What Makes A Hall Of Fame Player
All of us have different definitions of a player worthy of being enshrined in Cooperstown, whether it be dominance over a period, longevity, cumulative stat accruement, or accolades. We have an objective opinion on who fits what criteria, and often the stats to back it up. Baseball writers all have their own thoughts and motivations as well, and their vote matters the most. Consistently, the old school guys rely on traditional counting stats such as Hits, RBIs and Hrs. Newer voters, however, often argue that WAR, or wins above replacement for all the non saber metric people out there, should be used to determine how great of a career someone had.
The question becomes do we trust the eye test, the saber metrics, or the accolades? You could make an argument for all three individually, but I argue you need a combinations of all three to be known forever as the best of the best. To show you what I mean, we can compare some second basemen who aren’t in the Hall of Fame, but are debated as borderline. For this comparison, let’s look at Willie Randolph, Jeff Kent, and Chase Utley, starting with the guys no longer on the ballot. Randolph has all the counting stats (namely 2000 hits) and the longevity (18 seasons) to be a Hall of Fame 2B. He also boasts a solid WAR at 65.9, which is right at the average WAR for a Hall of Famer. Jeff Kent is the best power hitting 2B of all time, who shared his prime with the most inflated offensive environment of all time due to the steroid era, where he put up an OPS+ 123 (which compares his OPS to the league average). Meaning Kent was 23% better than league average across his career despite the rest of the league having inflated SLG% and HR numbers. What hurts Kent is his War was only 55.5, which puts him just below the sweet spot of around 60. Kent was also a notorious enemy to the press which really hurt his chances when he was on the ballot.
Thus begs the question, what are Utley’s chances if the voters already passed on the previously mentioned 2B of similar caliber? Utley has gained support in the Hall of Fame discussion due to his impressive peak years and favorable fielding and base running metrics, which are two things that boost modern players more due to more accurate data existing. Plus, while Utley posted good numbers for his career, he has under 2000 hits and lacks accolades outside of four silver slugger selections. Utley’s best case though should be his prominence on a successful Phillies ball club, who won a World Series, and being a well liked and respected among members of the baseball media.
In conclusion, I think a Hall of Famer possesses a little bit of everything: the longevity, accolades, and has the analytical numbers to back it up. The point of making it to Major League Baseball and being a professional ball player is that you should be better than everyone else. Everyone should have great peak years, impressive stats, and fans. But only the true greats, those who break records and shatter expectations, deserve to be immortalized forever in the Hall of Fame. Luckily for all three of these players, if the writers get it wrong and vote in none of these deserving players perhaps one of the player committees will.
Article submitted by Jackson Westfall @topfanstatsguy and avid Braves fan.