Tell me in the comments who you would vote for on this Classic Era ballot! And do me a favor...you don't have to unsubscribe just because you're a Steve Garvey fan.
great video. My three picks were Allen, Parker and Tiant. I understand your concepts on parker and garvey, You make a solid points to those two players.
Thanks Ray! Parker is a guy that I don't mind being in, I just wouldn't have given him my vote. I can understand the appeal though for fans of the game from the 70s. It will be nice to see him celebrated in person
Those two guys are pretty close at first glance in traditional stats, but I just don't see Vida Blue getting the same level of support as Tiant. Tiant had a lot more of his value spread out over his career than Blue, who instead had some stellar seasons at his peak but not as much value outside of those. Although their wins, ERA and WHIP are close, their actual value is incredibly far apart with Tiant having 35/65 for WAA/WAR, while Blue had 15/45. Huge difference there, and whether you like WAA/WAR or not, the voters are paying a lot more attention to it when evaluating players. I'd have to dig a lot more into the calculations to find out why their WAA/WAR numbers are so different, but at first glance you notice that Tiant had better strikeout and walk rates compared to Blue. The difference in wild pitches is also pretty crazy with Blue having 103 in his career against only 27 for Tiant. Tiant's ERA+ is slightly better, and their FIPs are very close, so it would be interesting to see what exactly makes up the huge difference in WAA/WAR numbers!
Agree on Allen and Tiant. Won't argue against Donaldson, but here's something to consider. There are a lot of players from the 1800s in the HOF who are in, not because they were great players, but because they were pioneers, they did something that was never done before which fundamentally changed the game's history. I think we do a disservice to future generations by limiting that role to that era, which is why I would vote for Tommy John (who also has a reasonable case otherwise.)
I really like this perspective. For a sport full of traditionalists that don't like change, it's important to accept that there have been advances (and therefore pioneers) in every generation of the game. Tommy John would certainly be one of these.
@@brutusonbaseballYeah, I read a book where the author essentially made this point in arguing for three players, John being one of them. The other two were Curt Flood (who essentially sacrificed his career to eventually bring about free agency), and Lefty O'Doul (for his role in popularizing the game in Japan, as well as his insane minor league success.) Speaking of Japan, I'm still going to die on the hill that Sadaharu Oh should be enshrined. Without Oh, there is no Ichiro or Ohtani.
I can totally get behind John and Flood for this exact reason. O'Doul is an interesting case because there hasn't been a lot of recognition by the Hall (that I'm aware of) for growing the game outside North America (refer to Sadaharu Oh). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is sounds very MLBish to ignore the importance of growing the game overseas!
@brutusonbaseball Closest thing I can think of is the fact that Al Spalding's plaque mentions the world tour he promoted, but that's hardly the reason he's in the Hall of Fame.
Love your analysis. I think the committee will be playing catch-up with Negro League candidates, so I see one of those going in. I think there are committee members that will be small Hall guys and some that will use all three votes. Let’s say an average voting rate of 2. Therefore, I think one NL and one other candidate will get in. I agree that it will likely be Richie Allen. Good stuff. Thx for sharing.
Wow, Garey didn't have much value with the glove at 1b? As a Dodger fan growing up in the 60's and 70's, I can tell you he saved a heck of a lot of errors on bad throws from the other infielders, which also saved runs. It's the difference between looking at modern metrics and actually seeing a player play. With that said, I would take Keith Hernandez before Garvey because Keith was the best 1b of all time in my book, but Garvey deserves to be in.
First off, I want to say thanks for watching and participating. That's the main thing that makes this channel fun for me. This is always a tough one though, because you're right...I didn't really watch Garvey play much. Especially in his "day". And I'm sure you're right, at the time you watched him he probably saved a lot of runs by picking some bad throws. But I also hesitate to go off of memory and perception alone when the data is available too. Total Zone Rating shows Garvey at +25 runs before age 29 with the Dodgers, and -25 runs after 30 with the Dodgers and Padres. Some really bad years toward the end. That means he was a decent fielder that had some plays like you mentioned early in his career, but cancelled that out with some pretty poor fieldwork in the second half. Hernandez was +117 for his career on the other hand, including some pretty great years after he was 30. I appreciate you said you'd take Hernandez too, he was one of the best at 1B, but my point is that Garvey could give you the memorable plays he had AND not really be a great defensive player over the course of his career. Both can be true...and when you have a first baseman that isn't great with the glove over his career and only compiled a 117 OPS+ (compared to Hernandez's 128), that's just not a Hall of Famer to me.
@@brutusonbaseball Garvey had good hands, what he got to, he caught. When he retired, he was the all time leader in fielding percentage, and had a year where he didn't commit a single error. His problem was lack of range, which is reflected in the numbers you cite. But there really is an interesting discussion here about the ability to pick low throws and how sabermetrics reflects that, because that's not really a range thing.
Great points, that makes sense why he might be remembered for saving a lot of runs, but still gets pretty dinged in the defensive analytics. I like using analytics to support arguments, but defensive stats still are a work in progress
@@big8dog887 I agree. I must admit, being an older fan I had to look up Total Zone Rating. Seems like it can be used to help but definitely not an end all be all stat. In fact, pre-mid 80's seems like a bit of guess work involved. Back in the day (hey get off my lawn, LOL) it was believed, and I believe rightfully so, that Perez, Cepeda and Garvey were all pretty close and should all be in the Hall. Well, 2 of the 3 are and Garvey sits on the outside looking in. What depresses me the most is a lot of times when newer sabermetrics is used and hurts a player, it's left at that. When it helps, say like with Thurman Munson, then other reasons are used to keep them out of the Hall. This is mainly a Big Hall vs Small hall argument. Some of these players were not "hall of very good" as some people say, they were elite players that people came to see. Ok, done ranting, and just hope everyone keeps enjoying the greatest game in the world.
@@mikethesportshistorycollec1947 I remember that era, too, and I have to agree that Garvey was considered the equal of Perez and Cepeda, and of the three, he was probably considered the most likely to make it, mostly due to his celebrity status. What happened was right around the time Garvey became eligible, Total Baseball replaced the Baseball Encyclopedia as the "official" record book. TB introduced a stat called Total Player Rating, kind of a precursor to WAR, except the baseline was league average, so it was actually closer to WAA. Anyway, Garvey's TPR was a negative number, so among many voters, his reputation went from pretty good to criminally overrated, and his candidacy was doomed. But to demonstrate just how flawed TPR was, it also said that Glenn Hubbard was a better player than Pete Rose, literally the only thing that has ever said that. I actually think Garvey was a hair overrated while he was playing, but since the numbers people got hold of him, now I think he's underrated. That said, there are still many players I'd put in first.
I think Parker had a better career after age 30 than Dale Murphy and Andruw Jones but from 1980-1983 he barely showed up. I wish the voters added more weight to the prime years of players like Murphy and Jones because injuries and old age happen and it doesn't make them less worthy of the hall.
You are definitely right there...Parker was abysmal from 29 to 33 only to bounce back with a short resurgence in his mid-30s. Murphy on the other hand just fell off a cliff after 33 and Andruw Jones fell off even sooner after the age of 30. I think that explanation could be put toward Parker's off-field habits, but I wasn't there so it's a bit of speculation. I do struggle with this sometimes, I like to have my Hall of Famers have good peaks but also have some longevity. I've always been on the fence for all three of these guys, and I could take them or leave them out and I wouldn't raise a huge fuss. Andruw was a WAY better defensive player (which is why his WAR is much higher as his offensive value was not as good as the other two), so I guess I would take him first followed by Murphy then Parker. I do prefer guys that just have their bodies break down rather than guys that decline early because of a lack of effort or poor choices.
Results are in: Dick Allen, as we all seem to agree on, has made it. The other selection was Dave Parker. Parker isn't an awful pick, but for fun let's compare him with another outfielder who we'll call "?" Years Played: Parker: 1973-1991; "?": 1976-1993 MVP Awards: Parker: 1; "?"; 2 All-Star Games: Parker: 7; "?" 7 Gold Gloves: Parker: 3 (in RF); ??": 5 (in CF) Home Runs: Parker: 339; "?" 398 Stolen Bases: Parker: 154 (in 267 attempts); "?" 161 (in 229 attempts) OPS+: Parker: 121; "?" 121 WAR: Parker: 40.1; "?" 46.5 # of seasons with WAR above 4: Parker: 5; "?" 6 # of seasons with WAR above 5: Parker 4: "?" 6 # of seasons with WAR above 6: Parker 4: "?" 4 # of seasons with WAR above 7: Parker 2: "?" 2 Career high WAR: Parker 7.4: "?" 7.7 "?" had five seasons with more home runs than Parker's career high of 34. He also hit more home runs on the road if you want to argue park effect. Parker did outhit "?" 290-265, but "?" made up for it with a 346-339 edge in OPB. Parker had a 1493-1143 edge in RBI, but he also generally played in much better lineups. Parker had some off-field issues: "?" was a Clemente Award winner and generally regarded as the nicest, most wholesome player in the game. Dale Murphy's Hall of Fame case has just skyrocketed. Of course, there's a certain logic that if we're going to take credit away from guys who put substances into their body which helped their game, we should give extra credit to guys who used substances that hurt it.
Parker isn't an awful pick, especially given his peak. I wouldn't have given him one of my three votes, but there are certainly a handful of players already in with similar careers. You're right too, with him in it definitely helps Murphy's case. That seems to be happening a lot lately with the veteran's committees electing guys that bring the average down and allow for other guys to have a clearer path. It's interesting, kind of the opposite from the conversations that usually happen with the writer's ballot. I've heard of people wanting to give Murphy extra credit for being a great human and playing the right way...but i think this is the first time I've heard the argument to give a guy credit for what he could have done had he not helped to ruin the prime of his career!
Longevity does matter, this isn't the NFL. You are overvaluing WAR due to great peaks and undervaluing the two most deserving players in Dave Parker and Steve Garvey.
I totally get that, thanks for adding your thoughts! Some folks value higher peaks, while others value longevity. I've always considered myself somewhere in the middle, I think being one of the best for a 5 or 7 year span is important, but I also think playing 20 seasons is a huge benefit. Where I differ though, and why I don't support Parker or Garvey as much, is that if you do play for 20 seasons you should at least not be a detriment to your team for the last 5 to 7. That's why I think some of these players didn't get the support, they faded too quickly after age 30 and hung on for too long at that lower level of play.
@ What? Dave Parker had a resurgence with the Reds. At 34 and 35, finished 2nd and 5th in the MVP voting. Led the league in total bases both those years. Then had 97 RBIs at 38 . Thats a dropoff? Garvey had over 200 hits twice after 30. Garvey also hit .338 in the post season with 11HRs and 31 RBIs.
All I can say is that I wish Bill James would have nerded out on something other than baseball. His influence on the game has been as negative as PED's or the juiced ball. As the old saying goes "think long think wrong".
Interesting thought here. I don't typically agree with folks that dismiss analytics as useless, otherwise why would the teams and MLB themselves have all embraced it by now. But this is different, and I agree with you that the rise of analytics has drastically changed the game to one of probabilities, velocities and launch angles, which has produced the three true outcomes era where the game is not as interesting as it used to be. I do hope that MLB figures out ways to bring back parts of the old game
@@brutusonbaseball I could go on a rant about everything with the modern game but I won't. What I will say is just go back and watch several games from the 70's and 80's and draw your own conclusions as to which product is better and more entertaining. BTW before someone comes with the typical "OK Boomer" remark my parents are barely old enough to fit that category much less myself.
Tell me in the comments who you would vote for on this Classic Era ballot!
And do me a favor...you don't have to unsubscribe just because you're a Steve Garvey fan.
great video. My three picks were Allen, Parker and Tiant. I understand your concepts on parker and garvey, You make a solid points to those two players.
Thanks Ray! Parker is a guy that I don't mind being in, I just wouldn't have given him my vote. I can understand the appeal though for fans of the game from the 70s. It will be nice to see him celebrated in person
Great video! If Tiant gets in, do you see a case for Vida Blue down the line?
Those two guys are pretty close at first glance in traditional stats, but I just don't see Vida Blue getting the same level of support as Tiant. Tiant had a lot more of his value spread out over his career than Blue, who instead had some stellar seasons at his peak but not as much value outside of those. Although their wins, ERA and WHIP are close, their actual value is incredibly far apart with Tiant having 35/65 for WAA/WAR, while Blue had 15/45. Huge difference there, and whether you like WAA/WAR or not, the voters are paying a lot more attention to it when evaluating players.
I'd have to dig a lot more into the calculations to find out why their WAA/WAR numbers are so different, but at first glance you notice that Tiant had better strikeout and walk rates compared to Blue. The difference in wild pitches is also pretty crazy with Blue having 103 in his career against only 27 for Tiant. Tiant's ERA+ is slightly better, and their FIPs are very close, so it would be interesting to see what exactly makes up the huge difference in WAA/WAR numbers!
You gotta have the Cobra and El Tiante.
At the very least they should be enshrined in the Nickname Hall of Fame!
Agree on Allen and Tiant. Won't argue against Donaldson, but here's something to consider. There are a lot of players from the 1800s in the HOF who are in, not because they were great players, but because they were pioneers, they did something that was never done before which fundamentally changed the game's history. I think we do a disservice to future generations by limiting that role to that era, which is why I would vote for Tommy John (who also has a reasonable case otherwise.)
I really like this perspective. For a sport full of traditionalists that don't like change, it's important to accept that there have been advances (and therefore pioneers) in every generation of the game. Tommy John would certainly be one of these.
@@brutusonbaseballYeah, I read a book where the author essentially made this point in arguing for three players, John being one of them. The other two were Curt Flood (who essentially sacrificed his career to eventually bring about free agency), and Lefty O'Doul (for his role in popularizing the game in Japan, as well as his insane minor league success.)
Speaking of Japan, I'm still going to die on the hill that Sadaharu Oh should be enshrined. Without Oh, there is no Ichiro or Ohtani.
I can totally get behind John and Flood for this exact reason. O'Doul is an interesting case because there hasn't been a lot of recognition by the Hall (that I'm aware of) for growing the game outside North America (refer to Sadaharu Oh). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is sounds very MLBish to ignore the importance of growing the game overseas!
@brutusonbaseball Closest thing I can think of is the fact that Al Spalding's plaque mentions the world tour he promoted, but that's hardly the reason he's in the Hall of Fame.
He sure did a lot for early baseball, but agree that his international tours are often overlooked
Love your analysis. I think the committee will be playing catch-up with Negro League candidates, so I see one of those going in. I think there are committee members that will be small Hall guys and some that will use all three votes. Let’s say an average voting rate of 2. Therefore, I think one NL and one other candidate will get in. I agree that it will likely be Richie Allen. Good stuff. Thx for sharing.
Thanks Dave, and couldn't agree more. I see either one or two getting in, with Allen and one of the NeL guys being the most likely.
Wow, Garey didn't have much value with the glove at 1b? As a Dodger fan growing up in the 60's and 70's, I can tell you he saved a heck of a lot of errors on bad throws from the other infielders, which also saved runs. It's the difference between looking at modern metrics and actually seeing a player play. With that said, I would take Keith Hernandez before Garvey because Keith was the best 1b of all time in my book, but Garvey deserves to be in.
First off, I want to say thanks for watching and participating. That's the main thing that makes this channel fun for me.
This is always a tough one though, because you're right...I didn't really watch Garvey play much. Especially in his "day". And I'm sure you're right, at the time you watched him he probably saved a lot of runs by picking some bad throws. But I also hesitate to go off of memory and perception alone when the data is available too. Total Zone Rating shows Garvey at +25 runs before age 29 with the Dodgers, and -25 runs after 30 with the Dodgers and Padres. Some really bad years toward the end. That means he was a decent fielder that had some plays like you mentioned early in his career, but cancelled that out with some pretty poor fieldwork in the second half.
Hernandez was +117 for his career on the other hand, including some pretty great years after he was 30. I appreciate you said you'd take Hernandez too, he was one of the best at 1B, but my point is that Garvey could give you the memorable plays he had AND not really be a great defensive player over the course of his career. Both can be true...and when you have a first baseman that isn't great with the glove over his career and only compiled a 117 OPS+ (compared to Hernandez's 128), that's just not a Hall of Famer to me.
@@brutusonbaseball Garvey had good hands, what he got to, he caught. When he retired, he was the all time leader in fielding percentage, and had a year where he didn't commit a single error. His problem was lack of range, which is reflected in the numbers you cite. But there really is an interesting discussion here about the ability to pick low throws and how sabermetrics reflects that, because that's not really a range thing.
Great points, that makes sense why he might be remembered for saving a lot of runs, but still gets pretty dinged in the defensive analytics. I like using analytics to support arguments, but defensive stats still are a work in progress
@@big8dog887 I agree. I must admit, being an older fan I had to look up Total Zone Rating. Seems like it can be used to help but definitely not an end all be all stat. In fact, pre-mid 80's seems like a bit of guess work involved. Back in the day (hey get off my lawn, LOL) it was believed, and I believe rightfully so, that Perez, Cepeda and Garvey were all pretty close and should all be in the Hall. Well, 2 of the 3 are and Garvey sits on the outside looking in. What depresses me the most is a lot of times when newer sabermetrics is used and hurts a player, it's left at that. When it helps, say like with Thurman Munson, then other reasons are used to keep them out of the Hall. This is mainly a Big Hall vs Small hall argument. Some of these players were not "hall of very good" as some people say, they were elite players that people came to see. Ok, done ranting, and just hope everyone keeps enjoying the greatest game in the world.
@@mikethesportshistorycollec1947 I remember that era, too, and I have to agree that Garvey was considered the equal of Perez and Cepeda, and of the three, he was probably considered the most likely to make it, mostly due to his celebrity status. What happened was right around the time Garvey became eligible, Total Baseball replaced the Baseball Encyclopedia as the "official" record book. TB introduced a stat called Total Player Rating, kind of a precursor to WAR, except the baseline was league average, so it was actually closer to WAA. Anyway, Garvey's TPR was a negative number, so among many voters, his reputation went from pretty good to criminally overrated, and his candidacy was doomed. But to demonstrate just how flawed TPR was, it also said that Glenn Hubbard was a better player than Pete Rose, literally the only thing that has ever said that. I actually think Garvey was a hair overrated while he was playing, but since the numbers people got hold of him, now I think he's underrated. That said, there are still many players I'd put in first.
I think Parker had a better career after age 30 than Dale Murphy and Andruw Jones but from 1980-1983 he barely showed up. I wish the voters added more weight to the prime years of players like Murphy and Jones because injuries and old age happen and it doesn't make them less worthy of the hall.
You are definitely right there...Parker was abysmal from 29 to 33 only to bounce back with a short resurgence in his mid-30s. Murphy on the other hand just fell off a cliff after 33 and Andruw Jones fell off even sooner after the age of 30. I think that explanation could be put toward Parker's off-field habits, but I wasn't there so it's a bit of speculation.
I do struggle with this sometimes, I like to have my Hall of Famers have good peaks but also have some longevity. I've always been on the fence for all three of these guys, and I could take them or leave them out and I wouldn't raise a huge fuss. Andruw was a WAY better defensive player (which is why his WAR is much higher as his offensive value was not as good as the other two), so I guess I would take him first followed by Murphy then Parker. I do prefer guys that just have their bodies break down rather than guys that decline early because of a lack of effort or poor choices.
Results are in: Dick Allen, as we all seem to agree on, has made it. The other selection was Dave Parker. Parker isn't an awful pick, but for fun let's compare him with another outfielder who we'll call "?"
Years Played: Parker: 1973-1991; "?": 1976-1993
MVP Awards: Parker: 1; "?"; 2
All-Star Games: Parker: 7; "?" 7
Gold Gloves: Parker: 3 (in RF); ??": 5 (in CF)
Home Runs: Parker: 339; "?" 398
Stolen Bases: Parker: 154 (in 267 attempts); "?" 161 (in 229 attempts)
OPS+: Parker: 121; "?" 121
WAR: Parker: 40.1; "?" 46.5
# of seasons with WAR above 4: Parker: 5; "?" 6
# of seasons with WAR above 5: Parker 4: "?" 6
# of seasons with WAR above 6: Parker 4: "?" 4
# of seasons with WAR above 7: Parker 2: "?" 2
Career high WAR: Parker 7.4: "?" 7.7
"?" had five seasons with more home runs than Parker's career high of 34. He also hit more home runs on the road if you want to argue park effect.
Parker did outhit "?" 290-265, but "?" made up for it with a 346-339 edge in OPB.
Parker had a 1493-1143 edge in RBI, but he also generally played in much better lineups.
Parker had some off-field issues: "?" was a Clemente Award winner and generally regarded as the nicest, most wholesome player in the game.
Dale Murphy's Hall of Fame case has just skyrocketed. Of course, there's a certain logic that if we're going to take credit away from guys who put substances into their body which helped their game, we should give extra credit to guys who used substances that hurt it.
Parker isn't an awful pick, especially given his peak. I wouldn't have given him one of my three votes, but there are certainly a handful of players already in with similar careers.
You're right too, with him in it definitely helps Murphy's case. That seems to be happening a lot lately with the veteran's committees electing guys that bring the average down and allow for other guys to have a clearer path. It's interesting, kind of the opposite from the conversations that usually happen with the writer's ballot. I've heard of people wanting to give Murphy extra credit for being a great human and playing the right way...but i think this is the first time I've heard the argument to give a guy credit for what he could have done had he not helped to ruin the prime of his career!
All were great players, but I only see Dick Allen as being that special "elite" that makes a Hall Of Famer.
I can totally see that perspective, depending on how big you think the Hall should be. The Classic Era has been picked pretty clean by now.
El Tiante 🇨🇺🇨🇺🇨🇺
@@torreselmonte1 agreed!
Longevity does matter, this isn't the NFL. You are overvaluing WAR due to great peaks and undervaluing the two most deserving players in Dave Parker and Steve Garvey.
I totally get that, thanks for adding your thoughts! Some folks value higher peaks, while others value longevity. I've always considered myself somewhere in the middle, I think being one of the best for a 5 or 7 year span is important, but I also think playing 20 seasons is a huge benefit. Where I differ though, and why I don't support Parker or Garvey as much, is that if you do play for 20 seasons you should at least not be a detriment to your team for the last 5 to 7. That's why I think some of these players didn't get the support, they faded too quickly after age 30 and hung on for too long at that lower level of play.
@ What? Dave Parker had a resurgence with the Reds. At 34 and 35, finished 2nd and 5th in the MVP voting. Led the league in total bases both those years. Then had 97 RBIs at 38 . Thats a dropoff? Garvey had over 200 hits twice after 30. Garvey also hit .338 in the post season with 11HRs and 31 RBIs.
All I can say is that I wish Bill James would have nerded out on something other than baseball. His influence on the game has been as negative as PED's or the juiced ball. As the old saying goes "think long think wrong".
Interesting thought here. I don't typically agree with folks that dismiss analytics as useless, otherwise why would the teams and MLB themselves have all embraced it by now. But this is different, and I agree with you that the rise of analytics has drastically changed the game to one of probabilities, velocities and launch angles, which has produced the three true outcomes era where the game is not as interesting as it used to be. I do hope that MLB figures out ways to bring back parts of the old game
@@brutusonbaseball I could go on a rant about everything with the modern game but I won't. What I will say is just go back and watch several games from the 70's and 80's and draw your own conclusions as to which product is better and more entertaining. BTW before someone comes with the typical "OK Boomer" remark my parents are barely old enough to fit that category much less myself.