Posted on 01/11/2006 11:11:08 AM PST by JZelle
Call the Class of 2006 for the National Baseball Hall of Fame the calm before the storm. Bruce Sutter was the only player who received enough votes from baseball writers to be elected to the Hall. And he barely got in, receiving just 1.9 percent more than the necessary 75 percent of the vote to gain entrance. So on July 30, the Sutter family will be in Cooperstown along with a few other tourists. Let's face it, the split-fingered fastball may have saved 300 games, but few fans will make a pilgrimage to pay homage to Bruce Sutter. He may have been best known for his success with the Cardinals, with whom he was part of the 1982 World Series championship team. But he spent just four seasons in St. Louis, so he is hardly a franchise icon like Ozzie Smith, who made up the last class of one to enter Cooperstown in 2002. It was a strange year for Hall of Fame voting because there were no clear-cut candidates. This was Sutter's 13th year on the ballot. Two more and he would have been banished to veteran's committee land, where it is much more difficult to get in these days.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
they should have a separate wing with an asterick above it before you enter.
Appearances not withstanding, the bottom line is he never failed a drug test, he was a fan favorite, and he has the numbers to warrant admission.
Sure, there will be some writers who will leave him off thier ballots, but I will venture he gets close to 80% or More.
Ripken may be the first player to ever get Unanimous selection (if not he will be 98%+) and Gwynn will get 90-95%.
Although Ripken may be the bigger star...Gwynn has the best credentials by far. You have to go back 50 years to find a hitter with as perfect a swing. One of the top two hitters of the last century and backed up by the stats. The man watched film all day and never stopped working on his swing.
I would have thought McGwire on the first ballot, but his performance before Congress killed that.
Maybe on the second, but I've read that many voters took his evasive non-denials as an admission that he took steriods. He blew it, big time.
Sigh. Isn't that the truth. I haven't been to an O's game since Cal's last game.
"igh. Isn't that the truth. I haven't been to an O's game since Cal's last game."
Cheer up, they just signed Corey Patterson and Jeff Conine!
;)
I'm an O's fan too, but my enthusiasm has been dimmed by the greediness of Angelos.
I grew up in Baltimore and will be an O's fan until I die. But it just kills me what Angelos has done to that team. I can't bear to watch anymore. Palmeiro was just the latest insult to the fans.
You mean back to 1905? There's a hell of a lot of hitters in the past 100 yrs to make such a bold statement (Cobb, Hornsby, Lajoie, Ruth, Williams, Musial, Mays, AAron . . .).
I'd argue the point although I did throw it out there just to start something. I was referring to Williams and didn't do any math on the years. I should have prefaced it by saying pure hitters and I've always been under the impression that the two had the sweetest swings......
Productivity Index [On-base % + Slugging Ave] is an Elias metric that's quite powerful. Anything sum over 1.00 indicates superstardom, whether for a season or career.
Sorry for the formatting. I can't seem to get it to square up for good reading. For their careers,
Williams is .482 + .634 = 1.116
Gwynn is .388 + .459 = .847
Williams is nearly a third better in productivity, which is an astounding gap between the two hitters, and neatly indentifies the tier into which each player rightfully belongs.
Don't forget, Williams also had to serve in the Army in his prime.
But, how many other players in the last 30 years would we even be willing to compare to Williams?
To factor out the changes over the years how does Williams and Gwynn compare to their peers?
sorry but you are right about the formatting. You have listed 16 categories but 19 stats and I don't have the time to do the research. I think in summary though that Gwynn compares ok to one of the greatest hitters in history and if he loses to Williams then oh well. I would add that the standard you are using to compare them is largely irrelevant to the arguement. On base percentage and slugging. Slugging has little to do with my point that they had pure swings. On base percentage is more relevant but again I'd look at their averages and walks before anything else. Remember that Gwynn stuck with a franchise that never came close until they picked up Garvey and his stats reflect a losing team. Their swings and their hits set them apart from the pack.
I wouldn't deny his diligence, but neither would I say the stats back Tony Gwynn as one of the top two hitters of the last century. But forget the full century. If you factor the prime purpose of an offencive player---producing runs---Tony Gwynn wasn't even one of the top two hitters of the last half century, or even the last quarter century.
Here is Gwynn's run production per 162 games lifetime, compared to a few of his contemporaries and near-contemporaries, and I'll toss in a couple of figurative ringers:
Tony Gwynn: 167 RP/162
Frank Thomas: 231
Jeff Bagwell: 229
Frank Robinson: 211
Mike Schmidt: 208
Yogi Berra: 199
Dave Winfield: 191
George Brett: 190
Eddie Murray: 190
Johnny Bench: 185
Roberto Alomar: 180
Cal Ripken, Jr.: 180
Ryne Sandberg: 178
Craig Biggio: 174
Tony Perez: 170
Joe Morgan: 170
Mark Grace: 168
Bear in mind that a few of the foregoing gentlemen---Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Cal Ripken Jr., Joe Morgan, Ryne Sandberg, Craig Biggio, Roberto Alomar, Yogi Berra, and Johnny Bench---played more demanding defencive positions and, in a few cases, were the best in the business playing those positions. (Mike Schmidt in two-way terms is the no-questions-asked greatest third baseman of all time and excelled in the field; George Brett is his damn-near-equal; Eddie Mathews was a good fielding third baseman; Yogi Berra and Johnny Bench are the numbers one and two catchers of all time; and Cal Ripken was an excellent defencive shortstop. And who knows what Ryne Sandberg's run production might have proved to be if he'd been batted to his actual hitting skills; if he'd been a number three rather than a number two hitter. Come to think of it, Mark Grace might have been cheated out of putting up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers because he---with the batting skills of a number two hitter---was batted to his field position instead of his skills, but then the Cubs have never exactly been famous for thinking outside the proverbial box . . .)
Gwynn, by the way, grounded into an average of 17 double plays per 162 games, lifetime. On the foregoing list, the men who grounded into the least number of double plays per 162 games were Joe Morgan (6/162), Ryne Sandberg (10/162) and (this might surprise a few people) Yogi Berra (11/162) and (this might surprise a few people, too) Mike Schmidt (11/162). I can't fathom why Gwynn's GIDP/162 is so high, given that he had terrific speed (a .777 stolen base percentage testifies to that), but that's an awful lot of rally killing for such a great hitter.
I don't mean to negate Tony Gwynn's Hall of Fame case at all. The man's earned his way to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot, unless the HOF voters are hit with a serial brain vapor next year. Calling him one of the two best hitters of even the last quarter century, never mind the last half century, is just a little on the wild side, but he didn't have to be one of the two best to be a bona-fide Hall of Famer, either.
Dale-Murphy-For-the-Hall BTTT!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.