Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

Tiant belongs in the HOF before Kaat, that's for sure. Lower ERA, lower WHIP, more SHO.

Torre as a player? No.
Gil Hodges? Yes. I think he should have been voted in a long time ago and think the combinaton of his playing accomplishments and work with the Mets should provide him with a ticket to Cooperstown.

All these players are pretty much members of the Hall of the Very Good..

Torre will nake it in as a combined player and manager someday.
But as for the rest...if someone's not good enough to get voted in over 15 years, why should they get in now?

Gil Hodges...I'm 50/50 on that.

Please "no" on Santo - how can the 60's Cubs which won nothing then have Billy Williams. Banks. Jenkins and Santo as HOF members and NO World Series games?

Don't play the comparison game - as I said before, you're just picking a bad HOF choice (usually by the Veterans) and defining fame down to the lowest level.

I loved Tony Oliva and Vada Pinson. But, Oliva had less than 2,000 hits and Pinson needed either a higher BA (.286) or more HRs (256). He did have 2,700+ hits, but the overall package isn't good enough for the HOF IMHO. Both players are very good. But, not great.

If the position of captain is merely ceremonial in nature, then Derek Jeter is a raging success. He plays hard, is a winner and has never disgraced his uniform or the ball club.

However, if the position of captain requires actual leadership, that is both visible and vocal in its execution, then Derek Jeter appears to be a dismal failure.

How can anyone really argue otherwise. I am a Derek Jeter fan, but I am not blind or deaf.

Ron Santo absolutely NOT! He wasn't close to being the dominating 3rd baseman in the NL much less the majors. Richie Allen no because he was a problem. If Tony Perez can make it so can Hodges. Torre makes it later as a manager he wasn't that great a player. The rest no.

Of the 10 candidates, the person that is a lock in my opinion is Torre mostly because what he did as a manager, especially with the Yanks. Hodges ans Santo are debatable. The same is just between Kaat and Tiant. Kaat has more wins than Tiant so he Kaat has a little edge on Tiant on wins.

Isn't Torre on the ballot for what he did as a player, since he is still managing and since there is another ballot for managers? Just wondering. Ken, do you have an answer?

Kaat has more wins and more losses than Tiant mainly because he pitched 25 years.

As players,none of them deserve it. Hodges and Torre get in if you combine their total careers as players and managers.

Jim, you are correct, on Torre - there is a separate ballot for managers. Now, does that mean you're not supposed to factor in his and Hodge's managerial careers? Because I did that, when I wrote pro-Hodges and -Torre. I'm not sure. I'll find out.

Yeah, I was thinking Dennis would hit me with that when I wrote my entry. I don't know. Hodges is dead. Torre is still managing for his body of work is not yet complete. Torre wouldn't make it strictly as a player, in my book. But, combined with managing, he is in. I think Hodges should be in as a player and consider his absence a glaring one. I know he only batted .271 but he had good power and played a key position on an excellent team for many years. Combined with his excellent work with the Mets, he belongs in Cooperstown. I see his wife and son every year at the BBWAA dinner and I so much want him to get in while Joan is alive.

Correction: Hodges batted .273. I know he never led the league in any offensive category, but he was a power hitter with good numbers and helped the Dodgers dominated the NL for a decade.

Santo should definitely be elected.

Here are the ten major league Hall of Fame third basemen (with Santo included) ranked by career OPS+:

Schmidt 147
Mathews 143
Brett 135
Baker 135
Boggs 130
Santo 125
Collins 113
Kell 111
Lindstrom 110
Traynor 107
Robinson 104

He hit more home runs in his career than any third baseman currently in the Hall of Fame other than Mike Schmidt and Eddie Mathews. He won five consecutive gold gloves. He had at least 30 win shares in 4 consecutive years (1964-1967).

That he has not been elected so far has been one of the greatest mistakes in Hall of Fame history.

Bob...I have been saying all along what you said. If they didn't make it the first 15 years, they're obviously not HOF'ers. Its funny I read where the Veterans committee was "obviously" not working because they hadn't inducted anyone. That to me means the process IS obviously working! The only reason for the veterans committee should be to put in the old Negro League Players who never had a chance to play in the Bigs. And Bob, I also agree with you...that just because Mazerowski or whoever may be the worst HOFer...doesn't mean everyone at his level has to get in. No reason to make another mistake.

Torre deserves to get in as a manager. I dont mind intangibles helping someone get in (such as Hernandez, LaSorda and Jeter) but I wouldn't be for combining the two positions.

Jim, I think Jeter's Captaincy (which is desperately calling for a blog!!) is mixed as far as we know. I think you can safely say he's universally respected by opponents and probably teammates. But his silence when every Red Sox was trashing A-Rod spoke volumes. Remember when the Yanks courted Giambi and the media asked Jeter if he'd call Giambi? Jeter had no problems saying he wouldn't (because of Tino). Jeter needed to PUBLICLY back his teammate A-Rod and didn't. That was awful.

I am thrilled that Maury Wills' name is up for consideration, because it provides me with the desperately-needed excuse to link to one of the better FireJoeMorgan posts this year: http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/08/bridge-too-far.html

Bob, I would be interested in learning why you are only 50/50 on Gil Hodges, who would have been a shoe-in had he not lost four seasons to World War II.

Anyway, one of the most convincing cases for Hodges' entry may be found here:

http://umpbump.com/press/tag/gil-hodges/

"So to recap: 1. Gil Hodges was the cornerstone of a legendary team which went to SEVEN World Series. 2. Gil Hodges put up Hall-worthy career numbers despite losing 4 years to military service. 3. Gil Hodges was the best offensive first baseman in the National League throughout his career. 4. Gil Hodges was also the best defensive first baseman in the National League, and perhaps all of baseball, throughout his career. 5. Nobody has drawn more support from more people for Hall induction than Gil Hodges has, without actually getting in."

Note too that, with the exception of no. 5, these reasons all relate to his play on the field, not as a skipper.

Richie what needs to be said about Jeter is he's a prima donna. There I said it and I mean it. His public persona is that of an unassuming, humble professional ( "I can't call Mr. Torre Joe") who understands his place in the world and his baseball history. His private (gossip page) persona is he chases after the hottest women in the world, gets them, dumps them and goes after more while he's out partying until 4 or 5 am in the hottest clubs in the city, just blocks away from his multiple million dollar condo on the upper east side. Don't cross him or you're dead to him (see ARod and maybe a few others we don't know about).
But on the field he does everything right, acts the right way, wins (until this year) and produces almost the same stats year in and year out.
You know, I never saw Joe DiMaggio play, but from tapes I saw of him he and Jeter are exactly the same player, fluid and graceful, looked like class and style, acted the same. Yet almost everything I've ever read about DiMaggio states his teammates feared him, he was not a nice guy, he was connected, they knew it and knew never to cross him. No, I'm not saying Jeter is connected.

I think there are a lot of players respected on the Yankees, and rightfully so. Concerning Jeter, he gets my respect and that of just about everyone else in baseball. I just don't see or hear the leadership from him unless it's along the way of "he leads by example." That's fine, but the position of captain calls for more than that, IMHO.

JE even Brooklyn Dodgers fans understand as good as Hodges was Jackie Robinson, Duke Snider, Pee Wee Reese and Roy Campanella were the best players on the team. Then what is most probably holding him out is the year he went 0-23 in the World Series. All those guys went to 7 World Series together, so you can't really call one a cornerstone.

Ken...as you well now, I'm an old Brooklyn Dodger fan, and Gil Hodges should already be in the HOF...as a first baseman, his #s are very comparable to HOF Tony Perez. It's time for the Veterans Committee to get with the program.

Surely, Hodges hasn't fallen short because he laid a big goose-egg in one of the seven World Series in which he played?

Even when we include his awful '52 numbers, the line looks like this: .267/.349/.412. The slugging numbers are not fantastic, but they're hardly choke-like.

Again, had he not lost four years to wartime service, he would have finished with anywhere between 400 and close to 500 home runs. Considering that Dave Kingman was the first player to knock 400 and not get in, it's a shame that Hodges still has no plaque in Cooperstown.

That's Ok there will be guys who hit 500 HRs and won't be getting in either. Hodges has fallen short because he's the fifth best player in the everyday lineup. That's the only reason fifth out of 8. Then there's Don Newcombe.
Poppy see that is what Bob Tufts is saying you can't compare the guys who are in with guys who aren't. Perez is in but shouldn't be. His buddies voted him in. Rizzuto shouldn't be in either, but he made sure he stuck around baseball long enough to get himself in. As soon as he got in, he retired from broadcasting, (but he was an old man too)

I don't agree that if someone wasn't selected by the writers, they are by definition not a Hall of Famer.

The Veteran's Committee has been justly criticized over the years for some very bad picks. However, thay have made several meritorious picks over the years. Johnny Mize was a VC pick. So were Arky Vaughan and Home Run Baker. Doerr, Lazzeri, Herman and Fox were less strong, but nonetheless decent picks.

The writers make mistakes. I think it is to the good that the Veteran's Committee not repeat the many mistakes they made in the '40s, '50s, '60, '70s, '80s and '90s (although the VC picks made in the '90s were actually better than those made in previous decades). We don't need any more Ross Youngs, Jim Bottomleys or Tommy McCarthys. However, there is a role for the VC if they exercise it carefully. After they put Santo in, they should look long and hard at Ken Boyer and Bobby Grich.

Bobby Grich? I just can't see that. Who would be next? Horace Clarke?

Sandy, don't get me wrong: I understand your argument about being one of many HOFers, although I might not concede so readily that he was only fifth best. On the other hand, who was a better National League first baseman during Hodges' prime? Or, for that matter, who was better at that position, period?

Correction, Sandy: I had meant to say that I recognized that Hodges was on a team with several eventual HOFers.

The VC is very unpredictable. You just don't know what they are going to do. Hoghes should be in the HOF, but everytime he gets metion to the VC, Hoghes doesn't get voted in.

We get into trouble, often with a capital "T", when we discuss politics. How about cars then?

http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/09/ford-ka.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4283076.html

Regarding the first post: why doesn't Ford bring the Ka to the States? The little guy scores high marks in Europe; why not show the American public that Ford knows all about small cars. (The Focus is not a compact.) As a poster noted, if it works for Toyota (Scion xA, Yaris), why not Ford?

As to the 2011 Volt, I love the look but wish that the General could afford to drop the price by a few grand, so as to be more competitive with the next-generation Prius.

I thought Jeter and Dimaggio have a lot in common as far as how they handle friend/media as well. Though its hard to tell since I wasn't friends with either so who really knows?

My belief about the HOF is this. Since people like to talk about first ballot HOFers...I would suggest this.

1- Everyone who is eligible to be on the list stays on the list, no matter how few votes he gets

2-The list doesn't last 15 years. The five years you wait should be long enough. You're a HOFer or not. So I'd kill the list after two years. That way its not a PR thing. I will never understand how someone can get so few votes one year and then a lot of votes the next season. You're either a HOFer or not. I know Ken disagrees because new stats can develop but thats just my take.

As far as Hodges contemporaries, there weren't many good first basemen period. However, Johnny Mize was the best first baseman in baseball when Hodges started out and this guy Ted Klusewski was at least more imposing as a batter in the fifties. There were guys like Monte Irvin who didn't play long enough and absolute bums. It looks like a weak position for the period.

Jim:

You mean the Bobby Grich that had a career OPS+ of 125, had 4 gold gloves, made 6 all star teams and had 224 career home runs? Yes.

I shouldn't need to say this, but there is an absolute world of difference between Grich and Horace Clarke, who had a career OPS+ of 83, made no all star teams, won no gold gloves and hit 27 career home runs. Bill James in 2000 ranked Grich as the 12th best 2nd basemen of all time (ahead of several Hall of Famers, like Lazzeri, Herman, Fox and Schoendienst); he ranked Clarke 79th.

Doesn't that seem strange to you, Sandy? Today, we cannot fathom a lack of talented first basemen, not with monsters such as Pujols, Howard, Delgado, Giambi, Cabrera (is he still at first?), Teixeira, Berkman, Lee, etc.

If Hodges doesn't get into Cooperstown because the Dodgers had so many other talented players, then he should have gone in as a result of being the top all-around first baseman of the 1950s.

Riding around LA this afternoon in my rental -- a Ford Focus, no less! -- the question on KSPN's Mason & Ireland was: why not Steve Garvey?

JE, for a really long time I thought Keith Hernandez was a HOFer. Still not sure he's not. I know his stats dont remotely warrant HOF induction. Tino Martinez was a far superior batter supposedly. But I know baseball is about winning...and Keith Hernandez won.

RG, Tino played in a more, ahem, lively decade than Keith. (Not accusing, just noting!) Also, remember that the old Busch, before the fences were brought in, curbed Keith's ability to hit Mattingly-esque home runs.

As a Mets fan, I would take Hernandez over Martinez, although definitely not as my announcer! ;-)

JE I agree with you that Mex was by far the better player. But if you look at Tino's #'s...he had around 5 or 6 HOF years.

I think Hernandez is an excellent announcer.

I was obviously kidding on Horace Clarke being elected to the HOF, but I'm not kidding that Grich doesn't belong. He had 1,833 hits and batted .266. He hit 224 HRs. He only batted as high as .300 one time in 15 full seasons.

For the record, I don't think that any of the other second basemen that you mentioned belong in the HOF either, although Lazzeri has slightly better overall offensive stats than Grich, including a BA that is 26 points higher.

Ken, why hasn't Bobby Grich ever been elected?

THIS IS WHY I WILL NEVER ROOT FOR CARLOS DELGADO!! He swings and misses at a horrible pitch to strike out to end the game...the pitch was in the dirt. It gets away from the catcher. Delgado doesn't run to first. He actually turns around and walks to the dugout!!!!!!! He woulda been out I'm sure. 99 times out of 100. Maybe 997 times out of 1000. But he didn't even try to run to first. And the Mets announcers say nothing...not even a replay. C'mon. MVP my....you know what.

I'm not saying the Mets lost because of it...I'm saying the least he could have done is run to first...but that's not even true. The least he could do is what he did. Walk to the dugout.

I confess, Jim - I was conscious for the second half of Grich's career, and I NEVER considered him a Hall of Famer. I don't think he received serious consideration from the voters. But our new friend dcf presents a decent argument. A 125 OPS+ for a second baseman is outstanding. Sandberg's was 114.

Ken, that is a very fine OPS+, but is it enough/does it justify HOF membership? I would be very surprised if he ever gets in.

Roberto Alomar had a 116 OPS+ and 2,724 hits. Is he a future Hall of Famer?

Jeff Kent has a 122 OPS+. Is he going into the HOF?

Well, first of all, Jim, yeah, I'd say Robby Alomar and Jeff Kent are both absolute, unless-something-bad-surfaces, HOFers. They're the best second basemen of their era.

But second of all, I'm with you: I'd be very surprised if Grich got in. I just didn't realize he had such a good career.

Jeff Kent was not loved. Lets see if he receives the Albert Belle treatment and doesn't get in. I would hope the writers put him in, because he should be a lock.

Tonight's bagel against the Nationals, combined with last night's lethargic offensive performance, further convinces me that a Dunn, Baldelli, or Burrell is needed to help the pitchers.

Ken, do you support Hodges for the same reason you give the nod to Kent; he was clearly the best first baseman of his era?

Sorry to pile on Jeter, but that was clearly an ERROR on Uribe! You think CC wished tonight's official scorer had been in Pittsburgh a few weeks back?!? ;-)

Probably yes on Hodges, JE. Full disclosure, it's easy for me to say that on Kent, because I saw it with my own eyes and the stats back me up. With Hodges, it doesn't come right off the top of my head. It requires more study...

Thanks, Ken.

BTW, did anyone check the blown call at first in Pittsburgh?!? The Dodgers got three runs as a result. (There had been two outs.) For those who did not see the highlights, I kid you not: that call by Tim Timmons was JUST AS BAD as the blown whistle in the closing seconds of the Chargers-Broncos game. Derek Lowe was out by AT LEAST one full step!

JE I saw it. I culd see where the ump messed up because you just assume he's going to be safe. But it was a HORRIBLE call. I wonder if the batter busted it out of the box.

I dont think adding Adam Dunn is the answer. I think the Mets bats are fine...maybe not this week...but when you have Reyes, Wright, Delgado and Beltran...all four guys are gonna get MVP votes. I'd much rather spend the money on K-Rod. Though I know you disagree. But would you spend 15 mil a year on any of those three you mentioned?? (Obviously not Badelli)

Fernando Tatis being done is going to hurt this team btw.

Torre's a lock. As for the others, well... I still after all this time don't see the Hodges argument. And I'm always surprised that Maury Wills doesn't get at least more consideration, though my ten-year-old impressions may be clouding the facts.

Any thread that invokes our beloved Horace Clarke is where I belong. And Sandy... sorry Mariah Carey never called you back, man.

Tim N. - Is Torre a lock as a player? That's what he's on the ballot for right now.

I stand corrected on Torre after seeing Ken's Weds. posting. Joe is as good as in.

I think Grich should be in.

I realize that a common argument is that you shouldn't compare candidates to the weakest members of the Hall. In Grich's case, we would not be doing that. There are 17 major league second basemen in the HOF. Grich would be in the top half of that group. If his case was simply that he was better than Mazeroski of Schoendienst, I would agree that he should not go in. But when a player is better than over half of the HOF members at his position, the argument does not apply. Bill James has made this point several times, arguing that you need to show that a player belongs in the middle of the group, not just at the bottom. By this standard, Grich belongs. You can make a similar argument with respect to Santo and third basemen (which argument takes on perhaps added force when you consider that there are fewer third basemen (10) in the Hall than there are players from any other position).

Here are the carer OPS+ numbers for the 17 MLB second basemen in the HOF:

Hornsby 175
Lajoie 150
Collins 141
Morgan 132
Robinson 132
Carew 131
Gehringer 124
Lazzeri 121
Doerr 115
Sandberg 114
Herman 112
Frisch 111
McPhee 106
Evers 106
Fox 93
Schoendienst 93
Mazeroski 84

I realize that there is a danger in relying too heavily on career OPS+. For one thing, it may not reflect the impact of big years (which is surely part of the appeal of Sandberg, for example). For another, players who play a long time may see the number beaten down somewhat by having a number of subpar years at the end of a career. Nonetheless, the numbers are telling, even if they should be taken with a grain of salt. A career 125 OPS+ (such as Grich had) is in fact outstanding for a second baseman. Only six players in baseball history did better.

There was some talk yesterday about Alomar and Kent. I agree that they should both probably go in (my opinion of Alomar is much higher than my opinion of Kent). But for my money, Biggio was better than either of them and is the better HOF candidate.

Ken - the 1956 Brooklyn Dodgers already have 6, that's right 6, members of that team in the HOF. Can anybody name them? This is an unprecedented number from the same team in the same year. If Hodges gets in - and he should - that would of course make seven.

Ken - the 1956, not 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers have 6 members of that team already in the HOF. This is unprecedented. Can anybody name them??? If Gil Hodges finally gets in - and he should - that would of course make seven!!!

I know this is way past the original post, but someone named Sandy said Ron Santo wasn't the dominant 3rd basemen in the NL much less the MLB. WHAT!???? First of all, when he retired he was universally considered the second-best third basement of ALL TIME. He was the second-most dominant player in the NL behind only Willie Mays from 1964-1968. His stats as total don't look quite as good, because that era happens to be the most dominant era for pitchers outside of the dead-ball era. However, during that span he was in the top 10 (and usually top 4) in every single counting stat - walks, homers, rbis, OBP, SLG, OPS, while winning a gold glove each year. IN fact, at his peak, he was equal to Brooks Robinson as a fielder - having slightly better range in fact.

He is, at worst, the 6th-best 3rd basemen ever. It should be a slam dunk.

Richie Allen should also be in - cmon his career OPS+ is a mind-boggling 156. That's getting to Lou Gehrig immortal territory.

I'm all for Jim Kaat - though I know his ERA+ isn't great, but 16 gold gloves (however biased GGs are) to go along with 283 wins (I know, wins suck as a stat, but...but....whatever). Basically he is Don Sutton with a glove playing for worse teams. Tommy John is the same as both. All should be in (hey, I'm a BIG HALL person).

Gil Hodges was great at times, but he played a position that, even with him being a great defensive player, has a very minor impact on the game defensively (yes, I'm going with the Bill James values). He's a guy who I would be fine putting in, but just as fine leaving out. The wartime argument is the only thing that should be able to put him over, because as it stands he's not quite there.

Lastly, I hate team comparisons. Damn, especially prior to free-agency, it was not your fault if your team sucked and could't go the playoffs. And even three or four great players cannot make up for 10 sub-par players all that often. These are elections for players, not teams, and I honestly discount ANY team affiliation or stat. There are bad players who were fringe players on multiple-WS teams and that doesn't make them good. It makes them more sparkly, but not better.

Maury Wills should not be on this list - by a million billion miles. He's Ozzie Smith....without the defense. Seriously, they are almost identical. He was a poor batter (OPS+ of 88) and he stole those 589 bases only after being caught well over 200 times. He is a one-time MVP ( that he did not deserve at all) with a couple good years and several pretty bad ones.

Tony Oliva is in if you are for big peaks, or are okay with Koufax-like injury exceptions. 3-time batting champ, but for my money, not enough of anything (hits, BA of .304 isn't enough by itself, homers, RBIs, OPS per position) unless you give him credit for the knee.

Al Oliver and Pinson are similar - I like Oliver better if only for his BA and the fact that he led the league in line-drives and LD% every year. No one hit the ball harder. Neither should be in - they are Bill Buckner plus a tiny bit.

Torre was really good, and if he stayed at catcher his whole career, I could see it, but because he played nearly as much first, I say no as a player, yes as player/manager combined.

Luis Tiant. Gosh, his WHIP is insane beyond imagination, but he had a surprising number of awful years (9-20...in the middle of his career). Still, he has almost Pedro-like peripherals. But when it comes to W-L, ERA, etcetera, he is probably a little short. I'm okay with him getting in, and I know his ERA and peripherals dwarf Kaat. Just a shorter career.

I believe Santo should be enshrined in the HOF because baseball's screwed him over long enough.