Believe it or not, my intent was to write a short article and get it posted quickly. And it started out that way, but then the Energizer Bunny appeared and it kept going and going and going…..
So much for "the best laid plans"….
Introduction
With Hall of Fame season safely behind us, and with Scott Rolen (BBWAA) and Fred McGriff (Contemporary Baseball Era Committee) enshrined for eternity as the latest honorees, I had a few thoughts about the Hall of Fame – where we’ve been, where we’re heading, the information and the tools that are used to evaluated candidates, and so on. We’ll touch on Rolen as well as future candidates such as Yadier Molina and Chase Utley, and check in on a few others along the way.
But first, to kick this off….
What the Hall of Fame is NOT
I stumbled across this recent quote the other day in an article on MLB.com, and it really got my attention:
"A Hall of Fame is, almost by definition, a ranking of the best players to ever play the sport."
I have to tell you I had a very visceral reaction to that, as I don’t agree with that characterization at all, and in fact I have stated the opposite to that sentiment quite frequently.
My disagreement with it is twofold. In my opinion:
1. The Hall of Fame is not a ranking system.
2. The Hall of Fame is not solely about recognizing the "best".
And that goes for any Hall of Fame: Baseball, Football, Rock and Roll, the Toy Hall of Fame, you name it. Does anyone think that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is primarily designed to identify and recognize the "best" musicians? I think not. "Best" is not the proper adjective for Hall of Fame consideration, in my opinion. We need something more robust.
A little more elaboration on why I disagree with the quote - the first issue I have is more of a technical/semantical, and the second one is more philosophical. Taking them one at a time….
On point #1 regarding whether the Hall of Fame is a "ranking system"……well, to me it’s obvious that it’s not, but let me try to be fair to the statement in question. I suppose one could argue that a Hall of Fame could involve, at least to some degree, putting candidates in some kind of general order, with the goal being to distinguish between those who you would include, and those who you would not. Certainly, in our BJOL version of a Hall Fame (The "Gallery of Renown", whose elections pre-date Cooperstown’s by 50 years), we require voters to put candidates in order from 1 to 10 and assign points accordingly, similar to an MVP ballot. So, one could say that we are requesting voters to do a "ranking", at least in that phase of the process.
However…..regardless of how individual voters approach the task of deciding who is deserving of the honor, a Hall of Fame itself is ultimately not a ranking system. It’s a binary result – you’re in, or you’re out. In any case, I would consider point #1 to be the minor point.
Point #2, as mentioned before, is really the larger point, and more of a philosophical one to me. To me, the purpose of a Hall of Fame is not solely about recognizing the "best".
Now, I realize that comment does tend to stir up some puzzled responses. I’ve made that statement on this site before, and some react by saying "what do you mean we’re not trying to recognize the best?" Well, what I’m trying to say with that is, it’s not solely about honoring the "best". There’s more to a Hall of Fame than that, at least in my opinion.
Backing off for a second…..
What, essentially, do you suppose is the general purpose of a "Hall of Fame"? I think that’s an important thing to have some general agreement on. Towards that end, here are a few definitions of "Hall of Fame" that I came across doing a basic search:
· An institution honoring the achievements of individuals in a particular activity or field.
· A structure housing memorials to famous or illustrious individuals usually chosen by a group of electors.
· A memorial honoring renowned achievers in a particular sport or other activity.
· Collection of memorabilia relating to a specific field which honors among other things people of great importance to that field.
· List of individuals, achievements, or other entities, usually chosen by a group of electors, to mark their excellence or fame in their field.
I bolded a few words and phrases above. To summarize some of the key points:
· Honoring achievements
· Illustrious individuals
· Famous individuals
· Renowned achievers (you know those of us on this site like that one)
· Important people
· Excellence in their field
By the way, I’ve always liked the adjective "illustrious" in the context of a Hall of Fame. It’s probably my favorite adjective in this context.
And what are other words that are generally synonymous with being "illustrious"?
· Well-known
· Respected
· Admired for past achievements
· Eminent
· Distinguished
· Acclaimed
· Noted
· Prominent
· Significant
· Influential
So, again, excellence, quality, value, being the "best"….those are all valid considerations, but it’s my opinion that Halls of Fame are about much more than simply how good candidates were and how quantifiably valuable they were.
Now, I should also mention that I have also consistently taken the position that a Hall of Fame, and who belongs in one, is very much an individual thing, which is one reason why they’re so much fun to discuss and debate. Your criteria may be very different from mine, and you may place more importance on some things rather than others.
That’s all well and good. There is no absolute threshold or score or any other type of number that establishes someone as a Hall of Famer. As my friend and partner in crime on the Gallery of Renown Terry Vent likes to say, "your Hall, your rules" (or something like that….).
Halls of Fame, and who is inducted into one, is ultimately something that is voted on, which means it is ultimately an opinion. Or more accurately, at least in baseball’s case, a 75% consensus of many voters’ opinions (at least when it comes to the BBWAA ballots vs. the various committees that are made up of much smaller groups). The guidelines are relatively vague, and everyone’s opinion is different, but through the collection of opinions, we emerge with who is a Hall of Famer and who isn’t.
As an illustration of just how diverse opinions can be in voting……in our recently conducted "Gallery of Renown", 76 Bill James Online voters submitted ballots listing their choices in order from 1 to 10. 16 different players received at least one first place vote. No one candidate received more than 12 first place (David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez each received 12, and, as it turned out, neither one of them was elected). That’s a pretty decent difference of opinion.
No two ballots in a concept such as the Gallery of Renown are going to be exactly the same from 1 to 10, but I was also curious to see if there were any that were similar. I decided to do a quick tally of how many instances among the 76 resulted in 2 or more voters agreeing on just the same top three (same 3 players, same order) There were only 3 such instances:
· 2 voters had ballots with David Ortiz as #1, Manny Ramirez as #2, and Roy Halladay as #3.
· 2 voters had ballots with David Ortiz as #1, Vlad Guerrero as #2, and Roy Halladay as #3
· 2 voters had ballots with Vlad Guerrero as #1, Scott Rolen as #2, and David Ortiz as #3
And that’s it.
So, even just isolating each voter’s top 3, there were 73 different opinions on how those first three slots should be allocated in terms of the "who" and the "in what order". In other words, there were lots of different opinions, different priorities, and different perspectives.
We ask people for their individual opinions, however they may arrive at them, and we reach a group conclusion. As it should be.
Let’s look at some other angles on the general topic of who we decide to honor and what’s important to us.
Yadier
One comparison I’ve seen a lot of recently is between two catchers of recent vintage: the newly retired Yadier Molina, and Russell Martin, who retired a few years ago. The general premise of several of the comparisons I’ve read tends to follow more or less along these lines:
1) Molina is probably going to be elected to the Hall of Fame on the BBWAA ballot - maybe not in his first year, but in short order
2) Martin was just as valuable of a player as Molina
3) If Molina is elected and Martin is not, that would be a damn shame
Do you agree with that conclusion? I sure don’t.
I do more or less agree with the first 2 points. I do think that Molina is Hall of Fame bound, and fairly quickly. And, I do believe that Martin and Molina were of roughly the same overall quality. But agreeing with the first two points does not lead me to the conclusion in the third point.
Digging a bit into the value/quality part for a moment…… I do think Molina has the edge defensively (although Martin was pretty good defensively too, and apparently was outstanding in the art of "framing"), and I do think that Martin was a better overall offensive threat – Molina had the better average, but Martin was better at getting on base, was a better home run hitter, and was a better base runner. Overall, I think they’re close.
Looking at it through WAR and its related measures…..Molina (42.2) and Martin (38.8) have very similar career rWAR totals, and if you translate to a per 162 game basis, Martin (3.7) is actually little higher than Molina (3.1). If you like Fangraphs’ version of WAR, they’re very close, with Molina (10th all time with a 55.7 mark) just edging out Martin (11th all time with a 54.9 figure). If you’re a fan of the JAWS ranking system, there’s very little difference – Molina is 22nd, Martin is 27th.
So, I do think that there is compelling evidence that Molina and Martin were close in terms of the overall quality of their play as measured by several popular methodologies. I’ll buy that.
However, as to the logic of "if Molina is elected to the Hall of Fame, then Martin deserves to go in as well"? Nope. That’s where they lose me.
See, I think of the Hall of Fame as analogous to a job position that we’re trying to fill. We get to evaluate the candidates, and it’s up to us to decide who’s hired.
Molina has a lot going for him when it comes to being having a résumé that appeals to Hall of Fame voters. 10 All Star Game nods. 9 Gold Gloves. 4 World Series appearances, including 2 championships. # 4 on the all-time list of games played at catcher, and he did it all with a single franchise. He was on a very successful team, and he was a key contributor to their success. He is generally considered to be one of the truly elite all-time defensive players at an important defensive position. Those accomplishments look really good on a career résumé to a Hall of Fame voter.
Molina’s Hall of Fame Monitor score (which, granted was designed to gauge likelihood of election as opposed to "deserving" of election) is a rather robust 169. The only position players with higher scores who are not already enshrined are those with steroid clouds (Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire), gambling/lack of eligibility issues (Rose), not yet eligible (Ichiro, Cabrera, Pujols, Cano), and Todd Helton, who received 72% of the vote on the most recent ballot, and will probably go in next year. Below Molina, you would have to go down into the 130’s (Albert Belle, Don Mattingly) to reach players who were eligible and not elected (I should note that Gary Sheffield does have a score of 158, but he’s still on the ballot and received 55% of the vote last year, so it’s conceivable he might go in next year on his 10th and final attempt – either that, or he’ll probably get really close). The Monitor score is certainly not everything, but it does indicate that Molina has done the types of things that voters have traditionally valued.
Now, some are not impressed by Molina’s selling points. They’ll say All Star Games are primarily popularity contests, and they’ll also say that Gold Glove awards aren’t much different. After all, Gold Glove award voters are notorious for locking in on certain players and rewarding the same ones year after year regardless of whether or not they may deserve it based on actual performance during that year.
And World Series appearances and championships, and being on a successful team? Those are team accomplishments. "Why are we rewarding an individual based on a team achievement?", they’ll say. Besides, Martin appeared in 10 different postseasons in his 14-year career, and with 4 different franchises, which is impressive in its own right. Doesn’t that count for anything, they’ll ask?
Sure it does. Those points all have some merit. But, similar to the way in which extracurricular activities and awards and accomplishments can hold a certain appeal to someone in an organization looking to hire a job candidate, so too can awards, achievements, and team success appeal to a Hall of Fame voter. The fact of the matter is that Yadier will likely resonate well with voters, and Martin will not.
Bottom line is, Molina was a star. He was a key part of a very successful team. He had a long list annual achievements and recognitions. He is regarded as one of the better defensive players at his position ever. He had a very long career at a very demanding position, and played it very well. He was well-known, well-regarded. He was "illustrious".
And, let’s face it, Halls of Fame like stars. Martin may be underrated. Martin may be underappreciated. Martin might be as quantifiably good as Molina. However, my opinion is that we are under no obligation to use the Hall of Fame to recognize underrated players who were generally not cared much about while they were playing. Not trying to be harsh, and not trying to be unfair, just trying to be practical.
You know the phrase "I didn’t think of him as a Hall of Famer when he was playing"? I think that’s actually a valid way to think about the topic. If someone didn’t seem like a Hall of Famer when active, but you discover some things later on that might make you reconsider, should you re-evaluate? Perhaps. There may be new information or mitigating factors. Information and methodologies and approaches evolve. I don’t think we have to close the book based on our perceptions of someone while they were active. We can keep an open mind.
But I also think we should do that carefully. Because, what exactly are we honoring in those cases? That someone was better than we thought? Does that somehow make them more "illustrious"? Maybe in certain cases, it can make a difference. But generally, I think that it’s not particularly helpful to conclude that just because 2 players are deemed to be retroactively similar in quality, but one player was substantially more highly regarded than the other while active, that the other player should ride in on the coattails of the reputation of the first one. It just doesn’t work that way.
Yadier Molina will likely go into the Hall of Fame. Russell Martin likely will not. I’m OK with that on both counts.
Like a Rolen Stone
Congratulations are in order for Scott Rolen, the newest member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Rolen is a solid selection for the Hall of Fame, although I hesitate to classify him as an "obvious" Hall of Famer as I’ve seen others do.
I honestly think of Rolen as more as a "borderline" Hall of Famer, and before anyone gets upset, I don’t mean it as a slam. A "borderline" Hall of Famer is a helluva player. I’ve used that term before for someone like an Alan Trammell, and I sense that people think I’m disrespecting players with that term. Not at all. I think Rolen and Trammell are perfectly reasonable Hall of Fame choices, but I don’t consider either one as a clear-cut case. I can see why someone would support them. I can also see why someone might not.
Here's a thought to explore…..is Rolen perhaps the first player to owe his induction to WAR? And what I mean by that is, if WAR did not exist and was not as popular or as widely used as it is now, would Rolen have likely been elected? There’s no definitive answer to that, but let’s explore that possibility.
The roots of WAR trace back several decades, tracing back to some of Bill James’ early ideas in the 1980’s, evolving into Baseball Prospectus/Keith Woolner/VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) in the 1990’s, then taking another step forward through the work of Sean Smith and Tom Tango’s developments in the 2000’s, eventually becoming an official part of baseball-reference.com in 2009.
I think most would agree that a key moment in the history of WAR usage was the Mike Trout vs. Miguel Cabrera MVP award showdown in 2012 where Cabrera’s Triple Crown performance was hotly debated vs. Trout’s more well-rounded game which his superior WAR helped shine a light on. I think it’s fair to say that traditionalists tended to favor Cabrera, while those open to WAR and "new analytics" preferred Trout. Cabrera won the debate in 2012 (and again in 2013 in another battle between the two ensued), but an important point in the development of WAR’s usage had occurred.
So, if we’re going to put a time frame on exploring which Hall of Famers might have gotten the biggest "boost" from the usage and popularity of WAR, I’d say it’s really been over the last 10 years or so that WAR has really become a big part of the discussion. Let’s start with that premise. Using one example, I would not consider Bert Blyleven as one of the players who WAR helped into the Hall of Fame. Blyleven’s case was more attributable to the efforts of a fellow named Rich Lederer who built a convincing case for Blyleven based on several other existing categories of performance. Blyleven was ultimately elected in 2011. Blyleven certainly would have benefitted from the usage of WAR in debating his case, but I think he slightly predates the time frame we’re isolating for studying the effect.
Digging into Rolen’s case and whether or not WAR ultimately played a big role…..
Rolen was active from 1996-2012. During that time, only 5 players generated more rWAR than Rolen’s 70.1: Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols, Barry Bonds, Chipper Jones, and Derek Jeter. That’s pretty impressive, and that in and of itself is enough evidence for many to conclude that Rolen was an elite player of that era. But, while WAR is a good way to compare players based on overall value, and it certainly helps to shine a light on players like Rolen that contribute across the board, I would say Rolen really wasn’t a major star of that era (again, realizing that many out there don’t really care whether someone was a "star" or not).
Who were the biggest "stars" of that era? It’s subjective, but let me try, understanding that 1996-2012 captures Rolen’s entire career, and might only capture a portion of someone else’s.
Focusing on position players and leaving the pitchers out of it, certainly the 5 mentioned above (A-Rod, Pujols, Bonds, Chipper, and Jeter) were much bigger stars than Rolen. I would also say that the following were bigger stars: Roberto Alomar, Ken Griffey Jr. Vlad Guerrero, Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Miguel Cabrera, Mike Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, Ichiro Suzuki, David Ortiz, Frank Thomas, Barry Larkin, Manny Ramirez, and Jim Thome. And there are many others that were probably at least on Rolen’s star power level, such as Carlos Beltran, Andruw Jones, Sammy Sosa, Adrian Beltre, Larry Walker, and Todd Helton. Several other greats like Cal Ripken Jr., Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Rickey Henderson, Ryne Sandberg, Eddie Murray, Ozzie Smith, Tim Raines, Paul Molitor and Andre Dawson were bigger stars who were still active early in that time frame, although they were generally at the tail end of their careers by then, so I’m not including them. Likewise, I’m also not including stars who were just getting started at the tail end of Rolen’s career (Mike Trout, Joey Votto, Paul Goldschmidt, Freddie Freeman, Jose Altuve, Buster Posey, Joe Mauer, etc.)
So, was Rolen really one of the big stars of that era? I really don’t think he was. WAR gives him something to hang his hat on, but I would not consider him one of the top 20 stars among position players from that era. And how about if we include pitchers like Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, Roy Halladay, John Smoltz, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling, Johan Santana, C.C. Sabathia, Mariano Rivera, and Trevor Hoffman? I think I would be hard pressed to consider Rolen even a top-30 star of that era.
And that gets to the heart of the question. Would Rolen have been elected to the Hall of Fame without WAR and JAWS boosting his case? I don’t think he was generally considered as a Hall of Fame type player when he was active. Did you think of him that way? I sure didn’t. I suspect the consensus during his playing career was that he really wasn’t viewed that way.
I think it would have been tough for him to get enough support absent WAR. Now, I do think he has some natural comparisons to Ron Santo, a similar type player who was inducted several years ago (although Santo waited a long time and eventually got there via the Vet Committee path), so I don’t want to dismiss the possibility that he might have appealed to enough voters. I just think it might have been a really tough road without WAR and JAWS as part of the discussion.
Anyway, if that’s true that he owes his election primarily to the usage and acceptance of WAR, would he be the first candidate who we would be able to say that about? Again, using 2012 as a back end cutoff, I can think of a couple of others for whom we might conclude that about: Tim Raines and Larry Walker. Both Raines (elected in 2017) and Walker (2020) took a long time to work through the process, each of them starting with fairly low percentages, but each made it on his 10th and final turn on the ballot. Both Raines and Walker were in the same WAR range (upper 60’s to low 70’s). Both had some stigmas to overcome – Raines I think had the perception issue of being compared to Rickey Henderson, and Walker had to overcome a bit of an anti-Coors Field bias. However, both eventually won over voters at least in part due (in my opinion) to the arguments being made on their behalf by those who like to leverage WAR and/or JAWS (Raines is 8th among left fielders in JAWS, Walker 11th among right fielders). Raines also had a strong advocate in Jonah Keri a writer who, similar to the previously mentioned role Rich Lederer played in Blyleven’s case, became a strong voice in advocating for Raines’ election.
When Rolen first debuted on the 2018 ballot, I wrote an article called Hall of Fame Similarity Scores, which introduced a method I came up that was conceptually similar to Bill’s standard "Similarity Scores", but instead of comparing them across traditional categories like batting average, home runs, RBI, etc., it compared players based on their scores in 4 different "Hall of Fame Metrics" – Hall of Fame Standards, Hall of Fame Monitor, Black Ink, and Gray Ink. I was using it as a way to see who different Hall of Fame candidates were most similar to across those 4 measurements.
I was intrigued by Rolen at the time he debuted because it was nagging at me who he reminded me of in a Hall of Fame discussion context. After thinking about it, I concluded that he reminded me a lot of Lou Whitaker, a player who didn’t generate much support (less than 3%) on his one and only appearance on the BBWAA ballot. Like Whitaker, I felt like Rolen was a really good player, someone who contributed in a lot of different areas, but never really struck me as a Hall of Famer while observing his career.
When I developed the method, my nagging feeling was confirmed, as it turned out that Rolen’s #1 comp using that scoring mechanism was Whitaker. Here is the top 10 list of players with the highest HOF Metric Similarity Scores for Rolen:
|
Rank
|
Score
|
Name
|
HOF Std
|
HOF Monitor
|
Black Ink
|
Gray Ink
|
Position
|
|
0
|
1,000
|
Scott Rolen*
|
40
|
99
|
0
|
27
|
3B
|
|
1-T
|
950
|
Lou Whitaker
|
43
|
93
|
0
|
31
|
2B
|
|
1-T
|
950
|
Edgar Renteria
|
38
|
109
|
0
|
22
|
SS
|
|
3-T
|
934
|
Omar Vizquel
|
42
|
120
|
0
|
25
|
SS
|
|
3-T
|
918
|
Alan Trammell*
|
40
|
119
|
0
|
48
|
SS
|
|
5
|
904
|
Jim Edmonds
|
39
|
89
|
0
|
60
|
CF
|
|
6
|
890
|
Aramis Ramirez
|
39
|
85
|
2
|
53
|
3B
|
|
7
|
882
|
Willie Randolph
|
34
|
92
|
2
|
39
|
2B
|
|
8
|
880
|
Chase Utley
|
35
|
94
|
3
|
42
|
2B
|
|
9
|
870
|
Dave Concepcion
|
29
|
107
|
0
|
25
|
SS
|
|
10
|
868
|
Buddy Myer
|
41
|
86
|
6
|
45
|
2B
|
As you can see, this group contains several kinds of players with various strengths and weaknesses, but generally this group contains players with HOF Standard scores around 40 (average Hall of Famer would be 50), Hall of Fame Monitor Scores in the 90’s or low 100’s (generally considered to be a bit of a gray area of Hall of Fame likelihood), virtually no Black Ink (league category leadership) to speak of, and Gray Ink (top 10 category placement) scores in the 20’s to 40’s (well below the average Hall of Famer that would be around 144).
In short, this group of players were ones who were generally good players, mostly up the middle defenders or third basemen, who tended not to find themselves placing high in individual hitting categories. Several of them have healthy rWAR figures, as Rolen, Whitaker, and Trammell are all in the low to mid 70’s, and Edmonds, Randolph, and Utley are in the low to mid 60’s). However, prior to Rolen’s election, only Trammell had been inducted into the Hall of Fame, and that was via a Veteran’s committee, as Trammell generally ranged in the 10%-35% support range, and topped out at 40.9% in his 15th and final year on the ballot in 2016. Trammell was a good candidate, but didn’t resonate with the writers.
So, Rolen was similar to Whitaker, all the way down to his career WAR (which was not part of the methodology) and his positional JAWS ranking (Rolen 10th among third basemen, Whitaker 13th among second basemen).
One other strong similarity between Rolen and Whitaker: neither one did well in MVP voting. Rolen did have one 4th place finish (2004) but otherwise was never in the top 10, and Whitaker only had one season where he placed in the top 10 (8th in 1983). Again, some don’t put a lot of weight on awards when it comes to the Hall of Fame, as they feel that MVP and Cy Young voting quite frequently don’t consider the right criteria and often recognize the wrong candidates. Still, I think that award voting does give us a reasonably good record of how the player was considered when they were active. I do think that it’s a valid consideration when evaluating a Hall of Fame candidate.
Regarding Rolen’s and Whitaker’s lack of MVP support, one thing that I did happen to notice is that neither Rolen nor Whitaker had a very impressive record of placing among the annual leaderboard for WAR among position players. Rolen only had 3 years (3rd in 2004, 9th in2006, and 10th in 2002) where he finished in the top 10 in position player rWAR, and Whitaker only had 3 as well (4th in 1991, 5th in 1983, and 8th in 1989). So, if you place any value on that, I don’t think that either player was significantly slighted in MVP voting.
In that 2018 article, I wondered how Rolen would fare with the writers. As it turned out, not so well, at least out of the gate. Rolen only received 10.2% of the votes in that 2018 election, placing him a distant 17th in the voting. I wondered which way he would go….would he follow the path of someone like Bernie Williams, who debuted around 10% and then followed that up with only 3% the next year and fell off the ballot? Or would he gain some momentum with the voters?
Now, as you probably are aware, Rolen ended up following a pretty unique route to Hall of Fame induction. He built on the 10% debut and got 17% in year 2, then doubled it to 35% in year 3, then 53%, 63%, and finally 76% and in by year 6. In the modern era of Hall of Fame balloting, no one had ever debuted so low and been elected before his time was up on the BBWAA ballot.
Now, there are some cases that were somewhat similar, including a couple of names we already touched on.
Larry Walker debuted higher (20.3%) than Rolen did, but by year 4 he had fallen all the way down to the same 10.2% level that Rolen debuted at. Walker stagnated around that level for a few years, and was only at 21.9% after his 7th year, and I think most folks figured he would be a real long shot to make it before his time expired. His final 3 years, though, registered at 34%, 55%, and finally just under 77% and in.
Bert Blyleven debuted at 17.5%, dropped to 14%, but picked up momentum over more than a decade and got in on his 14th try (back in the day when a player could stay on the ballot for 15 years).
And there are some others with some general similarity. But, Rolen’s path beats them all, especially in terms of how quickly he got there after such a low start.
Now, upon reflection all these years later, I think it’s clear that part of Rolen’s low debut was the strength of the ballot in 2018. Here are the leaders from that voting:
|
Rank
|
Name
|
Year on Ballot
|
%vote
|
|
1
|
Chipper Jones*
|
1st
|
97.2%
|
|
2
|
Vladimir Guerrero*
|
2nd
|
92.9%
|
|
3
|
Jim Thome*
|
1st
|
89.8%
|
|
4
|
Trevor Hoffman*
|
3rd
|
79.9%
|
|
5
|
Edgar Martinez*
|
9th
|
70.4%
|
|
6
|
Mike Mussina*
|
5th
|
63.5%
|
|
7
|
Roger Clemens
|
6th
|
57.3%
|
|
8
|
Barry Bonds
|
6th
|
56.4%
|
|
9
|
Curt Schilling
|
6th
|
51.2%
|
|
10
|
Omar Vizquel
|
1st
|
37.0%
|
|
11
|
Larry Walker*
|
8th
|
34.1%
|
|
12
|
Fred McGriff*
|
9th
|
23.2%
|
|
13
|
Manny Ramirez
|
2nd
|
22.0%
|
|
14
|
Jeff Kent
|
5th
|
14.5%
|
|
15
|
Billy Wagner
|
3rd
|
11.1%
|
|
16
|
Gary Sheffield
|
4th
|
11.1%
|
|
17
|
Scott Rolen*
|
1st
|
10.2%
|
That’s a strong, deep ballot, for sure. In addition to Rolen, it was a strong rookie class with Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, and Omar Vizquel all hitting the ballot. Jones and Thome got in on their first try, Guerrero got in on his 2nd, and Hoffman on his third. Martinez, Mussina, Clemens, Bonds, and Schilling all sucked up slots on more than half of the ballots. A very deep ballot, but, again, it speaks to the theory that Rolen didn’t really jump out initially as an "obvious" Hall of Famer, certainly not in the way that other first-timers like Chipper or Thome did. The strong ballot contributed to his low debut figure, but I think the truth is that he just didn’t have the status that many above him had.
In the years since then, Martinez, Mussina, and Walker got elected, Clemens, Bonds, and Schilling fell off, McGriff fell off and then was elected by a Vet Committee, and Vizquel tumbled on the heels of personal issues. Ramirez is more or less treading water.
As the player options decreased and Rolen became a more attractive candidate relative to the alternatives, he began to emerge, and by last year he was the ballot’s shining star, even passing by several of the candidates who finished higher than he did when he debuted (Ramirez, Kent, Vizquel, Wager, and Sheffield). So, part of Rolen’s appeal is a relative one. Last year’s ballot, all things considered was, I think, a relatively weak one compared to some of the previous ones. Players such as Todd Helton, Billy Wagner, Andruw Jones, and Gary Sheffield all had strong showings. All of them had relatively low vote totals when they first hit the ballot, and are now gaining momentum as they become relatively more appealing, but I think, compared to other ballots of recent vintage, it was a relatively weak one, and Rolen took advantage.
I do think part of Rolen’s appeal is what I like to call "The Power of the 7". I’m referring, of course, to the fact that his career rWAR is 70, and make no mistake, that looks a whole lot more attractive than a figure in the 60’s. Whether we admit it or not, we (the collective we) are influenced by perception of a digit. That’s why you still see gas prices with the 9/10th as part of the price instead of going up to the next penny. It’s why you often see prices at $2.99 instead of $3.00. It’s why 100 RBI seems so much better than 99.
You often hear that 60 is considered by many to be a bit of an unofficial Hall of Fame type of level. And if you feel that way about 60, well 70 must be even more significant! At 70….well there aren’t that many who reach 70 who are not in the Hall of Fame. Basically, you’ve got the "bad boy/scandal" group (A-Rod, Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Rose, Palmeiro, Beltran), the "not yet eligibles" (Beltre, Pujols), the still-actives (Verlander, Trout, Greinke, Kershaw), the old-timers (Jim McCormick, Bill Dahlen), and the poster children for underappreciated second basemen (Grich, Whitaker). Which really means that, leaving aside the ones who will go in and the ones who performed well enough to go, we’re really talking about the likes of McCormick, Dahlen, Grich and Whitaker as the exceptions. And Whitaker will probably go in at some point.
Rolen has the power of the "7", and that makes him instantly more appealing to many than a whole bunch of third basemen whose WARs begin with a"6", like Graig Nettles (68.0), Buddy Bell (66.3), Ken Boyer (62.8), and Sal Bando (61.5). If we’re talking strictly general quality of play, I think they’re all actually pretty similar.
Boyer in particular was a very similar player to Rolen. Rolen’s career rWAR is about 7 higher than Boyer’s, but if you use WAR to evaluate seasons rather than just a career total, this is how their top seasons would compare:
|
Player
|
Year
|
rWAR
|
|
Scott Rolen
|
2004
|
9.2
|
|
Ken Boyer
|
1961
|
8.0
|
|
Ken Boyer
|
1959
|
7.4
|
|
Ken Boyer
|
1960
|
6.9
|
|
Scott Rolen
|
1998
|
6.7
|
|
Ken Boyer
|
1956
|
6.4
|
|
Ken Boyer
|
1964
|
6.1
|
|
Scott Rolen
|
2006
|
5.9
|
|
Ken Boyer
|
1958
|
5.9
|
|
Scott Rolen
|
2001
|
5.6
|
|
Ken Boyer
|
1962
|
5.6
|
|
Ken Boyer
|
1963
|
5.2
|
Below that level, Rolen catches up, as he owns the next 6 highest seasonal figures, a bunch of seasons in the 3’s and 4’s. But Boyer’s top seasons stack up very well vs. Rolen’s. I don’t see a lot of difference between the two, both as players and as Hall of Fame candidates.
So, that was a rather lengthy review of Rolen, a lot longer than I set out to write. Again, I think he’s a perfectly reasonable Hall of Famer. But I don’t consider him as an "obvious" one. And I do think that a large part of why he was elected was due to WAR/JAWS, and I think his example will help others like him, players who might not have screamed "Hall of Fame" while they were active.
WAR and the Hall of Fame
Here’s my thought on the whole WAR as a Hall of Fame consideration topic, and I should start off by saying I am most definitely not a WAR basher. Not at all. I personally like WAR and I think it is a very useful piece of information. If you’ve read my prior articles, you know I use it a lot, especially in data pulls where the source contains hundreds or thousands of player records, and I’m looking to sift through and organize the data, to put a weight on things, to help "score" something.
That’s one of WAR’s strengths, much like the old Value Approximation method Bill used to use back in the day. Sometimes, you want to represent a career or a season in a single number to help with research. The ability to boil multiple aspects of the game down to a single number can be a very useful thing.
I’m sure I’ve made this observation before, but here are two quick observations about WAR:
1) The best thing about WAR is that it takes multiple facets of the game (hitting, pitching, defense, baserunning, the position you play, etc.) and puts them all along a common scale and summarizes them as a single number.
2) The worst thing about WAR is that it takes multiple facets of the game (hitting, pitching, defense, baserunning, the position you play, etc.) and puts them all along a common scale and summarizes them as a single number.
Yep, you read that right. WAR’s strength is also its greatest (potential) limitation, and I say "potential" because application of the result is key. Measures that summarize different things can be useful, but when you look at just the summary, you lose the detail. I actually think one of the more useful aspects of WAR is in the components itself: Rbat (batting runs), Rbr (baserunning runs), Rfield (fielding runs), and so on. I think those are extremely useful in isolation. I think when you combine them, it’s certainly interesting, but I think it’s actually not quite as meaningful. More on that later…..
I think WAR is a solid factor to consider in evaluating a player’s overall Hall of Fame case. But if you’re giving it too much weight, if you’re relying on it too much in your decision-making process…..well, it’s certainly your prerogative, because, again….."your Hall your rules". But just don’t expect me to agree with you. I encourage people not to overly rely on a player’s career WAR in isolation in deciding who you think belongs in the Hall of Fame. I’d rather hear your reasoning of why a player might be worthy rather than simply regurgitating a WAR figure and using that as the overriding factor.
I have to be careful how I state this, because many are sensitive to it, but I feel like we are heading down a road where people are getting overly reliant on WAR in making a player’s Hall of Fame case. If you suggest that notion in our Reader Posts, the typical response from WAR supporters is that they maintain that no one is stating that a player’s WAR means everything. And I think that’s generally true, at least in our space of the world. However, it is very easy to find instances within the broader universe of fandom where a player’s career WAR (or his JAWS ranking) is being used as the primary piece of evidence to justify a player’s Hall of Fame worthiness. Some come right out and say thing like they don’t even consider a player worthy of consideration unless he’s over a particular WAR threshold, others have stated that reaching a particular WAR figure should ensure your induction, or at least put the player in a status where now people need to make the case why they should not be inducted. I think those are very dangerous ways to think.
That’s not WAR’s fault, of course. It didn’t ask to be used that way. But it’s clear that an awful lot of weight is being put on it in a Hall of Fame context, something it was clearly not designed to do.
And, if you don’t believe me, you can ask Tom Tango one of the leading WAR experts. He has stated that "WAR, as-is, was not developed for HOF use." And that’s clearly the right way to think about it. It’s not what it’s designed for at all.
I don’t think we should ever lose sight of what WAR ultimately is, at its essence. WAR is baseball "accounting". That’s really all it is. It captures the debits and credits, the pluses and minuses, tries to factor in all of the various areas of the game including defense, offense, baserunning, pitching, the avoidance of double plays, the relation to replacement level, makes adjustments for things like context, position played, defensive support provided, etc., and ultimately produces a single number expressed in runs (the conversion to "wins" is a final step, but as the folks on baseball-reference.com say, the "currency" is runs). It does an awful lot to try to measure different baseball actions and results into a common scale and summarize the results into one figure.
To me, WAR is the baseball equivalent of a person’s financial "net worth". If you’ve ever gone through a financial review with an advisor, one of the basic exercises they will have you perform is to calculate your net worth. Your net worth is defined as the sum of all of your assets (cash, investments, retirement accounts, the value of your home, your car, your valuables, etc.) minus all of your liabilities (mortgage, personal loans, student loans, credit card balances, etc.), expressed as a single number.
Net worth incorporates several very different types of financial items, some positive, some negative, but uses a common unit of measure (dollars) to combine them and express them as a single figure. That is exactly what WAR does – baserunning, hitting, defense, and pitching are all very different elements of the game, but WAR measures them using a common currency (runs) and then combines them to produce a single figure.
A net worth is a valuable thing to calculate in the context of where a person stands financially, and it’s a good thing to know. It’s a benchmark, and it’s a summary. But it doesn’t come close to telling you everything you need to know about your financial health. Consider the following examples and situations of two people: (A)bby and (B)etty:
(A)bby:
· Is single
· Has $50,000 in the bank
· Has $50,000 invested in stocks and bonds
· Has $50,000 in a retirement account
· She lives in an apartment
· She doesn’t own a car
· Has no credit card debt
· Has no outstanding loans of any kind
(B)etty:
· Is married
· She and her spouse have $5,000 total in the bank
· They have $25,000 invested in stocks and bonds
· They have $60,000 in retirement accounts
· Has $10,000 in fine art and jewelry
· She and her spouse have 2 cars worth $10,000 each that they own outright
· She and her spouse have a house worth $200,000 in today’s market
· They have a mortgage on that house of $160,000
· Has a remaining student loan balance of $5,000
· She and her spouse have a $5,000 balance on their credit cards
In both cases, the total net worth is the same: $150,000. But would you say that (A)bby and (B)etty are in equal financial situations? Of course not.
For one thing, I haven’t told you their ages, whether or not they have kids, whether or not either one is employed, what kind of income streams they may have, the cities they live, what their expenses are, and so on.
(A)bby has a lot more liquidity in her situation. (B)etty has a lot more assets, but a lot of them aren’t liquid, and if she needed cash she’d have to sell something or get a home equity credit line or a loan or something else. On the other hand, with a house, (B)etty (depending on where she lives) probably has an appreciating asset and she will continue to increase equity over time.
But, their net worths are exactly the same. Which one is better? Whose financial situation would you rather be in? Whose life is better? Who is more "successful"? You really don’t know, do you? Some would prefer to be in (A)bby’s situation, some would prefer (B)etty’s.
This is what I was referring to earlier when talking about the components of WAR. WAR as a total is interesting, and sometimes it’s handier to just work with the one summary figure, but I think it’s much more meaningful when you see the individual components rather than just the total.
And so it is with WAR in the context of a Hall of Fame discussion. Does a WAR of 70 make you a better Hall of Fame candidate than a WAR of 60 or a WAR of 50 does?
Let’s look at 3 "Lou"s. Lou Whitaker, Lou Brock, and Luis Aparicio (OK, technically Aparicio is a "Luis" rather than a "Lou"….close enough). Brock and Aparicio are in the Hall of Fame. Whitaker is not (although I think he will be someday).
Whitaker has an rWAR of 75.1, Aparicio has 55.9, and Brock has 45.3. If I were selecting players for a baseball simulation, all things being equal, that’s probably the order I’d select them in - I’d probably take Whitaker first, then Aparicio, then Brock. Whitaker had the best all-around game, and he would probably be the most valuable of the three in terms of trying to help my team win games. Fair enough.
However, if the question is who do I think should be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, and you told me I could only pick one, I’d pick Brock. And if you only permitted me to pick two, I’d select Brock and Aparicio. And I don’t see any contradiction in that.
Once of the best lines I’ve seen in regards to Hall of Fame discussions was expressed by Joe Posnanski, who asked two basic questions:
1) Why do we have Halls of Fame?
Answer: to remember.
2) What is worth remembering?
That’s what we have to ask ourselves.
Brock was illustrious. The stolen base titles and records (at least at the time), the 3,000 hits, the World Series heroics. He was a star. He was worthy of being remembered for all that he did.
A bad fielder? Sure. Also, he didn’t get on base as much as we’d like to see out of our leadoff hitters, and he didn’t display much power, especially later in his career. All true. But a Hall of Famer? Yes, most definitely.
Aparicio? At the time he retired, he was arguably the best fielding shortstop the game had ever seen (pre-Ozzie, of course). Like Brock, he was the stolen base king in his league for an extended period of time. An exciting, popular player.
Was he a good hitter? No.
Was he a good Hall of Fame selection? Absolutely. He was a star. He was worthy of being remembered for all that he did.
I would agree with the point of view that neither Brock nor Aparicio was as valuable over the course of their career as Whitaker was. I concede that.
Would Whitaker be a good Hall of Fame selection? Well, he’s not my favorite, but he’s got a good argument. He was a good all-around player. He might be the most qualified eligible second baseman not in the Hall, although I’m not sure his case is really any better than Bobby Grich, Chase Utley, or Willie Randolph, but I’ll concede he’s on a short list. He’s probably the best American League second baseman of his general era (let’s say mid-70’s to mid-90’s), although I think Randolph is right up there with him.
To me, Whitaker’s defining quality was that he had an absence of weaknesses. He had a very high number of good (but not great) seasons, and he never seemed to have a bad one. That allowed him to accumulate an impressive career WAR total….he kept on piling up the 3 and 4 win seasons, 11 of them in total.
That adds up. I would not label him as a WAR "compiler", as "compiler" has unfortunately acquired a bit of a bad connotation. How about a different term? He was a WAR "accumulator". He kept adding on good season after good season, churning away, never really having a bad one. That’s certainly a valuable player. The question is, should he be enshrined for that? Was he legendary? I know many would say "yes". Like Rolen, he’s got that big old "7" in front of his career WAR total, stamped like a star on his belly like one of Dr. Seuss’ "Sneetches". That’s enough for some.
In a Hall of Fame context, in my opinion both Brock and Aparicio are better options. Not better overall players – but a better fit for Hall of Fame status. That’s an important distinction. They were fun to watch. They were dazzling. They were popular. They were memorable. They achieved. The relative "quantitative value" the 3 of them generated is, in my opinion, secondary.
And let me make one final analogy in this area. Let’s talk Rock & Roll and its Hall of Fame. Suppose for a moment there was a way to quantify the quality of a musician – something that captures the quality of the notes that their instruments produce, the richness of their voices, and so on, and scores were published with leaderboards using this metric. Would that be a good basis for deciding who should be in their Hall of Fame? Of course, we are talking about an art rather than a sport, but ponder that for a moment. Would that be anything you would want to put a whole lot of weight on? You might consider it interesting, and it might make you think and possibly consider it as a factor. But would you want to have that be the foundation of your argument? I personally wouldn’t think so.
That’s my opinion, and I don’t see any inherent contradiction in it. The Hall of Fame is not simply about who was more quantifiably valuable. I like the fact that WAR has a seat at the table, but I don’t think we should leave it up to WAR to determine who gets to eat.
The Utley Duckling
So what does this all mean going forward? Well, I do think the election of Rolen bodes well for someone coming up on the 2024 ballot, his almost-onetime teammate (they just missed each other in Philadelphia by one season), Chase Utley.
One of the first articles I wrote on this site back in 2015 was an 9 of Utley’s Hall of Fame chances. In short, I didn’t think he’d get elected.
I’m reconsidering that conclusion now. I think the tide has turned. I think Utley has a very good chance of going in, although probably not right away.
Let’s take another look at that listing I had posted earlier on the top comps for Rolen using HOF Metric Similarity Scores:
|
Rank
|
Score
|
Name
|
HOF Std
|
HOF Monitor
|
Black Ink
|
Gray Ink
|
Position
|
|
0
|
1,000
|
Scott Rolen*
|
40
|
99
|
0
|
27
|
3B
|
|
1-T
|
950
|
Lou Whitaker
|
43
|
93
|
0
|
31
|
2B
|
|
1-T
|
950
|
Edgar Renteria
|
38
|
109
|
0
|
22
|
SS
|
|
3-T
|
934
|
Omar Vizquel
|
42
|
120
|
0
|
25
|
SS
|
|
3-T
|
918
|
Alan Trammell*
|
40
|
119
|
0
|
48
|
SS
|
|
5
|
904
|
Jim Edmonds
|
39
|
89
|
0
|
60
|
CF
|
|
6
|
890
|
Aramis Ramirez
|
39
|
85
|
2
|
53
|
3B
|
|
7
|
882
|
Willie Randolph
|
34
|
92
|
2
|
39
|
2B
|
|
8
|
880
|
Chase Utley
|
35
|
94
|
3
|
42
|
2B
|
|
9
|
870
|
Dave Concepcion
|
29
|
107
|
0
|
25
|
SS
|
|
10
|
868
|
Buddy Myer
|
41
|
86
|
6
|
45
|
2B
|
Utley is down at #8. He’s similar to Rolen in a lot of respects – HOF Monitor in the 90’s, almost no Black Ink (he did lead the league in runs scored once), not much Gray Ink. Very characteristic of this group.
In addition, there are other similarities:
· Rolen is #10 on the third base JAWS list. Utley is #12 on the second baseman list.
· Rolen’s career rWAR is 70.1. Utley’s is 64.5
· Rolen had just north of 2,000 hits. Utley was just shy of 1,900.
· Rolen’s batting line was .281/.364/.490, OPS+ of 122. Utley’s was .275/.358/465, OPS+ of 117
As far as differences – well, Rolen won a bunch of Gold Gloves (8) while Utley didn’t win any (although Utley’s defensive stats are outstanding, and he probably deserved to win at least a couple of the seasons where Brandon Phillips, Orlando Hudson, and Luis Castillo were taking home the prize). Rolen was a good baserunner, but Utley was better, and had an amazing 87.5% success rate on stolen bases (the highest success rate of any player in history with 100 or more attempts, something that would look nice on a plaque).
I think Rolen’s election is a boon for someone like Utley. I think Rolen’s case, overall, is a little stronger, so it might not translate into the same success for Utley, but I think it will help.
One of the strikes against Utley is that he didn’t even reach 2,000 hits, and I think in the past, that would have been a tough thing to overcome. But, I’m starting to get the idea that voters may not care as much about something like that anymore. I think Utley’s WAR and his JAWS ranking will resonate fairly well with voters, and that may carry enough weight.
Now, I don’t see Utley going in right away. He’s probably the #3 newcomer to the ballot next year, with Adrian Beltre and Joe Mauer being more attractive candidates (definitely Beltre will be, and I think Mauer might have more appeal as well). Plus, there are some good holdovers like Todd Helton, Billy Wagner, Andruw Jones, and Gary Sheffield who will consume a lot of ballot slots, not to mention the "troubled trio" of Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and Carlos Beltran, all of whom received support in the 30-50% range last year. That’s 10 pretty good candidates right there.
But, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Utley follow a general Rolen-type path, starting with a fairly modest debut result, and then building on that over several iterations as others roll on and off the ballot.
Wrapping it Up
In conclusion, your honor…….
I would submit that the baseball Hall of Fame is not a ranking system, and it’s not about simply identifying "the best". It’s a different beast, and it requires a different mindset, a different approach.
There’s no one "right" way to evaluate a candidate either. We all have different things we place value on.
WAR is a great tool to summarize a player’s contribution towards runs generated and runs prevented across a spectrum of areas of performance. However, a higher WAR does not necessarily mean that one player is more worthy than another when it comes to the Hall of Fame.
I think we need to be broad minded in our approach on who we want to commemorate. I encourage people to consider WAR and other value-based mesures, but also to consider other factors as well.
Let us not limit our honors to just the quantifiably proficient. Let us celebrate the illustrious.
Thank you for reading.
Dan