Mark Prior will finally get his due!

AggieEP said:

---

Trout is another case, for me if he didn't play another game he's already a no doubt Hall of Fame player. But he needs to grind another 1000 hits and 150 HRs to get his counting stats up to where the voters will bestow the "first ballot HoF" title on him. Just ludicrous to me.

---

Trout would get 98+% of the vote if he retired right now, without a doubt.

DeGrom probably hasn't done enough yet, and I doubt that the writers elect Pedroia. The standards of the baseball HOF are higher than those of basketball, football, and hockey.

AggieEP said:

---

The hall shouldn't punish players if their bodies just couldn't hold up.

---

Why not? An essential part of being a great athlete is having the physical ability to endure the grind of the game over time. If Yordan Alvarez got run over by a bus tomorrow would he make the Hall of Fame based on what he's done since 2019?

AgRyan04 said:

---

Mark Prior will finally get his due!

---

DIckie Thon, come on down!

The Porkchop Express said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

The hall shouldn't punish players if their bodies just couldn't hold up.

---

Why not? An essential part of being a great athlete is having the physical ability to endure the grind of the game over time. If Yordan Alvarez got run over by a bus tomorrow would he make the Hall of Fame based on what he's done since 2019?

---

I agree. Attendance is part of the grade. But I also disagree. I don't care that you played from age 36-39 getting 140 hits a season with a 680 OPS and reached a milestone. That hurts your case more than helps in my mind.

I think you might see less of this if the players knew that they could get into the Hall if counting numbers didn't matter

Of course, after a five year recency eligibility rule and then ten years on the ballot, some sharp voter could all of a sudden become enlightened and drop you off their ballot because they had a change of heart that counting numbers should matter again.

Farmer1906 said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

The hall shouldn't punish players if their bodies just couldn't hold up.

---

Why not? An essential part of being a great athlete is having the physical ability to endure the grind of the game over time. If Yordan Alvarez got run over by a bus tomorrow would he make the Hall of Fame based on what he's done since 2019?

---

I agree. Attendance is part of the grade. But I also disagree. I don't care that you played from age 36-39 getting 140 hits a season with a 680 OPS and reached a milestone. That hurts your case more than helps in my mind.

---

I think that is more of the cherry on the sundae feel. Although some guys have clearly gotten Hall-worthy at the ends of their careers. I think Paul Molitor and Dave Winfield are guys who were probably on the border and really contributed late in their careers to win. Molitor led the league in hits and had 113 RBI at age 39, not to mention being WS MVP at 36.

Winfield didn't have a very good rep when he was with the Yankees - not as good as Reggie, not as white as Mattingly, but then turned into a Willie Stargell-esque figure for the Twins and Blue Jays in his late 30s and only dropped off after 40.

I've said before that even Biggio probably really made the hall by reinventing himself at the end of his career into a home run threat who was still scoring 100 runs a year and just being a hustler.

Pedroia had some really sensational years and was the rare ROY-MVP on back-to-back seasons, but he wasn't some otherworldly talent that everyone was in awe of. If we put him in, do we put Nomar in? He had the same hot start and injury fate. He was in the convo with Jeter and A-Rod early on for the best SS in baseball and he won back-to-back batting titles. He got 5.5% of the vote his first year and then 1.8%.

What about Josh Hamilton? He had an incredible run of power and production, but he missed time because of self-inflicted injuries (addictions). Still, he hit 200 HR in just 1,027 games. 5 all-star games and an MVP. Should he get in for being so brilliant over 6 years?

I think you are taking an extreme example by using 2019-present with Yordan, but yes if you stretch that to 2029 then yes that's my argument. A decade of sustained greatness should be sufficient to be a hall of famer. That's pretty much my standard.

Unfortunately currently, you need to be great for a decade plus grind out another 6-7 years of stats as a replacement level player to get in. Why do we care so much about those replacement level years?

Miguel Cabrera is a good example, his last year with a WAR above 1.0 was 2016. Past that he grinded out 650 hits and 65 homers. That allowed him to get to 3000 and 500 respectively all the while being one of the worst hitters in baseball for 6 years.

Does Cabrera get in if he retires at 2500 hits and 450 homers... probably, but 3000 and 500 makes it a guarantee. The question is why does the hall care about numbers tacked on in this fashion? And why do fans?

Did we really need to see Biggio grind out a -2.4 WAR season so he could get to 3000 to know he was a hall of famer?

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Trout is another case, for me if he didn't play another game he's already a no doubt Hall of Fame player. But he needs to grind another 1000 hits and 150 HRs to get his counting stats up to where the voters will bestow the "first ballot HoF" title on him. Just ludicrous to me.

---

Trout would get 98+% of the vote if he retired right now, without a doubt.

DeGrom probably hasn't done enough yet, and I doubt that the writers elect Pedroia. The standards of the baseball HOF are higher than those of basketball, football, and hockey.

---

Since Trout is signed for like 8 more years, we won't ever really know the answer to this question, but with just 1600 hits, 368 homers and no post season skins on the wall, I can tell you that I believe wholeheartedly that 20% or so of the voters would not vote for Trout. Especially if our last reminders of his greatness were the last 4 years when he only played the equivalent of 2 years.

Luckily he will play and will hit plenty of the counting number milestones like 500 homers to make this a non issue.

AggieEP said:

---

I think you are taking an extreme example by using 2019-present with Yordan, but yes if you stretch that to 2029 then yes that's my argument. A decade of sustained greatness should be sufficient to be a hall of famer. That's pretty much my standard.

Unfortunately currently, you need to be great for a decade plus grind out another 6-7 years of stats as a replacement level player to get in. Why do we care so much about those replacement level years?

Miguel Cabrera is a good example, his last year with a WAR above 1.0 was 2016. Past that he grinded out 650 hits and 65 homers. That allowed him to get to 3000 and 500 respectively all the while being one of the worst hitters in baseball for 6 years.

Does Cabrera get in if he retires at 2500 hits and 450 homers... probably, but 3000 and 500 makes it a guarantee. The question is why does the hall care about numbers tacked on in this fashion? And why do fans?

Did we really need to see Biggio grind out a -2.4 WAR season so he could get to 3000 to know he was a hall of famer?

---

You're drifting into territory way deeper though. Baseball stats are an intrinsic part of the culture of the game.

Other than Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game, football and basketball have nothing in the way of memorable stats. Baseball's all about it - 61, .406, 383, those are special numbers, and as established by the earliest generations of the game, 500 HR and 3,000 hits and 300 wins established the elite players from everybody else.

I find the obsession with WAR a lot more ridiculous than the other side of the coin You can't conjure up a formula that denotes what a win is.

AggieEP said:

---

Since Trout is signed for like 8 more years, we won't ever really know the answer to this question, but with just 1600 hits, 368 homers and no post season skins on the wall, I can tell you that I believe wholeheartedly that 20% or so of the voters would not vote for Trout. Especially if our last reminders of his greatness were the last 4 years when he only played the equivalent of 2 years.

---

OK, well, although I don't agree with you, that would still make Trout a first ballot HOFer.

I'm not sure that you are appreciating the degree to which the current voters are relying on sabermetric stats. Mike Trout is already 52nd all time in career WAR, with everyone above him in the Hall save for Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod, who are obviously being excluded for something other than on the field performance.

I agree that numbers are inherent to baseball, but let's not forget all the ways the game has changed that makes those numbers irrelevant to winning these days.

EVERY single team in the league would take a .900 OPS hitter with 150 hits a year over a .800 OPS player with 200 hits a year. Good players these days take their walks and try to do damage by slugging because it's a proven fact that doubles and homers contribute more to winning than singles do.

At 150 hits a year you have to play 20 years to get 3000 hits. That's just not realistic for most guys.

With pitching wins the math is even more ludicrous. There were only 2 pitchers with more than 16 wins last year. It'd take 19 years averaging that to get to 300 wins. And I say the math is more ludicrous because a hitter can be terrible and still get 120 hits in a season at the end of their career, a starting pitcher has to remain good to rack up wins. If you have an ERA north of 5.00 you're not going to win 16 games very often.

So again, stats matter but they also must be contextualized within the realities of the game as it is played today. In my estimation, 2400 hits and 200 wins should be our new "magic numbers."

I don't think you are getting my argument here. I understand that with 80% of the vote he'd get in, I only mean to express that certain voters have their "things" that guide their voting and for a significant percentage that thing is counting stats. If he gets in with 80% of the vote that makes him a Larry Walker/Todd Shelton level vote getter when he should be a near unanimous choice.

The fact that any voter could look at what Trout has done to this day and not vote for him is ludicrous to me, but a reality of how the voting goes.

AggieEP said:

---

I agree that numbers are inherent to baseball, but let's not forget all the ways the game has changed that makes those numbers irrelevant to winning these days.

EVERY single team in the league would take a .900 OPS hitter with 150 hits a year over a .800 OPS player with 200 hits a year. Good players these days take their walks and try to do damage by slugging because it's a proven fact that doubles and homers contribute more to winning than singles do.

At 150 hits a year you have to play 20 years to get 3000 hits. That's just not realistic for most guys.

With pitching wins the math is even more ludicrous. There were only 2 pitchers with more than 16 wins last year. It'd take 19 years averaging that to get to 300 wins. And I say the math is more ludicrous because a hitter can be terrible and still get 120 hits in a season at the end of their career, a starting pitcher has to remain good to rack up wins. If you have an ERA north of 5.00 you're not going to win 16 games very often.

So again, stats matter but they also must be contextualized within the realities of the game as it is played today. In my estimation, 2400 hits and 200 wins should be our new "magic numbers."

---

All you are doing is solidifying my belief argument that Hall of Fame should be uber elite and I'm totally fine with many years going by without someone getting in. The Hall of Fame should be the greatest of all time, not the greatest of your era.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

I agree that numbers are inherent to baseball, but let's not forget all the ways the game has changed that makes those numbers irrelevant to winning these days.

EVERY single team in the league would take a .900 OPS hitter with 150 hits a year over a .800 OPS player with 200 hits a year. Good players these days take their walks and try to do damage by slugging because it's a proven fact that doubles and homers contribute more to winning than singles do.

At 150 hits a year you have to play 20 years to get 3000 hits. That's just not realistic for most guys.

With pitching wins the math is even more ludicrous. There were only 2 pitchers with more than 16 wins last year. It'd take 19 years averaging that to get to 300 wins. And I say the math is more ludicrous because a hitter can be terrible and still get 120 hits in a season at the end of their career, a starting pitcher has to remain good to rack up wins. If you have an ERA north of 5.00 you're not going to win 16 games very often.

So again, stats matter but they also must be contextualized within the realities of the game as it is played today. In my estimation, 2400 hits and 200 wins should be our new "magic numbers."

---

All you are doing is solidifying my belief argument that Hall of Fame should be uber elite and I'm totally fine with many years going by without someone getting in. The Hall of Fame should be the greatest of all time, not the greatest of your era.

---

If that's how you're defining it then no one will ever match the guys of the old days or steroid era. And you'll have a bunch of players you'll need to kick out. JV

If we're playing that game, Cobb wouldn't be in the league because of wokeness and Ruth wouldn't be in the league because of accusations of sexual misconduct.

Farmer1906 said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

I agree that numbers are inherent to baseball, but let's not forget all the ways the game has changed that makes those numbers irrelevant to winning these days.

EVERY single team in the league would take a .900 OPS hitter with 150 hits a year over a .800 OPS player with 200 hits a year. Good players these days take their walks and try to do damage by slugging because it's a proven fact that doubles and homers contribute more to winning than singles do.

At 150 hits a year you have to play 20 years to get 3000 hits. That's just not realistic for most guys.

With pitching wins the math is even more ludicrous. There were only 2 pitchers with more than 16 wins last year. It'd take 19 years averaging that to get to 300 wins. And I say the math is more ludicrous because a hitter can be terrible and still get 120 hits in a season at the end of their career, a starting pitcher has to remain good to rack up wins. If you have an ERA north of 5.00 you're not going to win 16 games very often.

So again, stats matter but they also must be contextualized within the realities of the game as it is played today. In my estimation, 2400 hits and 200 wins should be our new "magic numbers."

---

All you are doing is solidifying my belief argument that Hall of Fame should be uber elite and I'm totally fine with many years going by without someone getting in. The Hall of Fame should be the greatest of all time, not the greatest of your era.

---

If that's how you're defining it then no one will ever match the guys of the old days or steroid era. And you'll have a bunch of players you'll need to kick out. JV

---

I am 100% fine with that. I have a long list of guys who don't deserve to be in the Hall.

You think God's really running simulations on how Ty Cobb would fare against modern pitchers up there?

AggieEP said:

---

The fact that any voter could look at what Trout has done to this day and not vote for him is ludicrous to me, but a reality of how the voting goes.

---

I completely agree that it is ludicrous for any voter to look at Adrian Beltre, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Rickey Henderson, Mike Schmidt, etc. and be like, "that guy sucks, not a Hall of Famer".

But you are way overestimating the number of voters who wouldn't support Trout for the Hall, however. Unless he is involved in a scandal of some sort, I would be mildly surprised if he isn't unanimous.

Regardless, the actions of a few idiot writers shouldn't factor into an assessment of the process. A dozen or so didn't vote for Wille Freaking Mays, but the vast majority got it right.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

You think God's really running simulations on how Ty Cobb would fare against modern pitchers up there?

---

Admittedly, Cobb wasn't considering the modern era of baseball with reliever after reliever coming in throwing 95+ mph breaking balls, but you have to consider his response to a reporter who asked how he would hit in the 1950s.

Cobb replied, about .300.

Reporter asked what was different, Cobb said, you have to remember, son, I'm 70 years old.

AggieEP said:

---

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Trout is another case, for me if he didn't play another game he's already a no doubt Hall of Fame player. But he needs to grind another 1000 hits and 150 HRs to get his counting stats up to where the voters will bestow the "first ballot HoF" title on him. Just ludicrous to me.

---

Trout would get 98+% of the vote if he retired right now, without a doubt.

DeGrom probably hasn't done enough yet, and I doubt that the writers elect Pedroia. The standards of the baseball HOF are higher than those of basketball, football, and hockey.

---

Since Trout is signed for like 8 more years, we won't ever really know the answer to this question, but with just 1600 hits, 368 homers and no post season skins on the wall, I can tell you that I believe wholeheartedly that 20% or so of the voters would not vote for Trout. Especially if our last reminders of his greatness were the last 4 years when he only played the equivalent of 2 years.

Luckily he will play and will hit plenty of the counting number milestones like 500 homers to make this a non issue.

---

I understand what you're trying to say but you are minimizing what Trout has already accomplished:



There might be 5 guys that wouldn't check his name today, just for the attention, but nowhere near 20%.

_lefraud_ said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Trout is another case, for me if he didn't play another game he's already a no doubt Hall of Fame player. But he needs to grind another 1000 hits and 150 HRs to get his counting stats up to where the voters will bestow the "first ballot HoF" title on him. Just ludicrous to me.

---

Trout would get 98+% of the vote if he retired right now, without a doubt.

DeGrom probably hasn't done enough yet, and I doubt that the writers elect Pedroia. The standards of the baseball HOF are higher than those of basketball, football, and hockey.

---

Since Trout is signed for like 8 more years, we won't ever really know the answer to this question, but with just 1600 hits, 368 homers and no post season skins on the wall, I can tell you that I believe wholeheartedly that 20% or so of the voters would not vote for Trout. Especially if our last reminders of his greatness were the last 4 years when he only played the equivalent of 2 years.

Luckily he will play and will hit plenty of the counting number milestones like 500 homers to make this a non issue.

---

I understand what you're trying to say but you are minimizing what Trout has already accomplished:



There might be 5 guys that wouldn't check his name today, just for the attention, but nowhere near 20%.

---

Trout is my favorite player, I've seen him play in 4 different ballparks because I time it up to see him. I am not minimizing his accomplishments, but rather commenting on the writers and their arbitrary gatekeeping of the hall with longevity and stat collecting being key factors they use.

If he retired today with 1600 hits he'd be at the very bottom in terms of hits for guys in the hall. 368 homers for an outfielder also wouldn't move the needle for the guys who love stats. And there is also the fact that he's been almost invisible the last 3 years with injuries taking him off the field.

There are a lot of guys with 1600 hits and 300 homers over a ten year span that aren't in the hall, and who didn't even spend much time on the ballot.

Lance Berkman (2000-2009) 1553 hits and 309 homers
Mark Texiera (2003-2012) 1580 hits and 338 homers
Alfonso Soriano (2002-2011) 1586 hits and 319 homers

NONE of those guys are Trout, but I think it does highlight that the counting numbers he has right now are very much in line with hall of good numbers from players in the recent past that did not get serious looks from hall voters.

If Lance Berkman with an OPS of .978 over a ten year span can get less than 5% of the vote and not even get a second year... my thoughts are that Trout's numbers currently don't make him as much of a lock with the voters. They value longevity more than they value players who were only great for 10 or so years.

AggieEP said:

---

If Lance Berkman with an OPS of .978 over a ten year span can get less than 5% of the vote and not even get a second year... my thoughts are that Trout's numbers currently don't make him as much of a lock with the voters. They value longevity more than they value players who were only great for 10 or so years.

---

What you are missing is the degree to which Hall voters who would be persuaded an argument like "only got (X number) of hits" and the like have either died off or have been purged from the ballot. The fact that the likes of Todd Helton and Billy Wagner are polling in the 70-80% range demonstrates that the kind of voters you are talking about are a very small percentage of the electorate.

And when you take into account that Trout is way, way better than Helton/Tim Raines/Larry Walker, etc. was, the anticipated results become pretty obvious.

AggieEP said:

---

There are a lot of guys with 1600 hits and 300 homers over a ten year span that aren't in the hall, and who didn't even spend much time on the ballot.

Lance Berkman (2000-2009) 1553 hits and 309 homers
Mark Texiera (2003-2012) 1580 hits and 338 homers
Alfonso Soriano (2002-2011) 1586 hits and 319 homers

NONE of those guys are Trout, but I think it does highlight that the counting numbers he has right now are very much in line with hall of good numbers from players in the recent past that did not get serious looks from hall voters.

If Lance Berkman with an OPS of .978 over a ten year span can get less than 5% of the vote and not even get a second year... my thoughts are that Trout's numbers currently don't make him as much of a lock with the voters. They value longevity more than they value players who were only great for 10 or so years.

---

If your last statement was true, then there's no way that Mauer and Helton are getting elected to the Hall.

You are overlooking the degree to which sabermetric stats have become the be all and end all for a vast majority of voters.

Berkman 52 WAR
Texiera 50.6 WAR
Soriano 28.6 WAR

Trout is over 85 WAR and counting, which is on the border of top 50 all time. That is a mortal lock for the HOF number, even if he retired yesterday.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

If Lance Berkman with an OPS of .978 over a ten year span can get less than 5% of the vote and not even get a second year... my thoughts are that Trout's numbers currently don't make him as much of a lock with the voters. They value longevity more than they value players who were only great for 10 or so years.

---

What you are missing is the degree to which Hall voters who would be persuaded an argument like "only got (X number) of hits" and the like have either died off or have been purged from the ballot. The fact that the likes of Todd Helton and Billy Wagner are polling in the 70-80% range demonstrates that the kind of voters you are talking about are a very small percentage of the electorate.

And when you take into account that Trout is way, way better than Helton/Tim Raines/Larry Walker, etc. was, the anticipated results become pretty obvious.

---

Berkman got 1.4 percent of the vote in 2019, you think that COVID killed off all the voters in the last 5 years?

The profile of hall voters is changing, but let's not exaggerate that it's radically different than it was just 5 years ago.

98.6% of them did not vote for Puma. In my opinion they didn't vote for him solely because he didn't have big counting numbers.

I'll post the pic again since you seemed to have missed it the first time.

Thats 3 MVPs and 4 other runner ups…he could have less than 1000 hits and 200 homers, and this hardware alone gets him 98% if he never swings a bat again.

Helton's 10 year peak looks a lot like the other guys I posted, the difference with him is that he hung around long enough to get to 2500 hits. His last 6 years he averaged 105 hits and 11 homers a year. It's those replacement level years that got him in the hall.

Mauer is a special case because he's a catcher. He doesn't tell us much about future selectees because of that.

You don't have to convince me that Trout is great, but guys like Berkman were also screwed on the MVP front because the juicers were ruling those awards during his prime.

Go look at the names above Berkman in 2001 and 2002. Bonds, Sosa, Pujols, Luis Gonzalez.

It's just a fact that Trout has not had much competition for his MVP awards. In 2014 he beat out Victor Martinez and Michael Brantley. In 2015 he finished 2nd behind Josh Donaldson and just in front of Lorenzo Cain. In 2013 he finished just in front of Chris Davis.

I love Trout, but even peak Trout isn't winning the NL MVP award in 2001 and 2002. Winning the award has value, but there should be some context as well when comparing Trout's awards to those from the generation before him.

It's really odd you keep bringing up Berkman in a discussion about Mike Trout. But we can go a different route, WAR. Can't get screwed out of that metric.



You're also selling one of the best right handed bats in the past 30 years incredibly short in Miguel Cabrera, who Trout finished runner-up twice, one of which was a triple crown season for Miggy.

_lefraud_ said:

---

It's really odd you keep bringing up Berkman in a discussion about Mike Trout. But we can go a different route, WAR. Can't get screwed out of that metric.

---

Agreed.

Berkman's career WAA (wins above average) is 28.3; that 25-30 range is marginal for the Hall of Fame (except for relief pitchers). My personal Hall standard is above Lance Berkman, but it is reasonable to assert that he should have gotten more consideration.

Trout, on the other hand, has a career WAA of 63.6. That is inner circle Hall of Fame territory. Everybody with a WAA of over 60 is in the Hall or still eligible, except for Bonds and Clemens. Trout was just vastly better than Berkman, and any baseball writer who is sentient knows it.

_lefraud_ said:

---

I'll post the pic again since you seemed to have missed it the first time.

Thats 3 MVPs and 4 other runner ups…he could have less than 1000 hits and 200 homers, and this hardware alone gets him 98% if he never swings a bat again.

---

Trout will get in at any point he retires with a huge percentage of the vote because he was clearly the dominant player in the league for a long stretch that makes his career totals obsolete. But that is a real rarity.

His all-time comparison for me would be Mickey Mantle. When he was playing, he was obviously the best guy out there, but he also got banged up a lot as his career went on. Between ages 30-34 he only made it to 140 games once. I'm sure the drinking didn't help, but Mantle batted less than .300 for his career (.298) and was well under 3,000 hits (2,415) but 536 HR, a triple crown, and just lights freaking out in the World Series made those #s irrelevant.

Trout obviously hasn't made the post-season hardly at all, but his league leaders are so gaudy that it doesn't matter. Last year was his worst year, but even in his injury-ridden seasons, he puts up numbers like late-era Barry Bonds minus the walks and the enormous balloon head.

_lefraud_ said:

---

It's really odd you keep bringing up Berkman in a discussion about Mike Trout. But we can go a different route, WAR. Can't get screwed out of that metric.

---

Is this true? Wouldn't the inflated numbers of the steroid era players push Berkman's share of WAR pool down?

Go easy on me, I know little about how all that is calculated.