The HOF and Ubaldo Jimenez

On Sunday Andre Dawson was officially inducted into the Hall of Fame. An eight time All-Star who is one of only three men in big league history to hit 400 homers while also stealing at least 300 bases (Barry Bonds and Willie Mays are the others), Dawson also has one of the worst OBP (.323) of any player in the Hall of Fame. In fact, it’s the worst mark of any outfielder enshrined at Cooperstown, .020 points below the .343 mark of Lou Brock. Should Dawson have been elected to the HOF? I tackled that very question in The Case of Andre Dawson. If that piece doesn’t cause you some pause about whether or not the athletic outfielder should have been enshrined, perhaps Dawson vs. Alomar will prove to you, once an for all, that not only does Roberto Alomar deserve to be in the Hall of Fame but that Dawson’s credentials might be a little thin.

I actually wrote up a series of piece on players who were eligible for induction into the Hall of Fame this year, and here are those links:

Edgar Martinez – Is there Room for a DH?
HOF: Tim Raines.
Is McGriff Hall Worthy?
HOF: Mammoth McGwire Misunderstood?
HOF: Who Am I?

Any here are my final thoughts where I discussed the 2010 voting results.

HOF: What Should Have Been.

Has anyone pointed you toward one of the best sites on the internet? No, I’m not talking about something that has porn in it, you certainly already have your favorites bookmarked for your adult entertainment, or BaseballGuys.com (since you’ve already found it), I’m referring to Rumorzone.com. It’s a collaborative effort from Fanball.com, and we’re tracking all the latest rumors in the world of sports for the four major sports at that location (MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL). Don’t forget to bookmark it.

Ubaldo Jimenez is awful. There, I said it, and don’t for a second try and tell me you weren’t thinking the same thing. On June 7th, a mere eight starts ago, Ubaldo had a 0.93 ERA. Heck, on June 18th it was still 1.15. However, the past six outings haven’t looked anything like his first 14 trips to the hill. Here are the numbers:

7.64 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, 8.73 K/9, 5.18 BB/9, 1.68 K/BB

The ERA is horrific, the WHIP is terrible, and that walk rate is godawful leading to a decidedly sub par K/BB mark that is well below the big league average of 2.10.

So what happened? It’s called regression people, ever heard of it? Did you really drink so much of that Ubaldo Cool Aid that you actually thought he was going to challenge Bob Gibson’s NL ERA mark of 1.12? Come on now. Did you think he was gonna keep his ERA under 2.00 all year long? I got news for you, that’s only happened twice in baseball since the 21st century began (Pedro Martinez had a 1.74 mark in 2000 and Roger Clemens posted a 1.87 mark in 2005). Again, you kid right?

The truth is that Ubaldo is simply returning to the level of “dominance” instead of the “historic” pace that he flashed early on. He still has a 2.75 ERA, his WHIP is just 1.12, he has nearly a K per inning (120 in 134.1) and he is still 15-2. How rare is that combination? If he maintains that pace for 34 starts this season we’d be looking at something like 25 wins, 200 Ks and a 2.75 ERA. How many pitchers have reached all three of those levels since 2000? It’s a small group of — zero. If we go back to 1990 there still isn’t one member of the group. How about 1980? Still none. You have to go all the way back to to Ron Guidry in 1978 to find a pitcher who reach all three milestones (25-3, 1.74 ERA, 248 Ks).

The bottom line with Ubaldo is that you should cut the guy some slack. Still, I hope you listened when I suggested you sell high on the flamethrower from Colorado because that window for peak value in a trade has been closed completely.

By Ray Flowers

Dawson vs. Alomar

I was making the rounds this morning when I came across something written by ESPN’s Buster Olney that clearly is a similar sentiment to what I wrote yesterday in HOF: What Should Have Been. Here is the quote from Olney.

” I’m convinced that the baseball writers shouldn’t be involved in the selection of Hall of Famers at all — a belief I’ve written about before, a belief reinforced by the most recent round of voting.”

Here, here Mr. Olney for having the guts to state the obvious – those who vote for the Baseball Hall of Baseball really don’t have a clue what they are doing. I know we “internet” folks aren’t respected, we are even sneered at as being those “number guys,” but the bottom line is that I would bet money that a gathering of us “sabermetric geeks” would certainly lead to a more adequate HOF vote than what the “official” guys did, or more correctly, didn’t do when they selected only Andre Dawson for the HOF this week. You can read my thoughts on who should have made it in Is There Room for a DH?, and in what follows I’m going to look at this situation a bit differently. The biggest snub, one that strains credulity really, was the omission of Roberto Alomar. So I thought I would do something I haven’t seen done anywhere else. I thought I would directly compare the production of Alomar and Dawson – a difficult task considering only a portion of their careers overlapped, but I thought I could use the parallel to point out just how wrong the voters got it in 2010.

Alomar: .300 AVG
Dawson: .279 AVG

Not a big surprise here as even a rudimentary knowledge of the game would lead you to the conclusion that Alomar was a more effective hitter according to this measure.

Alomar: .371 OBP
Dawson: .323 OBP

That’s a whopping difference. Dawson was a below average player in terms of his ability to get on base (the league average during his career was .331). Alomar, predictably, produced a very strong number.

Alomar: .814 OPS
Dawson: .806 OPS

This might be the most shocking number of all. Despite a massive lead in homers of 228 (438 to 210), Dawson finished his career .008 points behind Alomar in OPS. If that doesn’t explain just how ineffective Dawson was in comparison to Alomar, don’t know what I would have to show you.

Alomar: 2,724 hits
Dawson: 2,774 hits

A wash.

Alomar: 1,508 runs
Dawson: 1,373 runs

Though close, don’t forget that Dawson knocked himself in on homers more than 200 extra times compared to Alomar with those homers which further speaks to the distance between the two.

Alomar: 474 SB
Dawson: 314 SB

Dawson was the better combo of power/speed, but Alomar was a superior base runner with a far greater steal mark as well.

Alomar: Twelve All-Star appearances
Dawson: Eight All-Star appearances

Alomar made 50 percent more mid-summer’s classic squads. That says something doesn’t it?

Alomar: 3rd in AL MVP in 1999, 1.91 Career Win Shares
Dawson: 1987 NL MVP, 2.36 Career Win Shares

Dawson won the award once, and had a few extra MVP votes throughout his career, but it was still pretty close in terms of their MVP respect.

Alomar: Ten Gold Gloves
Dawson: Eight Gold Gloves

Two extra G.G.’s for Alomar at a much more difficult and important position (second compared to outfield) make this gap wider that it appears to be.

Alomar: Four Silver Slugger Awards
Dawson: Four Silver Slugger Awards

A wash.

So what does all of this prove? It proves that Alomar, from a rather rudimentary look, was a better offensive player than Dawson – a fact clearly recognized with the amazing realization that he actually produced a better OPS. Alomar didn’t have the power of Dawson, but his ability to get on base, and his ability to contribute in all areas of the offensive game, was superior. When you add in the fact that Alomar was a more accomplished player defensively, suiting up at a more difficult position, the argument for selecting Dawson over Alomar completely vanishes, and with that I would suggest that every member of the HOF voting panel that chose Dawson while excluding Alomar should have their credentials immediately revoked. Harsh? Maybe. But we are talking about the legacy of baseball folks, and at this point I can’t say that I trust the men and women who have the ability to shape it at present since they clearly lack the ability to differentiate a very good player from a great one.

By Ray Flowers

HOF: What Should Have Been

I have spent the better part of the past couple of weeks giving you my thoughts on a myriad of men who were eligible for election into the Baseball Hall of Fame (you can find link to all of those pieces in Is There Room for a DH – just scroll to the bottom for the other reviews). In case you missed it, here is how things played out in the voting that was announced yesterday. Remember, a player must appear on 75 percent of the ballots to gain enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

77.9% – Andre Dawson
72.4 – Bert Blyleven
73.7 – Roberto Alomar
52.3 – Jack Morris
51.6 – Barry Larkin
47.3 – Lee Smith
36.2 – Edgar Martinez
30.4 – Tim Raines
23.7 – Mark McGwire
22.4 – Alan Trammell
21.5 – Fred McGriff

Obviously only Dawson was enshrined. I don’t exactly get the warm and fuzzies there, but a strong case can clearly be made for him (I did just that arguing for him in a piece you can access in the link above. In fact, I previously covered Dawson, Alomar, Martinez, Raines, McGwire and McGriff). My thoughts on the others who gained at least 20 percent of the vote are as follows.

Bert Blyleven: 287 career victories (27th all-time), 3,071 Ks (5th), 4970 IP (14th). Ten times he finished in the top-10 in ERA, but he won 20 games only once, never led the league in victories or ERA, and basically was a very, very good pitcher for a very long time. Was never great, and if that is what the HOF is for, he shouldn’t make it (he never finished above third in the Cy Young voting). Also, how has he gone from 14.1 percent of the vote in his second year of eligibility (1999) to the cusp of enshrinement?

Roberto Alomar: See link above for my thoughts. Bottom line is that 12 All-Star appearances and 10 Gold Gloves should make you a mortal lock for HOF. What are the voters waiting for – Alomar to discover Adamantium (an X-Men reference for those of you that don’t get the inside joke)?

Jack Morris: Much has been made about the fact that his 3.90 ERA would be the worst of any pitcher in the Hall. Like Blyleven, he was very good for a long time but was he every truly great? You can make the argument he was great in big games, but there is more to a career than a World Series outing or two (ask Mr. Perfect, Don Larson). Morris won “only” 254 games, never finished as even the runner-up for the Cy Young Award, never led the league in ERA or WHIP, and only once paced his league in Ks (232 in 1983). One of the best who shouldn’t be in.

Barry Larkin: A case has been made by Jayson Stark of ESPN, and instead of rehashing all of it I will just link you to the piece titled Underrated Larkin Deserves Spot in Hall. Two salient points. (1) Larkin won nine Silver Slugger awards. There has only been one infielder in history with more than that and his name is Alex Rodriguez. (2) His .815 OPS isn’t great, but it’s better than Cal Ripken (.788) and is actually better than all but five shortstops since 1900 who have accrued at least 5,000 at-bats.

Lee Smith: His total of 478 saves is third all-time. He was named to seven All-Star teams, but at the same time he only finished in the top-10 of the Cy Young voting four times in 18 seasons and owns a 3.03 ERA and 1.26 WHIP, hardly awe inspiring numbers. Another case of really good but never really great despite the huge save total.

Edgar Martinez: See link above for my thoughts. I wasn’t at all surprised he didn’t get in, but with all the “Vote for Martinez” and “I Love Edgar” movements floating around, I’m surprised he only got a third of the vote. Will likely one day make it.

Tim Raines: See link above for my thoughts. A travesty. If he wasn’t one of the five best leadoff men of all-time I’ll eat my left shoe with nary an herb to spice it up.

Mark McGwire: See link above for my thoughts. Again, no shock he is on the outside looking in. Clearly voters are punishing him for his connection with performance enhancing drugs as you cannot, as a rational person, dispute his candidacy based on the numbers.

Alan Trammell: Rob Neyer, about as respected a man as there is at knowing the history of the game combined with sabermetric principles, said this week that Trammel is one of the 10-12 greatest shortstops of all-time. I don’t know if that is true or not, I’m inclined to take Neyer at his word, but I do know that Trammel made six All-Star teams, was a top-10 vote getter for MVP three times, won four Gold Gloves, had 2,365 hits and posted a .285 batting average. He also had a season for the ages in 1987 as he hit .343 with 28 homers, 105 RBI, 109 runs and 21 steals.

Fred McGriff: See link above for my thoughts. Using the smell test he just doesn’t make it. Mind numbingly consistent, he was never the best at his position or truly great.

When I have more time I might lament what the hell the voters are thinking, clearly at least a few of the men and women who make the decision when it comes to entry in the Hall need to be replaced for outright stupidity (what sane person would case a vote for David Segui? – and I’m not making that up, he got one vote this year). Luckily for them, I don’t have time to get into that right now because I’m sure I have a scathing review of the entire process germinating in my mind.

By Ray Flowers

HOF: Mammoth McGwire Misunderstood?

Mark McGwire, like the mythic figure of Babe Ruth, seemed to transcend the game. Massive muscles, topped only by mammoth blasts that reached the upper levels of seats, were his calling card. A huge man who stood 6’5″ while weighing something like 250 (or more) pounds, he was a cartoon character who made pitchers look foolish when they grooved a pitch. He was a generational icon who did what he did – blast long balls – just about as well as anyone who had ever played the game.

Alas, McGwire’s run as a hero to many was destroyed well before it should have been when he was tainted by the whole PED scandal (Performance Enhancing Drugs). I’m not here to say whether or not he did anything illegal, goodness knows there have been reams of articles dealing with that very subject (for my thoughts on the topic take a look at Death of the Hero). The bottom line is that unless you want to exclude every player who suited up from 1995-2005 from the Hall of Fame, you have to make the decision to judge the players based on the merit of their works on the field and not by the suppositions of the masses. If everyone was or wasn’t cheating isn’t the point. The point is we don’t know who was “cheating,” we don’t have anyway of knowing who was cheating, and there will never be a way to prove, one or another, who was cheating. So let’s just examine McGwire through the lens of the men that he played against to see how he ranks, and by extension, whether or not he should be elected to the Hall of Fame in his fourth year on the ballot (I’m under no illusions that he will be selected for enshrinement, he certainly will not).

* McGwire, a pitcher in college at USC, started out his career as an offensive force being moved to third base before finally being shifted over to first base. In his first year in the bigs (1987), a 6’5″, 220 lbs McGwire won the Rookie of the Year award hitting .289 with 49 homers, 118 RBI and a .618 SLG (the HR and SLG led the league).

* McGwire never won the MVP award in his career, likely a result of a career batting average of just .263, but he still finished in the top-7 five different times finishing second to Sammy Sosa in 1998 despite hitting .299 with a then record 70 homers (he also scored 130 runs and knocked in 147 while posting a massive 1.222 OPS).

* Despite the plethora of talented men who played first base during his career, McGwire was named to the All-Star team 12 times. In fact, from 1987-2000 he missed out only in 1993 and 1994 when he was injured and limited to 27 and 47 games.

* From 1987 through his final year in the big leagues (2001), here is how McGwire ranked in a myriad of categories for that 15-year stretch.

McGwire hit 580 homers, the most in baseball (Barry Bonds had 551).
McGwire had 1,405 RBI, third most in baseball (Bonds had 1,494).
McGwire had a .590 SLG, the third best mark in baseball (Bonds and Manny Ramirez led the way at .594).
McGwire had a .985 OPS, fourth in baseball (Bonds at 1.017).

McGwire clearly dominated when compared to his peers, a fact that isn’t lost when we compare him to the immortals of the game. Here are McGwire all-time ranks in a handful of categories.

583 home runs, 8th all-time
1,414 RBI, 66th all-time
.394 OBP, 78th all-time
.588 SLG, 9th all-time
.982 OPS, 11th all-time

Clearly this man was one of the greatest sluggers of all-time, period. To me, that record of achievement deserves enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. I’ll leave the value judgments to others. What was it that Jesus said way back when? “Let he who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone…” (John 8:7).

To see my thoughts on others in my HOF series simply click on the following links:

Who Am I?

HOF: Tim Raines

Is McGriff Hall Worthy?

The Case of Andre Dawson

By Ray Flowers

The Case of Andre Dawson

What the heck. I thought I might as well continue to plow through some of the potential HOFamers with the release of voting results mere days away (January 6th). Today I’ll touch on Andre Dawson, the highest vote getter in 2009 who wasn’t chosen for election to the Hall of Fame (he received 67.0 percent of the vote, just under the 75 percent minimum that is required).

To see my thoughts on others in this series simply click on the following links:

HOF: Tim Raines

Is McGriff Hall Worthy?

Andrew Dawson was the “modern day ballplayer” before there was the modern day ballplayer. Exceedingly athletic, powerful with the bat, his legs, and his arm, there was nothing this man couldn’t do on the ball field. Let me detail his exploits.

Blessed with a cannon of an arm, Dawson cut down runners frequently on his way to hauling in 6-straight Gold Gloves (1980-85) and eight overall.

Dawson was named to eight All-Star teams in his career.

Dawson won four Silver Slugger Awards.

Dawson won the NL MVP in 1987 (.287-49-137-90-11) and finished twice two other times (1981 and 1983). Overall he had 2.36 Career MVP Shares good for 67th all-time (a measure of how many votes a player picks up in MVP voting).

What about his overall numbers? Here are some of those.

Dawson hit 438 home runs in his career, 36th all-time.
Dawson knocked in 1,591 runs, 34th all-time.
Dawson scored 1,373 runs, 93rd all-time.
Dawson had 314 steals, 146th all-time.
Dawson produced 2,774 hits, 45th all-time.
Dawson hit 503 doubles, 48th all-time.
Dawson produced 1,039 extra base hits, 24th all-time.

And finally, you put that all together and — Dawson was one of only three men who have played the game who have hit more than 400-HRs with at least 300-SBs. The others two guys are named Willie Mays and Barry Bonds.

Moreover, in the decade of the 1980′s, few were better at the dish. Here is an average Dawson season in that time (1980-89): .285-25-90-81-20. That type of season would have helped to win many a fantasy baseball championship would it have not? Remember, offense wasn’t as prevalent back then so the numbers are actually better than they look on the face of it as well.

Clearly, he was very good for a very long time.

From the traditional measures to a couple of those new fangled measures that you may or may not be aware of.

HOF Career Standards (created by Bill James). A score of 50 is about “normal” for a HOF player, and Dawson checks in with a mark of 44 which is one point better than the 43 that one of last years inductees, Jim Rice, racked up in his career. That seems to paint Dawson in a slightly unfavorable light.

HOF Monitor (created by Bill James). A score of 100 is about “normal” for a HOF player, and Dawson has a mark of 118. Compared to Jim Rice though, he falls well off the pace (Rice has a 144 mark). In fact, Dawson falls well behind three other batters who failed to gain entry last season in Mark McGwire (170), Don Mattingly (134) and Dave Parker (124). This measure, and the one above, seem to signal that Dawson would be a fair option for the Hall of Fame, but far from an elite option – perhaps that’s why he still hasn’t been enshrined.

Andre Dawson isn’t a lock to be inducted in 2010, but sooner or later, much like Jim Rice, it appears that he will be enshrined in the Hall of Fame. So in the words of Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumber – “So you’re telling me there’s a chance!”

By Ray Flowers

HOF: Tim Raines

Hall of Fame talk is starting to heat up with the announcement of the 2010 inductees mere days away (January 6th). Some players eligible for the first time include Barry Larkin, Andres Galarraga, Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez and Roberto Alomar (you can read my thoughts on Alomar in Who Am I?). Other players who return hoping to pick up the required 75 percent vote this season include a host of some of the who’s who in the game the past 30 years: Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Mark McGwire and Tim Raines. The last name on this list is who I’m going to focus on in this piece.

Long considered the best leadoff man in the National League during his career, Tim Raines had the misfortune of being the second best leadoff hitter in the game when he played. Mind you, there is no reason to hang ones head when you are #2 behind the man widely considered to be the best ever to fill the roll in Rickey Henderson, but clearly Raines falls behind Henderson in almost every way you can possible think of. Here are each man’s career bests in the 5×5 categories.

Raines: .334-18-68-133-90
Henderson:.325-28-74-146-130

Mind you the numbers are pretty close, but when we move to the realm of their career totals, the gap does widen.

Raines: .294-170-980-1,571-808
Henderson: .279-297-1,115-2,295-1,406

By the way, Henderson scored more runs and stole more bases than any man who ever lived.

Still, like I said at the start, the decision to vote for Raines shouldn’t be about Raines vs. Henderson, it should be about how Raines staked up against the competition. In this respect, he did very well.

Raines was named to 7-straight All-Star teams (1981-87).

Raines finished in the top-10 in AVG four times (led league at .334 in 1986).

Raines was top-10 in runs scored eight times (led league twice – 1983, 1987).

Raines led the NL in steals 4-straight years (1981-84). He also finished in the top-10 seven other times.

Raines finished in the top-10 in hits six times.

Raines finished in the top-10 in triples nine times.

Raines finished in the top-10 in OBP seven times (led league in 1986 at .413).

Raines finished in the top-10 in OPS four times.

Obviously Raines was one of the most effective players in the game for the majority of a decade as he enjoyed some tremendous success with the Expos. All told, that success led to some marks that clearly place him amongst the all-time greats that the game has ever seen.

Raines scored 1,571 runs, the 50th best total ever.
Raines produced 2,605 hits, the 73rd best total ever.
Raines stole 808 bases, the 5th best total ever.
Raines produced 1,636 Runs Created, the 53rd best mark ever.
Raines produced a 280.9 Power-Speed Number, the 28th best mark ever.

Yes, Mr. Raines was one hell of a player.

So why has he failed to break even 25 percent in the HOF vote in his first two go round in the voting process? My guess is that Raines fails in the most basic of comparisons – he simply wasn’t the best at what he did during his career failing to live up to the impossibly high standards of Henderson. Is that fair? Certainly not. There are a plethora of players enshrined in the Hall who may not have been “the best” when they were playing, just think of the comparison of Yankee teammates Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. Should Gehrig have been denied admittance to the Hall since he wasn’t even the best player on his team? Of course not.

In the end I have no idea why Raines has gotten such little respect for what he accomplished as he was clearly the best leadoff man in the National League in the 1980′s. It might take a while for Raines to get his due but I certainly hold out hope that one of these years he will be recognized for what he was, and that was one of the best players every to hit atop of a major league lineup.

DEROSA TO GIANTS?

By Ray Flowers