a) Life time = .271 (Garv = .294) b) Batting average...really? 3) Life time OBP =.392 (Garv = .329) iv) Joe has a better life time OPS too. Bottom line = As a 1st baseman Garvey was pretty good, but there were many better. As a second baseman, Morgan was very good, and not that many were better. If Garvey played 2nd base, he'd probably be in.
To some extent yes, if you averaged the numbers of all outfielders in the hall and compared to the average of all shortstops in the hall, don't you think you'd see a large difference? Would an outfielder make it to the hall with the average numbers of the shortstops? I think not. Just a guess on my part. If you mean A.J., no he didn't. And it's more than just OBP.
I'm sure you're right, hey I'm not gonna research that. Just like a catcher that hits 238, no one in the world with a career 271 avg should be in the hall. Honestly I have a very high standard of hall of famers. Here is my absolute minimum regardless of position. 290-300 career hitter. 350+ homers. You move on from there to mix in the other factors like defense, sb, etc... If you don't have a career 290 batting average at the very least then you're not good enough. Hell Ty Cobb retired because he said if a man can't hit over 300 he shouldn't play.
I'll agree in part. Using BA as the yardstick is almost as antiquated as ...me. But I agree with having a high standard. I would be more in favor of that standard being a comparison with peers and to some extent across eras, but we each have our ideas.
Both .290 and 350+ HR's? Or either or? Because there are a number of no-brainer HOF guys who didn't come close to 350 HR's (Ty Cobb being one of them).
Well obviously you have to take into account the era they played in. The fences in Cobb's day were to keep the ball in play.
Well batting average is just a good barometer that I used as an example. If you value war that's fine too. The point being there has to be a set standard that all hall of famers need to meet otherwise we have the subjectivity we have today. If you look name by name could you look and say every guy in there was in the top 5% of his era? Probably not.
I agree, and there are guys in there who weren't even in the top 10%. But the positional angle comes into play as well. You can't expect a 5'9" 175 lb shortstop to carry the ball like a 6'2" 220 lb first baseman. Ozzie Smith can't put up Willie McCovey numbers. I think both deserve to be there, though.
This is a long winded conversation and each players positional contribution is a huge factor. The Ozzie Smith or Joe Morgan examples each serve well to defend this. Ozzie might have only hit .245 some years but NOTHING got through the left side of the infield. Game changing "D" is still game changing. I like several of SC_Ed's comments too and think that ultimately it does come down to a blend of many factors... in loose order... BA - Agree that lifetime .290+ should be minimum threshold without a huge score in a category below HR - The definition of a game changer, should be rewarded above 400 because that batter changed over 400 games Power - This could be slugging pct or could be RBI total or some other factor Defense - Some players simply offer more than others. Think Ozzie's coverage zone or Clemente's cannon arm. Game changers. Speed - Of more importance in adding an offensive element than D. i.e. Ricky Henderson hitting lifetime .279 might get a split vote for grabbing more than 80 stolen bases 7 times and being lifetime SB leader with 1406. The HoF voters love to reward "all time leaders" of anything. Clutch - It's easily argued that this should rank higher because 'some' players simply come through more often when they need to. Best example of this is comparing Bench to Piazza as HoF catcher candidates. Piazza's lifetime BA was .041 higher at .308 but having painfully watched him over the years he had a knack for getting 7th or 8th inning singles off banjo armed relievers with no one in play that did us precious little. OK the Dodgers contributed too but Piazza was the farthest from clutch player that comes to mind. Bench only hit .267 lifetime but he led the league in HR twice and led the league in RBI 3 times. And I watched as he came through numerous times in multiple different playoffs to win the more than one World Series for Cincinnati. Not that he did it alone but you did not want to see him in the batters box with runners in scoring position. Piazza never led the league in anything. Ever. Still Piazza's lifetime .308 is very good in the #1 category. Ancient HoF voters capriciously cherry pick and use any lame reason, defensible or otherwise, to allow or deny any given player based upon their whim at the time. Ancient HoF voters capriciously cherry pick and use any lame reason, defensible or otherwise, to allow or deny any given player based upon their whim at the time. Ancient HoF voters capriciously cherry pick and use any lame reason, defensible or otherwise, to allow or deny any given player based upon their whim at the time. Sometimes for years. WAR, WAR+ - While I have statistical issues with the formula's used to attempt to define these rankings, with all of their flaws they still assist to illustrate numerically which players perform better. Now if only Sabre didn't resort to made up fantasy numerical factors to obtain their results I'd go peacefully. In general the WAR system works, kind of, but as a engineer techie who has survived a Stats class, that simply ain't enough. For all of the other Sabre stats these two are the ones they should be most ashamed of rather than proud but not so many people dig in that deep. Or need to I guess. So I rank this lower. OK much lower... but still on the list.
