Active Players You Think are HOF Worthy

[happybat4]

10 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

But keep in mind that when you say Vlad was "only" the 7th best hitter in 2000, uh, err... you mean against the likes of Bonds? Manny in Boston, and ARod in Texas, in that lineup? Oh, and all of them on the gear?

"Only" 7th, at the peak of the gear years, when the league was putting up the craziest numbers in history is still pretty good, AJ.

You can say the same about Finley. He was top ten for a while. 

[Lou]

When you say top 10, how many qualified pitchers and players are you talking about?

[Angelsjunky]

2 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

But keep in mind that when you say Vlad was "only" the 7th best hitter in 2000, uh, err... you mean against the likes of Bonds? Manny in Boston, and ARod in Texas, in that lineup? Oh, and all of them on the gear?

"Only" 7th, at the peak of the gear years, when the league was putting up the craziest numbers in history is still pretty good, AJ.

Of course. 7th is awesome. But I think you could make an argument that one criteria for a Hall of Famer is whether said play was ever arguably the best player in baseball, and I don't think Vlad makes the cut. Many Hall of Famers don't fit that criteria, so it doesn't disqualify Vlad.

[JustATroutFan]

Making the MLB Hall of Fame is starting to get really overrated. Do you honestly believe that guys like Lee Smith, Jack Morris, and Harold Baines were Hall of Famers when they played? None of them were great when they played. Good? Yes. Hall of Fame though? No! Felix might not make the Hall of Fame when he's on the ballot but he might get voted in later. It feels like years ago when he was a dominating starting pitcher. Cole might make the Hall of Fame. The last two seasons, he's been excellent despite pitching at hitter friendly Minute Maid for half of his games. It's not a stretch to think that he can't put up a few more great years with the Yankees. He is still in his prime and he's got the confidence (big factor in being great) and stuff. People might think he's arrogant but I would rather have someone like that than someone who has no confidence in themselves. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

55 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Of course. 7th is awesome. But I think you could make an argument that one criteria for a Hall of Famer is whether said play was ever arguably the best player in baseball, and I don't think Vlad makes the cut. Many Hall of Famers don't fit that criteria, so it doesn't disqualify Vlad.

Yeah, that's true. And personally i think that should be the case, too.

This is my argument against betts and harper, for now. Betts in 2018 was about as equal to trout as anyone. But aside from that year, he has never been "the best". Same for Harper. Both have the skills to be, but as of yet, both benefit from the media exposure, IMO. 

As far as Vlad in 2000, I think it has to be mentioned that he played in the asterisk era, and is one of the few bonafide sluggers of the era not linked to steroids. So he may never have been the best player in the game, but if you take away the juice, how many of the guys who were "better" than him are putting up the same numbers? 

[ten ocho recon scout]

32 minutes ago, JustATroutFan said:

Making the MLB Hall of Fame is starting to get really overrated. Do you honestly believe that guys like Lee Smith, Jack Morris, and Harold Baines were Hall of Famers when they played? None of them were great when they played. Good? Yes. Hall of Fame though? No! Felix might not make the Hall of Fame when he's on the ballot but he might get voted in later. It feels like years ago when he was a dominating starting pitcher. Cole might make the Hall of Fame. The last two seasons, he's been excellent despite pitching at hitter friendly Minute Maid for half of his games. It's not a stretch to think that he can't put up a few more great years with the Yankees. He is still in his prime and he's got the confidence (big factor in being great) and stuff. People might think he's arrogant but I would rather have someone like that than someone who has no confidence in themselves. 

I think this is the hiccup. Whereas its always been a pretty exclusive group, lately, some people have gotten in who shouldnt have, if they stayed with the "legends only" criteria.

Like anything else, if you shift criteria and standards, speculation goes out the window.

Personally, i think if youre a top ten player for a decade or so, youre in. Otherwise....

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Yeah, that's true. And personally i think that should be the case, too.

This is my argument against betts and harper, for now. Betts in 2018 was about as equal to trout as anyone. But aside from that year, he has never been "the best". Same for Harper. Both have the skills to be, but as of yet, both benefit from the media exposure, IMO. 

As far as Vlad in 2000, I think it has to be mentioned that he played in the asterisk era, and is one of the few bonafide sluggers of the era not linked to steroids. So he may never have been the best player in the game, but if you take away the juice, how many of the guys who were "better" than him are putting up the same numbers? 

But Betts WAS the best player in 2018, or at least equal  to the best player. That means something. He was also a serious MVP candidate in 2016. His MLB WAR ranks since his first full season in 2015: 23, 2, 15, 1, 9. Meaning, he's had two truly dominant years, one borderline dominant, and two very good.

Judging a player like Betts is tricky, because he's playing alongside a historical great like Trout. It is the same problem Frank Robinson had, playing alongside Mays and Mantle, or Ken Griffey and Alex Rodriguez had playing alongside Bonds. If you take Trout out of the picture,  Betts is the substantial WAR leader over the last five years:

(Trout 44.2)

Betts 35.4

Bryant 27.8

Yelich 27.7

Donaldson 27.6

Altuve, Lindor 27.2

Meaning, while the field has a gentle curve, Betts has as almost as big a gap between him and #3, and Trout and #2.

This is why I said "arguably the best," and should  probably change it to "among the very best." Vlad was borderline. His WAR ranks, from 1998 to 2008: 15, 42, 17, 34, 4, 89*, 15, 17, 60, 64, 119.

Bold-face are Angels years. *400+ PA, all others are among qualifiers.

As you can see, Vlad wasn't as good as Betts, and aside from one year (2002) wasn't among the very best players in baseball. Part of the problem is that we're judging him retro-actively with WAR; he played during a time when WAR was barely heard of (I  believe it was created circa 2004, but not widely used until 2012ish, when the Cabrera vs. Trout debate brought it to prominence). He fares a lot better if viewed as a hitter, but still rarely if ever among the best of the best.

[Angelsjunky]

Here's some WAR graphs comparing Vlad, Trout, Betts, and Harper, but puts some of this visually:

https://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=13611,778,11579,10155

[ten ocho recon scout]

27 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

But Betts WAS the best player in 2018, or at least equal  to the best player. That means something. He was also a serious MVP candidate in 2016. His MLB WAR ranks since his first full season in 2015: 23, 2, 15, 1, 9. Meaning, he's had two truly dominant years, one borderline dominant, and two very good.

So does Josh Hamilton get in? Hamilton was the best player in the game for a handful of years too, aside from Pujols. But Puiols is like Trout in your full post. He was historic, so its unfair to people playing in their shadow.

What about Josh Donaldson? Or Tulo? Or Prince Fielder, or Joey Bats? 

Im not taking anything away from Betts. Hes a stud. He has all the tools to make it. I just think after 3 years calling him "surefire" is way too premature. 

Forget Trout. Betts is no Pujols. Nobody saw the Pujols decline coming, at least to the extent it did. But we're inking Betts to repeat his outlier season for another 5? Even if we just go with 2019, and another 5. Very possible.... but a lot of his value comes from his speed and defense.... as the one slows, so will the other. His bat isnt super duper star.

Again, all Im arguing is that theres been a million superstars before now that didnt keep it up for a decade. This is what makes the Trouts so crazy. But just my own judgement, I need to see at least 5 straight years of MVP discussion before Im going to anoint someone a surefire HOF guy. Hanley Ramirez looked like that guy for awhile too....

[Torridd]

Rendon and Simmons? What about the second baseman from the Astros? Too lazy to look up his name.

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

So does Josh Hamilton get in? Hamilton was the best player in the game for a handful of years too, aside from Pujols. But Puiols is like Trout in your full post. He was historic, so its unfair to people playing in their shadow.

What about Josh Donaldson? Or Tulo? Or Prince Fielder, or Joey Bats? 

Im not taking anything away from Betts. Hes a stud. He has all the tools to make it. I just think after 3 years calling him "surefire" is way too premature. 

Forget Trout. Betts is no Pujols. Nobody saw the Pujols decline coming, at least to the extent it did. But we're inking Betts to repeat his outlier season for another 5? Even if we just go with 2019, and another 5. Very possible.... but a lot of his value comes from his speed and defense.... as the one slows, so will the other. His bat isnt super duper star.

Again, all Im arguing is that theres been a million superstars before now that didnt keep it up for a decade. This is what makes the Trouts so crazy. But just my own judgement, I need to see at least 5 straight years of MVP discussion before Im going to anoint someone a surefire HOF guy. Hanley Ramirez looked like that guy for awhile too....

Obviously a combination of factors are required. I would simplify them into peak dominance, career value, and intangibles. The Jay Jaffe JAWS system combines the first two, by averaging career WAR and best seven years. The intangibles part is entirely subjective; or rather, it is inter-subjective, meaning it is a kind of consensus combination of qualities: uniqueness of a player's skills (Vlad does well), reputation (boo  to Hamilton), etc.

The average Hall of Famer is around 55 JAWS, except for catchers who are 43.5. We could say that anyone 50 or above is a good candidate, with 40+ being borderline and 60+ being almost a sure thing. John Hamilton is all the way down at 27.6, so is far from being even borderline, and due to his crummy intangibles, isn't a candidate at all. Not to mention that he isn't even eligible, having played in only 9 seasons. Now if he had three more seasons like 2010, or five more like 2012, he'd have a JAWS around 50 and be a serious candidate, even with the reputation.

Tulo has a JAWS of 42.4 because he was so damned good for a few years, with six star-level seasons. But he just lost too much time to injury and won't make it.

Prince Fielder (24.4, 1611 games) is another one who lost too much to injury, and Bautista (37.5, 1798  games) got going too late--he wasn't a full-time player until age 28.

Donaldson (37.7, age 34 this year) is interesting. He's been the second best player during his full-time years (2013-19), with 40.6 WAR. But he probably needs at least another three seasons like 2019 to have a serious chance, and he's getting up there in age.

But you're right about Betts: he isn't sure-fire. But with a 41.8 JAWs through age 26, he's in very good  shape. As long as he's relatively healthy and continues at his 2019 level, he'll probably compile at least close to a Hall of Fame record by the time he turns 30. Two more seasons like 2019 gets him to 50+. Another five or so and he's over 60, and is there. I call him "sure-fire" (or close to) because all he has to do is stay healthy for another half decade and he's in - and that's without any more monster seasons like 2018. If he has another 8+ WAR MVP-caliber season and four more "lesser" 5-6 WAR seasons to get to the 10-year minimum, he'll be around 60 WAR and has a good chance.

I do also think that the Hall tends to favor guys who get to certain benchmarks in less time. A 10-year career of 60 WAR is generally more impressive than a 15-year one. That's where JAWS comes in.

But yeah, Trout is in his own class. It isn't an exaggeration to compare him to Mantle, and considering he isn't a boozer, his total career numbers could be better. Even if he declines in his early 30s like Mantle did, he'll still easily surpass 100 WAR. He should be there by the end of 2023, his age 31 season, and that's even with only half a year in 2020. That would make him the 21st position player to reach triple-digits WAR. But he probably won't stop there. Assuming he doesn't have a Griffey-caliber collapse, 120 should be easily within reach (he'd  be the 12th), with 140+ a possibility (he'd be the 5th). 

We don't know how Trout will age. There's reason to be skeptical due to a change in his launch angle, as Tony Blengino pointed out. If that holds true, we'll likely see Trout change from a 9 WAR, .300/.440/.630 beast, to something more like a 6 WAR, .270/.400/.550 slugger. Meaning, he'll change from non-roids peak Bonds to Giancarlo Stanton, and maybe not even that. But I'd counter Blengino with Trout's best quality: his ability to adjust. So I remain hopeful he'll be able to rectify this issue. But it bears watching.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Angelsjunky

[failos]

5 hours ago, JustATroutFan said:

Making the MLB Hall of Fame is starting to get really overrated. Do you honestly believe that guys like Lee Smith, Jack Morris, and Harold Baines were Hall of Famers when they played? None of them were great when they played. Good? Yes. Hall of Fame though? No! Felix might not make the Hall of Fame when he's on the ballot but he might get voted in later. It feels like years ago when he was a dominating starting pitcher. Cole might make the Hall of Fame. The last two seasons, he's been excellent despite pitching at hitter friendly Minute Maid for half of his games. It's not a stretch to think that he can't put up a few more great years with the Yankees. He is still in his prime and he's got the confidence (big factor in being great) and stuff. People might think he's arrogant but I would rather have someone like that than someone who has no confidence in themselves. 

At least it isn’t as bad as the NBA

[Angelsjunky]

5 hours ago, JustATroutFan said:

Making the MLB Hall of Fame is starting to get really overrated. Do you honestly believe that guys like Lee Smith, Jack Morris, and Harold Baines were Hall of Famers when they played? None of them were great when they played. Good? Yes. Hall of Fame though? No! Felix might not make the Hall of Fame when he's on the ballot but he might get voted in later. It feels like years ago when he was a dominating starting pitcher. Cole might make the Hall of Fame. The last two seasons, he's been excellent despite pitching at hitter friendly Minute Maid for half of his games. It's not a stretch to think that he can't put up a few more great years with the Yankees. He is still in his prime and he's got the confidence (big factor in being great) and stuff. People might think he's arrogant but I would rather have someone like that than someone who has no confidence in themselves. 

Agreed. It isn't far from the Academy Awards, which are usually given to the films that most hit a cultural nerve and whatever Hollywood's in vogue ethical issue is (see, for instance, Crash).

[ten ocho recon scout]

3 hours ago, failos said:

At least it isn’t as bad as the NBA

Exactly. Its hard to take the NBA hall seriously. Its like "guy made 3 all star teams, hes in"

[Tank]

19 hours ago, Lou said:

When you say top 10, how many qualified pitchers and players are you talking about?

40-50

[Angelsjunky]

9 hours ago, Tank said:

40-50

During Finley's career there were typically 80-90 qualified pitchers in a given year.

[Lou]

2 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

During Finley's career there were typically 80-90 qualified pitchers in a given year.

And how many qualified hitters were there during Vlad's career in a given year?

[Angelsjunky]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

And how many qualified hitters were there during Vlad's career in a given year?

As a general rule, there are about 140-145 qualified hitters every year, or about five per team.

 

[Lou]

26 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

As a general rule, there are about 140-145 qualified hitters every year, or about five per team.

 

Then Vlad being Top 10 in a given year is much more impressive. 

[Angelsjunky]

OK, here are some more numbers.

Finley's MLB WAR ranks from 1989-2002:

19, 12, 40, 72, 8, 19, 11, 14, 44, 18, 14, 15, dnq, 18

So other than a few off years, Finley was consistently in the top 20--or among the top 20-25% of starters in most years, peaking at #8. He had 10 years in the top 20 for pitcher WAR, while Vlad had only 5 years in the top 20 for batter WAR. 

If we look at Vlad's hitting only through the lense of wRC+, he looks a bit better (1998-2008): 21, 26, 8, 39, 10, (9), 11, 10, 23, 16, 31.

Actually, not much better, just a few more years in the 8-11 range but never among the very best.

 

[Angelsjunky]

29 minutes ago, Lou said:

Then Vlad being Top 10 in a given year is much more impressive. 

I understand your logic but don't think it applies as qualifying numbers are different--they don't necessarily evenly translate, and the key point is how they rank relative to ALL hitters or pitchers. To get a better relative ranking you'd have to look at a similar pool of players. For example, 100 PA and 30 IP both have a bit over 400 players in each category. I'd do the numbers but my keyboard is wonky so typing is rather aggravating and more time-consuming (broken space bar).

Edited May 18, 2020 by Angelsjunky

[Angelsjunky]

I also don't think it would make much of a difference for their better years as most top 20 players are qualifiers.

[Lou]

No, I'm right. 

[eaterfan]

On 5/16/2020 at 2:30 PM, JustATroutFan said:

Making the MLB Hall of Fame is starting to get really overrated. Do you honestly believe that guys like Lee Smith, Jack Morris, and Harold Baines were Hall of Famers when they played? None of them were great when they played. Good? Yes. Hall of Fame though? No! Felix might not make the Hall of Fame when he's on the ballot but he might get voted in later. It feels like years ago when he was a dominating starting pitcher. Cole might make the Hall of Fame. The last two seasons, he's been excellent despite pitching at hitter friendly Minute Maid for half of his games. It's not a stretch to think that he can't put up a few more great years with the Yankees. He is still in his prime and he's got the confidence (big factor in being great) and stuff. People might think he's arrogant but I would rather have someone like that than someone who has no confidence in themselves. 

This is a post from someone who hasn't actually looked at a lost of Hall of Famers. Do the players you mentioned deserve to get in? I don't think so. But to act like this is a new phenomenon seems weird. The average WAR for Hall of Famers has risen significantly over the past two decades.

We've just all forgotten the past equivalents of the Lee Smith's who got voted into the Hall in 1941.

[Stradling]

26 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

This is a post from someone who hasn't actually looked at a lost of Hall of Famers. Do the players you mentioned deserve to get in? I don't think so. But to act like this is a new phenomenon seems weird. The average WAR for Hall of Famers has risen significantly over the past two decades.

We've just all forgotten the past equivalents of the Lee Smith's who got voted into the Hall in 1941.

Fantastic post.