Fast Pass Clubs

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Inspired by most (#73) in this thread

Are they any clubs you believe still merit instant HoF induction? I hope my poll covered all of the best options. My opinions are based on entering each club over time and HoF precedents.

For myself, the 300 win club is the only that stands the test of time. Even 19th century pitchers who pitched hundreds of innings a year had to endure the defensive mishaps of the day. They pitched with true grit to attain a miracle number. Today, 300 wins is nearly an afterthought because of the lack of decisions due to lesser innings pitched per start.

Next comes 3000 hits, a feat so close for instant gratification. The only reason I can't dignify it is because I don't believe Lou Brock belongs in the Hall of Fame (leave me alone). If Johnny Damon ever hit 3000, I wouldn't support him, either. 3000 hits can be done by a guy who hits the ball a good portion of the time in a lot of at-bats, as we saw with Brock, Damon, and Biggio (though Biggio is in for me).

Next is 500 home runs, a feat I still respect. Still, steroids and overall batter modernization have made the club much more possible since the 1990s. Only Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro do not belong in my HoF because I believe steroids helped their careers too much.

Then comes 500 saves. A save itself isn't very difficult, but to accrue it means you were a good enough reliever to stay in the closing role. Dominating batters like Mariano Rivera or Trevor Hoffman even for one inning at a time is impressive.

Next is 3000 strikeouts, only because it is more realistic today than a few decades ago. Though I would induct everyone in the club, the very feat seems more attainable to me than the previous four. This could just be me, though. I get the feeling that a good pitcher at a 7.0 k/9IP can make the list if he lasts long enough. Regardless of where I rank the club, it still doesn't make the fast pass cut.

--If one doesn't follow the 500 save mentality, I would place the 300 save club right here in consideration of pioneer closers. However, this club is losing its appeal due to closer specialization.

Finally there's 500 steals. Too many speedsters have made the club to consider it anywhere near a fast pass. It is more of a resume booster.

[Nerdlinger]

None of them explicitly merit induction. They are arbitrary numbers of counting stats, each of which on its own tells you very little about the player as a whole.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Craig Biggio will a big test for the 3000 hit club. He'll get in relatively quickly, but his versatility helps his case beyond just the milestone. 3,000 hits may no longer be first ballot as it has been since that became "noticed." (1962).

I think anyone getting to 300 wins from here on out will get in relatively quickly. Tom Glavine may not get in first ballot depending on who he shares the ballot with. But if he does fall short it will be close. 2 years on the ballot max for him.

The rest are no longer locks, if they ever were. Look at how long Bert Blyleven spent on the ballot after retiring with 3,701 strikeouts. Look at all the early 20th century guys with 500 steals+ who never sniffed the ballot, let alone Vince Coleman.

And the closer role is so fleeting now. We may not see anymore 500 save guys, let alone 300.

400 home runs used to be special, part of the club, even. Fred McGriff may well not get in falling just 7 HR shy, so 500 itself is not a guarantee any longer, either.

[jjpm74]

Other: none of them are automatics.

[jalbright]

I'd have to say none, but 300 wins is closest, with 3000 hits on its heels. After that, I don't see any of them as terribly close. Particularly as we get into a greater and greater acceptance of sabermetric approaches, the allure of such artificial traditional counting stat benchmarks will continue to diminish

[PVNICK]

None: 300 is close. However Damon and to the extent it looked possible, Moyer, have removed them from the land of automatics.

[adarowski]

I'd have to say none, but 300 wins is closest, with 3000 hits on its heels. After that, I don't see any of them as terribly close. Particularly as we get into a greater and greater acceptance of sabermetric approaches, the allure of such artificial traditional counting stat benchmarks will continue to diminish

I definitely agree with this.

The only thing I really would have voted for is "80 WAR".

[jjpm74]

I definitely agree with this.

The only thing I really would have voted for is "80 WAR".

Even there, you have Roger Clemens who I've been seeing several BBWAA writers say they will never vote for because he was just a good pitcher before he started using PEDS. Nothing is an automatic guarantee.

[Nerdlinger]

Even there, you have Roger Clemens who I've been seeing several BBWAA writers say they will never vote for because he was just a good pitcher before he started using PEDS. Nothing is an automatic guarantee.

Wait, I thought this was about our opinion on who should be elected/inducted, not about how likely their election is. Ty, can you clarify?

[Ben Grimm]

I agree with most of what's been said about some retaining value such as 3000 hits (I still think 3k Ks will hold water for some time too) with others not being all that important.

One for me is the 1500/1500 club. If you top both 1500 runs AND 1500 RBI, I think you're an automatic entry. As far as I know there are zero players not in the HoF who have these baselines (except those currently on ballot of course or stringed to PEDs). To me those two numbers combine high productivity as well as longevity.

[Nerdlinger]

I agree with most of what's been said about some retaining value such as 3000 hits (I still think 3k Ks will hold water for some time too) with others not being all that important.

One for me is the 1500/1500 club. If you top both 1500 runs AND 1500 RBI, I think you're an automatic entry. As far as I know there are zero players not in the HoF who have these baselines (except those currently on ballot of course or stringed to PEDs). To me those two numbers combine high productivity as well as longevity.

Both runs and RBI are heavily team-dependent. IMO, that makes them worse measures of career success than even hits or HR.

[jjpm74]

Both runs and RBI are heavily team-dependent. IMO, that makes them worse measures of career success than even hits or HR.

Very true, but at the very least, they are a sign of sustained productivity (along with 300 wins which is also extremely team-dependent) and seem to be a better indicator of HOF worthiness than one other used to be lock which was a BA over .300 with 2000+ hits.

[davewashere]

I agree with most of what's been said about some retaining value such as 3000 hits (I still think 3k Ks will hold water for some time too) with others not being all that important.

One for me is the 1500/1500 club. If you top both 1500 runs AND 1500 RBI, I think you're an automatic entry. As far as I know there are zero players not in the HoF who have these baselines (except those currently on ballot of course or stringed to PEDs). To me those two numbers combine high productivity as well as longevity.

I'm not even sure if 1500/1500 is automatic going forward. I know there are players who were close to that who didn't get, and didn't even last a full 15 years on the ballot. How about a guy with 1470/1384, an OPS+ over 125, and over half a dozen Gold Gloves (in the outfield)? That's Dwight Evans, and he lasted 3 years on the ballot before dropping below 5%. Would 30 runs and 116 RBI more over the course of 20 seasons have brought his best ballot from 10.4% to 75%?

Vladimir Guerrero well be another interesting test case. He's 1328/1496 with an OPS+ of 140 and a .318 career batting average. He was also a 9-time All Star.

[NJRob65]

None of what was listed. A 75 career WAR.

[jalbright]

I wouldn't vote for a WAR standard, either. They don't account for the banning issues or PED usage, for one thing. Moreover, setting WAR up as the standard assumes there won't be a better, commonly available measure in the future. There's some issues with WAR, and they could easily lead to a superceding measure.