Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And?

You seem pretty upset I don't agree with you.

---

---

Okay, Einstein. It's because "2600 hits" and "only" don't belong in the same sentence when we're discussing the credentials of a leadoff hitter who had 1300 walks. Tim Raines belongs in the HOF. If you disagree, fine, but don't act like taking away 2.5 prime seasons-worth of hits renders the same evaluation.

RetiredAg said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

94chem said:

---

Go look up Tim Raines' stats and tell me that dude's not a hall of famer.

---

Long career and only got to 2600 hits.
Didn't reach 1000 RBIs.
Sub .300 Career Avg
One year every above .900 OPS
1571 Runs scored is fairly strong. That's like 50 more than Bagwell who played like 7 less seasons and most don't even have him in.
The only great selling point is the 808 SB which is good for 5th all time. While impressive as hell, not good enough IMO.

---

I may be mistaken, but did you have Larry Walker as "in"? That's fine, but I'm not sure how you can justify Walker but not Raines.

Larry Walker
2160 career hits
383 HR
1311 RBI

Ellis Burks
2107 career hits
352 HR
1206 RBI

And that was with playing the bulk of his career in Colorado. To me, Walker is classic "Hall of Very Good". Just don't see him as a HOFer at all. He and Ellis Burks had pretty similar numbers, and nobody thinks Burks is a HOFer. Granted, Walker has higher BA and OPS numbers, but just seemed like an odd admission, at least when not putting Raines in.

---

Career wRC+ & WAR of 140 & 69 vs 125 & 45.

---

Yeah, I'm gonna assume most voters couldn't care less about wRC+,and probably care very little about WAR. They like milestones, and Larry Walker doesn't have a single one. This while playing the bulk of his career in the most hitter friendly park in baseball. He's Hall of Very Good. His major career stats are comparable to Ellis Burks. He's better than Burks, no doubt, but I can't see any statistical case Walker being in the Hall.

---

Well I wasn't giving anyone's opinion but my own. I care about advance stats because they tell more than silly made up milestones.

He's clearly better than Burks.

94chem said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And?

You seem pretty upset I don't agree with you.

---

---

Okay, Einstein. It's because "2600 hits" and "only" don't belong in the same sentence when we're discussing the credentials of a leadoff hitter who had 1300 walks. Tim Raines belongs in the HOF. If you disagree, fine, but don't act like taking away 2.5 prime seasons-worth of hits renders the same evaluation.

---

He's 80th all time in hits, 53rd all time in runs, and 135th in OBP. Those are great, but not enough in my book. Don't be upset if you think otherwise.

aggie1906 said:

---

94chem said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And?

You seem pretty upset I don't agree with you.

---

---

Okay, Einstein. It's because "2600 hits" and "only" don't belong in the same sentence when we're discussing the credentials of a leadoff hitter who had 1300 walks. Tim Raines belongs in the HOF. If you disagree, fine, but don't act like taking away 2.5 prime seasons-worth of hits renders the same evaluation.

---

He's 80th all time in hits, 53rd all time in runs, and 135th in OBP. Those are great, but not enough in my book. Don't be upset if you think otherwise.

---

He's higher on the all-time hits and runs lists than Walker. Makes no sense to include Walker, but not Raines.

aggie1906 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

94chem said:

---

Go look up Tim Raines' stats and tell me that dude's not a hall of famer.

---

Long career and only got to 2600 hits.
Didn't reach 1000 RBIs.
Sub .300 Career Avg
One year every above .900 OPS
1571 Runs scored is fairly strong. That's like 50 more than Bagwell who played like 7 less seasons and most don't even have him in.
The only great selling point is the 808 SB which is good for 5th all time. While impressive as hell, not good enough IMO.

---

I may be mistaken, but did you have Larry Walker as "in"? That's fine, but I'm not sure how you can justify Walker but not Raines.

Larry Walker
2160 career hits
383 HR
1311 RBI

Ellis Burks
2107 career hits
352 HR
1206 RBI

And that was with playing the bulk of his career in Colorado. To me, Walker is classic "Hall of Very Good". Just don't see him as a HOFer at all. He and Ellis Burks had pretty similar numbers, and nobody thinks Burks is a HOFer. Granted, Walker has higher BA and OPS numbers, but just seemed like an odd admission, at least when not putting Raines in.

---

Career wRC+ & WAR of 140 & 69 vs 125 & 45.

---

Yeah, I'm gonna assume most voters couldn't care less about wRC+,and probably care very little about WAR. They like milestones, and Larry Walker doesn't have a single one. This while playing the bulk of his career in the most hitter friendly park in baseball. He's Hall of Very Good. His major career stats are comparable to Ellis Burks. He's better than Burks, no doubt, but I can't see any statistical case Walker being in the Hall.

---

Well I wasn't giving anyone's opinion but my own. I care about advance stats because they tell more than silly made up milestones.

He's clearly better than Burks.

---

I had already said he's better than Burks. He's clearly better. My point was that in the major statistical categories, his numbers are comparable to Burks.

Walker is going to be penalized for playing in possibly the most hitter friendly park in baseball history. Given where he played the bulk of career, one would expect his numbers to be better.

RetiredAg said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

94chem said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And?

You seem pretty upset I don't agree with you.

---

---

Okay, Einstein. It's because "2600 hits" and "only" don't belong in the same sentence when we're discussing the credentials of a leadoff hitter who had 1300 walks. Tim Raines belongs in the HOF. If you disagree, fine, but don't act like taking away 2.5 prime seasons-worth of hits renders the same evaluation.

---

He's 80th all time in hits, 53rd all time in runs, and 135th in OBP. Those are great, but not enough in my book. Don't be upset if you think otherwise.

---

He's higher on the all-time hits and runs lists than Walker. Makes no sense to include Walker, but not Raines.

---

Walker has more doubles, homers, RBIs, Avg, OBP, SLUG, OSP, and he did it in fewer years.

Walker is 12th all time in slugging.

Walker has an MVP.

Walker has 6 season with an OPS over 1.000. Raines has 0. Raines only has 1 over .900.

Should I continue?

I was using the stats you were using against Raines. Perhaps pick a set of statistics that are acceptable, and stick with them.

If you don't think Raines is a HOFer, that's fine. To say that Walker is, especially while saying no on Raines, is absurd. Walker is not a HOFer, nor should he be. Plus, let's not forget the stadium he played in that inflated his numbers, which still fall short of any of the key milestones.

But I also think comparing Raines and Walker is ridiculous, as they are completely different style of players.

RetiredAg said:

---

I was using the stats you were using against Raines. Perhaps pick a set of statistics that are acceptable, and stick with them.

If you don't think Raines is a HOFer, that's fine. To say that Walker is, especially while saying no on Raines, is absurd. Walker is not a HOFer, nor should he be. Plus, let's not forget the stadium he played in that inflated his numbers, which still fall short of any of the key milestones.

But I also think comparing Raines and Walker is ridiculous, as they are completely different style of players.

---

Then why are you?

aggie1906 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

I was using the stats you were using against Raines. Perhaps pick a set of statistics that are acceptable, and stick with them.

If you don't think Raines is a HOFer, that's fine. To say that Walker is, especially while saying no on Raines, is absurd. Walker is not a HOFer, nor should he be. Plus, let's not forget the stadium he played in that inflated his numbers, which still fall short of any of the key milestones.

But I also think comparing Raines and Walker is ridiculous, as they are completely different style of players.

---

Then why are you?

---

Because this is an internet forum and the discussion is enjoyable. I'm more an eye test kind of guy anyways.

RetiredAg said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

I was using the stats you were using against Raines. Perhaps pick a set of statistics that are acceptable, and stick with them.

If you don't think Raines is a HOFer, that's fine. To say that Walker is, especially while saying no on Raines, is absurd. Walker is not a HOFer, nor should he be. Plus, let's not forget the stadium he played in that inflated his numbers, which still fall short of any of the key milestones.

But I also think comparing Raines and Walker is ridiculous, as they are completely different style of players.

---

Then why are you?

---

Because this is an internet forum and the discussion is enjoyable. I'm more an eye test kind of guy anyways.

---

I like to determine their prime (length) then compare that head to head.

Player A - 9 years (per year avg)
121 games, 147 hits, 96 runs, 28 HR, 93 RBI, .339, .422, .631, 1.054

Player B - 9 years
148 games, 164 hits, 117 runs, 36 HR, 117 RBI, .304, .425, .581, 1.006

Player C - 9 years
138 games, 156 hits, 104 runs, 42 HR, 114 RBI, .296, .384, .597, .982

All 3 primes' were about the same time frame. 2 are OF and 1 IF. I would say they are all comparable and all should be in.


One is a first ballot. One is still trying to make it in. One will likely never make it in.

34 is mid 30's.

LeFraud said:

---

jja79 said:

---

When he was mid 30's they moved from a cavern to a stadium where pop ups to left are HR. You didn't think out your post very well.

---

Except Enron opened in 2000, when he was 34

Age 36: 655 PA, 15 homers
Age 37: 717 PA, 15 homers
Age 38: 700 PA, 24 homers
Age 39: 651 PA, 26 homers
Age 40: 607 PA, 21 homers

I'll add that of that 24 Homer season, 11 came away from home.

---

Biggio had five other seasons in which he hit 20+ HRs, including four in the Astrodome. Why are you ignoring those seasons?

If you omit the seasons cut short by injury and strikes, his home run totals from '93 to '06 look like this.

21, 22, 15, 22, 20, 16, 20, 15, 15, 24, 26, 21

But if you're still skeptical about the three years you're pointing out, Biggio also got rid of the high leg kick he'd used his entire career prior to that stretch. That change led to better contact and fewer strikeouts. But despite the slight increase in HRs, none of those seasons were in his top five for slugging percentage.

Is it possible that Biggio could have used PEDs during his career? Of course. It's possible for anyone that played in that era because they were so prevalent throughout all of baseball. I just don't think his numbers show much.

Even if you throw out the home run argument against Biggio, he had 700+ plate appearances three times after major knee surgery in his mid-thirties. This includes the very next season. He had 600+ three more times. This just doesn't happen in sports without something aiding the recovery.

Sure. If the stats don't show anything, it has to be his ability to stay healthy and play longer. And, of course, Bagwell was a user because of his injury problems and career being cut short.

Did those guys use? Who knows? But if you spend time trying to incriminate everyone, you're bound to find something.

iBrad said:

---

Sure. If the stats don't show anything, it has to be his ability to stay healthy and play longer. And, of course, Bagwell was a user because of his injury problems and career being cut short.

Did those guys use? Who knows? But if you spend time trying to incriminate everyone, you're bound to find something.

---

I brought up Biggio because astro fans called pudge's homeruns profile into question. Biggio hit over a third of his homeruns after the age of 36. So, if you want to callin pudge's profile into question, then the saame unbiased observer would have to call biggio's profile into question too.

Simply put, had pudge not been a Ranger, astro fans wouldn't be calling his profile onto question.

LeFraud said:

---

iBrad said:

---

Sure. If the stats don't show anything, it has to be his ability to stay healthy and play longer. And, of course, Bagwell was a user because of his injury problems and career being cut short.

Did those guys use? Who knows? But if you spend time trying to incriminate everyone, you're bound to find something.

---

I brought up Biggio because astro fans called pudge's homeruns profile into question. Biggio hit over a third of his homeruns after the age of 36. So, if you want to callin pudge's profile into question, then the saame unbiased observer would have to call biggio's profile into question too.

Simply put, had pudge not been a Ranger, astro fans wouldn't be calling his profile onto question.

---

You realize pudge played for Houston too. He's a fan favorite across the league. Some people can be unbiased.

Biggio changed his swing and started taking advantage of the Crawford boxes. If you had posted any of his home-road splits aside from 2004, you'd have seen that.

Again, removing the strike year and his knee injury season:

YR: Home-Road
93: 8-13
95: 6-16
96: 7-8
97: 7-15
98: 10-10
99: 10-6
01: 10-10
02: 7-8
03: 6-9
04: 13-11
05: 19-7
06: 15-6

I'm not really sure what argument you are trying to make. The stats do show something questionable. He had a career high in home runs at age 38. I was saying that even if you throw out the homerun argument, how do you account for the questionable health and endurance?

hawk1689 said:

---

I'm not really sure what argument you are trying to make. The stats do show something questionable. He had a career high in home runs at age 38. I was saying that even if you throw out the homerun argument, how do you account for the questionable health and endurance?

---

Henry Aaron had a career high number of HRs at age 37 and hit 40 at age 39, I guess Hammerin' Hank was on the 'roids.

HOF vote tracker: http://bit.ly/bbhof2017

Tony massarotti voted to Edgar but not bagwell. Someone explain that one.

Wow...are Rangers fans really suggesting Biggio took PEDs?

Here's his reasoning: http://sports.cbslocal.com/2016/11/23/massarotti-my-votes-for-baseball-hall-of-fame/

Duck Patrol said:

---

Wow...are Rangers fans really suggesting Biggio took PEDs?

---

Think Biggio was mentioned only to counter the weak "Pudge's HR profile screams steroids" argument. Don't care and have no clue if he did. I think it's foolish to declare with certainty that any particular player didn't use in that era. Biggio could have used. Pudge most likely did. I don't think the stats can be used to make a case for either using though.

RetiredAg said:

---

http://sports.cbslocal.com/2016/11/23/massarotti-my-votes-for-baseball-hall-of-fame/

---

The tells me nothing.

Quote:

---

Here's what I can tell you about Manny: he was perhaps the most gifted right-handed hitter I have ever seen, right there with Edgar Martinez (whom I also vote for).

---

Quote:

---

Me? I didn't vote for Piazza, mostly because I regard him as product of the era. I feel the same of Jeff Bagwell. If that sounds terribly vague, it is, and I don't blame you for rolling your eyes or pounding your fist. The real problem with the steroid era was that it tainted everyone, which makes voting a damn-near impossibility. The numbers don't mean anything anymore. Here's his reasoning:

---

Edgar's prime was 92-04.
.319
.431
.548
.978

Bagwell's prime was 94-02.
.304
.425
.581
1.006

Same era & same #s but Bagwell played a position & ran better.

iBrad said:

---

Biggio changed his swing and started taking advantage of the Crawford boxes. If you had posted any of his home-road splits aside from 2004, you'd have seen that.

Again, removing the strike year and his knee injury season:

YR: Home-Road
93: 8-13
95: 6-16
96: 7-8
97: 7-15
98: 10-10
99: 10-6
01: 10-10
02: 7-8
03: 6-9
04: 13-11
05: 19-7
06: 15-6

---

Anyone who really watched him knew this. This is his last season.

I think the number of guys that took PEDs at least once would be astounding. There were obviously different levels of usage and different types of PEDs being used, but where do you draw the line on cheaters? Used once? Used for one season? Used for five or more seasons?

As I said, there's likely already a PED user in the HOF and will likely be more, so why try to pick and choose who may or may not have used? In reality, the group that may have used is all of MLB during that era.

When you start picking apart stats, or focusing on one guy's longevity or another's injury issues, you'll find something to be suspicious about, even though the real suspicion is due to the era, as you can plug stats from other eras into the steroid era and immediately call them into question.

The real failure was on MLB. But why drug test when you've got a home run chase for the ages that's captivating the entire nation? Let's essentially encourage PED use but then punish those guys later. In my opinion, if the stats are in the record book, then they should get those players into the HOF. The most famous players of that era aren't going to be in the Hall of Fame? That's ridiculous.

Agreed. The only ones that know for sure are the players themselves. I certainly wouldn't say with any sense of certainty that (insert player here) was clean in the era. I would imagine many that used weren't necessarily trying to gain an advantage, but we're simply trying to recover from injury.

It's a museum and should reflect all eras, even the unpleasant ones.

Excellent post. I had made a similar comment about the plugging stats from different eras to my wife the other day. Pudge's HR profile is a great example. If you tell me that HR profile is from the 1940's-1950's, then nothing at all looks suspicious about it. But, since it was in the1990's-2000's, people latch onto that one 35 homer season as evidence of PEDs. The entire generation is tainted. As you said, it's ridiculous that some of the absolute greatest players in the history of the game aren't going to make the Hall as a result.

iBrad said:

---

I think the number of guys that took PEDs at least once would be astounding. There were obviously different levels of usage and different types of PEDs being used, but where do you draw the line on cheaters? Used once? Used for one season? Used for five or more seasons?

As I said, there's likely already a PED user in the HOF and will likely be more, so why try to pick and choose who may or may not have used? In reality, the group that may have used is all of MLB during that era.

When you start picking apart stats, or focusing on one guy's longevity or another's injury issues, you'll find something to be suspicious about, even though the real suspicion is due to the era, as you can plug stats from other eras into the steroid era and immediately call them into question.

The real failure was on MLB. But why drug test when you've got a home run chase for the ages that's captivating the entire nation? Let's essentially encourage PED use but then punish those guys later. In my opinion, if the stats are in the record book, then they should get those players into the HOF. The most famous players of that era aren't going to be in the Hall of Fame? That's ridiculous.

---

Well said. Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, McGuire, Manny, Palmeiro should all be in.

LeFraud said:

---

iBrad said:

---

I think the number of guys that took PEDs at least once would be astounding. There were obviously different levels of usage and different types of PEDs being used, but where do you draw the line on cheaters? Used once? Used for one season? Used for five or more seasons?

As I said, there's likely already a PED user in the HOF and will likely be more, so why try to pick and choose who may or may not have used? In reality, the group that may have used is all of MLB during that era.

When you start picking apart stats, or focusing on one guy's longevity or another's injury issues, you'll find something to be suspicious about, even though the real suspicion is due to the era, as you can plug stats from other eras into the steroid era and immediately call them into question.

The real failure was on MLB. But why drug test when you've got a home run chase for the ages that's captivating the entire nation? Let's essentially encourage PED use but then punish those guys later. In my opinion, if the stats are in the record book, then they should get those players into the HOF. The most famous players of that era aren't going to be in the Hall of Fame? That's ridiculous.

---

Well said. Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, McGuire, Manny, Palmeiro should all be in.

---

Yes to Bonds, Clemens and possibly Palmeiro because they had HoF type careers before suspected PED use. IMO McGuire, Manny and Sosa built their HoF credentials because of PEDs.

I think most of the "Biggio did PEDs" is just to get under the skin of the posters making the terrible argument that Pudge's stats somehow show he did PEDs.

If you want to believe Pudge did them that's fine. You can believe any player did them. But it's silly to look at his offensive stats and try and make a case for an obvious spike, as it doesn't exist.

It's also rather silly to continually point at the homeruns in reference to his HOF credentials. Pudge is getting into the Hall not because of his 1999 and 2000 seasons where he hit 35 and 27 homeruns (at age 27 and 28). He's getting into the Hall because he was one of the greatest defensive catchers in the history of the game.

Take his homerun-spike years of 1999 and 2000 off his resume and he'd still be a lock for the Hall.