The Future of Cooperstown Part one.
A little over a decade ago at a time when I still thought that batting average and wins were important stats I visited the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown New York for the first time and I loved it. I had never seen anyone who was in the Hall play and looked mainly at the plaques of players I had heard of such as Ruth, Williams, Aaron and Mays. I was in awe of all the great players, the legends I had never seen.
Well a lot of time has past and I have not been back. Part of that is the location of the hall, but another is the shear volume of undeserving players that have been admitted. I have gotten to see most of the players admitted in the last ten years and with the exceptions of Ryan and Eckersley I haven't been very impressed. I feel like they are watering down the hall.
In my opinion, the hall should be reserved for the top 1-2% or so of players, so of the 1200 players currently on 40 man rosters, about 20 of them should make the hall. I don't believe in "magic numbers" and I think that 5 years of greatness should count more than 15 years of goodness, but 15 years of goodness should count more than 10 years of goodness and 10 years of mediocrity. For a long time i thought closers didn't belong in the hall, but I have made an exception for Mariano Rivera who is the best I have ever seen and has left no doubt in my mind that he could have been a solid starter.
There are 11 current players I see as absolute locks for the hall (suspected drug use makes Clemens and Bonds question marks): Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro, Glavine, Smoltz, Rivera, Griffey, ARod, Jeter, Pudge, and Manny. These 11 all had great peaks and great longevity and are in unless they Bonds or Rose their way out. There are also __ guys who have retired but are not yet eligible that should be locks: Piazza, Robbie Alomar, and Rickey Henderson arguments can be made against all of them but all will really be flawed and should not be listened too. At this point the debate can begin.
Curt Schilling actually ranks higher on Bill James's HOF Monitor list than Smoltz does. He doesn't have Smoltz's starter-closer-starter dominance, his unprecedented 150 saves/200 wins, or his one Cy Young, but other than that they are basically equal. Innings, starts, wins, strikeouts, era, and whip are all within a few percent of each other. I think that Schilling has to be in. He's certainly got the great peak and his longevity while not as good as some of the pitchers of his generation isn't bad. He's been great in the regular season, money in October, and in an era of relief specialists, he has thrown a ton of innings and complete games.
I'm a little less enthusiastic about Frank Thomas who ranks the highest of all remaining hitters on the monitor. Thomas was basically the best hitter in baseball for about 5 years in the mid 1990s, but he did it exclusively as a 1st base/DH type and after the run ended in 1997 Thomas struggled with injuries year in and year out and I just don't know if he had a dominant enough career at the plate to balance out his complete lack of skill in the field.
After Schilling and Thomas I don't think anyone has done enough to get into the conversation should their career end today. Obviously Pujols, Guerrero, and Chipper are well on their way as far as hitters go, and Mussina, Pettitte, and Santana are close on the pitcher side, but they aren't there yet. And David Wells and Kenny Rogers were very good, but not Hall of Fame material.
This leaves the relievers and guys who play difficult fielding positions, but don't have the hitting numbers to get in. Lets start with relievers. My thought has always been that relievers who never succeeded as starters should not be in the hall because if they were so good, why weren't they starters? Guys like Smoltz and Eckersley succeeded as starters, and Rivera was so incredibly dominant, especially in the post season, and often for multiple innings that it's likely he could have succeeded as a starter if given the chance. We shall continue with relievers in part two.
Well a lot of time has past and I have not been back. Part of that is the location of the hall, but another is the shear volume of undeserving players that have been admitted. I have gotten to see most of the players admitted in the last ten years and with the exceptions of Ryan and Eckersley I haven't been very impressed. I feel like they are watering down the hall.
In my opinion, the hall should be reserved for the top 1-2% or so of players, so of the 1200 players currently on 40 man rosters, about 20 of them should make the hall. I don't believe in "magic numbers" and I think that 5 years of greatness should count more than 15 years of goodness, but 15 years of goodness should count more than 10 years of goodness and 10 years of mediocrity. For a long time i thought closers didn't belong in the hall, but I have made an exception for Mariano Rivera who is the best I have ever seen and has left no doubt in my mind that he could have been a solid starter.
There are 11 current players I see as absolute locks for the hall (suspected drug use makes Clemens and Bonds question marks): Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro, Glavine, Smoltz, Rivera, Griffey, ARod, Jeter, Pudge, and Manny. These 11 all had great peaks and great longevity and are in unless they Bonds or Rose their way out. There are also __ guys who have retired but are not yet eligible that should be locks: Piazza, Robbie Alomar, and Rickey Henderson arguments can be made against all of them but all will really be flawed and should not be listened too. At this point the debate can begin.
Curt Schilling actually ranks higher on Bill James's HOF Monitor list than Smoltz does. He doesn't have Smoltz's starter-closer-starter dominance, his unprecedented 150 saves/200 wins, or his one Cy Young, but other than that they are basically equal. Innings, starts, wins, strikeouts, era, and whip are all within a few percent of each other. I think that Schilling has to be in. He's certainly got the great peak and his longevity while not as good as some of the pitchers of his generation isn't bad. He's been great in the regular season, money in October, and in an era of relief specialists, he has thrown a ton of innings and complete games.
I'm a little less enthusiastic about Frank Thomas who ranks the highest of all remaining hitters on the monitor. Thomas was basically the best hitter in baseball for about 5 years in the mid 1990s, but he did it exclusively as a 1st base/DH type and after the run ended in 1997 Thomas struggled with injuries year in and year out and I just don't know if he had a dominant enough career at the plate to balance out his complete lack of skill in the field.
After Schilling and Thomas I don't think anyone has done enough to get into the conversation should their career end today. Obviously Pujols, Guerrero, and Chipper are well on their way as far as hitters go, and Mussina, Pettitte, and Santana are close on the pitcher side, but they aren't there yet. And David Wells and Kenny Rogers were very good, but not Hall of Fame material.
This leaves the relievers and guys who play difficult fielding positions, but don't have the hitting numbers to get in. Lets start with relievers. My thought has always been that relievers who never succeeded as starters should not be in the hall because if they were so good, why weren't they starters? Guys like Smoltz and Eckersley succeeded as starters, and Rivera was so incredibly dominant, especially in the post season, and often for multiple innings that it's likely he could have succeeded as a starter if given the chance. We shall continue with relievers in part two.
Labels: Curt Schilling, Hall of Fame, Mariano Rivera
posted by Andrew Manning at
7:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home