If only they had hit .300 for their career . . .

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes, I know that hitting .300 does not, by itself, make you a great player.

But hitting .300 for your career, regardless of what you did otherwise, got you on the radar. If you hit .300 for your career, and your career was of sufficient length, you PROBABLY got into the HOF, regardless of what your other stats were.

"Probably" means "over 50%". I'm using a low standard here. Babe Herman, Dixie Walker and Bobby Veach are NOT in the HOF, nor is Al Oliver. There are reasons for all three as to why they're not.

But there are some guys who, IF they had hit .300 for their careers, would have been in the HOF. Most of these guys played in the pre-war era, but some did not. Here are some of my picks for guys who WOULD have made it into the HOF if they finished at .300:

Dom DiMaggio (.298): Dom DiMaggio was Joe's brother, of course. He had a short career, but it was shortened due to war (he missed 3 prime years to WWII). He was a CENTER fielder, and an excellent defensive center fielder at that. Had he hit .300 for his career, I believe the writers would have looked at him in a different light. Dom DiMag was selected to seven (7) All-Star teams in ten years of full-time play. He did poorly in the voting, but he increased his numbers as the sixties moved on and BA moved down. I think he would have gotten in, if not by the writers, then certainly by the VC, if he had hit .300 for his career.

Jim Rice (.298): I believe that if Jim Rice had kept his BA over .300, he'd be in the HOF. He's close now; keeping that .300 BA would have pushed him over the top. I think his case is simple enough.

Doc Cramer (.296): No one really thinks Doc Cramer is a HOF caliber player these days, but he retired with 2,705 hits. That's a lot of hits; most .300 hitters who AREN'T in the HOF were (A) absolutely awful on defense, and/or (B) had relatively short careers. Guys with 2,000-2,200 hits are often soft candidates if they are counting on their .300 to take them in, and that includes guys like Will Clark and Don Mattingly, who are more deserving candidates than a whole slew of guys in the HOF. On the other hand, Doc Cramer had a LONG career, and a long career after coming to the big leagues late. He'd have been a VC pick if he'd have gotten to .300; the VCs of the seventies put a premium on batting averages, and Cramer would have been one of their contemporaries. (I know that Cramer isn't a great HOF pick; I'm just saying that if he had made it to .300, he WOULD have made it to the HOF.)

Indian Bob Johnson (.296): Indian Bob Johnson (there were four Bob Johnsons that played major league baseball, so I'm using his nickname to differentiate him) would DEFINITELY have gotten into the HOF if he had hit .300. He was a 27 year old rookie who was trapped in the minors behind Al Simmons, but got his shot when Simmons was traded. Johnson is a guy here who, as is, has a case; his Offensive Winning Percentage for his career is .582, a WHOLE lot better than Jim Rice's.

Minnie Minoso (.298): Minnie Minoso was perceived as a star while active, but when his numbers went into the books, his BA was .298, and he wasn't a big power guy. Still, he was a seven (7) time All-Star. The .300 BA would have dressed up his candidacy to where he would have been remembered differently.

Not every .299 hitter would have been a HOFer with a little luck. And some of the guys that WOULD have made it had they hit .300 wouldn't have really deserved it; Doc Cramer is light years away from Indian Bob Johnson in quality. But hitting .300 has been a big deal in HOF voting; the "lifetime .300 hitter" label is a pair of rose colored glasses for voters, granting that rose colored glasses will not blind you to bird droppings; they will only make them appear pinkish. I wonder if anyone here has other candidates for the "If they only had hit .300" club.

[J W]

Some modern guys, and how their chances would be affected:

Ellis Burks (.291): just one of those rock-solid players for a long time. Would hitting 300 push him over the top? Probably not, not in this day and age where people look beyond just batting average. 300 likely wouldn't push his hit total over 2500 or HR total over 400 either.

Tim Raines (.294): Would .300 have made him a first ballot HOFer? Maybe. Raines would have gotten on base an extra 53 times. The only milestone he may have acheived would be 1000 RBI, which is very rare for a leadoff hitter. I think Raines will eventually get in anyway, but it will take a while. He'd get in a lot more quickly otherwise.

Julio Franco (.298): The ageless wonder. Franco is so close to .300 that reaching that career mark would not affect his other stats much. But maybe people would pay more attention to him. Franco's is a weird case... he is a SS/2B/1B/DH. If he had played middle infield his entire career, I believe he would be Cooperstown bound.

[dgarza]

But hitting .300 for your career, regardless of what you did otherwise, got you on the radar. If you hit .300 for your career, and your career was of sufficient length, you PROBABLY got into the HOF, regardless of what your other stats were.

I really don't see things that way.

People focus on seasonal batting averages so much more than career batting averages. We say, "So and so batted .300 ten years in a row." N one really cares that hank Aaron batted .305 in his career, that Joe Cronin hit .301, that Al Kaline didn't hit .300 for his career (because the focus on career numbers are on the cumulative stats, Kaline's 3007 hits). I feel the only time career averages are discussed much is when they fall within either extreme (Harry Heilmann's .342, or Dave Kingman's .236).

Of the players mentioned above, only Rice might have gotten in sooner because of a lifetime .300 average, but not much sooner. I'm not sure it would help Tim Raines all that much. As for the rest, batting .300 lifetime would not make any difference.

Dom DiMaggio only cracked 10% of the vote once out of 9 elections.
I'm hard pressed to believe batting .300 would have done more than having the name "DiMaggio".

Stan Hack, Wally Berger, Pete Browning, Deacon White, Tony Oliva, Bill Madlock, Don Mattingly...

I think batting .300 is not considered a large enough factor to put players over the line. Most players who edge close to 75% ultimately get in on "momentum", not any particular stat.

[MyDogSparty]

Barry Larkin (.295): He's coming up on the ballot. I believe he should be in the HOF on the first ballot but I wouldn't bet on it. A .300 career batting average for him would have been nice. One of his contemporaries, Roberto Alomar, has .300 career average on the nose. They'll both be show up on the ballot in the same year.

I know both Al Kaline (.297) & Mickey Mantle (.298) had wished they had retired with a .300 career batting average. I firmly believe that had Kaline finished with a .300 career average and hit one more HR (he has 399) he would be more highly regarded by the general fans outside of Detroit.

[Rotoprofessor]

While batting .300 is a great accomplishment, when you are talking about guys who were that close, I'm not sure it would have put them over the top to get into the Hall. Like dgarza said, voters look at individual seasons. So, if someone was dominant for six or seven or eight seasons, yet ended up with a .299 average, it is not going to be held agaist them.

Granted, it's a nice number to have and something to hang your hat on to campaign your election, but I just don't see it as a fix-all to a career that doesn't warrant a Hall of Fame induction. A lot of the guys mentioned should be close, but I just don't see any of them as Hall of Famers myself, maybe with the exception of Rice.

[RuthMayBond]

Yes, I know that hitting .300 does not, by itself, make you a great player.

But hitting .300 for your career, regardless of what you did otherwise, got you on the radar. If you hit .300 for your career, and your career was of sufficient length, you PROBABLY got into the HOF, regardless of what your other stats were.

"Probably" means "over 50%". I'm using a low standard here. Babe Herman, Dixie Walker and Bobby Veach are NOT in the HOF, nor is Al Oliver. There are reasons for all three as to why they're not.

But there are some guys who, IF they had hit .300 for their careers, would have been in the HOF. Most of these guys played in the pre-war era, but some did not. Here are some of my picks for guys who WOULD have made it into the HOF if they finished at .300:

Dom DiMaggio (.298): Dom DiMaggio was Joe's brother, of course. He had a short career, but it was shortened due to war (he missed 3 prime years to WWII). He was a CENTER fielder, and an excellent defensive center fielder at that. Had he hit .300 for his career, I believe the writers would have looked at him in a different light. Dom DiMag was selected to seven (7) All-Star teams in ten years of full-time play. He did poorly in the voting, but he increased his numbers as the sixties moved on and BA moved down. I think he would have gotten in, if not by the writers, then certainly by the VC, if he had hit .300 for his career.

Jim Rice (.298): I believe that if Jim Rice had kept his BA over .300, he'd be in the HOF. He's close now; keeping that .300 BA would have pushed him over the top. I think his case is simple enough.

Doc Cramer (.296): No one really thinks Doc Cramer is a HOF caliber player these days, but he retired with 2,705 hits. That's a lot of hits; most .300 hitters who AREN'T in the HOF were (A) absolutely awful on defense, and/or (B) had relatively short careers. Guys with 2,000-2,200 hits are often soft candidates if they are counting on their .300 to take them in, and that includes guys like Will Clark and Don Mattingly, who are more deserving candidates than a whole slew of guys in the HOF. On the other hand, Doc Cramer had a LONG career, and a long career after coming to the big leagues late. He'd have been a VC pick if he'd have gotten to .300; the VCs of the seventies put a premium on batting averages, and Cramer would have been one of their contemporaries. (I know that Cramer isn't a great HOF pick; I'm just saying that if he had made it to .300, he WOULD have made it to the HOF.)

Indian Bob Johnson (.296): Indian Bob Johnson (there were four Bob Johnsons that played major league baseball, so I'm using his nickname to differentiate him) would DEFINITELY have gotten into the HOF if he had hit .300. He was a 27 year old rookie who was trapped in the minors behind Al Simmons, but got his shot when Simmons was traded. Johnson is a guy here who, as is, has a case; his Offensive Winning Percentage for his career is .582, a WHOLE lot better than Jim Rice's.

Minnie Minoso (.298): Minnie Minoso was perceived as a star while active, but when his numbers went into the books, his BA was .298, and he wasn't a big power guy. Still, he was a seven (7) time All-Star. The .300 BA would have dressed up his candidacy to where he would have been remembered differently.

Not every .299 hitter would have been a HOFer with a little luck. And some of the guys that WOULD have made it had they hit .300 wouldn't have really deserved it; Doc Cramer is light years away from Indian Bob Johnson in quality. But hitting .300 has been a big deal in HOF voting; the "lifetime .300 hitter" label is a pair of rose colored glasses for voters, granting that rose colored glasses will not blind you to bird droppings; they will only make them appear pinkish. I wonder if anyone here has other candidates for the "If they only had hit .300" club.

You actually think 30 hits or so would have made the difference.

[AstrosFan]

You actually think 30 hits or so would have made the difference.

No, perception makes the difference. That nice, round .300 has impact on voters.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No, perception makes the difference. That nice, round .300 has impact on voters.

That's exactly the point.

If Raines had hit .300 for his career, he'd be in the HOF, even if he had traded walks for singles, and his OBP remained the exact same.

[Fuzzy Bear]

While batting .300 is a great accomplishment, when you are talking about guys who were that close, I'm not sure it would have put them over the top to get into the Hall. Like dgarza said, voters look at individual seasons. So, if someone was dominant for six or seven or eight seasons, yet ended up with a .299 average, it is not going to be held agaist them.

Granted, it's a nice number to have and something to hang your hat on to campaign your election, but I just don't see it as a fix-all to a career that doesn't warrant a Hall of Fame induction. A lot of the guys mentioned should be close, but I just don't see any of them as Hall of Famers myself, maybe with the exception of Rice.

Many of the guys I mentioned are NOT HOF caliber, and I don't support them for the HOF. But I believe that, had they made it to .300 lifetime, they would probably have made the HOF, and would certainly have been stronger HOF candidates.

Bill James has often said that as time passes, a HOF candidate's chances for enshrinement come to rest more and more on their raw batting stats. This is true, according to James, because as time passes, the IMAGE of that player fades, and the bottom line stats become more prominent. That's why .301 lifetime looks ever so much better than .298 lifetime. It just does.

I don't apply this argument to guys like Barry Larkin; these are guys who don't need to hit .300 to get into the HOF. This argument is mainly applied to outfielders and first basemen; guys for whom offense is everything.

The guys I picked were being evaluated for the HOF in the sixties. This was an era where BAs were at an all-time low, and the HOF (especially the VC) looked at BA as a key stat.

[digglahhh]

Might as well throw out Keith Hernandez while we're at it.

But as Dgarza said in reference to Dom D., Mex never got remotely close, so I'm inclined to think that .004 BA points wouldn't have changed much.

I can see it making a difference for Rice though, the crescendo in the symphony of platitudes...

[Chadwick]

Might've made the difference for Rice, Minoso, Johnson or Raines at some point and might be the difference in whether or not Larkin's a first ballot guy.

[RuthMayBond]

Yes, I know that hitting .300 does not, by itself, make you a great player.

But hitting .300 for your career, regardless of what you did otherwise, got you on the radar. If you hit .300 for your career, and your career was of sufficient length, you PROBABLY got into the HOF, regardless of what your other stats were.

"Probably" means "over 50%". I'm using a low standard here. Babe Herman, Dixie Walker and Bobby Veach are NOT in the HOF, nor is Al Oliver. There are reasons for all three as to why they're not.

But there are some guys who, IF they had hit .300 for their careers, would have been in the HOF. Most of these guys played in the pre-war era, but some did not. Here are some of my picks for guys who WOULD have made it into the HOF if they finished at .300:

Dom DiMaggio (.298): Dom DiMaggio was Joe's brother, of course. He had a short career, but it was shortened due to war (he missed 3 prime years to WWII). He was a CENTER fielder, and an excellent defensive center fielder at that. Had he hit .300 for his career, I believe the writers would have looked at him in a different light. Dom DiMag was selected to seven (7) All-Star teams in ten years of full-time play. He did poorly in the voting, but he increased his numbers as the sixties moved on and BA moved down. I think he would have gotten in, if not by the writers, then certainly by the VC, if he had hit .300 for his career.

Jim Rice (.298): I believe that if Jim Rice had kept his BA over .300, he'd be in the HOF. He's close now; keeping that .300 BA would have pushed him over the top. I think his case is simple enough.

Doc Cramer (.296): No one really thinks Doc Cramer is a HOF caliber player these days, but he retired with 2,705 hits. That's a lot of hits; most .300 hitters who AREN'T in the HOF were (A) absolutely awful on defense, and/or (B) had relatively short careers. Guys with 2,000-2,200 hits are often soft candidates if they are counting on their .300 to take them in, and that includes guys like Will Clark and Don Mattingly, who are more deserving candidates than a whole slew of guys in the HOF. On the other hand, Doc Cramer had a LONG career, and a long career after coming to the big leagues late. He'd have been a VC pick if he'd have gotten to .300; the VCs of the seventies put a premium on batting averages, and Cramer would have been one of their contemporaries. (I know that Cramer isn't a great HOF pick; I'm just saying that if he had made it to .300, he WOULD have made it to the HOF.)

Indian Bob Johnson (.296): Indian Bob Johnson (there were four Bob Johnsons that played major league baseball, so I'm using his nickname to differentiate him) would DEFINITELY have gotten into the HOF if he had hit .300. He was a 27 year old rookie who was trapped in the minors behind Al Simmons, but got his shot when Simmons was traded. Johnson is a guy here who, as is, has a case; his Offensive Winning Percentage for his career is .582, a WHOLE lot better than Jim Rice's.

Minnie Minoso (.298): Minnie Minoso was perceived as a star while active, but when his numbers went into the books, his BA was .298, and he wasn't a big power guy. Still, he was a seven (7) time All-Star. The .300 BA would have dressed up his candidacy to where he would have been remembered differently.

Not every .299 hitter would have been a HOFer with a little luck. And some of the guys that WOULD have made it had they hit .300 wouldn't have really deserved it; Doc Cramer is light years away from Indian Bob Johnson in quality. But hitting .300 has been a big deal in HOF voting; the "lifetime .300 hitter" label is a pair of rose colored glasses for voters, granting that rose colored glasses will not blind you to bird droppings; they will only make them appear pinkish. I wonder if anyone here has other candidates for the "If they only had hit .300" club.

It didn't help George Van Haltren. 2,866 hits didn't help Baines.
If Kaline had gotten 8 fewer hits, he would have missed 3000 hits, 500 doubles, 400 HR, AND a .300 BA, would he not be in? What is your basis that .300 is a big deal in HOF voting?

[Professor]

I realize that perception is reality, but personally, it wouldn't make a difference to me. Sometimes, a ballplayer who's truly a career-.300 hitter hangs on a little too long and bats .250-.260 in the twlight of his career, which drags down the career BA. It's certainly not a credit to overstay your welcome, but it shouldn't disqualify a great hitter from receiving his due.

With regards to Jim Ed Rice, I don't think the .298 lifetime average has been his main obstacle. He was often uncooperative and surly with reporters during his playing days, and that, to me, has kept him out. Despite all of the statistical analysis that could be applied, the voting process still boils down to subjectivity.

[lovethegame]

No, perception makes the difference. That nice, round .300 has impact on voters.

I agree with you.
300 wins ,500 hrs,3000 hits for longevity and a 300 average for consistency stick in voters minds.
Take 2 guys , same season ,one hits 297 with the same number of ribbies, hrs ,runs etc as another guy who hits 301.
People mention a 300 hitter not a 297 hitter

[digglahhh]

I agree with you.
300 wins ,500 hrs,3000 hits for longevity and a 300 average for consistency stick in voters minds.
Take 2 guys , same season ,one hits 297 with the same number of ribbies, hrs ,runs etc as another guy who hits 301.
People mention a 300 hitter not a 297 hitter

Agreed.

In the spirit of round numbers, consider this:

One can make a pretty solid case that a difference of 13 points of BA is far more meaningful than 13 wins as a starting pitcher. That is, it is more significant to be a .287 hitter in relation to .300 than it is to be a 287 game winner in relation to 300 - in terms of a true reflection of accomplishment and skill. Yet, does anybody here debate the Bert Blyleven would be in the HOF had he won 13 more games...