Eric Seidman at FanGraphs argues that Johnny Damon should not make the Hall of Fame if he reaches 3000 hits. Eric makes a good statistical case, but he also makes the emotional case:
If he gets to that plateau, either his induction into the Hall of Fame becomes automatic, or the milestone itself is cheapened. Given that he would be the 30th person ever to achieve what is considered to be a holy grail of baseball accomplishments, the former scenario seems much more likely than the latter. Yet, Damon has never felt like a Hall of Fame player. He has barely even felt like a superstar. How is it possible that someone with a high probability of getting 3,000+ hits in his career, who won’t have played 25+ seasons like, say, Nolan Ryan or Jamie Moyer, has had such a relatively forgettable career?
This is almost the reverse Blyleven. Bert never felt like a Hall of Famer, but when you looked at his body of work, it was clear he was a great pitcher. Blyleven never reached the big milestones, however. The big milestone should force voters to look at Johnny’s body of work. They will note that he was healthy and consistent. They will also note a number of big moments in his career, especially int he post season. Looking at his regular season numbers in isolation, however, one concludes that Damon simply aged well. Aging well should not be a criteria for election.
Why should aging well not be a criteria for entering the HoF?
The players in the hall are there because they’ve done things that a small percentage of players can accomplish.
If Damon is in the small minority because he was able to age well, it is something that should be looked at as possible criteria.
I haven’t looked at his numbers and I’m not making a case for or against Damon in particular, but I think the general criteria to start the discussion should be “how many people have done this before”.
So is Damon the anti-Jim Rice then?
Rice gets into the Hall because he “felt” like a Hall-of-Famer for a few years — the most feared hitter in 1978-81 or somesuch; Damon misses out though b/c he doesn’t “feel” like one?
Rafael Palmeiro never felt like a HOFer to me. He certainly has all the statistical milestones though. We can’t look at him as indicative of the voters attitude toward Damon though since the steroids allegations will prevent that.
Looking at the players that got in in history though, they are all hall of famers. The bar for the hall used to be much lower. It’s only relatively recently that players like Damon wouldn’t be considered a HOFer.
Jim in Bingo » Yes, the anti-Jim Rice. I like that.
Hm, I agree with Rob.
You might look at it like this. There are two ways to amass a whole lot of WAR (or whatever) over a career. You could have a handful of really spectacular seasons, or you could have 16 (or whatever) excellent seasons. The two ways produce equal value, amount to equal total productivity, let’s suppose. The player with a few spectacular seasons will be more memorable, but the guy who ‘ages well’ is just as impressive from a statistical point of view.
I like the idea of having both kinds of players in the Hall. Yes, Mantle and Koufax were absolutely amazing, but there’s room for appreciation of Damon’s special talents, too. (Not that Damon approaches those other two in overall greatness, of course, but you see what I mean.)
Funny you should mention Koufax. For five years (1962-66) he was one of the greatest ever. His other seven years? Let’s just say they sure weren’t HOF-worthy.
As a result, Koufax ranks 62nd on baseball-reference.com’s pitcher WAR list. Way behind Blyleven, for instance, who ranks 13th!
I’ve got no problems with both in the Hall. But a splashy five years makes you a lot greater player in the minds of the electors than a long, solid career. That’s why it took Bert so long to get in, though his career was far better in total value than Sandy’s.
Damon is 164th in career WAR for position players, ahead of a number of HOFers. Frankly, he has a case, though the lack of those splashy five years means he’ll never get in, IMO.
By the way, the highest eligible guy on the position-player WAR list not in the Hall is, you guessed it, Bagwell at 37th. One word: steroids. Or maybe two words: steroids rumors.
Aging well = Don Sutton. If not for pitching forever and attaining 300 wins, he would not be in the HoF.
Aren’t the “counting” career milestones (3000 hits, 300 wins, 500, now 600 homers) used precisely to get voters to take a look at players who have been consistently good over a long period of time, as opposed to having had a very high peak?