66 replies to this topic

[Freddy Linn]

I happened to be pondering this last night, and Posnanski weighs in today:

Damon is different. Damon’s entire Hall of Fame case would be built around 3,000 hits. Oh, Damon — and I’ve been writing about Johnny longer than just about anybody, going back to his young Kansas City days — has been a very good baseball player. He’s been a solid base-runner — and, in his younger days, a fine base stealer. He flashed occasional power. He scored runs — 10 times in his career he scored more than 100 runs in a season, and he could end his career in the Top 20 all-time in runs scored. He was probably an average to slightly above average defender, his weak arm notwithstanding.

But it’s those hits, man. Nobody ever thought Johnny Damon was a Hall of Famer. Few think it now. If I told you that Johnny Damon had 1,893 hits, well: (1) You would probably believe me, because that sounds more right; and (2) You would think of Johnny Damon as a perfectly good player who proudly called his autobiography Idiot.

But 3,000 hits changes the whole picture, doesn’t it? I’ve mentioned this before — I once got into a heated argument about Damon’s Hall of Fame chances if he got 3,000 hits. I said that he probably would not get into the Hall of Fame, even with 3,000 hits. My combatant disagreed furiously and, if memory serves, was willing to bet me a billion-shmillion-krinjillion dollars that Damon would get into the Hall of Fame.

It’s an interesting question. I think the world of Johnny, and would love to see him get into the Hall of Fame — in part just to see what he would wear on induction day. But you can’t kid yourself: He is more or less a case study of how a very good player can get 3,000 hits. He reached the big leagues at a young age, he had the sort of speed that spurred managers to put him at the top of the lineup, he was tough to strike out, he didn’t walk an overwhelming amount (though he was no hacker) and he has been almost indestructible. Damon has gotten more than 600 plate appearances for 14 years in a row.

He’s also hitting .286 — at that pace, he needs 10,489 at-bats to get 3,000 hits. Only 13 players since 1901 have gotten 10,489 at-bats — Rose, Aaron, Yaz, Ripken, Cobb, Murray, Yount, Winfield, Musial, Henderson, Mays, Biggio, Molitor and Brooks Robinson. All are in the Hall of Fame (except Biggio, who will be). I think Damon will get those at-bats, too. And because of that, I think he will get 3,000 hits.

So, back to the question: Does getting 3,000 hits make Damon a Hall of Famer?

Jayson Stark is cited in The Hall of Fame Case for Johnny Damon::

“I never like to make firm judgments on any player until his career is over. But if Damon gets to 3,000 hits, he’s a lock for me. Maybe he wasn’t a great defender. But he was a difference-maker for two teams that won the World Series, and he was one of the best top-of-the-order forces of his generation. So case closed if he gets to 3,000 hits. And he has a great case already.”

Does the fact that he was a "difference-maker" in '04 and '09 when added to a career of about a projected 55 or so bWAR (John Olerud territory)?

Personally, beyond the lack of an offensive resume, somewhat mediocre defense, and an argument largely based on counting stats is the fact that he was perhaps never the best player on any team in his career.

I looked for prior threads but didn't succeed. I suspect the results will be lopsided, but I am interested in both pro and con arguments.

[Mike Greenwall]

I've been dreading this day for awhile now. One of the 25, but man, he has done his best to erase the good vibes of '04. I don't know what will happen, but if he gets in, it won't bother me. Unless he's wearing a Yankee hat.

Edited by Mike Greenwall, 16 February 2012 - 06:23 PM.

[Alternate34]

So first vote, and I think he will get in, but I don't think he should get in.

He has avoided steroid suspicions. The 3000 hits is a big sell on his resume as well. He has some level of name recognition too. Now's that he's off the Yankees, I can again think of the present man fondly along with remembering his grand slam of off Vasquez and my subsequent underpants dance.

However, as you noted, he was never the best player on his team. He was never the best player at his position except maybe in 2000. Kind of unlucky here because that year Erstad has his monstrously aberrational 7.7 bWAR year and both Jones and Edmonds were at their peak. A great year for CF in general. I think mediocre defensively is a bit harsh. At his peak, his range probably put him at somewhat above average, even without an arm. However, he really only had the one great year. He's got four Hall of Famers in his top 10 similarity score but (1) they are not that similar with scores of 850 or lower (2) he is worse than Alomar, Molitor, and Clemente. Brock was lucky being the type of player he was when he did.

I won't be too bothered if he gets in, but he probably shouldn't.

[maufman]

Harold Baines had 2,866 career hits, which I believe is the most all-time for a non-HOFer who wasn't accused of cheating or gambling.

Baines career fWAR: 45.3
Damon career fWAR: 46

Baines stayed on the ballot for a few years, but obviously isn't getting into the HOF without buying a ticket.

This comparison isn't entirely fair to Damon. First, Damon will put a little distance between himself and Baines before he retires. Also, fWAR arguably underrates Damon's defense -- other metrics are more kind to him. But even if you say Damon deserves 60 WAR, that still leaves him behind contemporaries like Carlos Beltran and Scott Rolen.

Players who get 3,000 hits and don't cheat or gamble make the Hall of Fame without exception. I don't think Damon will break that pattern. If Damon doesn't get 3,000, however, he'll be on the outside looking in -- and rightly so.

Edited by maufman, 16 February 2012 - 06:58 PM.

[soxfan121]

I've long thought that Vizquel is a better HoF candidate than Damon and I'm happy JoePos agrees.

I could give a crap about Damon playing for the MFY - it really does not matter - but I do care that the HoF, for me, is about enshrining the best players of a given generation. Damon isn't in the Top 25.

Put another way - I'll absolutely lose my shit if Jim fucking Rice and Johnny Damon are in the HoF and Dwight Evans isn't. Evans was better than both of them.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

If he reaches 3000 hits, he'll get in. He'll probably need two more healthy seasons to get there, though. And even if he does, I'm not sure he's quite a Hall of Famer. He might get in even if he does come up short on 3000, though. Like Schilling, he has some post season chops and a place on one of the most iconic playoff runs of all time bolstering his claim. In two of those years, he was a big contributor to championship runs.

But... and I say this with all the appreciation due to one of the 25, it's not the hall of very good. In the end, that's what he amounts to. A very good player over a long period of time. I'd say he should finish his career as being just shy of HoF caliber.

[snowmanny]

Bernie Williams was more of a "difference maker" for more WS teams than Damon was - he was really the best position player on the MFY teams that won four of five titles. In fact I don't think that Damon's career comes close to Bernie's, although I am thankful Damon was better by 2004.

[brs3]

Could Johnny Damon be the first 3,000 hit guy not in the HoF? Judging by everything else, sure.. but realistically, I don't think they're going to keep him out. He was pretty good for a long time. Curt Schilling will get into the HoF, but I wonder if he's a fair comparison if you consider just regular season stats. More than a third of his 3,000 strikeouts came in 4 seasons of 20, but there is no one with 3,000 strikeouts not in the HoF, yet.

[BucketOBalls]

I wouldn't say it's a lock he even gets 3000. He's at 1723 right now, so he basically needs 2 years of not getting hurt and getting about 150ish hits. Not a give for a 37 year old. And I think most would agree he doesn't get in if he doesn't make it, so for this, we'll assume he does.


Well, there are two questions here. Will he get in? and Should he get in? As for will, I think he might if he gets to 3000 hits. He was willing to talk to the voters and might get a boost from being a non-steroid guy. Although the fact that he looked worse than he was defensively(i.e. the arm) may be enough to keep him out. Lately the voters seem to be putting the borderline guys in, so he has that going for him. I think his case would be about as good as Rice and Andre Dawson, although in a completly different(almost opposite) way. However, by the time he comes up there could be backlash against that, so that could also keep him out.


I'm not sure about should, although I would put him in the same category as Jim Rice, in a completely different way. His career high OPS+ is 118 (average is 105) and about the best you can say is he was above average everywhere. His one HOF worthy skill was not getting hurt. Is that enough? Pretty much everyone else I can think had some sort of peak. Damon didn't he was just pretty good....for a very long time. He has a complete absence of hardware(never finished in even the top 10 for MVP, never got a gold glove or even a silver slugger).

I hope he makes it though, as I can't think of a player with a hall of fame case quite like him.

[soxfan121]

Could Johnny Damon be the first 3,000 hit guy not in the HoF?

Nope, that honor belongs to Rafael Palmerio. He earned it.

[smastroyin]

Other than playing for the Yankees, what has he done, really, to "erase the good vibes"

I don't get the Damon hate and never have. I get the uniform hate. But honestly, I know how stupid this is, but all the fucktards booing him loudly in a Rays uniform last year when the Sox were still 11 games up in August kind of made me feel like karma is a huge bitch.

As to the question, I think in terms of fame 3000 hits does mean a lot. Overall you can rate his game as "hall of very good" level and that's fine. But to me he played a good all-around game and is better than several players who were voted in once you add that accomplishment (Assuming he doesn't play until he is 50 or something to do it). That doesn't mean he should get in, except that it probably increases his chances as several of these cases were recent. And, if the BBWAA still has a hard-on for punishing PDA suspects then he is not going to have a lot of contemporaries to compete with. In Red Sox world, to me he is clearly better than Rice and probably better than Evans. Also, we talk about durability like it should against people. "He only did that because he could play so much." Well, Red Sox fans should be first in line after the last few years to understand the value of the ability to stay on the damn field.

The arguments against are fairly simple. There are a lot of CF in the hall. He is not as good as Tim Raines and and his peak is not close to Bernie Williams (though he has more career value), neither of whom look exceptionally likely to get in. He is short on black and gray ink. He doesn't have much MVP consideration. Also, people are going to remember that his last few years he was basically a late FA pickup by teams with not much in other options. After leaving KC he was never the best player on his team.

But the BBWAA loves to reward accumulation, and I think he's going to make it if he manages 3000. And probably he's not that much worse a choice than guys like Eddie Murray or even Lou Brock.

[moondog80]

Anybody who would put him in with 3000 hits but not 2900 is an idiot. Gee, I wasn't going to vote for him, but that last season in 2014 where he went 248/305/367 over 400 AB changed my mind.

[moondog80]

If he does get in, what's on the cap?

WAR
KC: 16.2
BOS: 12.1
NYY 15.5

[Freddy Linn]

If he does get in, what's on the cap?

WAR
KC: 16.2
BOS: 12.1
NYY 15.5

"Well, it’s a tough decision… four years in Boston… four years in New York… five and a half years in Kansas City. And if you go by the numbers, that’s where my best years were. So if they’d have me…"

Link

[BucketOBalls]

Anybody who would put him in with 3000 hits but not 2900 is an idiot. Gee, I wasn't going to vote for him, but that last season in 2014 where he went 248/305/367 over 400 AB changed my mind.

Ha! true. I can't really think of a player who had Damons combination of consistency, longevity and mediocrity+. Most people who stick around that long usually have 1 or 2 great years or something.

[snowmanny]

Other than playing for the Yankees, what has he done, really, to "erase the good vibes"

Well vetoing a trade to the Red Sox didn't help.

[Hyde Park Factor]

Anybody who would put him in with 3000 hits but not 2900 is an idiot. Gee, I wasn't going to vote for him, but that last season in 2014 where he went 248/305/367 over 400 AB changed my mind.

One of the worst case scenarios here would be if Damon has something like 2970 hits at the end of the 2013 season. Would he sign somewhere simply to get the last few hits or would he just call it a career?

Don't get me wrong, if he can still play in 2014, more power to him. But if he didn't really have any business playing and was playing only to reach 3,000 hits it would feel tainted somehow.

[derekson]

One of the worst case scenarios here would be if Damon has something like 2970 hits at the end of the 2013 season. Would he sign somewhere simply to get the last few hits or would he just call it a career?

Don't get me wrong, if he can still play in 2014, more power to him. But if he didn't really have any business playing and was playing only to reach 3,000 hits it would feel tainted somehow.

I don't really see how that would reflect poorly on Damon in comparison to guys like Lou Brock (3023 career hits, last 3 seasons 81, 46, 100 OPS+ respectively) and Craig Biggio (3060 career hits, last 2 seasons 84, 71 OPS+ respectively). Damon had a 110 OPS+ last season, he can still decline a bit while being productive.

Edited by derekson, 17 February 2012 - 01:34 AM.

[Joe Sixpack]

In Red Sox world, to me he is clearly better than Rice and probably better than Evans.

I can see how a case could be made that Johnny Damon had a more valuable career than Jim Rice, but Evans? Really?

Damon's highest single season OPS+ was 118 (career 105). Evans had 12 seasons higher than 118, including his final year in Baltimore, and 7 seasons of 130+. Evans was by far the better player and there's really no comparison between him and Damon.

[Alternate34]

Other than playing for the Yankees, what has he done, really, to "erase the good vibes"

I don't get the Damon hate and never have. I get the uniform hate. But honestly, I know how stupid this is, but all the fucktards booing him loudly in a Rays uniform last year when the Sox were still 11 games up in August kind of made me feel like karma is a huge bitch.

As to the question, I think in terms of fame 3000 hits does mean a lot. Overall you can rate his game as "hall of very good" level and that's fine. But to me he played a good all-around game and is better than several players who were voted in once you add that accomplishment (Assuming he doesn't play until he is 50 or something to do it). That doesn't mean he should get in, except that it probably increases his chances as several of these cases were recent. And, if the BBWAA still has a hard-on for punishing PDA suspects then he is not going to have a lot of contemporaries to compete with. In Red Sox world, to me he is clearly better than Rice and probably better than Evans. Also, we talk about durability like it should against people. "He only did that because he could play so much." Well, Red Sox fans should be first in line after the last few years to understand the value of the ability to stay on the damn field.

The arguments against are fairly simple. There are a lot of CF in the hall. He is not as good as Tim Raines and and his peak is not close to Bernie Williams (though he has more career value), neither of whom look exceptionally likely to get in. He is short on black and gray ink. He doesn't have much MVP consideration. Also, people are going to remember that his last few years he was basically a late FA pickup by teams with not much in other options. After leaving KC he was never the best player on his team.

But the BBWAA loves to reward accumulation, and I think he's going to make it if he manages 3000. And probably he's not that much worse a choice than guys like Eddie Murray or even Lou Brock.

I'll join Joe Sixpack and say "Huh?" Evans had a better OBP and SLG over his career when offense was harder to come by. His career OPS+ of 127 compared to Damon's 105 demonstrates this rather nicely. Also, Evans was a damn good RF. It's hard to come up with a comparison of weak armed CF with good range v. strong armed RF with solid range but I would view with great suspicion any conversion that overwhelms the offensive advantage of Dewey.

Jim Rice is a closer call, but he still has a large slugging advantage over Damon and hos career OPS+ of 128 still clobbers Damon's 105. Now, Jim Rice gives a lot more up on defense and a lot more up on career than Dewey and bWAR reflects that, so I can see saying Damon is probably better than Rice.

As to Damon hating, after he was off the Yankees, he should have been treated well. He was a substantial contributor in 2004 and a solid player for the Sox. Reacting to the haters by claiming Damon better than Dewey is a bit extreme.

[smastroyin]

I knew mentioning Evans would get people upset. There are a few things you guys aren't accounting for.

Number 1. The positional difference between CF and RF is pretty big. You can say that Evans deserves more credit because he was in Fenway but even Fenway's RF is not the same as any CF. CF cover much more ground. And arm is easily the most overrated defensive ability. Stopping/allowing extra bases is worth only a fraction of converting/allowing extra outs. It is somewhat disingenuous to say that because Dewey was a good RF and Damon was only an average CF that the defensive difference is accounted for. It's not. There is a reason there are a lot more good hitting corner OF than CF, it's because the ability to play CF is scarce, more scarce than you are accounting for, at least. I realize that FanGraphs rates Dewey as one of the best RF in history for the mid-70's. I guess you can believe these numbers since they reinforce what you believe but I kind of question them. It is bad enough to look at fielding runs in terms of PBP data that we are observing real-time. Going back in history seems a bit more difficult and prone to error. Regardless, a reason I mention Evans is that the reason he is *not* in the HoF is basically the same reason that people are arguing to keep Damon out. His game was too varied and he never accumulated enough in traditional stats. If Damon hits a very traditional old school double bold line mark that not many others have done (There are 28 guys with 3000 hits, 25 with 500 HR) then I think that pushes him over. You can disagree if you like.

Number 2. When talking about the offense, a few things need to be taken into context. First, in regards to Rice, his line compared to Damon is heavily SLG dependent. We know enough to say that all OPS is not created equal. Second, you both completely ignore baserunning. It does close the gap a little more than you might think.

Number 3. Please note that my assumptions are based on Damon producing for another two years at his current level, not straggling along hitting .215 until he gets the 3000th hit. Given that he has so much trouble finding a job nowadays, I don't think he gets 3000 without being a productive player.

A separate point. I think the round number stuff is stupid as well, but there are certain round numbers that have been traditionally hailed as marks of excellence. Yeah, 3000 hits compared to 2970 is nothing especially in the context of a career. I get it. But these aren't a bunch of sabermatricians voting.

[Rudy Pemberton]

It's a tough case. He's unique in that he was able to get to 3K (or close to it) through a combination of factors. Getting called up at a young age, starting from day one, batting first, playing lots of years with very good offensive clubs, not walking much, and never missing more than 20 games in a year.

Very consistent, but never finished higher than 13th in MVP voting. Only made two all-star teams. Very good, but never great. I wouldn't vote for him.

[sibpin]

Sorry - there actually is some doubt that Damon wouldn't wear a Sox cap in the Hall? I don't think he's a HoFer, but most of the memorable parts of his career happened in Boston - the concussion, the haircut, the grand slam, everything about the '04 championship team in general, both All-Star appearances. The '09 championship team was a lot less memorable and less Damon-centric than the '04 team, and his 3000th hit will probably come somewhere other than NY or KC.

[JakeRae]

I voted that he would get in but that he shouldn't.

Damon, even with 3,000 hits, is not a HoFer. He's been a good to very good player for a long career, but never even flirted with greatness. Awards voting isn't everything, but it does tell you something, and Damon has made 2 All Star games and has never finished higher than 13th in MVP voting (top 20 four times). Using advanced metrics, by rWAR he has a single season with at least 5 WAR (2000 with 6.6) and by fWAR he has no such seasons.

If you throw a MVP season or a couple top 5 MVP type seasons into the middle of Damon's career, he would have a legitimate claim to a spot in the HoF. But, I don't think being good, durable, and batting leadoff is sufficient to make him deserving. If he had hit 6th his whole career, we aren't even having this conversation, which should tell you everything you need to know.

[Hyde Park Factor]

I don't really see how that would reflect poorly on Damon in comparison to guys like Lou Brock (3023 career hits, last 3 seasons 81, 46, 100 OPS+ respectively) and Craig Biggio (3060 career hits, last 2 seasons 84, 71 OPS+ respectively). Damon had a 110 OPS+ last season, he can still decline a bit while being productive.

I didn't say it would reflect poorly on Damon, my point is that 3,000 hits can feel tainted depending upon the circumstances and you referenced a couple of pretty good examples. All I was trying to say is that if he's close to 3,000 hits but clearly done as a player, I hope he eschews the last few hits rather than choosing to limp towards a milestone that won't make him a better man, player or HOF candidate.

And like I said before, if he can still bring it in 2014, more power to him.

[Alternate34]

I knew mentioning Evans would get people upset. There are a few things you guys aren't accounting for.

Number 1. The positional difference between CF and RF is pretty big. You can say that Evans deserves more credit because he was in Fenway but even Fenway's RF is not the same as any CF. CF cover much more ground. And arm is easily the most overrated defensive ability. Stopping/allowing extra bases is worth only a fraction of converting/allowing extra outs. It is somewhat disingenuous to say that because Dewey was a good RF and Damon was only an average CF that the defensive difference is accounted for. It's not. There is a reason there are a lot more good hitting corner OF than CF, it's because the ability to play CF is scarce, more scarce than you are accounting for, at least. I realize that FanGraphs rates Dewey as one of the best RF in history for the mid-70's. I guess you can believe these numbers since they reinforce what you believe but I kind of question them. It is bad enough to look at fielding runs in terms of PBP data that we are observing real-time. Going back in history seems a bit more difficult and prone to error. Regardless, a reason I mention Evans is that the reason he is *not* in the HoF is basically the same reason that people are arguing to keep Damon out. His game was too varied and he never accumulated enough in traditional stats. If Damon hits a very traditional old school double bold line mark that not many others have done (There are 28 guys with 3000 hits, 25 with 500 HR) then I think that pushes him over. You can disagree if you like.

Number 2. When talking about the offense, a few things need to be taken into context. First, in regards to Rice, his line compared to Damon is heavily SLG dependent. We know enough to say that all OPS is not created equal. Second, you both completely ignore baserunning. It does close the gap a little more than you might think.

Number 3. Please note that my assumptions are based on Damon producing for another two years at his current level, not straggling along hitting .215 until he gets the 3000th hit. Given that he has so much trouble finding a job nowadays, I don't think he gets 3000 without being a productive player.

A separate point. I think the round number stuff is stupid as well, but there are certain round numbers that have been traditionally hailed as marks of excellence. Yeah, 3000 hits compared to 2970 is nothing especially in the context of a career. I get it. But these aren't a bunch of sabermatricians voting.

I don't disagree with much of the above. I think Damon's position and defensive ability is an advantage over Dewey, but not an advantage that overcomes the offensive deficit which is large. I guess I don't understand the reason to doubt Dewey as a fantastic defensive RF. What evidence is there against it? It's not just a statistical argument. Dewey's defense was highly valued at the time.

Against Rice, Damon is probably better, though Rice did have a flashier peak. I didn't mention the slugging thing and that was lazy, but you're clearly right.

If Damon gets 3000 hits, he will probably go to the Hall of Fame. I wouldn't vote for him if I had a vote, but it's not a travesty. I would prefer better players go first, but the Hall of Fame has never been perfect.

[Orel Miraculous]

Against Rice, Damon is probably better, though Rice did have a flashier peak. I didn't mention the slugging thing and that was lazy, but you're clearly right.

A flashier peak? Rice's top 4 bWAR: 7.0, 5.9, 5.7, 5.1. Damon's top 4 bWAR: 6.6, 4.9, 4.7, 4.5

Is that flashier or just better?

[teddywingman]

A flashier peak? Rice's top 4 bWAR: 7.0, 5.9, 5.7, 5.1. Damon's top 4 bWAR: 6.6, 4.9, 4.7, 4.5

Is that flashier or just better?

I don't know.

Rice was 3 'wins above replacement' better over a four year period, during different decades, playing a different position.

And while I think we would agree that Rice's peak was better than Damon's, this WAR shit has got to stop.

[WayBackVazquez]

Not happening. There will always be someone who is the worst player with statistic x, and when statistic x = 3,000 hits, that player will be Johnny Damon if he gets there. Just because everyone to reach that milestone is in does not mean everyone who does so will be in. While HOF voting isn't a SABR club, things like OPS have become more important to the mazes by leaps and bounds over the past decade, and will be even more so by the time JD is up. And they've always looked at things like all-star games and MVP voting. A two-time all-star with a 105 ops+ getting in? Not so much as one 200-hit season among all those hits and years? Methinks not.

I've said this before. 3,000 hits is nice, but there will eventually be somebody who gets there and doesn't get in, just like 3,000 strikeouts for a pitcher. If 35 year-old Javy Vazquez decides to grace us with a couple of more seasons, he'll join that club, and like Johnny, if he wants to visit Cooperstown, he'll need to buy a ticket.

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 21 February 2012 - 01:47 AM.

[OzSox]

Not so much as one 200-hit season among all those hits and years?

Damon had 214 hits in 2000, but I agree with your overall point. Counting 200 hit seasons can be a bit silly for obvious reasons, but to have only had one as a lead off guy whose career hit total and durability will end up being his strongest Hall of Fame arguments is a bit glaring, especially compared with the 10 that a contemporary lead off guy (Ichiro) has had.

[Alternate34]

Not happening. There will always be someone who is the worst player with statistic x, and when statistic x = 3,000 hits, that player will be Johnny Damon if he gets there. Just because everyone to reach that milestone is in does not mean everyone who does so will be in. While HOF voting isn't a SABR club, things like OPS have become more important to the mazes by leaps and bounds over the past decade, and will be even more so by the time JD is up. And they've always looked at things like all-star games and MVP voting. A two-time all-star with a 105 ops+ getting in? Not so much as one 200-hit season among all those hits and years? Methinks not.

I've said this before. 3,000 hits is nice, but there will eventually be somebody who gets there and doesn't get in, just like 3,000 strikeouts for a pitcher. If 35 year-old Javy Vazquez decides to grace us with a couple of more seasons, he'll join that club, and like Johnny, if he wants to visit Cooperstown, he'll need to buy a ticket.

I might agree with you if not for the anti-steroid crowd's influence. Damon presents them with a clean player reaching an important milestone. You could even get arguments about how his cleanliness put him at a disadvantage and he may have put up better seasons if not for the other players using steroids. I don't think he would reach on the first ballot, especially since there will be some ballot clog at the outset, but he should linger and eventually he will get in on the strength of 3000 hits. The comparison to 3000 Ks is not all that convincing because while there is a line there, the 3000 K line does not have the same prestige. There was a movie made around the concept of 3000 hits with Bernie Mac.

[teddywingman]

Why do you assume Damon was clean?

[Savin Hillbilly]

And while I think we would agree that Rice's peak was better than Damon's, this WAR shit has got to stop.

What about Orel's use of WAR in this context offends you? And what would you suggest as a better way to compare the peak production of two players from different generations playing different positions?

I keep hearing people wax cranky about the use of WAR, but almost never do they specify how it's being misapplied in that particular case or what their preferred alternative would be.

[smastroyin]

Here's the thing. There are always career vs. peak arguments. But to outright reject accumulation under the auspices that just any above average player can do it if they play long enough is complete and utter bullshit. There are a lot of above average players that weren't able to play as long as Johnny Damon was. There are a lot of above average players who are not durable enough. There have been hundreds of above average players who didn't even come close to accumulating 3000 hits. The fact is that not many guys have accumulated 3000 hits because it is hard to do. Now, I don't think he is a lock, but to reject the entire premise because the guy didn't have a peak is just another way that the narrow minded view of looking at rate stats only completely discounts the ability and need of a player to actually stay on the field. Again, how Red Sox fans can look beyond this after the past two years is well beyond me. If Kevin Youkilis was as good at staying on the field as Johnny Damon the Red Sox are probably in the playoffs each of the last two years. If JD Drew were, he is probably looking at his own plaque in Cooperstown.

I buy the argument that without the peak he's not going to make it. I think he is probably two MVP level seasons away from being a good bet from the BBWAA, or maybe if had just kept up his 2000 pace until 2004 instead of having the poorish 2001 and 2003. But that anyone would consider his candidacy laughable speaks to the fact that people are just as narrowminded about whatever stats they hold dear as old school guys were about AVG and RBI when Bill James first got published.

[Alternate34]

Why do you assume Damon was clean?

I don't. The writers do because he is a speed player with less power. Steroids has always been about HR numbers even though it is abundantly clear that steroids aid speed as much or more. Swimmers and sprinters were (are) huge steroid threats.

[WayBackVazquez]

The comparison to 3000 Ks is not all that convincing because while there is a line there, the 3000 K line does not have the same prestige. There was a movie made around the concept of 3000 hits with Bernie Mac.

I'm just going to pretend your last sentence didn't happen. I think 3,000 strikeouts is more prestigious than 3,000 hits, it's certainly more exclusive. There are only 16 pitchers in history with 3,000 Ks. All 16 are either in, or are locks to be in. If Javy retires, no active player will be within 900 strikeouts of reaching the mark. Meanwhile, there are 28 in the 3,000 hit club, and there are seven active players within 500 hits, with two more likely to join them this year.

[teddywingman]

What about Orel's use of WAR in this context offends you?

One reason would be that I think UZR numbers are complete bullshit.

[Was (Not Wasdin)]

Not happening. There will always be someone who is the worst player with statistic x...

Just because everyone to reach that milestone is in does not mean everyone who does so will be in.

Dave Kingman and 400 homers. At the time he retired was in the top 20 all time in homers. After his contemporaries like Mike Schmidt and Willie Stargell got in, Kingman was (for a while) the only eligible guy with 400 homers not in the H of F. He actually was named on three ballots in his first year of eligibility, which is amazing because he was such a terrible player (and a douche to boot).

Damon is not Kingman though, and I dont think he gets rejected out of hand like Kingman did, if he gets to 3,000. I think voters will look at other factors, and a fair number will think he did enough all around, on top of hitting some arbitrary magic number, to get in. He has averaged 80 runs a year over the last two years, two more like that and he finishes around 1,800, which puts him in the top 20 all time. That will carry some weight with voters, I think.

[Alternate34]

What about Orel's use of WAR in this context offends you? And what would you suggest as a better way to compare the peak production of two players from different generations playing different positions?

I keep hearing people wax cranky about the use of WAR, but almost never do they specify how it's being misapplied in that particular case or what their preferred alternative would be.

The misapplication in this case is that the difference in each season is a most 1 WAR. With the questionable defensive issues in various measures of WAR, especially in historical measurement, that difference is almost inconsequential, especially when considering that you are comparing the least second strenuous defensive position (DH doesn't count) with the second or third most strenuous defensive position. Rice is also unique in that park factors in his case loom large. Additionally, that small difference in WAR for his peak hardly recommends him considering his cumulative value falls well short of Damon.

Also, the career v. peak argument is about how we approach the question of greatness. The general idea is that those who can achieve that highest level even for a brief period of time achieve that greatness. Obviously you know this, but I think there is some legitimacy to the idea. Not only are there the studies which give a mild advantage to teams with players whose performance level has greater variance, but there is a memorability of players who have amazing seasons, that sense and emotion, that electricity. While this argument can be overstated, I don't think that it can be completely discarded. Of course, there is the greater problem of using statistics from a player's peak to demonstrate this. It is pretty clumsy and exposed as even more problematic when one considers that unadjusted stats do a better job of conveying that electricity than do things like WAR.

Bringing it back to Damon and Rice, I don't think either should be in the Hall of Fame from some disembodied Hall of Fame view (obviously Rice should be in because he got 75% of the vote) but I think that Rice is less deserving than Damon. His questionably better peak does not really compensate for his positional disadvantage and career accumulation disadvantage. However, I don't think it is some travesty that they get in. I am more concerned about players who don't get in rather than players who do.

[Alternate34]

I'm just going to pretend your last sentence didn't happen. I think 3,000 strikeouts is more prestigious than 3,000 hits, it's certainly more exclusive. There are only 16 pitchers in history with 3,000 Ks. All 16 are either in, or are locks to be in. If Javy retires, no active player will be within 900 strikeouts of reaching the mark. Meanwhile, there are 28 in the 3,000 hit club, and there are seven active players within 500 hits, with two more likely to join them this year.

I know you understand the argument is not about the rarity or value of the two measures, but more to the prestigiousness of the two measures. You are obviously correct on the facts here, but that correctness doesn't really matter.

There are arguments that may be valid however as to 3000 Ks being less valuable than 3000 hits. First, hits are a larger part of the equation of getting on base combined with walks. Strikeouts are one way of preventing players from getting on base, but not walking those players, preventing them from getting home runs, and getting them to hit balls to your defense are a larger percentage of that as compared to Ks. Even if 3000 Ks is more exclusive, it does not indicate better value to the team.

[SumnerH]

What about Orel's use of WAR in this context offends you? And what would you suggest as a better way to compare the peak production of two players from different generations playing different positions?

One reason would be that I think UZR numbers are complete bullshit.

This comment shows a lack of understanding of the thing you're objecting to. Orel specified bWAR, which doesn't use UZR.

EDIT: Which isn't to say there aren't other, valid objections, but it's worth taking the time to understand WAR if you're going to be vocal in opposition to it.

Edited by SumnerH, 21 February 2012 - 05:20 PM.

[teddywingman]

This comment shows a lack of understanding of the thing you're objecting to. Orel specified bWAR, which doesn't use UZR.

EDIT: Which isn't to say there aren't other, valid objections, but it's worth taking the time to understand WAR if you're going to be vocal in opposition to it.

My bad-- I honestly thought he had specified fWar. I should have glanced upthread. (In my defense, earlier posters were comparing players using fWar).

So anyway, I know less about how TotalZone is calculated. I'm sure it's significantly more valuable than UZR.

I apoligize for the laziness of my last couple posts. I should have explained why the use of WAR, in this particular case especially, annoys the hell out of me.

We're presented with the idea of comparing Rice and Damon. Fine. Both of them are borderline HOF outfielders who played for the Red Sox. The discussion then leads to the fact that Rice had a 'flashier peak', which leads to "flashier, or just better?" statement supported by a series of WAR numbers that apparently tell us that over Damon and Rice's best 4 years, Rice was what... 3 more wins above replacement than Damon. Now I understand that is not exactly what those numbers mean, but what else does it really tell us?

Damon and Rice are two extremely different players that brought very different skills to the table during their peaks. If we're going to compare them, could we at least look at their on base and slugging percentages? The use of WAR as this 'all rolled up into one' player evaluator is stupid and it's dumb and it sucks.

/end rant.

Edited by teddywingman, 21 February 2012 - 07:47 PM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Damon and Rice are two extremely different players that brought very different skills to the table during their peaks. If we're going to compare them, could we at least look at their on base and slugging percentages?

If we look at their on base and slugging percentages we'll conclude that Rice was the better player by a substantial margin, since their OBPs are virtually identical and Rice has a much higher SLG. Is that a conclusion you're comfortable with? Leaves a few things out, doesn't it?

There's a pretty obvious reason why people look for an "all rolled up into one" player evaluator. I know WAR in either form is far from perfect, but if there's a better tool out there for comparing player performance across different contexts, I'm not aware of it.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

If we look at their on base and slugging percentages we'll conclude that Rice was the better player by a substantial margin, since their OBPs are virtually identical and Rice has a much higher SLG. Is that a conclusion you're comfortable with? Leaves a few things out, doesn't it?

There's a pretty obvious reason why people look for an "all rolled up into one" player evaluator. I know WAR in either form is far from perfect, but if there's a better tool out there for comparing player performance across different contexts, I'm not aware of it.

Yeah, I mean if you're gonna use WAR, this is pretty much the application where it makes the most sense. We're looking at multiple years of data and comparing what actually happened on the field during different decades. The biggest misuses of WAR are when people use partial season data and try to interpret it to predict future performance. That's not happening here. I don't get teddywingman's objections at all.

[Alternate34]

I think there is a middle ground for those who want more detail. First, you can just consider the offensive portion of WAR which is a lot more reliable than the defensive portion and supplement it with various measures of defense including scouting, reputation, different statistics, etc. Second, you can look at various measures of WAR to get different ideas. Bill James offers a wealth of measures for Hall of Fame consideration that when all applied, give various objective and subjective considerations that have a strong guidance from reason.

[Dehere]

Here's the thing. There are always career vs. peak arguments. But to outright reject accumulation under the auspices that just any above average player can do it if they play long enough is complete and utter bullshit. There are a lot of above average players that weren't able to play as long as Johnny Damon was. There are a lot of above average players who are not durable enough. There have been hundreds of above average players who didn't even come close to accumulating 3000 hits.

Totally agree. Durability is undervalued by fans generally, although I wonder if a byproduct of steroid-era guys being on the HoF ballot will be a new appreciation for durability in players who are believed to have been clean.

I was really surprised to see the names on Damon's similarity scores list. Of the ten most similar players through age 37 five are in the HoF and Pete Rose is one of the other five. Here's the list: Molitor, Al Oliver, Willie Davis, Rose, Clemente, Staub, Yount, Rickey Henderson, Brock, Abreu.

I think he'd have my vote assuming he gets to 3000. 3000 hits and almost 15 years at a premium defensive position is hard to deny. Also, I tend to lean yes on borderline guys with memorable post-season moments. Damon homered in the decisive games of the LCS and WS for one of the most famous championship teams ever (although you could counter that other than those bombs he didn't play great in either series) and he was outstanding in the 2009 WS as well.

[WayBackVazquez]

I think he'd have my vote assuming he gets to 3000. 3000 hits and almost 15 years at a premium defensive position is hard to deny.

Can I deny that he played almost 15 years at a premium defensive position? He's played 1264 games in CF. That's about 8 full seasons. Only 1524 of his hits came as a CF. That leaves about 1,000 games as a LF or DH, where his numbers look mediocre to below average compared to his peers.

[teddywingman]

I think there is a middle ground for those who want more detail. First, you can just consider the offensive portion of WAR which is a lot more reliable than the defensive portion and supplement it with various measures of defense including scouting, reputation, different statistics, etc. Second, you can look at various measures of WAR to get different ideas. Bill James offers a wealth of measures for Hall of Fame consideration that when all applied, give various objective and subjective considerations that have a strong guidance from reason.

So, like, look at real numbers?

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

So subjective considerations are real numbers now?

WAR is certainly not without its flaws, but citing it in the context used in this thread is not wrong or objectionable IMO. This is basically what it was designed to do. It's fine to debate how well it does or does not meet its objectives, but I don't think this is a misapplication of using the stat or a case where using WAR "has got to stop".

[moondog80]

Can I deny that he played almost 15 years at a premium defensive position? He's played 1264 games in CF. That's about 8 full seasons. Only 1524 of his hits came as a CF. That leaves about 1,000 games as a LF or DH, where his numbers look mediocre to below average compared to his peers.

Excellent point, one that will likely be lost on most of the people who do eventually vote for Damon.