Potential SS's for the Hall of Fame

Discussion in 'Sports' started by Andy T., Aug 3, 2007.

  1. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom, since you think Davey should be in, you must also think these three should be in:

    Barry Larkin
    Alan Trammell
    Tony Fernandez

    First, I'm guessing you think Barry should be in. ;) I think he should be, too - he is probably the best of the 4 we are discussing. But you have to admit that Trammell and Fernandez are as good as or better than Davey. I think they are better. I'm guessing you think they are on par with Davey. They all have rings, all have a few gold gloves, but Trammell and Fernandez were better offensively.

    So are you willing to put all 4 in the Hall?
     
  2. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh yes, add Vizquel to the mix. Better career numbers (more hits and still compiling) and way more GG's than Davey.
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sort of addressed Vizquel already, and in the other forum pointed out that Tony's numbers do have some deficiencies in relation to Davey, so I disagree that Tony is better than Davey. If we need to, we can look at Omar again.

    I have looked at the other two in a cursory way. It will probably be Monday before I get back to looking at them, but I may squeeze in the time later today. Larkin gets no extra points just because he's a Red, and probably one of the top three SS they've ever had, and some argue he's better than Davey. I did love watching him play. What's problematic about Barry is his injuries and his often hot and cold relationship with fans and the media. His public feuds with the Reds' FO (sometimes warranted) may factor in there. I need to look at what he did in his era. I think you'd find more people think Davey was the best in his era than think Barry was the best in his, but that's just a guess. Ancedotally I've found it to be true.

    There's a local branch that has the most recent "Total Baseball." I may have to stop by there just to look at some other things we've talked about.
     
  4. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jeter and A-Rod (Seattle / Texas)?
     
  5. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMO Larkin, Trammel, and Vizquel are all better than Davey and would be deserving of the HOF over him.
     
  6. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think these guys are first ballot guys. I guess the five that I listed are more marginal/debatable guys. I also want to trick Tom into putting Fernandez into the Hall!
     
  7. faithgirl46

    faithgirl46
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778
    Likes Received:
    2
    What does SS stand for?
    Faithgirl
     
  8. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shortstop.
     
  9. faithgirl46

    faithgirl46
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thank you,
    Faithgirl
     
  10. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    That won't work. I don't put guys in that don't have merits :)

    We'll see about him. He doesn't measure up to Davey in some areas but has better numbers in other areas. Overall, the MHOF numbers divide them. Davey's is higher.
     
    #10 TomVols, Aug 3, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2007
  11. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Count me as one vote for Buddy Biancalana.
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vizquel - Most hits, doubles, and triples by any SS since 1989. The rest of his numbers put him middle of the pack to average. What seperates him is his glove. 12 pts above league average at .984. 11 Gold Gloves. Better than LgAvg at BA and OBP. His HOFM has him as less than a lock, 20 points lower than Ozzie and Davey. His October numbers are not super but not awful. I wouldn't have a problem with him getting in, but I don't think he will be voted in.

    Tony Fernandez - A few great years. A few below average years. Overall, good numbers. .288 lifetime. Doesn't rank well in his era, though. Only 64% SB success. His HOFM is half that of Davey and Ozzie. More doubles than Davey, but less hits, runs, etc. Sorry Andy :)

    Alan Trammell - Want to see a guy hit .320something one year and .260something the next? Look at Alan. Had a monster WS in '84. Great glove. Has some very good offensive numbers and ranks pretty well in his era. I think he's marginal just because he was in an era against Davey, Ozzie, Cal, etc., and got lost in the mix. (I won't bring up the soft sand at Tiger stadium either....wait, I just did) :) Seriously, I think a case could be made, but his HOFM is 20 points lower than Oz or Davey, thus his case isn't as strong. I wouldn't vote for him, despite how good he was. (I believe he was overshadowed by Gibson, Morris, etc. on that WS team, but without Trammell, Detroit would not have won, IMHO).

    Barry Larkin - 12 times an AS. 3 GG. 1995's NL MVP. One of the best SS in his era. However, his inability to stay durable hurt him. He put up great numbers. Was very good in what little October he saw (Oakland didn't get to see him much in 1990) :) Has the highest HOFM of any SS we have considered here, but still 20 points below the Ozzie/Davey line. I would not argue against him, but I just don't think he'll get in.
     
  13. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom, remind me again - what is the HOFM number? Is that the number James came up with that monitors black ink and other things that a typical Hall voter looks for?

    The HOFM seems to be the one thing you hang your hat on in these discussions. I would like to see what it consists of.

    Thanks.
     
  14. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think he invented it. Baseball Reference tweaks it a little, and there's a modified version that tweaks it even further. You get points for having X number of hits, so many home runs (300 for instance) and gold gloves etc.

    I don't really hang my hat on it, but it is one way to compare folks, especially across eras.

    James's calculation is found in Politics of Glory. I'd give you the page, but I don't have it with me. I prefer that to the HOF standards calculation, which is also found at Baseball Reference. The big thing I don't like about James's is that you get the same point value for 399 HR as you do for 301. The guy who hits 400 gets a much larger value for the guy who hit one HR less. That's not quite fair. (that is just an example for illustration purposes.)
     
  15. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    How about Shawon Dunston? I believe he'll be on the ballot in 2008.
    I know he played many positions, but he was predominately a SS.
     
  16. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    O.k., here is the definition from baseball-reference:

    The HOFM is merely a predictor of what players will make the Hall, so why are we using this at all in our discussions? I thought we were discussing who should be in the Hall, not who will be. BTW, baseball-reference has the HOFM numbers as this:

    Smith = 142.5
    Vizquel = 119.5
    Trammell = 118.5
    Larkin = 118.5
    Davey = 106.5
    Fernandez = 74
    Bianacalana = -4.5 :laugh:

    O.k., so I am wondering why you keep saying that Davey and Ozzie's HOFM are the same, when they are clearly not? Also, on this list Davey is in 5th place. So I'm wondering why you keep using the HOFM?

    These numbers came from baseball-reference.com and it appears that they do not account for defense. Accounting for defense, Smith and Vizquel will only widen the gap from the others, while Trammel, Larkin and Davey will all move up at about the same rate, since they were all comparable defensively.

    But again, the HOFM really deserves no place in the discussion. I just wanted to point all this out for the record.
     
    #16 Andy T., Aug 6, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2007
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is HOFM either Hall of Fame Merit, or Hall of Fame Moniter?? :confused:

    BTW, Rafael Belliard for the HOF.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Hey, if someone else can suggest Buddy Biancalana for the HOF with a straight face, then surely Rafael Belliard is a lock! :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
    #17 EdSutton, Aug 6, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2007
  18. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    HOFM = Hall of Fame Monitor. In other words, it monitors who will make the Hall, not who should make the Hall.

    The HOFM is rather pointless to use in discussing who should make the Hall.
     
  19. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for that info.

    BTW, I assume that not all with good HOFM ratings, have made it, so far. Am I not correct in this?

    BTW, there only one SS I see as a "near lock", currently, and that is Derek Jeter.

    Ed
     
  20. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    My calculations were using the Modified HOFM, that account for the Jamesian problems mentioned earlier.

    According to James and BR, 100 is a likely HOFer, and 130 means the players is a "virtual cinch." The full link to the BR HOFM explanation is http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor

    Not many above the "lock" number are not in. A good number below the "likely" number are in.

    It is not pointless. It is what it is. Just a tool for comparison. It is by no means the essential tool. It is just one number. It's like the Wind Chill or to a lesser extent the Consumer Confidence Index. It means very little other than for relative purposes, used as part of an overall synthesis and analysis. At least, that's how I use it. I know there are some that argue more for it being a hard and fast number to use to discuss a player's merits vs. the Hall. I prefer to use it to compare players to other players, especially in eras that may not overlap as much. But it's just one number. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Dunston? Very good SS. But not one of the best all time, and hard to say he's one of the best of his era. I did love watching him play, though.
     

Share This Page

Loading...