Part of

« Beerleaguer for breakfast: Non-tender candidates | Main | Phils' O can get small boost from better backup C »

Tuesday, October 18, 2011


RIP Phillies

Michael Young is scouting housing in Delaware County between WS games.

Since I know everyone is on the edge of their seats waiting for the conclusion of the Hall of Fame discussion I brought up on the last thread, I'll reveal mystery players A, B, and C.

Player A, Adrian Beltre, should conservatively end up with 400 HR and 2800 H (although spread over a very long career). Is that enough for HOF consideration for a great defender at a historically underrepresented position?

Player B, Johnny Damon, could end up with 3000 H. Is that enough for an otherwise barren HOF portfolio?

Player C, Andruw Jones, was regarded by many as the best defensive centerfielder in baseball history. Is that, plus 400 HR, enough to make the HOF? His offensive numbers compare favorably to Brooks Robinson's, even after adjusting for era.

My opinion: yes to Beltre and Jones, no to Damon. I put a lot of stock in defense.

None of those guys really feel like hall-of-famers though, do they?

DH - no, no, and no.

Beltre, yes. Other schlubs, no. Damon has a very very good shot at being by far the worst player to get 3000 hits.

No Damon is not a HOF even with 3000 hits but I would like him up in a clutch situation for my team.

So, Rube is gonna pick up two Rule 5 draftees this year?

Yeah 2 rule 5ers and sign Johnny Damon to a 3 year deal.
Rube wants to see how few players he needs to win the NL East. He did it with 20 last year can he do it with 19 this year?

I don't have any specific criteria for determining a particular player's Hall of Fame worthiness. So I'll simply work backward and say that, if I did have criteria, and if Adrian Beltre fit within those criteria, I would immediately go in search of some new criteria.

There is no way that Adrian Beltre is a hall of fame player. A nice player, for sure. No HOF, though.

Beltre, Jones and Damon? Are we trying to get even older and even more decrepit? Let's bring back Mike Schmidt while we are at it.

Dragon: I don't think you read what I wrote.

I think the case for Andruw Jones is strong. Ozzie Smith got into the HOF with his glove despite a career 87 OPS+ (94 wRC+, if you think OPS underrates high-OBP, low-SLG guys). Andruw Jones had nearly as good a defensive reputation with much more offense. At "34", I doubt he gets the 80 HR he needs to get to 500, but it's not impossible. Even if he doesn't, I'd put him in for his glove.

I don't have any specific criteria for determining a particular player's Hall of Fame worthiness. So I'll simply work backward and say that, if I did have criteria, and if Adrian Beltre fit within those criteria, I would immediately go in search of some new criteria.

Posted by: bay_area_phan | Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 12:29 AM

The main criteria would be "looks impressive every walk year"

Best "Ron Santo" impersonation in terms of yearly stats.

The main criteria would be "looks impressive every walk year"

2 out of 3 ain't bad: 2009's 83 OPS+ begs to differ.

Interesting that his best 2 years and worst (near-full) year were his walk years.

At 110 OPS+ and terrific fielding, he's not a candidate with a normal aging curve.

Best "Ron Santo" impersonation in terms of yearly stats.

He's similar to Ron Santo, until you take era into consideration and you don't care about consistency. Santo had a career 125 OPS+.
From age 23 to 33, Santo had at least a 109 OPS+ every year. Santo did not hang on so his career OPS+ is helped by that.

Andruw Jones is not either, he crashed and burned way too early. And Damon should be no one's idea of a HOFer. All these guys have been HOVG players.

Adrian Beltre screwed himself by spending his peak in Seattle, who's stadium is a graveyard for RH power.

Defense of Beltre (because why not).
I think there is a bit of an East Coast bias working against him in this discussion. Not many of us watched his carreer or paid him much mind over the years so he doesn't "feel great" to us.
As for his walk years, they happened. Too often when people debate stats they want to throw out this year or that year for whatever reason. Thing is, those years really happened. If they make the years that followed dissapointing that falls more on Seattle for assuming a one year boom is the begining of a trend.
If not him then Rolen?

I really hope Damon doesn't get 3,000 hits b/c I liked it in my youth when 500 homeruns or 3,000 hits was an automatic induction. We've already lost 500 homeruns as an automatic, I'd hate to lose 3,000 hits as well.

There are players in the HOF right now who don't belong there, and players who do belong there who are not in.

That said, I don't get outraged one way or the other. It's baseball...that's all.

As an example, with 1 out of 5 people under/unemployed in the country, I really don't get to excized about who should/shouldn't be in the HOF.

Damon,Beltre,Jones? Jones is the only one I'd even consider. IMO the HOF should consist of the "dominant" players in their ERA. Jones, with his glove, is the only one of the three for whom you could say that is true.

A thought: A lot has been said about the ATL rotation of the 1990's - Maddux/Glavine/Schmoltz. IMO the defense provided by Jones had a lot to do with their being dominant in the later years of their run.

He made plays look easy that no other CF in MLB even had a hope of making.

gobay - there's no east coast bias in fantasy baseball. Beltre has never been a consensus 1st 2nd or even 3rd round pick. I know defense doesn't matter in cb, but he isn't so good there where u can ignore his offensive skill set not being hall worthy. IMO.

If not him then Rolen?

Rolen was a much better hitter and top 5-10 fielding 3B all time.

cb = fb (fantasy baseball)

I didn't directly say it but I think Rolen is a HOFer. He's one of those players who was very good at everything, including base running, and stellar at the thing that is hardest to quantify(fielding).

I don't think he'll make it because the writers won't have their narrative (500 HRs, .300 average, 3000 hits, Ozzie Smith back flips**).

** OK, OK, Ozzie belongs on his own merits.

Rolen is top 1 or 2 all-time defensive 3B.
I'd put him in the hall.

Beltre is only 32 (he's younger than Jimmy Rollins). The idea of his HOF candidacy is premised on the idea that he's still going to do more, not simply what he's already done (unlike Damon and Jones).

I really don't think Rolen is a HOF. Never got the feeling I was watching a dominant player when I saw him play. IMO that is what a HOF should be, but the HOF does seem to be getting diluted.

Never thought Blylevin should be in the HOF. Over a long career he compiled impressive stats, but was never a dominant pitcher from what I remember. More like an excellent #2 starting pitcher.

The thing about a guy being a dominant player is that it completely excludes certain positions. While 3B is a traditional power position it isn't a power position like 1B or a corner OF spot, so a 3B will rarely be a truly dominant hitter relative to the league or even the best hitter on his own team. While it is a challenging defensive position that allows for great highlights, it will never be a position like SS or CF where a guy can be dominant on defense. The same can be said for 2B and to a lesser extent C.
It really thins down the HOF choses at those positions over the last 20 years to Chipper Jones, Kent and Pudge.
Then again, i'm just picking on the word dominant.
Also, sorry for wasting everyone's time with unemployment being so high. I feel quite guilty getting worked up about this.

re: tendering Kendrick

Kendrick went from $500k to $2.5M last year and now just threw 114IP of 120 ERA+ baseball. I can't imagine him making less than another $2M raise - does anyone else?

So at +$4.5M, you are getting a 6th starter/long man. If I could dump Joe Blanton's $10M salary and take Kendrick's, I'd do it in a second but unfortunately thats not an option.

Someone asked 'who else can do it?' if you dump Kendrick. Well, without answering I'd like to ask my own question:

Do you think Kendrick can even do what he did last year?

"The idea of his HOF candidacy is premised on the idea that he's still going to do more."

I understand that. But he's 32. The better part of his career is in the book already. If he has 5 more seasons like the last 2, then talk to me again. But short of that, it's difficult for me to imagine what he could possibly do to make me think he's a Hall of Famer. I wouldn't even put Beltre in the mythical Hall of Very Good. More like the Hall of Pretty Good.

I kinda lean toward DH Phils thinking on the 3 potential HOFers.

But I wouldn't compare Ozzie to Jones because the offense at their respective positions is vastly different. Andruw is a below average offensive centerfielder. Ozzie is not a below average offensive shortstop. Combine that with the fact that Ozzie may have been the best SS in history (no one would ever say that about Jones) and it really is apples and oranges.

That said, if Jones gets to 450 HRs and the line DH Phils suggests, I'd vote for him.

What hat would Rolen wear to the HOF?

Caliphan: "Over a long career he compiled impressive stats, but was never a dominant pitcher."

By your measure, Henry Aaaon should not be in the Hall of Fame. He was never the dominant player of his era in the way that Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were dominant.

What he was, was a steady producer who placed among the top 5 or 10 hitters in key offensive categories year in and year out, who played 150 games every year and had a very long career.

If Madson walks, kendrick for roberts/goldschmidt & putz?

lorecore still bashing Kendrick, three years and two screen names later.

If Andruw Jones is in the discussion for the HOF, doesn't that mean Jim Edmonds is too? Edmonds was the better hitter and was very good defensively himself. A .903 career OPS despite playing to 40 while Jones has a .827 and is declining much faster at age 34 and has been a part time player for 4 years now. I'd probably cast my mythical vote for Edmonds before Jones.

mm: "If Madson walks, kendrick for roberts/goldschmidt & putz?"

Wow, how could Arizona resist?

Jbird: Edmonds falls short in HR department, but if you ask who would I rather have on my team at their peak, I'd say Edmonds.

I would never vote for Edmonds. He was never great. Jones was great for a time and Edmonds made a career of getting bad breaks, closing poorly on the ball and then diving off balance. He usually came up with the ball but Jones made the same play without kicking up a cloud of dust on the warning track. Also if Jones had gotten a concussion and never played again or god forbid died at age 30 he'd be in the hall.

Clout: I don't know. According to the link below, only 3 CF in the hall had more homeruns than Edmonds and they are Mays, Mantle, and Snider...actually looking at the Duke's numbers, they are kinda similar to Edmonds'. Obviously Edmonds played in a different era, so his candidacy is probably predicated on what sort of curve the voters will grade him on. He may end up like Fred McGriff, Alan Trammel, and Lou Whitaker; a victim of the steroid era stat-inflation.

The difference between Trammel, Whittaker and Mcgriff is that they didn't really play a ton in the steroid era while Edmonds played his entire prime in that era.

If they let Oswalt walk then most certainly they have to take Kendrick. Plus Kendrick wont fetch anything more than a prospect or 2. Certainly no high ranked prospect. His role as a long man and 6th starter has good value to this team. No one will take Blanton of us even for a bag Herr's chip and a tastycake he is ours unfortunately.

I think of the HOF as a place for honoring greatness. I realize that many less-than-great players have been enshrined, but greatness is still the ideal -- at least to me. When I think of Jim Edmonds, I just don't think of greatness. I do, however, think he belongs in the conversation -- certainly more so than Andruw Jones.

gobaystars: Well, anyone who didn't use during the steroid era would have his numbers look worse in comparison to the video game numbers being put up by Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, McGuire, et al. Depends on if you think Edmonds (who did play with McGuire) was a user.

BAP: I'm all for a small hall, But if a guy like Jim Rice can get in, then certainly Edmonds who was better at every facet of the game should at least get some consideration. Edmonds did have a 5 year run from 2000 to 2005 where he was pretty great. At the same time, I'm not going to cry if he doesn't get in. I see him as having a case though.

I feel the Hall of Fame should be reserved for the greatest of the great. As such, neither Beltre, Damon, Jones nor Edmonds qualifies. In fact, there's no way the Hall should be able to induct a player or players annually. It cheapens the honor.

Edmonds was about as likely as anyone else from that era to be a user. he had a smallish frame, legs built for speed, not power, and wasn't projected for power. yet he eclipsed 40 hr's twice, and 30 hr's 5 times. all while playing during the height of the steroid era (peak years '95-05).

these types of hitters still exist, of course (think Soriano and Granderson) but are certainly the exception. he could have been clean, but Edmonds is the type of player that the steroid era hurts the most.

One man's thoughts on how to fix the Phillies... I think it'll be a six-step process...

Gtown: I agree with you, but I think there is pressure to vote someone in every year because induction ceremonies are such a financial boon for the hall and the town.

Jbird: Exactly. Which is why the HoF boasts inductees such as Walter Johnson, Sandy Koufax ... & Bert Blyleven.

John -- very good and realistic write-up, although I highly doubt Madson gets $14-15M yearly. Not only are closers prevalent on the market but most of the high-payroll teams already have one.

Madson will probably get between $8 and $10 million per annum considering the glut of closers on the market and team's unwillingness to give up draft picks to sign expensive relievers. Phillies may or may not be better off spending that money on 3 arms and seeing who emerges. . . that said, teh value of a closer is much higher to a competitive team like the Phils than to a team that won't compete next year like the 'stros.

Given the fact both are 6-year veterans, don't Orr and Moss become 6-year minor league free agents?

Clout: How was Jones a below-average offensive CF? Career OPS+ of 111, and during his run from 97-07, when he was an everyday CF, he had an OPS+ of 114.

Jack: How does career OPS+ of 111 stack up with career OPS+ of other star centerfielders?

Clout: You just said "star" OFs. Before you claimed that Jones was a below average offensive CF. I took that to mean what it looks like, below average compared to the league. Did you mean only comparing to HOF CFs? Then of course.

Over the last 20 years, I'd say Griffey, Beltran, Bernie Williams, Edmonds, Puckett, and maybe Kenny Lofton were as good or better offensive CFs than Jones (among guys that played there enough, so not counting Sizemore or Josh Hamilton). Jones was better than all of those guys defensively.

I don't think Jones is a HOF, but I think there's a colorable argument based on his defensive prowess and overall pretty good offensive production.

Link looks like a 7 step process without much fixing other than the bench. Why will Furcal take a one year deal?

clout, you said he was below average, back up your claims with facts, don't push it off to your challenger.

How does career OPS+ of 111 stack up with career OPS+ of other star centerfielders?

Oh, nice misdirection from your original claim.

clout being a douche again.

Jack: The discussion was about who belongs in the HOF. I was measuring him not against HOFers but against centerfielders who might be worthy of consideration (i.e. Jim Edmonds, Bernie Williams etc..)

Edmundo: You need to look up the word "context."

Oh, I understand context very well. I'm really good at telling when someone changes it because they can't admit that maybe they didn't type exactly what they meant.

Clout: Yes, they're free agents (Moss and Orr).

John, thanks for the well thought out article, which helps me in my own thinking. There are so many moving parts, its easy to get bogged down in looking at each of the parts, let alone get a grasp on the whole situation and balance all the needs. This was a nice cut at a pretty comprehensive solution.

On Madson, perhaps he will see he's not getting any younger and that the Gnats are still a few years away from truly being WS contenders. As he enters his early 30s, I'm hoping he sees the Phillies as his best shot at another WS ring.

"By your measure, Henry Aaaon should not be in the Hall of Fame. He was never the dominant player of his era in the way that Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were dominant."

clout, from his age 23 to 32 seasons, 1957-1966, Henry Aaron did this:

.319/.381/.577 averaging 38 HR, 123 RBI, 16 SB, with an OPS+ of 162. (He led the league in HR thrice, RBI 4 times, one batting title.)

During that same time period, '57-'66, Mays and Mantle did this, respectively:

.314/.390/.594, 39 HR, 109 RBI, 20 SB. OPS+ 165

.303/.433/.583, 32 HR, _82 RBI, 10 SB. OPS+ 181

To be fair, if you want to compare age 23 - 32 seasons, Mays and Mantle did this, respectively:

.320/.393/.601, 38 HR, 109 RBI, 24 SB. OPS+ 165 (One batting title, led league in HR twice).

.314/.443/.614, 37 HR, _95 RBI, 12 SB. OPS+ 188. (One batting title, led league in HR 4 times, RBI once.)

Mantle was tremendous because he walked a ton and got on base, hence the higher OPS and OPS+.

But I submit to you that as a hitter Aaron was just as or nearly as dominant.

He just didn't have the benefit and hype of the big media market in NY.

For what it's worth. MetsBlog is reporting rumors of the Phillies going in on Reyes.

Interesting stats on Mays, Mantle, and Aaron. I'm thinking about Werth's free agent contract and am trying to grasp what one of these guys would command on the open market. "Thanks, Hank, it's good to be a team, media, and corporate partner of the Yankees. Talk to my people on the coast when you need my OK on the new TV and satellite deals. Let's do lunch sometime."

I know Mays was a truly elite defender, but have a more hazy picture of Aaron and Mantle in the field.

Regarding dominance: dominance is compared to era, but I don't know how you can hold the Steroid Era against someone who has not been found to have used steroids.

Andruw Jones hit 262 HR over 7 years from 2000-2006 and won the Gold Glove (legitimately) at a premium position every year. If he didn't use steroids, that qualifies as a dominant career peak to me.

I'd like to see the Phillies grab a bat-first backup catcher who could also fill in at first if Howard is out for a significant length of time. Ryan Doumit comes to mind.

Andruw Jones disappoints me. I really felt he had a shot at being one of the all-time greats, but it seems as if he was content to coast as far as natural physical ability took him w/out ever really working at becoming the player he might have been.

Andruw Jones was widely felt to have been a creation of the steroid era. His power surge was questioned over and over. I have no idea if he used or not, but since that era has subsided, his production fell off a cliff.

I really don't know. And I frankly don't care. With or without steroids, he is not a hall of famer. Chipper is. Maddux and Glavine are. But not Andruw.

Doumit is a bat I half-expected the Phils to pick up last year. He has been on the trade market since mid-2010. On the surface, you'd say he didn't move at the deadline last year because he was injured, although he returned to action shortly after the deadline. I suspect he hasn't moved, in large part, because 1) he is a bad catcher (his nickname is Ryan No Mitt) and 2) efforts to find him a new position have failed.

"I'd like to see the Phillies grab a bat-first backup catcher who could also fill in at first if Howard is out for a significant length of time."

Erik Kratz is your man!

Crotch: That will gives an excellent leadoff man for the 50 games a year he's healthy. No thanks...

aksmith is correct on Andruw. His production collapsed after the steroid crackdown and his name was among those rumored.

"Andruw Jones was widely felt to have been a creation of the steroid era. His power surge was questioned over and over."

Really? I don't recall that at all. Cites?

Most comments that I remember (and that memory is admittedly faulty) is that he simply got too fat to play well. He's actually put up nice OPS+ the last two years in a part time role (120 and 122).

Andruw(sp? Oh that really is how his name is spelled? Not a typo? He knows it's spelled this way.. well at least he can play ball) Jones is not a hall of famer.

Raul was a catcher and played 5 other positions. Sign him up.

Hey, great. Someone was "rumored" to have taken steroids. Therefore, we should invalidate their whole career, because someone thinks they looked weird.

This sort of ridiculous speculation and witch hunt is as bad for baseball as the steroids themselves ever were.

Jack: It is speculation, but since you have no clue, nor does anyone else, whether he used or not, the notion we should remain silent about it is silly.

Jones is a guy who had a pretty steady and predictable power production from 1998 through 2004. That production took a big jump in 2005 and 2006, reverted to normal in 2007 and then fell off a cliff in 2008 at age 31. Some folks thought that was an odd pattern.

Edmundo: I guess you were out of the country for a few years. There was quite a bit of speculation about Jones. Here's just one article that popped up on Google:


The injury risk is valid, but Reyes has only had one year where he played fewer than 126 games. In four of the seven, he played 150+.

Not saying it's completely palatable, but I can't see a better way to boost the team in this Halladay, Lee, Hamels (hopefully) era.

And it wouldn't be as riskly long-term as some would have you think, with Howard the only hitter under contract beyond 2013.

i'm of the opinion that we need to look at the steroid era players on a case by case basis, and in a vaccuum of other players of that era.

what i mean is that the players who played during those years who had careers that were extraordinary, even in comparison to other players in that era, should get into the Hall. players like that would include Bonds, Sosa, etc.

if you played in that era and put up gaudy stats compared to other eras, but not elite during the steroid era, then you're out.

it is unfair to the non-cheaters, but since we just don't know who was and who wasn't, they all need to be painted by the same brush and evaluated vs. their peers during the time they played.

BTW, just to be clear, I said in my first post on the topic of potential HOF players that I was inclined to agree with DH Phils on Jones, that he does belong, particularly if he winds up with 450 HRs. I think defense counts a lot in CF.

jeez, i don't know clout. i didn't think Jones was a HOF earlier, but after reading that linked article i can offer a resounding NO!

I think Jones had a stripper problem.

I think Jones had a sit-on-his-lazy-ass-eat-fried-food-&-collect-paychecks problem.

"Dragon: I don't think you read what I wrote." - DH Phils

You are correct, sir. My apologies.

Yo, newer thread

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel