Posnanski on postseason performances and Hall of Fame

[cincrazy]

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/02/0...ion/?eref=sihp

What do you say, Redszone? How seriously should a player's postseason performance be weighed when considering whether or not he's a Hall of Famer? Posnanski makes a great comparsion in this article between Chuck Finley and Andy Pettitte, saying they're more or less the same player, the only difference being Pettitte played with a great team that was frequently in the playoffs. Chuck Finley got one vote for Cooperstown, and while Pettitte may not make it, he's sure to get a groundswell of support due soley to his postseason performances. Fair? Unfair?

[kaldaniels]

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/02/0...ion/?eref=sihp

What do you say, Redszone? How seriously should a player's postseason performance be weighed when considering whether or not he's a Hall of Famer? Posnanski makes a great comparsion in this article between Chuck Finley and Andy Pettitte, saying they're more or less the same player, the only difference being Pettitte played with a great team that was frequently in the playoffs. Chuck Finley got one vote for Cooperstown, and while Pettitte may not make it, he's sure to get a groundswell of support due soley to his postseason performances. Fair? Unfair?

I realize it is unfair, but if I were voting, I would weigh post-season performance into my vote. I can't bring myself today to say I'd vote for Jack Morris for the Hall, but his Game 7 in 91 makes it a hard choice.

[Hoosier Red]

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/02/0...ion/?eref=sihp

What do you say, Redszone? How seriously should a player's postseason performance be weighed when considering whether or not he's a Hall of Famer? Posnanski makes a great comparsion in this article between Chuck Finley and Andy Pettitte, saying they're more or less the same player, the only difference being Pettitte played with a great team that was frequently in the playoffs. Chuck Finley got one vote for Cooperstown, and while Pettitte may not make it, he's sure to get a groundswell of support due soley to his postseason performances. Fair? Unfair?

It's unfair, but still the post season should be weighed. In general, I think the way it is weighed now is appropriate. Not playing in the post season isn't really a detriment but playing well in the post season can be used as a boost to one's chances.

He brings up the four pitchers from the 90's, Schilling, Brown, Pettite, and Mussina. All four pitched in the post season, and none would likely qualify for the HOF without the post season considered. The fact that Mussina and Brown had less exemplary post season careers doesn't hurt their case(They aren't less likely to make it,) but the fact that Pettite and Schilling had such great post season moments will help their case.

[RedsBaron]

I cannot quantify it but I do believe that a player's postseason performance has to be considered in evaluating his qualifications for the Hall of Fame.
The Hall of Fame, at least after the very first few years, has not been limited to the "no doubter" class of Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson. In considering most HOF candidates their entire body of work has to be evaluated and something as important as postseason play is part of the work to be considered.
I think that Curt Schilling's case for HOF induction is close enough that his incredible postseason performance puts him over the top. Had Kevin Brown put together a similar postseason resume maybe he would have also warranted induction, but he did not.
In Andy Pettite's case, if he was just "on the edge" of being HOF worthy perhaps his postseason record would be enough for me to support his induction, but I never regarded Pettite as truly being a dominant pitcher, and his postseason record in part is one of numerous appearances because of the quality of his teams instead of dominant performances in the postseason.

[dfs]

....It seemed to work against Tony Perez. One of the big arguments against Perez was that the lineup protected him and the only reason he got that many RBI's was because Rose and Morgan were setting the table in front of him.

It seems to me that one of the arguements against Blyleven was that despite how long he pitched, he only showed up in the postseason a couple of times.

FWIW I don't think there is any way Jack Morris would get the support that he does w/out his post season highlights.

[oneupper]

I agree with RedsBaron. Post-season games are not exhibition games, they're played to win and against very tough competition.

So you have to look at that, accepting that they are normally small sample sizes and looking for excellence to help chances of induction, rather than non-participation (lousy team) or large counting stats (good team) to be factors.

[dougdirt]

Post-season stats mean nothing to me in terms of ones HOF candidacy.

Oh, and I LOVE everything that Joe Posnanski writes.

[kaldaniels]

Post-season stats mean nothing to me in terms of ones HOF candidacy.

Oh, and I LOVE everything that Joe Posnanski writes.

Ignored completely, or just not given extra weight?

[RedsManRick]

Theoretically, I'd count the stats as part of the aggregate. But realistically, knowing that career stats will always be regular season, I don't really count them.

Perhaps I'd us them as a bonus. But as I think about it, I think I'd have a hard time saying "well, I don't think he deserves it based on his regular season work, but given what he did in the playoffs, sure." I'd have to really be on the fence about the guy for his playoff performance to tip the scales.

[dougdirt]

Ignored completely, or just not given extra weight?

I don't care about them at all. Some guys never get the chance to be there, so why should I care how some others who actually do get there play there?

[mth123]

Fair or unfair, its the Hall of "Fame" and post season performance is a large component of what makes a guy "famous." I don't think a scrub gets in because he had a couple good moments in post season play, nor would I exclude a worthy candidate due to a perception of being a guy who folds up in the post season, but if a guy is close, his performance in the post season might be the deciding factor.

I didn't read the article, but I'm guessing Andy Pettitte's retirement is a reason that this is a topic now. For the record, I don't think Pettitte is a Hall of Famer, but without the post season he wouldn't even be getting serious consideration by anyone. He'd be lumped into the group of very good pitchers who really don't deserve a Hall sniff after a nice career. This includes names like Mike Cuellar, Steve Rogers, Frank Viola, Dennis Martiinez, Larry Gura, and Ken Holtzman as points of comparison IMO. Pettitte is generally considered a cut above due to his post season performance, but its not enough IMO.

[dougdirt]

Fair or unfair, its the Hall of "Fame" and post season performance is a large component of what makes a guy "famous."

I guess that is why HOF voting is so frustrating.... we all have our own definitions of who should get in. IMO, the HOF is for the best baseball players of all time, famous or not.

[RedsBaron]

I guess that is why HOF voting is so frustrating.... we all have our own definitions of who should get in. IMO, the HOF is for the best baseball players of all time, famous or not.

Actually whether or not a player was "famous" is not part of the official criteria for determining whether or not a player should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The official criteria, which can be found at the Hall of Fame web site, 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."
I have seen countless posts where people argued that it is a "Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Stats," but the fame of a player is irrelevant as to whether or not he should be in the HOF. If fame was the criteria then Don Larsen, Roger Maris and Bucky Dent would have all been inducted years ago.
Of course the HOF voters have not always been consistent in applying the official criteria. If voting is to based upon "integrity, sportsmanship and character" then how did Ty Cobb make it?

[mth123]

Fame may not be part of the criteria but its the difference in a guy like Andy Pettitte being considered seriously and a similar (maybe better) guy like Frank Viola being bounced off the ballott early w/o all the consideration.

[bucksfan2]

Performing great in the most pressure packed situations should mean something. It shouldn't turn an average player into a HOF but it should boost the candidacy of guys like Smoltz, Lee, Schilling, etc. If the ultimate goal is to win a world championship why not reward a player who succeeded at such a high rate.

IMO it shouldn't determine a players candidacy but it should bump a guy like Smoltz into a first ballot and should bump a guy like Schilling into the HOF.