Hall of Fame Center Fielders: Where Does Kirby Puckett Fit?
by Jesse on Feb 20, 2012 11:24 PM EST
in By the Numbers
Email
Print
A number of weeks ago I made a comment on a post, now forgotten, where I wondered aloud whether Kirby Puckett really was a Hall of Fame center fielder. It was a question I'd been mulling over for some time, without ever really checking numbers or knowing how a center fielder would be qualified for the Hall. Naturally, it got me to thinking.
Below is a chart of 17 of the 20 Hall of Famers who are officially listed as center fielders. Unfortunately, the numbers for Negro League center fielders Cool Papa Bell, Turkey Stearns, and Cristobal Torriente aren't yet accounted for at baseball-reference.com, who are still in the process of getting Negro League career statistics loaded. But we do still have 17, and we can work with what we've got.
Where's Puckett? Take a look. We'll go into more detail after the jump.
Looking through that list of names, you're getting some of the most iconic names in the history of the game. A couple of all-time great Yankees, plus Cobb and Mays who are head and shoulders above the rest of the competition, and a few of these other guys were teammates, too. Two Hall of Famers in the same outfield? That's not bad.
Puckett, in a vacuum, is outstanding. His career triple slash is .318/.360/.477, and per 162 games averaged 19 home runs and 38 doubles, 99 RBI, 97 runs, and for a guy who packed a bit of punch didn't really strike out too often. Although he wasn't ever really walk happy, either. He led the American League in hits four times, RBI once, batting average once, finished third in Rookie of the Year voting in 1984, garnered MVP votes the next season, and for every year after that for the rest of his career was an All Star.
That's right. For those who don't remember or are too young to know, Puckett made ten consecutive All Star rosters to end his career. On top of that he picked up six silver sluggers, six Gold Gloves, garnered MVP votes nine times and finished in the top seven on seven occasions, including back-to-back third place finishes in '87 and '88, and a second place finish in '92.
And then there are the two championship rings. Puckett hit .309/.361/.536 in the post-season, but is best remembered for his catch against the plexi glass and game-winning home run in game six of the '91 World Series. I don't think championships are a prerequisit for greatness, but they certainly don't hurt someone's case.
All of that is astounding. Puckett was a special player who always seemed to represent the game well while he played. He was a great story, making his way to the Majors from humble beginnings in Chicago. He always had a smile on his face, and had an infectious personality. Baseball loved him. In Minnesota, he was a hero.
In light of all that evidence, it can be difficult to argue against Puckett. But the chart above isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of his accomlishments. Baseball Reference believes his defensive value wasn't as great as those Gold Gloves might imply. And then there are the career totals: 2304 hits, 207 home runs, 1085 RBI. The .837 career OPS is good, but it isn't great.
At the time of Puckett's election into the Hall of Fame, some wondered if he reached that iconic status because of what people believed he would have accomplished had glaucoma not prematurely ended his career. There are two ways to look at this. First, as true: in his final season, 1995, Puckett hit .314/.379/.515 in 137 games. That's not a guy who's a few swings from retirement. Second, as inconsequential: Puckett would have been in his age-36 season in '96, and was too far away from the 3000 hit or 300 home run plateaus to have reached them anytime soon. Certainly Puck could have played until he was 40, but even at his current rate of production wouldn't have reached milestones by that benchmark age.
Below I'll list the data for the graph above. Ultimately, my personal conclusion is that, yes, Puckett does belong in the Hall of Fame. While his cumulative value is at the lower end of the spectrum for center fielders, from his awards and accomplishments throughout his career and his special place in the baseball community, to his post-season heroics and standing among the Minnesota faithful, he's in. For me.
It's all so subjective. That's part of what makes All Star game voting and the Hall of Fame debates so frustrating. Of course, it also makes for something to talk about. And when it comes to sports, talking about it can be just as much fun as watching.
| Player |
Career |
Off WAR |
Def WAR |
Career WAR |
| Ty Cobb |
1905 - 1928 |
156.0 |
3.4 |
159.4 |
| Willie Mays |
1951 - 1952 |
136.2 |
18.5 |
154.7 |
| Tris Speaker |
1907 - 1928 |
122.0 |
11.0 |
133.0 |
| Mickey Mantle |
1951 - 1968 |
122.1 |
-1.9 |
120.2 |
| Joe DiMaggio |
1936 - 1942 |
78.9 |
4.7 |
83.6 |
| Billy Hamilton |
1888 - 1901 |
68.7 |
0.9 |
69.6 |
| Duke Snider |
1947 - 1964 |
69.6 |
-2.1 |
67.5 |
| Richie Ashburn |
1948 - 1962 |
51.1 |
6.9 |
58.0 |
| Max Carey |
1910 - 1929 |
42.7 |
7.9 |
50.6 |
| Hugh Duffy |
1888 - 1901 |
44.6 |
5.0 |
49.6 |
| Larry Doby |
1947 - 1959 |
45.8 |
1.6 |
47.4 |
| Edd Roush |
1913 - 1929, |
46.7 |
-0.2 |
46.5 |
| Earl Averill |
1929 - 1941 |
49.0 |
-4.0 |
45.0 |
| Kirby Puckett |
1984 - 1995 |
46.6 |
-1.8 |
44.8 |
| Earle Combs |
1924 - 1935 |
43.7 |
1.0 |
44.7 |
| Hack Wilson |
1923 - 1934 |
42.3 |
-3.2 |
39.1 |
| Lloyd Waner |
1927 - 1942 |
22.9 |
1.4 |
24.3 |
98 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My conclusion is also yes
However its not a resounding “Yes!”
His career totals, while great, don’t really blow you away: 2304 hits, 207 homers, and 1085 RBI. From that perspective he’s probably one of those “on the fence” guys. On Bill James’s Hall of Fame standards (where 50 is an average HOFer) he gets a 39.
What pushes him over the fence for me is a combination of his All-Star games, MVP votes and his two championships.
"Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona." ~George F. Will
I hate that statue of Puckett. It makes him look like a zombified King Kong.
by Brady Eyestone on Feb 21, 2012 12:56 AM EST reply actions
It was the defining moment of his career
But it was probably the only time in his career that he pumped his fist. I would have preferred the catch.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Yeah. Even in the video of it, it doesn't look THAT much like Puck
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
No matter how you look at it, Puck deserves to be in
Care for writers opinion? He finished in the top 7 of MVP 7x in 12 years, which is remarkable considering he was on some bad teams and the BBWAA put him in on the first ballot, so clearly that group had no problem with him.
Care about manager’s perception of him? Puckett had 6 gold gloves and 6 silver sluggers (the most of any OF) when he retired. Only a handful of OF have received 12 or more of those two awards. So clearly, baseball managers thought he was among the best OFers while he was playing.
Fans? He made 10 all star teams and was voted in as a starter 6×. So the majority of his career, the fans thought he was an all star.
Statheads? When he retired, Bill James had him the 7th best CF of all time, behind Cobb, Mays, Mantle, Snider, DiMaggio and Speaker. So Bill James thinks he’s a HOFer.
Historical accomplishments? He reached 2000 hits faster than anyone in 100 years. His .318 batting avg was the highest of anyone since DiMaggio. And, of course, he was a pretty important part of two world series.
I always thought Pucks election was a high point by the voters. People always complain that the voters need benchmarks but here they made a solid choice based on the career that actually happened instead of waiting for someone to stick around and compile more numbers.
I agree he deserves to be in,
but “no matter how you look at it” isn’t accurate. There are legitimate arguments against his candidacy.
Ultimately, for me, yeah – he deserves to be in. But it’s not so open-and-shut.
Statheads <> Bill James
I would say the general consensus of statheads is that he does not belong
"Pinch-bunters don't have a ton of value, even with the Twins"
by Steven Ellingson on Feb 21, 2012 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
It ends up being a moot point
Most of the guys on the bottom of the list have short careers (Averill, Coombs, Doby). He’ll improve relative to Roush. LWaner will stink even more. Duffy’s a 19th century guy and the seasons used to be shorter.
Kirby really only outstrips the bottom of the list Veterans Committee guys, who many think are dubious inductees.
Going by bWAR above:
Kirby: 3.73
Mays: 7.03, including major decline years
Mantle: 6.68, including major decline years
Duke: 3.75, including major decline years
Ashburn: 3.87 (had to wait for VC, includes decline)
by tobynotjason on Feb 21, 2012 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
I always liked the Averill comparison
This is not a forum for objectivity on this topic (and I’m not saying it should be) but guys like Puckett have been inducted before.
I'd welcome a bit of objectivity.
And yes, guys like Puck certainly have been voted in before. I certainly don’t think it’s some kind of travesty that he’s made it. But I would concede that maybe it’s not the clear-cut case that some make it out to be.
I do think that, had he not made it in when he did, it may have become harder for him.
He's certainly in that area where some are inducted and some are not
As Puckett fans, we’ll cite the All-star games and how many times he started, the Gold Gloves, the hit totals, the World Series heroics and the fact that his career-ending injury was so sudden and freakish. We’ll also cite the fact that there was a shortage of CF’s between Mays and Griffey.
Skeptics, those overcompensating for homerism, or those who want their Twins in the HOF to be “extra-qualified”. Those people will note that “hits”, GG’s and AS’s are often cited as “overrated” metrics when applied to other teams players. Is he any better than Reggie Smith or Jimmy Wynn or Jim Edmonds? Does Puckett’s “injury” really count more than Tony Oliva’s. Fred Lynn’s career was slowly held back by injuries over a long period of time and he has roughly the same career WAR. Had Lynn maintained a high level of play through the early 80s and then had his career abruptly end would we think of him differently?
Are there worse players in the HOF? Yes. Are there better players not in the HOF? Yes.
We’ve had this discussion here several times before. Its tough to have this discussion on this forum because the board is so delightfully partisan (and I mean that in a good way). If I want a rational view on the matter, I’ll find a similar thread in a neutral forum.
Good stuff
You might want to add Sam Rice to the list (former Senator, 1915-1934) Started his career as CF then moved to RF in his 30s. 51.1 total WAR, 45.4 oWAR and 5.7 dWAR.
Well, he started only 551 games in CF, compared to 1335 in right.
And he’s not in the Hall as a center fielder, either, which excludes him from this list.
Very, very good player, though. Interesting story, too, considering he racked up that much value in MLB mostly in his 30s.
Yeah, "moved to RF in his 30s" is misleading
He was a late-bloomer and missed almost all of one season due to WWI, so he really only played two years before age 30.
Was CF, moved to RF
If you’re looking for guys like that you need to also consider Jimmy Wynn, Andre Dawson, Reggie Smith and Indian Bob Johnson.
Why Puckett really doesn't compare to Doby, Averill or Edd Roush
Larry Doby spent quite a bit of his career playing in the Negro Leagues (5 seasons). Add that production to his totals and he moves up the list.
Earl Averill was stuck in the Pacific Coast League until he was 27 years old in an era where the PCL was not affiliated and players had to be bought out of the league by the major league ballclubs. There’s as much as 4 extra years worth of value for him that is missing in WAR.
Edd Roush played in the Federal League because he could make more money than he could after he was sent back to the minors by the White Sox. This was a repeating pattern of holding out for more money and he missed other games due to contract disputes. He also missed the end of one season because his father had been injured in an accident. All these missing games also mean a WAR analysis of his talent is incomplete.
Move those guys up and Puckett only ranks higher than two guys who really shouldn’t be there – Combs and Hack Wilson.
The problem isn’t that Puckett wasn’t a great player or a great CF. It’s that if the door to the Hall of Fame is open for him you have to also have it open for Dale Murphy, Bernie Williams, Kenny Lofton, Steve Finley, Willie Davis and Jose Cruz.
I know why you give Averill and Roush credit for those things
That’s an HOM thing. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but not everyone does that type of thing.
In a forum such as this one where “would have gotten to 3000 hits had he not gotten glaucoma” arguments are not uncommon, its hard to say Puckett shouldn’t get credit for that when Roush and Averill are getting extra credit for being in contract disputes and being stuck in the PCL.
"Stuck in the PCL" is quite a bit different
I’m with you on the contract holdouts for Edd Roush. Not playing baseball shouldn’t get you any credit.
Earl Averill was playing baseball in the highest league available to him. He was born on the west coast so it is natural that his first pro ball was in the PCL. Like Lefty Grove, he was under contract and couldn’t go to the big leagues until someone bought out the contract. I’m not going to give him any extra credit for stuff like this:
“During a July 1 incident in 1935, Averill was lighting firecrackers with his four children as part of a pre-4 July celebration. One exploded while he was holding it, and he suffered lacerations on the fingers of his right hand, as well as burns on his face and chest. After several weeks, he made a full recovery.”
Agree.
It’s the “national baseball” hall of fame, not the MLB hall of fame.
by tobynotjason on Feb 21, 2012 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
Wow.
I had not looked, but Williams career wRC+ (including decline, obviously, so throw in a glaucoma retirement and it’s higher) was 125 while Puckett’s was 122.
I think it’s a case of the counting numbers actually working in Puckett’s favor, since he was a swing-first guy and racked up hit numbers whereas Williams had a fantastic 11.8% career walk rate from which he derived much of his shockingly consistent value.
I think that’s why Puckett got in in the first place: the “would’ve had 3000 but…” argument has real traction with the geniuses that vote for HOF, since they LOVE milestones. The fact that his career OBP is (only) .360 (and Williams is .381) perversely helped him when it comes to perception, which will take decades (if it ever does) to truly internalize (on an emotional level) the value of walking.
You could make a slight argument regarding peak: Williams had a peak fWAR of 6.7 and five more seasons of 5+, whereas Kirby’s 1988 was worth 7.7 fWAR and his 1992 6.4 (and his 1986 5.7, plus 1987 looks fantastic on paper when you forget about the one-year juiced ball, which many do pre-90s/00s).
FWIW Kirby appears to rank a mere 355th in career wRC+ out of “qualified” players, which is particularly bad when you consider he didn’t get to have his career numbers dragged down by decline. (Obviously most guys above him weren’t center fielders, but outside of the squishy Veterans Committee guys he really wasn’t in the class of the other HOF CFers – certainly 1st ballot is weird [if you allow that the entire “wait to admit a guy thing” isn’t riciculous anyway.)
by tobynotjason on Feb 21, 2012 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
the way I look at it, is...
if you had to have one of: Dale Murphy, Bernie Williams, Kenny Lofton, Steve Finley, Willie Davis and Jose Cruz. on your team… factoring in stats, leadership, on field, and off field issues, would you rather have any of them over Puckett?
Maybe it’s just because Puck was baseball for as a kid, but while all those players are great, I would still have Puckett on my team over any of them
REPORTER: What do you think is happening to the team?
MICHAEL RAY RICHARDSON: The ship be sinking.
REPORTER: How far can it sink?
MICHAEL RAY RICHARDSON: Sky's the limit.
Bernie has more rings
Dale Murphy was probably the best at his peak. I think it comes down to which team you rooted for. The Indians fan will pick Lofton, Yankees fan Bernie, etc.
put it this way
an unbiased fan, of that list, if they could have 1 player to start their team with, who would they choose?
REPORTER: What do you think is happening to the team?
MICHAEL RAY RICHARDSON: The ship be sinking.
REPORTER: How far can it sink?
MICHAEL RAY RICHARDSON: Sky's the limit.
If I can have their whole career?
I’ll take Lofton.
If I take their best 5 seasons? Murphy.
If I need a HR in Game 6 – Kirby.
by DJL44 on Feb 21, 2012 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
You can add Jim Edmonds to the list
"Pinch-bunters don't have a ton of value, even with the Twins"
by Steven Ellingson on Feb 21, 2012 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
Glaucoma
If you’re going to be strict about how careers end due to injury, fine. Kirby doesn’t belong. You win. But most voters took his glaucoma into account. It is one of the few things that can end a career overnight. Most careers at least have a fade away period where the player is not the best version of himself, but he can still contribute to a team. Tony O is an example of that. Kirby had his career taken away overnight. Voters recognized that as a special case.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
He needed at least 5 more seasons to get to 3000 hits
It was hardly a lock. I’m not sure why people thought it was. In his final 2 seasons he averaged 155 hits / season. He needed 700 more. He wasn’t going to get more durable ages 36-40.
People liked Kirby Puckett. He got some sympathy in the voting for the way his career ended. People wanted to give something back for the happiness he had given them. The other Hall of Fame ballplayers enjoyed hanging out with him. He was a popular guy and the voting isn’t all about statistical value. All I’m saying is there are a bunch of other guys with arguments as good as Kirby’s that are on the outside looking in. Bernie (545PA in the postseason 850 OPS) just barely stayed on the ballot this year. Dale Murphy (who was a pretty good role model) hasn’t broken 25%.
His last 2 years were strike years
139H in 113 team games → 199H in 162 team games
169H in 144 team games → 190H in 162 team games
So that’s a pace of ~194 and seasons resumed being 162 G in 1996. He was still going strong. Batting average within a few points of his career numbers. OPS+ was a few points above even.
But you’re right, anything can happen. Al Oliver was ahead of Kirby’s hit pace at his age and actually led the league in hits in his age 35 and had 184 hits at age 36 and then he just hit a wall and finished a couple of hundred hits short.
I missed that, sorry
Whoops. Still, we’re talking about 4 years of no missed time from ages 36-39. Al Oliver is very relevant to the discussion.
"In his final 2 seasons he averaged 155 hits / season."
Boy, talk about misusing stats! Kirby’s last 2 seasons were 1994 and 1995, strike-shortened years. The Twins played 113 games (Puckett 108) in ’94, and 144 games (Puckett 137) in ’95.
94 & 95 were in the offensive boom
He would have enjoyed the high-offense years of the rest of the late 90s, though
The boom happened...
as soon as the strike was over and it was for the one reason that can cause an immediate offensive boom: the ball changed.
Everybody didn’t start using steroids at the exact same time, and everybody using steroids wasn’t a hitter.
Similiarly, everybody didn’t start using steroids at the beginning of the 1987 season, stop at the end, and resume in 1994. There’s a much more reasonable explanation for the significant and abrupt shifts in ISO throughout baseball than lockstep adherence by hundreds of players to a league-wide roidification/de-roidification policy. Change the ball, change the game.
by tobynotjason on Feb 23, 2012 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
AL runs per game in Puckett's career
1984 – 4.42
1985 – 4.56
1986 – 4.61
1987 – 4.90
1988 – 4.36
1989 – 4.29
1990 – 4.30
1991 – 4.49
1992 – 4.32
1993 – 4.71
1994 – 5.23
strike
1995 – 5.06
puckett retires
1996 – 5.39
1997 – 4.93
1998 – 5.01
1999 – 5.18
… just because I felt like looking it up
How do you calculate defensive WAR when we didn't have data back in the day?
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
It switches to a different algorithm
There’s still G, PO, A, E data.
I don’t think its as accurate or perhaps not even calibrated to the same scale but it can still tell that Speaker is good and Wilson is bad.
Total Zone - inferential. It seems very good if you're looking at long enough samples.
There’s a new book out called Wizardry: Baseball’s Greatest All-Time Fielders Revealed by Michael Humphreys that I really want to check out that does something similar.
by tobynotjason on Feb 21, 2012 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think dWAR calculates well pre stat-head.
And I think that may be hurting Kirby to an extent because after the first few years of people getting gunned out by Puckett from CF (despite his playing deep), people stopped trying to run on his arm almost completely.
by Shawn Gillogly on Feb 22, 2012 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
Most defensive metrics account for runners not even trying to take the extra base.
I’m not sure about Total Zone pre-zone data, though, although I know they had some from project scoresheet. Range is so much more important than arm, anyway, and with a career’s worth of data you can be pretty confident in Total Zone or DRA (Humphreys’s new one).
by tobynotjason on Feb 23, 2012 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
I wonder where Ken Griffey Jr would fit onto this list.
Too lazy to look it up. My instincts say right behind Willie Mays since he was basically Willie Mays, Part II.
[#2 North Central] Minnesota RollerGirls (1-0) vs [#6 East] Montreal Roller Derby (0-0) - Sat 3/3/2012 in the Roy Wilkins Auditorium, St. Paul MN. mnrollergirls.com
Griffey is right behind DiMaggio
Griffey was nowhere near as good as Willie Mays was through his 30s. Mays was an MVP player until age 37, then he was merely an all-star until age 40. Griffey was dealing with hamstring injuries from age 31 on.
Yeah, if he'd never gotten hurt...
Still, Griffey Jr was easily the best player in baseball for like 5-10 years.
[#2 North Central] Minnesota RollerGirls (1-0) vs [#6 East] Montreal Roller Derby (0-0) - Sat 3/3/2012 in the Roy Wilkins Auditorium, St. Paul MN. mnrollergirls.com
Also, bigger.
Except for that episode of The Simpsons where Griffey drank that tonic (“It feels like there’s a part in my mouth, and everyone’s invited!”) and then his head becamse massive.
Here are the stats to back that up
Mays’s average season in his 30’s:
G………….PA…………AB…………R………….H……….2B…..3B….HR……….RBI………..OPS
148 611 534 104 158 24 4 35 98 .932
Griffey’s:
G………….PA…………AB…………R………….H……….2B…..3B….HR……….RBI………..OPS
110 451 387 59 102 20 1 23 68 .857
"Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona." ~George F. Will
I messed that up pretty badly but... you get the point....
"Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona." ~George F. Will
Fun fact
Via Aaron Gleeman the other day on Twitter: Mike Cameron has a higher career WAR than Kirby Puckett.
For what it’s worth, I think Kirby is one of the lesser players in the Hall, but I’m totally fine with him being there. You have to use a bit of the Jack Morris argument with him (“Forget the newfangled stats – everyone agreed that he was great while he played!”), but he was a valuable player and a pretty iconic representative of his era.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
I don't care if Kirby Puckett is in the Hall of Fame or not.
But as an old-timer, it was fun to read that recap of his career. Thanks, Jesse.
You guys should jump on my back tonight. I'm going to carry us.
Regarding peak...
I just figured I’d mention there’s also a fascinating article regarding estimating peak True Hitting Talent in the THT 2012 annual. (I have no stake in THT, I just knocked the book off in two days and dug this year’s edition as much as I ever have.) Since plenty of people think guys with great peaks should be in as much as guys with counting numbers, I figure I’d mention it, since the true talent estimates it created can serve as a proxy for “best peak performance over more than just a year or two”.
Kirby doesn’t make the top 100, which is all that’s listed, but DiMaggio may well have been one of the 10 best baseball players of all time in terms of his most likely all-around true talent and value at its multi-year apex. He scored a likely True Talent peak of 163 wRC+ in 1939, good for 36th all-time, and throw in nifty centerfield defense and that’s worth enough extra runs vs. most of the guys above him to vault him to right around #10.)
Roush isn’t far behind (wRC+ est. talent of 161 in 1924) and Earl Averill’s 1929 hitting talent is rated the 90th best peak of all time. Duke Snider made #51. (Mantle was 7th, Cobb was 6th.)
Intangibles
I don’t think it’s out of left field (ha!) to say that a big reason Puck was inducted first ballot was his gregarious persona. He loved baseball and Minnesota and in turn, baseball and Minnesota loved him. He was the face of a franchise that won two World Series. He had to quit baseball because of an illness, which adds to the sympathy vote.
Is he a questionable Hall of Famer based on stats alone? Sure. Did he really truly deserve to be a first ballot HOFer based on stats? Probably not. But computers don’t vote for the Hall of Fame — humans do. And, at least prior to 2003, we all loved the guy for symbolizing everything right and good with baseball, and that’s why he got in even without 3000 hits or a career WAR over 50. That stuff matters and it’s why you can support Puckett being in and someone with similar numbers being out. (Incidentally, it’s also why I think Buck O’Neil should have been inducted.)
Does he get inducted if all of the scandal that came out later instead came out before he was HOF eligible? I really don’t know, and to be honest, all of that stuff rocked the foundations of my childhood idolatry in a profound manner. But road tripping to Cooperstown to see his induction ceremony is one of the highlights of my life, so you’re never going to convince me that he shouldn’t be there.
by ColossusOfRhode on Feb 21, 2012 3:53 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really Good.
And Kirby and fame were tight during his playing career. Kirby, Cal, Ozzie, were guys who really made the most of their fame in a way that has gone away so thoroughly that it’s hard to even remember it. Kirby and Ozzie ended up in the Hall for it, when they very well might not have otherwise.
It’s unfortunate but all too common that Kirby didn’t handle the fame so well after his baseball career was over. It’s hard on people.
Another person who has it backwards
The Hall of Fame is bestowing “fame” on worthy players, not recognizing “famous” players with a plaque. You have to look at what “fame” meant when it was opened, not what it means now.
We should just make you the sole proprietor of the HOF
You choose the players, kick guys out who don’t belong, and add deserving guys who were ignored.
Then we'll all breath easier knowing that there are not mistakes int eh HOF designation
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Getting touchy
They’re not voting for the most well known player. That’s never been the purpose.
Straight from the BBWAA election rules, this is what they're voting on
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. (source)
I count six elements, only two, maybe three of which are related to a player’s statistics. None of them are related to fame, but fame in baseball generally goes along with all of these things. If timprov replaced “fame” with “integrity, sportmanship, and character” in his description of Puckett and Smith, would you be more amenable to the argument that there are valid off the field reasons why some borderline cases get elected and some don’t?
by ColossusOfRhode on Feb 22, 2012 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
Well yeah
Especially when NONE of those things means “fame”. I’m fine with sportsmanship, character and integrity being considered. If you’re considering those items I still don’t see how Dale Murphy or Bernie Williams fall behind Puckett. Murphy and Williams both had terrific sportsmanship, character and integrity.
The whole process is flawed
Even if you are as smart as you are claiming about who should or who shouldn’t be in the hall, don’t be so certain that you’re judgement is correct in every case. HOF voters are fallible. But few will argue about a first-ballot guy getting in. Except on this site, when everybody seems to think a first-ballot guy doesn’t deserve to get it.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
At what point did I say Puckett shouldn't be in?
The question ultimately boils down to “How big should the Hall of Fame be?” If you support Kirby Puckett, Bernie Williams, Dale Murphy, Kenny Lofton, Jimmy Wynn, Andre Dawson and Reggie Smith – more power to you.
For the record, I do support Dale Murphy and Andre Dawson
I think Bernie’s overrated, benefiting from the big offense late 90s (and being a New York Yankee). Kenny Lofton to me is a no-brainer though.
But Dawson is being punished for playing on bad teams, IMHO, and Murphy similarly, as he went from being a back-to-back MVP (in an era that didn’t happen), to playing on some of the worst Braves teams of all time, and rarely seeing a hittable pitch. He also suffered from a rapid decline due to a steady spate of injuries (whereas Dawson had injuries that slowed him down, but didn’t make him non-productive, at least).
I think what’s hurt Puckett more than the statistical argument, is the way he personally fell apart after his playing days. When he played, he was largely thought of as a high-character individual, a great team leader, and a sportsman who didn’t even blame the guy who ended his career for the pitch that did it to him. But his post-retirement issues have tarnished a good bit of that to people looking back and including that in their ‘evaluation.’
by Shawn Gillogly on Feb 22, 2012 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
Andre Dawson was elected in 2010
We could play around with this. Yes, there are better players who aren’t in (and aren’t even being considered much). But for whatever reason, guys like Dawson, Puckett, Rice and Perez get inducted for whatever “intangible” reason then we might as well get our guy in. Puckett has a nice collection of intangibles.
That's part of my point
The HOF is not really a numbers game. Sure, there are milestones that virtually guarantee election—3000 hits, 300 wins, etc. But those aren’t required for entry. Otherwise, voters cling to intangibles. It’s a non sequitur to argue about numbers when the voters don’t pay very close attention to them.
Kirby was the face of the franchise for a decade in which they won two world series and he went to the All Star game every year. That was enough intangible evidence for these voters to make him a first-ballot Hall of Famer. It’s good enough for me.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
I actually think its the stats
And how we now judge everyone through the prism of the offensive numbers produced in the steroid era.
So should Puckett be in?
Because Bernie’s career wRC+, which includes his decline years, is higher than Pucketts. In other words, his offense as a whole was more valuable relative to his run environment than Puckett’s, and if you chop off his last couple years for glaucoma he was lucky enough no to get his production looks even better.
by tobynotjason on Feb 23, 2012 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know if they are really comparable
Puckett was the best player on the Twins and Williams was not. I think you could argue that Bernie might not have been as good if he played for a team full bad players or even decent players.
Except, again
There is no transitive property involved. People can and do support some of those guys and not others.
That's hypocritical
For any given year the question is actually “Is this guy one of the top 10 guys on the ballot?”
It's only hypocritical
If ones buys into your false premise that those guys are all equivalent and/or believes that comparable stats in different circumstances make guys into the same player. Neither of those things are true.
The statement " if you take that guy you have to take this guy" is always false.
Some of those guys are BETTER players
If my premise is false, you need to provide a contrary argument that shows your player is clearly a better choice. If not, you’re not actually choosing based on " the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played". It’s just a popularity contest if you ignore the rules which is a worthless exercise.
No, I'm choosing on
" the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played"
You seem to be conflating those things with “a comparison of statistics across time” which is definitely not what those words mean.
I’d argue that it’s just as worthless to simply compare stats. And Kirby’s a case that nicely demonstrates the fallacy. His offensive numbers don’t look like all that much when compared to the steriod era that started right after (or around) when he finished playing. If you only look at stats, you ignore the fact that he was widely recognized as one of if not the best player at his position for his whole career (playing ability). And he won two rings (contributions to the team on which he played). And his stats are darn close (playing ability). And everyone liked and respected him at the time, and he was a major ambassador of the game (integrity, sportsmanship, character).
The guy was elected on the first ballot. It’s pretty crazy for anyone, and especially a Twins fan, to now be arguing that he shouldn’t be in at all, or, conversely that guys who played during the steriod era with slightly better stats but who were not the considered to be among the best while they played have to be in if he is in. It’s a total failure of perspective.
But don’t get me wrong, all of the guys on that list are good candidate, but that Kirby Puckett is in says nothing about whether they should be in.
You can say the same about Dale Murphy
Back to back MVPs. 7 time all-star. Considered one of the best role models in baseball.
> guys who played during the steriod era with slightly better stats
You’re arguing against a strawman here. Murphy and Dawson were contemporaries of Puckett. Reggie Smith played in the 1970s. Jim Wynn played in the 1960s in the Astrodome for chrissakes.
I think you have the “failure of perspective” for having Kirby Puckett tunnel vision. The question has never been “Should Kirby be in?” but instead has always been “Is Puckett the best choice given the alternatives?”. It isn’t a yes-no question with just one name on the ballot. Evaluating the alternatives is necessary to answer the question.
I see how you're confused then
Yes, it is a yes-no question for each guy on the ballot. It’s not “if I vote for this guy, then I have to vote for that guy.” Or “if I vote for this guy, then I can’t vote for that guy.” Nobody isn’t getting in because there aren’t enough possible votes (i.e., my understanding is that the typical writer doesn’t use all ten of his votes in any given year).
As for when guys played, again, you’re missing the point. I’m saying you can’t sum it up by comparing stats from different time periods. You have to judge a guy based on how he stacked up at the time he played (which applies to comparing Kirby’s stats to Wyns as much as it does comparing them to Palmiero). The steriod era is only relevant here to the extent that it warps perceptions of offensive performance from before it’s time.
And even so, Lofton and Williams most definitely from the steroid era.
Puckett is also from the steroid era
He stacked up behind Yount, Griffey, Murphy, Dawson, Henderson, Lofton, Eric Davis, Len Dykstra, Andy Van Slyke and Ron Gant at various times. Kirby Puckett was the “best CF” from about 1986 to 1989 because Griffey showed up in 1990. Murphy gets 1982-1985.
WAR (and wRC+) *DO* rates him to his time period/stadium/peers.
And he just wasn’t (nearly) as good compared to his peers as most 1st ballot, no-doubt-about-it HOFers were compared to their peers. Bernie Williams contributed more with his bat, relative to his steroid era peers (and adjusted for playing in Yankee Stadium), than Puckett did. (Puckett had two nicer peak seasons, however, so if you want to hang your hat on something, there you go. People do remember the spectacular.)
by tobynotjason on Feb 23, 2012 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
How do you measure "record, playing ability... and contributions to the team"...
if not by statistics? If you just ask “what was the mainstream consensus opinion about the guy”, you’re just going to reproduce a bunch of stuff that, while it bears some relationship to how good he was, frequently veers far from the mark.
You’ve stated twice that he doesn’t compare well to the steroid era, but everybody is using WAR which is rooted in run-environment adjusted production, not raw numbers. He wasn’t NEARLY as good, relative to his total run environment, as the average Hall Of Famer.
I think most people assume “sportsmanship and character” to be potential disqualifiers given extreme defects, not equally weighted parts of the puzzle.
by tobynotjason on Feb 23, 2012 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Look at his prime...
From 1986 to 1992 he averaged over 5 WAR a season while helping his team win two WS rings. He did regress from there, but that is something to note (especially the 2 rings). It isn’t really “coincidence” that his prime covers 1987 and 1991.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
