What active players, age 32+, will deserve to be in the HOF?

[RedsManRick]

First, let's just pass on the locks, the guys who could retire tomorrow and get in:

Position Players: Jeter, ARod, Chipper Jones, Pujols, Pudge Rodriguez
Pitchers: Mo Rivera

Then I looked for guys who accrued 40+ fWAR. That gives us this list of 22 players, 14 position players & 8 pitchers. The question is: Who deserves to get in to the HOF? That is to say, if you had a vote, and these guys careers play out the way you expect, which ones would you vote for?

FWIW, this came to mind when looking at Bobby Abreu's career stats. He's criminally underrated. He's had 12 straight years of 15 HR & 20 SB. I bet there aren't more than a half dozen other guys in MLB history who did that -- and probably not a dozen who did it non-consecutively.

-- EDIT --

I just realized I omitted Jim Thome, who would slot in below Manny in terms of WAR, and Jason Giambi, who would be below Ichro. I would vote yes on Thome, no on Giambi.

[crazybob60]

I was just discussing this fact with one of my friends the other day, and I took the names away and when you look at the stat line of 2 guys and also take away the team accomplishments (WS titles) and fan accomplishments (?; All Star voting), these two active players are right there neck in neck in almost every single category. The two are Derek Jeter and Johnny Damon. Jeter is a first ballot guy, no doubt. Personally, I think Damon gets in, but it will be maybe later on after he has been on the ballot for quite some time. But if you look at his numbers...well. Not much difference.

[RBA]

Do we set aside steroid/hgh use for this question?

[RedsManRick]

Do we set aside steroid/hgh use for this question?

Completely up to you.

Personally, I go with the "era" argument. Every era had it's own advantages/disadvantages and dealt with cheaters in its own way. I judge the player in that context. If something is so important that we want to alter our history museum for it, the player probably should have been kicked out of the game. The museum is primarily for u, the honor for the player is secondary, and I don't see what is gained by having an incomplete record of the greatest performers/producers of the era.

That said, I'd prefer to see conversation outside of the steroid issue, which has been talked to death here and elsewhere.

[top6]

First, let's just pass on the locks, the guys who could retire tomorrow and get in:

Position Players: Jeter, ARod, Chipper Jones, Pujols, Pudge Rodriguez
Pitchers: Mo Rivera

I think Ichiro is a lock if he retired today -- both in terms of "should he" and "would he."

If you give him a little "extra credit" for all the years he spent in Japan - which I think is appropriate under these unique circumstances - he is a shoe-in. But even if you don't do that, I don't see how you can keep him out.

[RedsManRick]

I think Ichiro is a lock if he retired today -- both in terms of "should he" and "would he."

If you give him a little "extra credit" for all the years he spent in Japan - which I think is appropriate under these unique circumstances - he is a shoe-in. But even if you don't do that, I don't see how you can keep him out.

Based on his performance, I think it's debatable. FWIW, the list is in order of fWAR. He had a few elite skills, but if the name fo the game is actual run production, it's hard to be HOF caliber with virtual zero power. For the other guys, based on performance, there's no doubt.

I for one do not give any extra credit for what he accomplished in Japan any more than I'd give a guy "a little" extra credit for destroying AAA. It's a separate, inferior league. In Japan, Matt Murton is Barry Bonds.

I do consider the narrative, however. My basic criteria is this: if the story of the era from a historical perspective would be incomplete in your absence, you belong. The stats are a very good, but insufficient filter. What drives me nuts is when people try to use stats that are poor measures of production to argue for players who really only belong based on the narrative -- e.g. Jim Rice, Jack Morris.

[top6]

Based on his performance, I think it's debatable. FWIW, the list is in order of fWAR. He had a few elite skills, but if the name fo the game is actual run production, it's hard to be HOF caliber with virtual zero power. For the other guys, based on performance, there's no doubt.

I for one do not give any extra credit for what he accomplished in Japan any more than I'd give a guy "a little" extra credit for destroying AAA. It's a separate, inferior league. In Japan, Matt Murton is Barry Bonds.

I do consider the narrative, however. My basic criteria is this: if the story of the era from a historical perspective would be incomplete in your absence, you belong. The stats are a very good, but insufficient filter. What drives me nuts is when people try to use stats that are poor measures of production to argue for players who really only belong based on the narrative -- e.g. Jim Rice, Jack Morris.

I don't necessarily disagree with your statistical analysis, and I agree Ichiro is probably overrated a little, but ultimately he has made the All Star team and won a Gold Glove every year he's played, will have more than 2500 hits in a very short amount of time, and also was the first Japanese player to succeed in the majors and was something of a cultural phenomenon. Unless the Hall of Fame should be based only on stats, I don't see how you can keep him out. He was a dominant figure in the game for over a decade.

Obviously, if he gets to 3000 hits, it won't matter what either of us think, he'll be a first-ballot guy.

[RedsBaron]

I only voted for four guys on the ballot: Vlad, Halladay, Rolen and Ichiro. That doesn't mean that several of the other guys listed won't make the HOF. If I took the time to research everyone listed I might very well favor the induction of other players who were listed, but those four were the guys who jumped out at me as deserving the HOF even if their careers ended tomorrow.

[RedsBaron]

I don't necessarily disagree with your statistical analysis, and I agree Ichiro is probably overrated a little, but ultimately he has made the All Star team and won a Gold Glove every year he's played, will have more than 2500 hits in a very short amount of time, and also was the first Japanese player to succeed in the majors and was something of a cultural phenomenon. Unless the Hall of Fame should be based only on stats, I don't see how you can keep him out. He was a dominant figure in the game for over a decade.

Obviously, if he gets to 3000 hits, it won't matter what either of us think, he'll be a first-ballot guy.

While I have alwys believed that Ichiro was overrated, his HOF Monitor Score is 206, more than twice the 100 HOF Monitor Score of the average member of the HOF. He is a lock to be inducted, probably on the first ballot, so long as he avoids scandal.

[RedsManRick]

I don't necessarily disagree with your statistical analysis, and I agree Ichiro is probably overrated a little, but ultimately he has made the All Star team and won a Gold Glove every year he's played, will have more than 2500 hits in a very short amount of time, and also was the first Japanese player to succeed in the majors and was something of a cultural phenomenon. Unless the Hall of Fame should be based only on stats, I don't see how you can keep him out. He was a dominant figure in the game for over a decade.

Obviously, if he gets to 3000 hits, it won't matter what either of us think, he'll be a first-ballot guy.

Don't get me wrong. I agree. He's an easy yes -- based on being a very good player with a stellar narrative. But even the All-Star team is a popularity contest and only roughly correlates with production. If he put up the same stats but were from Kansas, would he have made all those all-star teams?

Hits are just hits and Ichiro is probably the greatest singles hitter of the era. But he's merely good at getting on base and mediocre at slugging. He's simply not an elite offensive player. From a statistical point of view, he's a borderline guy. He's a less productive player than, say, Tim Raines who is deserving but struggling to get support. But from a narrative perspective, he's the opposite of Raines.

So, yeah, he's a Yes for me and an absolute shoo-in from a "what will happen" perspective. Voters LOVE extreme skill sets and unique narratives. We just shouldn't conflate overall place in the game's history with his on-field value. If he were a white kid from a suburb who killed AAA until he was 26 and we traded in a good chunk of his bases-empty infield singles for walks, we probably wouldn't be including him.

[bucksfan2]

The toughest two for me were Rollins and Andruw Jones.

As for Andruw Jones 5 years ago he was a mortal lock for the HOF. He was the premier CF in the game. You would have thought that heading into 2007 as a 30 year old Jones would have had a chance to be considered as one of the better OF in baseball history. Then all of a sudden he got fat, out of shape, and dropped off a cliff. But to me you reward a guy great over the course of 10 years don't you?

I went with Jones, Vlad, Berkman, CC, Halladay, and forgot to check Ichiro.
After looking at Jimmy Rollins offensive stats he defiantly isn't a HOF. He was an ok offensive player but really only had one good offensive season. His defense was good but not good enough to make up for his offensive inefficiencies. I do wonder if that MVP, WS Ring (s), and playing in a large market will get him in.

[RedsManRick]

The toughest two for me were Rollins and Andruw Jones.

As for Andruw Jones 5 years ago he was a mortal lock for the HOF. He was the premier CF in the game. You would have thought that heading into 2007 as a 30 year old Jones would have had a chance to be considered as one of the better OF in baseball history. Then all of a sudden he got fat, out of shape, and dropped off a cliff. But to me you reward a guy great over the course of 10 years don't you?

I think people forget just how awesome of a CF he was, as in, one of the very best of all-time. For me, he's a HOF. But given how much of that relies on your opinion of his defense and peak vs. consistency, I can understand why many people would vote no.

[WrongVerb]

Hits are just hits and Ichiro is probably the greatest singles hitter of the era. But he's merely good at getting on base and mediocre at slugging. He's simply not an elite offensive player. From a statistical point of view, he's a borderline guy. He's a less productive player than, say, Tim Raines who is deserving but struggling to get support. But from a narrative perspective, he's the opposite of Raines.

How does Ichiro's defense factor into the equation? He's won a gold glove every year he's been in the majors, and has one of the most feared arms in the AL.

[REDREAD]

Well, lots of good points here.

I am the only one that voted for Moyer.. I figure that he is one of these guys that just played long enough to get in.. If you let in guys like Phil Neikro, Sutton, etc.. guys that were never really dominate but played a long time.. if that's the standard, then Moyer gets in, in my opinion..

[wolfboy]

No Jim Thome? Is that because he's a DH? (I saw the note about position players v. pitchers).