly, perhaps they should remove the PED guilty players from the ballot instead of putting the pressure on voters to throw them a bone. That would include Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and Andy Pettitte.
The Hall of Fame was uniquely qualified to take a stand - one way or the other - on the players from the Silly Ball era. And they did nothing. Which was the final straw for me. I used to care a great deal about who got elected to the Hall of Fame. But, As Bob Dylan sang - I used to care but things have changed.
Saw an interesting factoid yesterday. Roger Clemens has more strikeouts (4,672) than Billy Wagner had batters faced (3,600)
I too have lost interest in who's in and who isn't. I'm happy for those who get in and their families, but the criteria is just so subjective, most voters still have difficulty looking a stats and especially how much a guy excelled vs his peers. The steroid era and cheating is a conundrum. Then, how do you a starting pitcher vs a relief pitcher, and probably the hardest of all, a DH vs someone playing offense and defense. I'll focus what limited excess brain activity I have on how Stearns will improve the roster before opening day.
I did a little other number crunching and came up with this.
Over his career, Giles generated 0.00652 bWAR per PA. Soto is at 0.00890 bWAR per PA. Sounds like a small difference, but if you project Soto's PAs to what Giles had, then Soto goes to 69.9 bWAR compared to Giles 51.1 bWAR, nearly 20 WAR more. The 70 mark is an unofficial HoF threshold. I think Soto can clear 90. So, combining all the bits n bobs that go into WAR, Soto is definitely on a different trajectory. But that does not mean that in his time, Giles was a slacker of some sort. Quite the contrary, he was an outstanding talent that today (if he performed at near same levels given the caveats Brian rightly points out, he'd be a top FA. Still he earned 80M$ across his career and probably not doing to shabby in retirement.
Since we are in HOF week, I'm just curious. Can any of you articulate what it takes to be a Hall of Famer? In other words, if you had a vote and were presented with the ballot, what is your base criteria?
I have my issues putting this into words. Anyone want to take a stab? Perhaps this is two sided - why vote someone in, and why not vote for them - what keeps them out?
The Hall has very few rules, mostly leaving it to the writers to pick who gets in.
My view is that it should be a career-based thing, not a moment or a season. It's great that Don Larsen threw a perfect game in the World Series or that Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's HR record. Neither of those means those guys are Hall of Famers.
I'm with Chris on WAR standards, even though I much prefer fWAR. Essentially 60 fWAR gets you in the conversation and 70 should punch your ticket. If you look at the guys who got in and who are the most controversial, you'll find they had fewer than 60 fWAR. Here's a partial list from recent inductees:
38.4 - Harold Baines
42.1 - Gil Hodges
55.8 - Jack Morris
50.8 - Jim Rice
I don't think any of those guys should be in. I'd much rather see these guys, instead:
69.2 - Bobby Grich
68.1 - Lou Whitaker
65.7 - Graig Nettles
79.8 - Curt Schilling
There are at least two other things we have to consider. One is how to handle the people who played in the Silly Ball era. I have no problem keeping Rafael Palmeiro out because he failed a drug test. But others without that failed drug test should be eligible, in my mind.
And the other is how much, if any, weight to put on someone's non-playing career. Keith Hernandez has 59.4 fWAR. But the guy's been a broadcaster for close to 20 years now and the first 10 or so he was really, really good at that second job. I think that should count.
I pretty much detest Schilling's non-baseball career. But the Hall is supposed to be about baseball first and foremost. And the fact that Baines is in and Schilling isn't makes a mockery of the whole thing.
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
So the rules leave a lot to less quantifiable characters, specifically playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, and character. Those dont end up in any quantitative metric, but matter.
So take a person like Hodges, who derailed his playing career to serve in WWII. Character? Integrity? Sportsmanship? All in spades. 8x All star and 3 gold gloves to match. For me the sum of the Hodges story is pure HoF material.
Like Brian said, I agree that parlor tricks for a season or 2 dont get you into the Hall, whether that be Maris or Larsen or even Alonso with 53 HR as a rookie. The question to me is whether someone who is dominant for a shorter spell say 5-8 years so has a solid WAR value, but not dramatic, yet for a significant time dominated their position and the game.
Look no further than Sandy Koufax. He played for 12 years but really only dominated the sport for 5. He has a career bWAR of 53, yet he has 6 AS appearances, 3 CY awards, and 1 MVP. I think the hardware speaks for itself, and I can’t imagine anyone thinking Koufax doesn’t belong in the Hall. This is a case where the dominance was so supreme, numbers like WAR dont matter in the least, esp beciase WAR is cumulative and so the longer you play the more one can accrue numbers.
I mention this only because it gives me the chance to talk about our own David Wright (who cant be compared with Koufax). Wright dominated 3B for a good stretch of time and barring back issues was easily on track for the Hall. he had 5 seasons with an OPS > .900, 7 AS appearances, 2 GG, 2 SS, and received a top 10 MVP vote 4x. character? Sportsmanship? Integrity? Contribution to the team (and even Team USA)? Unquestioned. Wright got 8% of the vote so will stay on the ballot and would seem to be a longshots longshot, but I hope he gathers steam and stays on for the decade so he can be considered down the road if hes not outright elected.
Thank you both for the thorough and thoughtful comments. They mirror my thinking almost to a tee. I have changed my ideas about the PED era guys. My thinking now is if they have the stats to be there, they should be in, perhaps with some sort of an asterisk. I believe the character aspect has been ignored from the beginning. Exhibit A: Ty Cobb. I guess I believe Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Rodriguez, Clemens should all be there. I also believe Pete Rose should be there for his baseball career.
My personal peeve is Lou Whitaker, but Grich is on that list as well as you point out. It is a sin those guys aren't there.
I am not a particular fan of WAR. There are too many things that just don't make sense to me about it. I haven't completely figured out how it is done, but it seems like there is an unbalanced component (adder) for being on a championship team. Exhibit B: Andruw Jones vs. Torii Hunter
I cannot figure out for the life of me how Hunter is not getting more love. I get it that his WAR is not up there, but his career stats sure as heck are, especially when talking about Andruw Jones. Maybe neither is worthy (Hall of Very Good?), but if Jones is in the discussion, Hunter should not be at 20%
Funny thing about the Hall of Fame. When one visits, the far and away most interesting part and where people spend 90% of the time, is in the museum. The hall with all the plaques sees, in my experience, much fewer people. It is important to note that the museum has exhibits and artifacts and stories about all the PED dopers etc. So, while those individuals may not have a plaque, they most certainly are in the museum. Isnt that enough for cheaters and gamblers?
Yes, this has been my experience with the plaques, as well.
But that's as much the Hall's presentation issue as anything. It's a big room with plaques in it and nothing else. It's crying out for video, even if it's likely not possible to have video for every player.
People talk constantly about who gets in, who should be in and who's a mistake. In the souvenir shop, they sell a ton of postcards with the plaques. On one early visit, we got a book that had all of the plaques in it. But people don't spend time in the room. That doesn't add up and I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed.
But addressing issues isn't the Hall's strong suit.
Agree that Ichiro was worthy of unanimous induction. Shows there's always one grump out there. It's odd that Rivera is the only unanimous selection since the closer and the save are the most overrated position and stat. Beltran deserves election soon, too -- hopefully in a Mets cap!
As much as I admire The Captain, David Wright's career was simply too short to merit the HOF. A great peak, but nothing after that due to spinal stenosis (a genuinely painful ailment). It's true that HOF careers are made after age 30.
Wright pulled a Mattingly. To me, you are either a hall of famer or you are not. This whole thing with getting more votes every year is silly. We have to remember, it is a museum. Why is Baines in and other players like Lou Whitaker is not? Why is Jim Rice in, but a better player like his teammate Dwight Evans is not?
What are the Mets thinking. Even though they signed Soto, if they pass on Alonso and dont get a replacement and his replacement basically is Brett Baty, how are they even going to beat Philly and Atlanta? Atlanta signed Profar for $ 14 million a year. Why didnt we sign him? Oh boy, we got Winker. If no more changes are made, this team will struggle to compete for second place in the division.
I'm a Jurickson Profar fan - followed him since his minor league days when he was one of the top prospects in the game. But his MLB career has been checkered, at best.
He had a great year in 2024. But in two of the three previous seasons, he finished with a negative WAR. And it's not because he barely played - he had 933 PA those two seasons.
I would have been interested in the Mets signing him to a one-year deal. But there's no way I'd give him a three-year deal. It's the Braves, so you know their fingers will smell. But that's not the Mets' fortunes with multi-year deals to these types of players. Instead we get Eduardo Escobar and Starling Marte.
Right now, we do nothing. I could see maybe giving Alonso an ultimatum, either to accept their offer or the Mets pull it from the table. But I could see that being too harsh, too.
I know you like moves. Maybe they can engage (re-engage?) Jose Iglesias and see how he feels about a backup role?
I am betting no one thought of Brian Giles as a generational talent but if you look at his career averages over the 15 years he played, he averaged 25HR, 95 RBI, 98 Runs, 36 doubles, five triples, had a batting average of .291 and and OPS of .902 with three years over 1.0. It will be interesting to see this comparison in the future, but I'd take Giles on my team any day.
Now on to the HOF voting.
What brilliant sportswriter deemed Ichiro Suzuki not worthy of a HOF vote preventing him from a unanimous election? Yes, there have been a large group of players who should have been unanimously elected (Tom Seaver, Ken Griffey Jr., and Derek Jeter to name a few), but some writers clearly missed the boat. Votes should be cast on what the player did on the field and either they are HOF worthy or not. The can't be a unanimous entry
At the other end of the spectrum, how could any self-respecting sportswriter vote for Ian Kiinsler, Brian McCann, Russell Martin or Troy Tulowitzki. Also, Curtis Granderson, perhaps the most likeable player in the last 20 years, got three votes. Great guy, but not HOF worthy. Loved seeing David Wright get enough votes to go on for another year, but despite my not being objective about him, he deserves the upcoming honor of induction into the Mets HOF, but did not have the stats to make it to Cooperstown.
Lastly, perhaps they should remove the PED guilty players from the ballot instead of putting the pressure on voters to throw them a bone. That would include Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and Andy Pettitte.
The Hall of Fame was uniquely qualified to take a stand - one way or the other - on the players from the Silly Ball era. And they did nothing. Which was the final straw for me. I used to care a great deal about who got elected to the Hall of Fame. But, As Bob Dylan sang - I used to care but things have changed.
Saw an interesting factoid yesterday. Roger Clemens has more strikeouts (4,672) than Billy Wagner had batters faced (3,600)
I too have lost interest in who's in and who isn't. I'm happy for those who get in and their families, but the criteria is just so subjective, most voters still have difficulty looking a stats and especially how much a guy excelled vs his peers. The steroid era and cheating is a conundrum. Then, how do you a starting pitcher vs a relief pitcher, and probably the hardest of all, a DH vs someone playing offense and defense. I'll focus what limited excess brain activity I have on how Stearns will improve the roster before opening day.
I did a little other number crunching and came up with this.
Over his career, Giles generated 0.00652 bWAR per PA. Soto is at 0.00890 bWAR per PA. Sounds like a small difference, but if you project Soto's PAs to what Giles had, then Soto goes to 69.9 bWAR compared to Giles 51.1 bWAR, nearly 20 WAR more. The 70 mark is an unofficial HoF threshold. I think Soto can clear 90. So, combining all the bits n bobs that go into WAR, Soto is definitely on a different trajectory. But that does not mean that in his time, Giles was a slacker of some sort. Quite the contrary, he was an outstanding talent that today (if he performed at near same levels given the caveats Brian rightly points out, he'd be a top FA. Still he earned 80M$ across his career and probably not doing to shabby in retirement.
Since we are in HOF week, I'm just curious. Can any of you articulate what it takes to be a Hall of Famer? In other words, if you had a vote and were presented with the ballot, what is your base criteria?
I have my issues putting this into words. Anyone want to take a stab? Perhaps this is two sided - why vote someone in, and why not vote for them - what keeps them out?
The Hall has very few rules, mostly leaving it to the writers to pick who gets in.
My view is that it should be a career-based thing, not a moment or a season. It's great that Don Larsen threw a perfect game in the World Series or that Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's HR record. Neither of those means those guys are Hall of Famers.
I'm with Chris on WAR standards, even though I much prefer fWAR. Essentially 60 fWAR gets you in the conversation and 70 should punch your ticket. If you look at the guys who got in and who are the most controversial, you'll find they had fewer than 60 fWAR. Here's a partial list from recent inductees:
38.4 - Harold Baines
42.1 - Gil Hodges
55.8 - Jack Morris
50.8 - Jim Rice
I don't think any of those guys should be in. I'd much rather see these guys, instead:
69.2 - Bobby Grich
68.1 - Lou Whitaker
65.7 - Graig Nettles
79.8 - Curt Schilling
There are at least two other things we have to consider. One is how to handle the people who played in the Silly Ball era. I have no problem keeping Rafael Palmeiro out because he failed a drug test. But others without that failed drug test should be eligible, in my mind.
And the other is how much, if any, weight to put on someone's non-playing career. Keith Hernandez has 59.4 fWAR. But the guy's been a broadcaster for close to 20 years now and the first 10 or so he was really, really good at that second job. I think that should count.
I pretty much detest Schilling's non-baseball career. But the Hall is supposed to be about baseball first and foremost. And the fact that Baines is in and Schilling isn't makes a mockery of the whole thing.
The rules of voting for the Hall of Fame are:
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
So the rules leave a lot to less quantifiable characters, specifically playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, and character. Those dont end up in any quantitative metric, but matter.
So take a person like Hodges, who derailed his playing career to serve in WWII. Character? Integrity? Sportsmanship? All in spades. 8x All star and 3 gold gloves to match. For me the sum of the Hodges story is pure HoF material.
Like Brian said, I agree that parlor tricks for a season or 2 dont get you into the Hall, whether that be Maris or Larsen or even Alonso with 53 HR as a rookie. The question to me is whether someone who is dominant for a shorter spell say 5-8 years so has a solid WAR value, but not dramatic, yet for a significant time dominated their position and the game.
Look no further than Sandy Koufax. He played for 12 years but really only dominated the sport for 5. He has a career bWAR of 53, yet he has 6 AS appearances, 3 CY awards, and 1 MVP. I think the hardware speaks for itself, and I can’t imagine anyone thinking Koufax doesn’t belong in the Hall. This is a case where the dominance was so supreme, numbers like WAR dont matter in the least, esp beciase WAR is cumulative and so the longer you play the more one can accrue numbers.
I mention this only because it gives me the chance to talk about our own David Wright (who cant be compared with Koufax). Wright dominated 3B for a good stretch of time and barring back issues was easily on track for the Hall. he had 5 seasons with an OPS > .900, 7 AS appearances, 2 GG, 2 SS, and received a top 10 MVP vote 4x. character? Sportsmanship? Integrity? Contribution to the team (and even Team USA)? Unquestioned. Wright got 8% of the vote so will stay on the ballot and would seem to be a longshots longshot, but I hope he gathers steam and stays on for the decade so he can be considered down the road if hes not outright elected.
Thank you both for the thorough and thoughtful comments. They mirror my thinking almost to a tee. I have changed my ideas about the PED era guys. My thinking now is if they have the stats to be there, they should be in, perhaps with some sort of an asterisk. I believe the character aspect has been ignored from the beginning. Exhibit A: Ty Cobb. I guess I believe Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Rodriguez, Clemens should all be there. I also believe Pete Rose should be there for his baseball career.
My personal peeve is Lou Whitaker, but Grich is on that list as well as you point out. It is a sin those guys aren't there.
I am not a particular fan of WAR. There are too many things that just don't make sense to me about it. I haven't completely figured out how it is done, but it seems like there is an unbalanced component (adder) for being on a championship team. Exhibit B: Andruw Jones vs. Torii Hunter
I cannot figure out for the life of me how Hunter is not getting more love. I get it that his WAR is not up there, but his career stats sure as heck are, especially when talking about Andruw Jones. Maybe neither is worthy (Hall of Very Good?), but if Jones is in the discussion, Hunter should not be at 20%
Funny thing about the Hall of Fame. When one visits, the far and away most interesting part and where people spend 90% of the time, is in the museum. The hall with all the plaques sees, in my experience, much fewer people. It is important to note that the museum has exhibits and artifacts and stories about all the PED dopers etc. So, while those individuals may not have a plaque, they most certainly are in the museum. Isnt that enough for cheaters and gamblers?
Yes, this has been my experience with the plaques, as well.
But that's as much the Hall's presentation issue as anything. It's a big room with plaques in it and nothing else. It's crying out for video, even if it's likely not possible to have video for every player.
People talk constantly about who gets in, who should be in and who's a mistake. In the souvenir shop, they sell a ton of postcards with the plaques. On one early visit, we got a book that had all of the plaques in it. But people don't spend time in the room. That doesn't add up and I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed.
But addressing issues isn't the Hall's strong suit.
Agree that Ichiro was worthy of unanimous induction. Shows there's always one grump out there. It's odd that Rivera is the only unanimous selection since the closer and the save are the most overrated position and stat. Beltran deserves election soon, too -- hopefully in a Mets cap!
As much as I admire The Captain, David Wright's career was simply too short to merit the HOF. A great peak, but nothing after that due to spinal stenosis (a genuinely painful ailment). It's true that HOF careers are made after age 30.
Wright pulled a Mattingly. To me, you are either a hall of famer or you are not. This whole thing with getting more votes every year is silly. We have to remember, it is a museum. Why is Baines in and other players like Lou Whitaker is not? Why is Jim Rice in, but a better player like his teammate Dwight Evans is not?
FYI, my life basically revolves around checking MLBTR several times a day to see if Pete Alonso has signed… anywhere.
What are the Mets thinking. Even though they signed Soto, if they pass on Alonso and dont get a replacement and his replacement basically is Brett Baty, how are they even going to beat Philly and Atlanta? Atlanta signed Profar for $ 14 million a year. Why didnt we sign him? Oh boy, we got Winker. If no more changes are made, this team will struggle to compete for second place in the division.
I'm a Jurickson Profar fan - followed him since his minor league days when he was one of the top prospects in the game. But his MLB career has been checkered, at best.
He had a great year in 2024. But in two of the three previous seasons, he finished with a negative WAR. And it's not because he barely played - he had 933 PA those two seasons.
I would have been interested in the Mets signing him to a one-year deal. But there's no way I'd give him a three-year deal. It's the Braves, so you know their fingers will smell. But that's not the Mets' fortunes with multi-year deals to these types of players. Instead we get Eduardo Escobar and Starling Marte.
You always have great compelling feedback. So at this point, what do we do ?
I'm afraid you're not going to like my answer.
Right now, we do nothing. I could see maybe giving Alonso an ultimatum, either to accept their offer or the Mets pull it from the table. But I could see that being too harsh, too.
I know you like moves. Maybe they can engage (re-engage?) Jose Iglesias and see how he feels about a backup role?