Active players HOF

[papalawrence]

Santana would definitely be in the HOF of killing the Tigers. Along with Jose Ramirez, Altuve, Sal Perez, Al Oliver Cecil Cooper, so many others

[tiger2022]

23 minutes ago, papalawrence said:

Santana would definitely be in the HOF of killing the Tigers. Along with Jose Ramirez, Altuve, Sal Perez, Al Oliver Cecil Cooper, so many others

Pretty much anyone who played against the Tigers in the 90s.  I know Mark McGwire has like 10 or 15 more Hrs against the Tigers than any other team.

[RedRamage]

Where's Skubal on this list? I don't think he's in the 100% lock at all, but I think he's in that mix of reasonably good shot. Expanding on Oblong's categories:

1. If they retired right now, are they a HOFer.
2. The way they are going they are almost there.
3. They have the talent and the track record to have a HOF career, but need more seasons at this level.

I view line 1 as 100% (obviously). Line 2 is maybe 90%+, does that sound reasonable? Then Line 3 is 70%+. I guess what I'm trying to identify in line 3 is players who aren't new on season... they've been at it for a while and have shown the talent and have the the stats and great seasons to indicate they are top tier players. These are different than players like Meadows, for example, who seem to have the potential to be all-star players, but don't have the track record or the service time that we can reasonably extrapolate from. And these are different than players like Bobby Higginson, for example, who have had many solid years but were never a top tier guys.

I'd put Skubal in my new Line 3 category. He has amazing talent. He's been in the league for 4.5 seasons and he's had 1.5 seasons of HOF level of play. He's headed to the HOF but has to accomplish a lot more yet vs. players in Line 2 who just have to just not fall off a cliff to get into the HOF.

[casimir]

21 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

They do get short changed due to short careers and not a lot of games played per season.  They get undervalued by WAR too for the same reasons.  I don't think Perez belongs though, not with guys like Freehan and Munson still waiting,    

Wow, I assumed Munson was in.

[papalawrence]

I've always felt it's odd to have journalists vote a player in. I get that there is a vet committee down the road. I've always thought players and management should carry the most weight in votes.

[RedRamage]

14 minutes ago, papalawrence said:

I've always felt it's odd to have journalists vote a player in. I get that there is a vet committee down the road. I've always thought players and management should carry the most weight in votes.

I think the theory was that journalists would be the most knowledgeable while being the least biased. 

Obviously it's not a perfect system but the hope would be that journalists would be less likely to vote for someone just because he was a good teammate or in the hopes that that person would then vote for you as well. (Or that you might withhold a vote because you didn't like a guy or because that guy always seemed to have success against you/your team.)

[oblong]

It's a remnant of the old days when supposedly the baseball writers were the experts because they covered the game.  Few, if any, games were on TV.  Nobody but them could possibly know these things, right?   Then you end up with some voters who might have covered the game for a few years, even in a city without a team, becoming voters, and hey, if they didn't see Lou Whitaker play a lot and never saw him on the TV in highlights, how the hell can he be a Hall of Famer?

It's a good system, right?

In all seriousness, it's out dated.  There's so much information available to potential voters that it's odd to leave it in their hands now.  And do the smart baseball people even become writers anymore?

 

[oblong]

I think it was Jerome Holtzman who it was said of, that if he didn't think a marginal player was a HOFer, then somehow he could sway all the other voters somehow to deny.  Like he held vendettas against players.

 

[Edman85]

Players currently at or above the JAWS standard, as a starting point:

• Paul Goldschmidt
• Freddie Freeman
• Jose Altuve
• Francisco Lindor
• Mike Trout
• Mookie Betts
• Aaron Judge
• Bryce Harper
• Justin Verlander
• Max Scherzer
• Clayton Kershaw

I was surprised how borderline Marcus Semien is...

[Edman85]

5 minutes ago, oblong said:

In all seriousness, it's out dated.  There's so much information available to potential voters that it's odd to leave it in their hands now.  And do the smart baseball people even become writers anymore?

 

I think the BBWAA is more informed now than ever

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

I think the BBWAA is more informed now than ever

It is, but so isn't everone else.  They have added a few sabers which is good.  There are a lot of baseball historians who I think are more qualified than writers who could be voting.  The smart writers have gotten a lot better.   I think the biggest problem is that they still have a lot of writers  voting who haven't covered the game in a long time and don't really care.  

[RedRamage]

2 hours ago, oblong said:

In all seriousness, it's out dated.  There's so much information available to potential voters that it's odd to leave it in their hands now.  And do the smart baseball people even become writers anymore?

I almost wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of petition system where candidates who think they are HOF worthy prepare a case before a panel of baseball experts (managers, players, writers, historians, etc.) Honestly I'm imagining a court room sort of thing. The "jury" is a mix of various experts. The "judge" is someone from MLB who ensures rules are followed. The prosecution provides the evidence and the witnesses to support the claim that the player/person is HOF worthy while the DH (designated hater) is the defense trying to challenge the accuracy and/or relevancy of the evidence presented and poke holes in any comparisons to existing HOF members.

That's probably way to elaborate of a system but it seems like it'd be more accurate than the current system and less prone to snubs because of less known players from smaller markets or biases against/for teams or players.

[oblong]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

It is, but so isn't everone else.  They have added a few sabers which is good.  There are a lot of baseball historians who I think are more qualified than writers who could be voting.  The smart writers have gotten a lot better.   I think the biggest problem is that they still have a lot of writers  voting who haven't covered the game in a long time and don't really care.  

I think it's just atrophy. The old timers who were the problem are dying off and the younger ones are better. But there's still too many that I think shouldnt get a vote just because they covered the game for a period of time. 

As long as we have writers not voting for players for reasons other than whether they belong in the HOF, then it's a problem leaving with the BBWAA.  I'm not talking about their judgements on PED use but this silly idea that they aren't first ballot or they don't deserve unanimous or even "too high of a %".   Voters have used that as an excuse in the past.

 

[chasfh]

On 6/19/2025 at 10:30 AM, tiger2022 said:

I was wondering what everyone's thoughts on this are.

100%- Freeman, Altuve, Machado, Harper, Betts, Perez, Lindor, Judge, Ohtani, Verlander, Scherzer, Kershaw.  Not sure if there is much debate with those guys.

I think there is definitely a debate to be had about Salvador Perez. He does have a ring and he is a “big daddy” kind of catcher with nine All-Star nods, which voters like, but he has only the one kickass season with the HR crown. The rest are basically a string of pretty good seasons. I’m not sure he was ever the best catcher in baseball at any given time. I’m on the fence about whether he gets in.

If Jose Altuve continues to fall off the cliff as he appears to be doing, he’ll fall well short of the 60 WAR benchmark, and even though he has an MVP and two rings, he apparently participation in the trash can thing might hurt him with voters.

No argument with the rest, not even Lindor, who could use a few more 5-win years to make it to a solid 100%.

On 6/19/2025 at 10:30 AM, tiger2022 said:

Jose Ramirez, McCutchen, Goldschmidt, Arenado, Boegarts, Stanton, Trea Turner, Correa, Bergman, Seager, Martel, Bellinger, Yelich, Sale, Cole, Nola, DeGrom

Jose Ramirez will be a lock. So will Chris Sale. Paul Goldschmidt has the MVP, the overall numbers, and the great seasons. He’ll make it, maybe even first ballot.

Nolan Arenado has no MVPs or rings, but he has three HR crowns and has Ken Boyer-like defense. It’ll take a few ballots but I think he’ll make it.

Jacob deGrom may get in as a sort of Koufax peak pitcher, coupled with this New Yorkness, which still counts for something with an east coast voting bloc.

Alex Bregman is on a Hall of Fame trajectory at a young age and if he has an appropriate decline phase, he’ll make it.

Andrew McCutchen has an MVP but will fall short because he was finished with that level of play at age 28.

Giancarlo Stanton is interesting because he has no rings, but he has an MVP, a couple HR crowns and a famous rep—but he failed as a Yankee. Plus, his WAR is too low. I think he falls short.

Trea Turner has had a pretty steady pretty good career with a ring, but he doesn’t have the career numbers, and he probably won’t make that up between now and the end.

Carlos Correa has a ring and the transcendent talent, but he’s hurt way too much so he doesn’t have the career numbers. If he somehow has a great 30s, he might reach those numbers, but he’s off to a terrible start, so he must be hurt again.

Corey Seager has two rings, but he better get his ass in gear if he wants to reach the career numbers.

By “Martel”, I assume you mean Ketel Marte and not Starling Marte? Either way, neither of them has the career numbers, although ass-in-gear would apply to Ketel if he wants in.

Christian Yelich has an MVP and two great years surrounded by a bunch of decent years. I don’t see him getting in unless he has another couple MVP years, which won’t include this year.

Gerrit Cole is on the bubble right now. I think if he were to have another couple top-5-Cy-Young-vote years as a Yankee, I think he would make it.

Xander Bogaerts, Cody Bellinger, and Aaron Nola will all fall well short.

On 6/19/2025 at 10:30 AM, tiger2022 said:

Acuna, Devers, Soto, Riley all have excellent chances, although I view Devers and Vlad Jr as kind of similar to Cabrera in that they have so much natural talent but they don't even try to stay in shape.  So they might end up sucking by 33 or 34 kind of like Cabrera.

Any thoughts on any of the middle group of players?

Soto is definitely on the trajectory. Riley, Acuna, and Vlad are off to good starts, but still have a lot of work to do. I don’t think Devers is nowhere near being on track.

Mike Trout is a slam dunk.

Despite his ring and late career surge, I don’t see Marcus Semien getting in.

Matt Chapman has a puncher’s chance if he has a terrific mid 30s surge, like, average five wins for the next four years.

Kyle Tucker would need another ring and an MVP and an incredible run for another six years to get into consideration.

Fernando Tatis Jr is actually still on track.

Guys who are still babies but off to a promising start include Julio Rodriguez, Gunnar Henderson, and Bobby Witt Jr. I’d like to include Jeremy Peña, but he’s already 27, so he needs to haul ass for the next close to a decade to get onto the track.

I can’t really think of any young pitcher who is clearly off to a Hall of Fame start. Skubal is probably closest, but he’s already 28 and would probably need four more years like last year and this year before we can say yup, he’s a lock.

Paul Skenes has only a year and a half under his belt, but he is off to as good a start as anyone I’ve ever seen. Stay tuned.

[RedRamage]

4 minutes ago, oblong said:

As long as we have writers not voting for players for reasons other than whether they belong in the HOF, then it's a problem leaving with the BBWAA.  I'm not talking about their judgements on PED use but this silly idea that they aren't first ballot or they don't deserve unanimous or even "too high of a %".   Voters have used that as an excuse in the past.

While I agree 100% with this, I doubt we're gonna see major changes any time soon that address this. But, there is a minor change that could address this: Players who are on their first HOF ballot and receive at least 5 votes (not 5%) will not be dropped from the list.

We really should get rid of the silly notion that a player is HOF worthy, but just not first ballot HOF worthy... but I don't see that disappearing anytime soon so the alternative is just don't drop players from from the ballot the first year if there's even a low level of people who vote for a player.