Automatic Target Numbers for entry to the HOF

[Calif_Eagle]

What does anyone think about the notion that seems to have gained a lot of currency in recent years, that of certain counting stat numbers being targets. Targets that if attained guarantee the man who makes them automatic admission into the HOF. Numbers such as 500 homers, which Jose Canseco was openly hanging on trying to reach, a number which Dave Kingman might have reached had he played 2 more seasons. 3000 hits is another such target that players hang on to get to, 300 pitching wins is another target number. These are the major examples, there might be other categories that have a target number attached to them. Is this a valid concept, or should we take each player case-by-case regardless of his counting stats and possibly deny them admission on other criteria?

[jalbright]

I'm very leery of statistical benchmarks as automatic entry figures. How long ago would 400 career HR looked like a good standard? OTOH, it is a reality--and it still is quite difficult to achieve 3000 hits or 300 wins. If the statistical background never changed, you could probably do it--but, of course, it does, and that can wreck things. If we had set a number for saves in the early 70's we'd probably be looking at 30 or more closers today who would all be saying they're fully qualified.

Jim Albright

[Brad Harris]

No way. No how.

[Calif_Eagle]

I brought this up because you always hear baseball broadcasters saying things like "Joe Doakes is a borderline HOF-er in my mind, but if he crosses that 3000 hit plateau, well that should make him a lock." I personally feel the target idea is horrendous. As Mr. Albright stated above, at one time not too long ago, 400 homers might have been an automatic target for a HOF ticket. in 1961 when the Arthur Daley book "Kings of the Home Run" was published, 300 homers was regarded as being a target, of sorts. I read this book in junior high school (which is middle school today, I suppose) it profiled every 300 homer hitter through the end of the 1961 season, & added Roger Maris in also, probably assuming he would make it easily himself one day. When you get guys just hanging on trying to edge past these targets, well thats just not how a HOF-er should enter the Hall in my mind.

[iPod]

I brought this up because you always hear baseball broadcasters saying things like "Joe Doakes is a borderline HOF-er in my mind, but if he crosses that 3000 hit plateau, well that should make him a lock."

They say things like that because thinking is hard, and nobody has ever told them they have to do it. I'm an idealist; I believe that when a person first starts saying things like that, he does feel stupid and that his argument needs work. But, when nobody bothers to smack him in the head and tell him he sounds like a nine year old, he starts to just shrug it off and trust that must be all that is required to make a good argument.

[1905 Giants]

For example, there's Tim Raines

He didn't reach 3,000 hits, 1900 RBIs, 500 Homeruns, etc. Does that mean he shouldn't be in? I'd vote for him.

[Calif_Eagle]

No, of course it doesnt mean that. I think Raines will go in, and deserves to. What it means is: what if a player makes 600 PA a year, walks maybe 40 times and in the 560 remaining PA (now "At Bats") he bats .250. With little to no power. Yet somehow he holds a job in MLB for 22 years & ekes out a 3000 hit career. An extreme example. Say he was good but not an all-timer defensively. Should just making 3000 hits despite a low BA, SA and OBP and being good (not Great) defensively be an automatic qualification for the HOF? I would say no. I think sometime very soon we will see our first ever 3000 hit man denied the HOF, as the player in this fictitious example would be. The men who are possibly the 2 Greatest hitters of all time didnt get 3000 hits. (Ruth and Williams).

For example, there's Tim Raines. He didn't reach 3,000 hits, 1900 RBIs, 500 Homeruns, etc. Does that mean he shouldn't be in? I'd vote for him.

[RubeBaker]

No, of course it doesnt mean that. I think Raines will go in, and deserves to. What it means is: what if a player makes 600 PA a year, walks maybe 40 times and in the 560 remaining PA (now "At Bats") he bats .250. With little to no power. Yet somehow he holds a job in MLB for 22 years & ekes out a 3000 hit career. An extreme example. Say he was good but not an all-timer defensively. Should just making 3000 hits despite a low BA, SA and OBP and being good (not Great) defensively be an automatic qualification for the HOF? I would say no. I think sometime very soon we will see our first ever 3000 hit man denied the HOF, as the player in this fictitious example would be. The men who are possibly the 2 Greatest hitters of all time didnt get 3000 hits. (Ruth and Williams).

The fact is, if a player manages to stick around long enough to hit 3000 with a .250 BA, he has to have been one hell of a defensive player.

[BlueBlood]

3,000 hits/300 wins shouldn't even be questioned. Home runs is an entirely different beast....600 is the new 500, no doubt. And you can't reward people like Canseco or McGwire (ignoring steroids) that just swung for the stands every at bat and had piss poor numbers outside of their HR totals.

[Calif_Eagle]

The fact is, if a player manages to stick around long enough to hit 3000 with a .250 BA, he has to have been one hell of a defensive player.

The point of the example was to show that it is possible to amass a career total of 3000 hits and not be Hall worthy. You feel that in my example, which was designed to be extreme, that my fake player would have HAD to be a glove wizard, probably at an important position on the defensive spectrum (catcher, ss, 2b, cf, are positions that place a premium on defense and are often willing to sacrifice offense (BA, OBP) or power or both.) I am willing to concede that point. To hang around as a regular for 22 years and be that abysmal with the bat, yes he might still qualify for the HOF on the grounds of his defense. That still tends to support the illegitimacy of targets. (This target anyway.) Our fake player goes in because he is Tris Speaker reincarnated in CF, (for example) not because he is Tris Speaker at the plate. I think in the future 300 games won is going to be a lot different than it has in the past. A starter isnt typically getting 40 starts/decisions anymore. With 5 man rotations and pitch counts a 300 game winner of the not too distant future is probably going to have to have a winning percentage like Lefty Grove when he is done. Tom Glavine won his 300th career game today, he is 300-197 for a .603 winning percentage. Thats usually a good enough percentage for a team to win a Division over a season. I think in the future 300 game winners will have even better records. In 1991 Glavine was 20-11 for 31 total *decisions*. Thats his career high. Glavine is in his 21st season. 300 is probably going to be an "automatic target" because to ever attain it, you will have to do an awful lot of things right. Like pitch very well almost every single time out, over a very long period of time. I still feel an example could be constructed where a 3000 hit man or (especially a) 500 home run man would fail to qualify in any other regard for the HOF. Dave Kingman played 16 years and hit 442 HR. In his final season he hit 35 HR, a record for a players' last year of a career. Suppose he played 2 more seasons for some team that didnt care about his .236 lifetime average and eked out another 58 home runs? Not at all an impossibility. I doubt very much whether the HOF gates would have ever swung open for him. Harold Baines ended a long and solid career with 2866 hits at age 42. What if he had played one more year and somehow (not likely I admit) popped 134 hits? Would he then be deserving of what is likely to be denied him?

[digglahhh]

I actually think that it can work if the benchmark is high enough. 3,000 hits is high enough. There is one 3,000 hit club member who is even HOF borderline - Brock. And he stole 938 bases and hit almost .400 over three World Series.

You really can't get 3,000 hits without being a very good to great player for a long period of time. Somehow, through combination of your offense and defense, you are contributing a lot of runs to your teams. Inherent in 3,000 hits is that value.

I also disagree that 600 is the new 500. There has still not been player who I feel is not HOF worthy who has hit 500 homers. Who of the recent members and guys about to do it are unworthy? A-Rod? Frank Thomas? Manny? Thome? Sheffield? Delgado? Delgado is probably the most borderline. But, again, to say that Jim Thome has to hit 600 bombs to be considered a power hitter on the level of Ernie Banks is sound deranged to me.

Also, I'm really fed up with the talk about whether Glavine is the last 300 game winner. Let me clear this up for the sheep-like media, the chances of Glavine being the last 300 game winner is approximately .01%. Just because there isn't another guy who is a clear lock to do it, doesn't mean it won't be done. How myopic is that? Glavine is, in all likelhood, the last of his generation to win 300. 300 may become even more rare, but it is not unachievable by any stretch of the imagination.

In summary, the benchmarks need not be requirements. But they actually do a pretty good job. 3,000 hits and 300 wins are certainly set high enough that non-deserving candidates can't really scrape through - even if some come close. 500 HR may prove too low, but it hasn't yet - and a 20% raise of the bar doesn't seem right to me.

[jalbright]

I actually think that it can work if the benchmark is high enough. 3,000 hits is high enough. There is one 3,000 hit club member who is even HOF borderline - Brock. And he stole 938 bases and hit almost .400 over three World Series.

You really can't get 3,000 hits without being a very good to great player for a long period of time. Somehow, through combination of your offense and defense, you are contributing a lot of runs to your teams. Inherent in 3,000 hits is that value.

I also disagree that 600 is the new 500. There has still not been player who I feel is not HOF worthy who has hit 500 homers. Who of the recent members and guys about to do it are unworthy? A-Rod? Frank Thomas? Manny? Thome? Sheffield? Delgado? Delgado is probably the most borderline. But, again, to say that Jim Thome has to hit 600 bombs to be considered a power hitter on the level of Ernie Banks is sound deranged to me.

Also, I'm really fed up with the talk about whether Glavine is the last 300 game winner. Let me clear this up for the sheep-like media, the chances of Glavine being the last 300 game winner is approximately .01%. Just because there isn't another guy who is a clear lock to do it, doesn't mean it won't be done. How myopic is that? Glavine is, in all likelhood, the last of his generation to win 300. 300 may become even more rare, but it is not unachievable by any stretch of the imagination.

In summary, the benchmarks need not be requirements. But they actually do a pretty good job. 3,000 hits and 300 wins are certainly set high enough that non-deserving candidates can't really scrape through - even if some come close. 500 HR may prove too low, but it hasn't yet - and a 20% raise of the bar doesn't seem right to me.

I agree that so far 3000 hits and 300 wins work well if you except Rose and Palmeiro. I'm not sure they will continue to, though, and that's a problem. As for 500 HR, the real test(s) are McGwire, Palmeiro, and McGriff, and to a lesser degree, Sosa. Palmiero tested positive for steroids and, among other things, shilled for an ED product for many years before that. Sosa and McGwire at the very least looked bad in front of Congress during the steroids hearings. McGriff might be the purest test because he doesn't have a PED taint--I don't think 7 more homers really makes him that much more attractive a choice, and I don't think a rational argument can be made to that effect. I happen to see him as falling just a tad short, but more than 7 homers' worth. If he's good enough, maybe 500 HR still stands. If not, 500 HR is now too low.

It's probably getting harder to win 300, but I agree it's not become impossible.

Jim Albright