On Miles, Ankiel and the Hall
I was working on this blog when news came around dinnertime that the Cubs had traded Aaron Miles, Jake Fox and cash to the A’s. It’s a cut-your-losses deal for the Cubs as far as Miles is concerned. They had to send the A’s a cool mil, but they point out they save $1.7 mil on the deal.
Miles may have been the worst veteran position player in all of baseball this year, with his line of .185/.224/.242. That’s an OPS of .466. Miles’ OPS-plus was 20. Twenty.
The Cubs were enchanted by Miles’ performance the year before with the Cardinals. Speaking of the Cardinals, there are rumblings that the Cubs also may be interested in St. Louis free-agent outfielder Rick Ankiel.
Those rumblings are a bit premature. The Cubs are merely looking at this point, and they still have to move money. It says here they ought to stay away from Ankiel. Didn’t we go through this “left-hand bat” thing a year ago? Or maybe Larry Rothschild is going to change Ankiel back into a pitcher. Let's see of Ankiel is out there one month from now.
Ankiel’s line with the Cardinals this year was .231/.285/.387 for an OPS of .672. His OPS-plus was 76, and his wOBA (weighted on-base average) was .288 Ankiel had 11 homers and 53 RBI this year. Bill James projects his line at .253/.310/.453 for 2010. That’s an OPS of .763.
Ankiel’s performance this year was essentially replacement-level. One thing the Cubs should have learned, if they’re looking at advanced stats, is that they wasted money on Miles when “replacement-level” players such as Bobby Scales and Andres Blanco came up and did better for a fraction of the cost. Ol' Jake Fox didn't do so bad, either, and I'll miss him personally. I saw him from his first day in big-league camp a few years ago, and he always remained friendly and upbeat.
We’ll talk more with Jim Hendry before heading to Indy Sunday and have more in the paper and right here over the weekend.
On another, important, topic, my Hall of Fame ballot arrived today. This is my eighth year of voting. New names on the ballot this year include Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin. I will consider both carefully. Help me out here. Should Alomar’s spitting incident with an umpire cost him first-ballot votes? It’s one thing I’ll definitely weigh.
Here are guys I’ll either vote for or consider seriously before marking the X:
Alomar
Larkin
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Jack Morris
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
We get a packet of stats and a paragraph on each candidate’s qualifications. The instructions say: “Voting shall be based upon a player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
As big a stats guy as I am, I know that it’s called the Hall of Fame and not the “Hall of Stats.” That’s why I’ve given the nod to Jack Morris in the past while some of my stats friends have said he doesn’t quite measure up based on the stats. I’ve talked with players who played with and against Morris, and they say he belongs. Blyleven had 287 wins, 242 complete games (think about that for a sec) and the damndest curveball I’ve ever seen. He gets my vote.
I’ll let you know how the ballot turns out.
The Dutchman should have been in on the first ballot, no questions. If he played in Boston, New York or LA he'd be there now. Of course so should have Santo.
On your Alomar question, think you have your answer right there with your stats pkg and descriptors: Integrity & Sportsmanship..... 'nuff said there.
On the names you list? The Hawk without a doubt, Lee Smith for sure. Is there any better 5-tool player AND one with Sportsmanship & Integrity better than Andre Dawson during his era? And as for saves, when saves were still a bit new and there wasn't this "closer", who better in his time than the sweat-man himself Lee Smith. Too bad he did most of his damage as a Red-bird.
And if one can't vote for Jack Morris and especially Bert Blyleven, there's something wrong there. I mean that guy threw CG's like Fergie did for so many years; quite a few of them for the Cubs.
Raines and Larkin will also garner much attention but don't know if they stack up quite high enough to the other guys.
Since this isn't voting for the NFL where any neanderthal can get in as long as his "stats" were good, MLB holds to a higher level. Keep it that way.
Overshadowed by Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines was in my opinion greatest lead-off hitter of the modern era. In Baseball Behind the Number there is a engaging article proving that the break even point for stolen base success rate is somewhere between 63% and 70% based on the era.
Using the 70% figure, that means you need to get 7 stolen bases for every 3 times caught stealing in order to make a positive contribution to your team's offense. The article went on show that Rickey Henderson's 1982 season where he stole 130 bases only contributed a handful of runs to the A's output for the year since he was thrown out 25% of the time.
Here is the carreer SB% of the modern players with more than 600 SBs:
Rickey Henderson - 80%
Lou Brock - 75%
Tim Raines - 84%
Vince Coleman - 80%
Joe Morgan - 80%
Willie Wilson - 83%
Bert Campaneris - 73%
Kenny Lofton - 79%
In his prime with the Expos, Raines was averaging an 89% sucess rate. Henderson averaged 81% during his prime with the A's. Rickey Henderson gets voted in on the first ballot this year and Tim Raines will never make the Hall of Fame which is a total shame.
In the prime of his career during the 1980s Henderson put up monster SB totals averaging 90 SBs a season by stealing bases from the on-deck circle it would seem. Raines put up great numbers during this same time, but averaged only 60 SBs per season. What many fans don’t realize is that every time a runner gets thrown out, he is taking potential runs away from his team. Henderson was averaging a stellar 81% success rate during this period while Raines was at an astonishing 90% clip. At a very high level a base runner on first base has about a 27% chance of scoring and a runner on second base has a 41% chance.
Henderson averaged 90 SBs which gave his team about 13 additional runs (90 SB x (.41 second base value - .27 first base value). Henderson was also thrown out an average of 18 times which actually cost his team about 5 runs (18 x .27 chance of scoring from first) for a total net contribution of 8 incremental runs per year from his base stealing efforts.
Raines averaged 60 SBs which gave his team about 8 additional runs (60 SB x (.41 second base value - .27 first base value). Raines was only thrown out an average of 5 times which cost his team about 1 run (5 x .27 chance of scoring from first) for almost the same net contribution of 7 incremental runs per year.
Both player’s overall career hitting stats are stellar but hard to compare since they both had marginal seasons in the latter part of their career. Raines had an adjusted lifetime 864 OPS while Henderson was at 899 OPS. Henderson played forever so he put up the benchmark numbers in terms of traditional stats to ensure his first ballot status. Yes Rickey Henderson should be a first ballot Hall of Famer, but Raines is right there with him.
Bill James thinks that Tim Raines is the 4th greatest LF ever in the modern era.
1. Ted Williams
2. Stan Musial
3. Yaz
4. Tim Raines
5. Pops Stargell
6. Minnie Minoso
7. Billy Williams
8. Lou Brock
9. Ralph Kiner
10. Jim Rice
That's why he has had my vote and will continue to get it.
A colleague of my father (himself being a general practitioner) use to be the Cubs doctor. So for a few years in the late 1980s my father was invited to attend Spring Training to help out with the routine physicals that all the players go through in Arizona. During the downtime, he got to interact with the players and get to know them. Two stories always stuck out in my memory. In '87 or '88 my dad was playing cards with a young pitcher who's turn to pitch was the following day. He had read through the tea leaves that if he continued to struggle he was sure to be sent back down on that AAA shuttle to start the season. He was so nervous and jittery about performing well his next outing that it really made an impression on my father. That young man's name: Greg Maddux.
The other story happened in 1988. My father got word towards the end of the spring that a young player was gonna make the team and go north for opening day when nobody had expected him to stick at the start of ST. The only problem was that this kid had not expected it as well -- so he had no place to stay in Chicago! My dad -- being the midwestern gentleman that he is -- graciously offered our home until he had a chance to find his own. I remember hearing my father on the phone trying to convince my mother to allow us to have a random stranger stay at our house for a few weeks if not months.
"Honey, this will be great for the boys (My twin and I were 7, with an older brother at 9), and trust me, this kid is gonna be GREAT!"
Eventually, my mother relented and we were all set to have this guy stay with us. At the last minute the hitting coach volunteered his place -- probably a better situation anyway since I was even more obsessed with baseball then -- and he went to live there instead. This kid's name: Mark Grace.
Now the reason I mention these stories on this thread is as follows: Has there been a recent (80s/90s) player would have benefited and been praised and appreciated more had he played today than Mark Grace? I accept that he's probably not HOF-worthy, but he was completely overshadowed by similar players who were just a touch better (John Olerud, Cub-Killer Will Clark, and ironically Rafael Palmero), and then swallowed up by the power 1B of the late 1990s. Imagine the appreciation we'd have of Grace now that we accept the value of OBP/OPS, WAR, VORP, UZR, etc. This man was a doubles and walks machine, with just enough pop, and a great glove. He led the decade in hits. His OBP was always near or above .400. His OPS+ was 119. He never had more than 54ks; and never less than 48BB (in his full seasons). Is there any doubt that he would be manning first base and batting second while on a 5 year/75 million contract with a team like the Red Sox if he played right now?
If Grace played today that's who he'd be. A great guy that people liked to have on their team. The Cubs should have kept Palmeiro at first base. Yes, I'm bitter.
You should be thankful that Gracie didn't get to stay at your house. You boys would have been drinking before you reached double digits in age!!
Although both were under-appreciated, Grace was even better. Casey's OBP was 20 points lower, he was much slower, and he was only average as a defensive player. Although he did put up some "powerful" years, Casey was more of a singles hitter over the span of his career -- when you discount his explosion during the possible "juiced ball" seasons and the opening of the Great American Smallpark. Look where he ended up though -- the Red Sox! It's funny if you think about it: Casey's most admirable quality -- his kind, affable personality -- might have worked against him in the eyes of the baseball community. When people thought of him, they thought of him as the big goofy nice guy - The Mayor. Maybe being known so well for that overshadowed the fact that he was actually really good, valuable ballplayer.
So So So So hard to make the destinction between Good and Great. Baseball by far the most difficult to decide on. Especially with all the stats and the longevity of all the star players.
Alomar - YES - Only SURE THING among this group. much like Ripken, and Sandburg, redefined the role of a middle infielder in baseball
Raines is in I think just because he was one of the best pure leadoff hitters ever. SB machine. But if you are gonna punish McGwire for steroids (which weren't illegal in baseball mind you) are you going to forget that Raines was a coke head and even had it in his back pocket sliding into 2nd base? I vote Yes, he's in. Rick James would agree
McGwire - YES. He hit more HR's than other roiders, and was hitting homers off pitchers on roids. Dont' forget his sweet rookie year either.
No on the others - would really like Dawson in, but if I had a vote, not sure i could do it. Other guys were all solid players, but can't call them great. Tough call Bruce, good luck.
NO,NO,NO,NO,NO on Ankiel - rather have Zambrano out there 4 out of 5 days, maybe he'd get in shape and it would be way more entertaining
Before people start putting Tim Raines in the HOF and leaving Mark McGwire out because of 'alleged' steroid use let's keep this in mind:
"Raines performance dipped in 1982, as he hit .277 with a .353 on base percentage. At the end of the season, Raines entered treatment for substance abuse, having spent an estimated $40,000 that year on cocaine. To avoid leaving the drug in his locker, Raines carried it in his hip pocket, and slid headfirst when running the bases. He used cocaine before games, in his car, after games, and on some occasions, between innings in the clubhouse. Raines would later testify at the infamous Pittsburgh drug trials, in September, 1985."
Personally, I don't think either are HOF material but if you are keeping McGwire out for what he allegedly did then isn't Raines an automatic no?
SI Article in 1969.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082543/index...
"cheating" has been going on forever. we only care now cuz the home run record was at stake.
it doesn't matter to them, some folks it matters a lot. There were some people who posted on here putting Raines 'in' and McGwire 'out' because of 'alleged steroid use'. I was just pointing out that Raines had major, if not worse, issues.
Just spreading the knowledge....i don't think either guy gets in even on stats.
Was hoping HOF would come up!
Alomar: In. The umpire he spit on, Hirschbeck I think? Has forgiven him and they've actually become close over the years. If the ump can forgive him, the BBWAA should too.
As for precedent, Ty Cobb got more votes than Babe Ruth in the inaugural voting. We all know about Cobb's integrity and sportsmanship, yet he still gets more votes than the Babe?!?
Alomar > Sandberg. And its not really close for me.
Jack Morris: absolutely, 100%, no chance! ERA+ 105?!? That's Jamie Moyer territory. Basically if Moyer throws a masterpiece in the WS he'd be in?
Dawson: again, nope. He's basically Alfonso Soriano offensively. He didn't deserve his MVP (although he probably should've had one in Montreal). 323 OBP means he was great at making outs. That includes SIX prime seasons of below 310 OBP. He barely had a 300 OBP over the last 2000 at bats of his career.
McGwire: In.
Do I think he did steroids? Yes. Is there proof? No. Did he make an ass of himself in Congress? Yes. Was Andro illegal in baseball when it was found in his locker? No. Does anyone remember the drug abuse in the 60's and 70's? Doesn't seem like it.
History will dictate McGwire's legend. We'll know more in 5 years than we know now, and we'll know more in 20 years than we'll know in 5. But based on baseball playing ability, he is in.
Raines: Don't know which is worse, Raines of Blyleven. Both should be locks.
Blyleven/Trammell/Larkin should all be IN.
Fred McGriff and Edgar Martinez deserve some studying.
Alomar - next year
Larkin - yes
Bert Blyleven- YES
Andre Dawson - no
Jack Morris - no
Mark McGwire - waffle
Tim Raines - waffle
Lee Smith - better than Sutter imo - waffle
Alan Trammell - yes
I'm a Cubs fan, but I have to be honest and say Andre is close, Smith is closer, but if Santo has had to wait 35 years, they can wait too!
Chris D. If in your opinion you think Lee Smith is better than Bruce Sutter, I would keep my opinion to myself in the future. Sutter was so much better than Smith, they don't even belong in the same picture.
Smith should never be in the HOF, and Sutter should have been in first ballot if there wasn't prejudice against relievers.
I just can't give them the credit they *might* deserve. For one, how does a reliever become a reliever? Usually by not being good enough to start.
Sutter and Smith threw less than 1100 innings and less than 1300 innings respectively. Would anyone seriously take either of those guys over nearly 5000 innings of Blyleven?
Heck, Dan Quisenberry was a better pitcher than both Smith and Sutter, just didn't have the all important "save". Robb Nenn and John Wetteland only threw 800 or so innings. 200 innings make THAT big of a differenece yet the 3000+ they don't throw as a starter isn't thought about?
Bruce- really appreciate the points about replacement level, as well as the general use of advanced stats to show what a terrible idea Rick Ankiel is- the Cubs already have that player, his name is Tyler Colvin. I just hope they go with something better for CF.
When Ricketts said he wanted the Cubs to be like the Red Sox, I was hoping that included statistical analysis. I'm afraid it just means a big market team with an old, famous stadium. As you pointed out, their evaluation of Miles (no relation I assume?) show that they're not quite up to speed on some sabermetric concepts just yet. I'll give them a couple years.
Regarding the Hall,
In: Blylevin, Raines, Trammel, Smith, Alomar. I don't understand the first ballot thing; as a writer you probably know more about it. To me, if a player is a HOFer, then he is one and you vote for him the first time unless you use up all your "X's" on better players first. When Greg Maddux comes up and people don't vote for him simply to preserve the alleged sanctity of the first ballot, I think those voters should lose their ballots for a complete failure in talent evaluation. Just my opinion.
Borderline: Larkin, Dawson, McGuire. There are better players than these who aren't in and worse ones who are. McGuire's numbers really are borderline, and the steroid accusations don't bother me because we don't punish Ruth for only paying against the best white players, or any of the guys from the greenies era. Cheating is not right, but the game has never been as pure as we wish it had.
Out: Morris. Numbers just aren't good enough. Other players don't get in just for having great WS performances. Matsui's not gettting in.
I always felt that if you believed a guy was a Hall of Famer, you voted for him the first time his name appeared on the ballot. I've done that with Rickey Henderson and Ryne Sandberg and Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn and probably others.
Here's where it gets a little tricky for me. If a player has the numbers but has done something egregious, such as corking his bat or spitting at an umpire, should that cost him first-ballot consideration? I don't know yet, but I'm wrestling with that question as far as Alomar is concerned. Maddux will have my first-ballot vote. Should a guy like Alomar enjoy the same status?
On the spitting issue. I can see why you're struggling with it. Obviously it was an egregious act, but it was also one second out of a long career and in the heat of the moment.
and obviously I haven't thought nearly as much about it as you, given that you have a vote. I appreciate your transparency regarding your thinking on your HOF ballot- not all writers do that (or several other things you do like respond to questions on blog posts or occasionally vist/link other cubs blogs). Keep up the great work.
I know some people think its even MORE of an honor to be a 1st time inductee, but by not voting for him, don't you risk what happened to Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, and numerous others by having the guy fall off the ballot without a second chance?
**Edit**
And where to draw the line on determining a 1st ballot HOF'er? Found this in a Jim Caple article, on who voted (or didn't vote) for who:
"...Rickey Henderson (and 28 people did not), Tom Seaver (five did not), Willie Mays (23 did not) or Hank Aaron (nine did not)..."
If the guy's a HOF'er, he's a HOF'er. The voters shouldn't determine WHEN they get in, just IF they get in. And if they're not good enough to get in their first year of eligibility, then what makes them more eligible in year 2? Year 10?
Until they perform no one knows if this is "junk for junk".
How did Baseball America rate Theroit, Marmol and Wells. Didn't they rate Patterson & Pie
high. Happy to get rid of Heilman & Miles. I consider Marlon Byrd and Ankeil JUNK, HOPE
THE CUBS DON'T OBTAIN EITHER OR BOTH.
Did Baseball America the players the White Sox got in trades and pickups, Jenks,Danks,Floyd or even Thornton high ? Did Henry do a lousy job of obtaining Lilly, Dempster, Jeff Baker,and perhaps Harden & Kill to a lesser extent.
Trouble with all of us is we want established players with a previous record in all sports.
I don't mind the rule some writers have about not voting for anybody in their first year - as long as they make exceptions for guys like Tony Gwynn. Sorry, Roberto.
I don't like the idea of leaving a guy off your first ballot when you fully intend on voting for him the next year. There's a legit integrity/sportsmanship question, but it was a one time incident and most players have one or more instances where they weren't displaying great sportsmanship.
Ankiel is a horrible option. He had a big splash when he first started hitting, but he's never played a full season and the more people saw him the easier it was to get him out. He doesn't have the excuse of a youth either.
The Cubs need to realize that their infatuation is lefties is leaving them in need of right handers. Fukudome is a lefty that can't hit lefties and needs to be replaced with regularity. We have no idea who is going to play center, but if it's Granderson, he can't hit lefties. They've got Hoffpauier and Fuld as backups who are both lefties, the closest to the majors minor leaguer is Colvin, a lefty. It wasn't too many years ago when this teams' biggest weakness was facing lefties. They need to have more guys who can hit both left handed and right handed pitching, and focus less on which side of the plate their batters stand on.
Bruce - Has Hendry kicked the tires on David DeJesus? rumors have him being available and he played a nice CF in 2008 plus is a solid lead-off guy. He's also a lefty, so that's a bonus. Not sure what a starting price tag would be, but I'd think it would be considerably less than Granderson's for a guy who could fill two needs.
There had been some lukewarm interest in the past, especially when everybody thought the Cubs were going after Teahen, but there hasn't been anything serious with the Cubs on DeJesus of late.
DAWSON: YES, BLYLEVEN: YES, MARK MC STEROID: NEVER
There is no integrity in spitting in another man's face.
There is no sportsmanship in spitting in another man's face.
A man who spits in another man's face is of dubious character.
Three strikes and you're out.
First ballot HOF'er NO.
Next year, YES, based on everything else.
As a middle infielder growing up when Sandberg was past his prime and Alomar covered nearly all the ground in between first and second base, I say Alomar is in. Historically I don't know if fielding a ground ball while sliding and then popping up immediately to throw was around before Alomar but he certainly perfected that. The guy was a smooth fielder and he was dangerous with the bat. I doubt he makes it on the first vote because of the spitting incident but the guy could play the game. Maybe the fact that the Alomar Family as a whole seem to be good people will help him out.
I think Blyleven might be the only other guy that I'd vote for at this point. Larkin shouldn't be in before Sandberg was so he'd definitely not first ballot material. Morris is close but I'd have to do some more research before giving him a vote.
The most I would pay Ankiel is $3.5 million for two years. I don't think that's enough to get it done but it would be interesting to see him try to blast balls out of Wrigley for two seasons. He takes quite circuitous routes to the ball while playing CF so he's not that high on my list of players that the Cubs need right now. I think they just threw his name out there to lower the price they will pay to Byrd.
Bruce - Please tell me there isn't any truth to the Vincent Padilla to the Cubs rumor???
I covered this briefly on one of the previous blogs. The Cubs have not even thought about him. There's not a shred of truth to this rumor. Don't worry.
Alomar - in
Larkin - out
Blyleven - in
Dawson - out
Morris - in
McGuire - out
Raines - in
Smith - in
Trammell - out
My two cents:
Alomar: Yes, spitting be damned. He along with Sandberg, Kent, and Biggio set the standard for 2B in the 80s - 90s. IN.
Larkin: Impressive numbers -- and then you remember he's a SS. IN.
Blyleven: Hate the whole <300 argument. IN.
Dawson: His OBP kills me. OUT.
Morris: People get caught up on his WS starts too much. OUT (but if there was a Game 7 played in the 80s/early 90s you'd feel all the confidence in the world with him on the hill.)
McGwire: OUT. Many reasons, sorry.
Raines: The Blyleven/Raines/Santo omissions are embarassing. IN.
Smith: IN. One of the most feared pitchers. Helped redefine closer role.
Trammell: Feel the same way about him that I feel about Larkin. Impressive stats, but then put over the top when you remember he was a great SS. IN.
Thanks Bruce for sharing the process with us.