dwintheiser

Jesse over at TwinkieTown published an essay over the holiday weekend which was the result of a bit of soul-searching over Kirby Puckett and the Baseball Hall of Fame. Jesse's point seems to be that, when comparing Puckett to the other centerfielders in the Hall of Fame, Puckett may be far below the best, but he's certainly not the worst and he's also not unworthy of being in the Hall. I may need to turn in my contrarian bona-fides for this, but I find myself largely agreeing with Jesse. I continue to assert that Puckett is the least-impressive centerfielder, and possibly the least-impressive player, ever sent to the Hall by the Baseball Writers Association of America, but that doesn't mean Puckett is undeserving of enshrinement. How do I know Puckett is the least-deserving centerfielder ever elected to the Hall? [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK] Simple -- let me take Jesse's chart showing the 17 Hall of Fame centerfielders for which baseballreference.com has detailed numbers and tweak it slightly: [TABLE=width: 500, align: left] Name WAR Into HOF how? Cobb 159.4 BBWAA (1*) Mays 154.7 BBWAA (1) Speaker 133.0 BBWAA (2*) Mantle 120.2 BBWAA (1) DiMaggio 83.6 BBWAA (1) Hamilton 69.6 Veterans Committee Snider 67.5 BBWAA (11) Ashburn 58.0 Veterans Committee Carey 50.6 Veterans Committee Duffy 49.6 Veterans Committee Doby 47.4 Veterans Committee Roush 46.5 Veterans Committee Averill 45.0 Veterans Committee Puckett 44.8 BBWAA (1) Combs 44.7 Veterans Committee Wilson 39.1 Veterans Committee Waner 24.3 Veterans Committee [/TABLE] There's definitely a 'one of these things is not like the other' aspect to this list, and unless you have a really poor opinion of Duke Snider it pretty much demonstrates my argument for Puckett as 'least impressive centerfielder elected by the BBWAA', but it doesn't necessarily mean that Puckett doesn't belong on the list at all. For instance, compare Puckett to the guy just below him on the list -- Earle Combs, the answer to the Jeopardy question, "Who was the leadoff man for the Yankee teams that featured Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig in the heart of the batting order?" Combs hit .325 with a career .397 on-base percentage, which looks pretty danged impressive to modern eyes, and he had eight consecutive seasons scoring 110 or more runs. His numbers in his prime compare favorably to those of Kenny Lofton, without adjusting for era. And adjusting for era is really the kicker -- in Combs's best season, when he led the AL in both hits and triples, the 'average' AL player (defined by taking every plate appearance for every player on every team in the AL) hit .286 with a .352 on-base percentage, or in other words, nearly as good as a 25-year old Kenny Lofton, by unadjusted numbers. To argue that Puckett doesn't belong in the Hall is to argue that Earle Combs had a significantly better career than Puckett did, which all things considered is hard if not impossible to do. Of course, Combs was put into the Hall by the Veterans Committee nearly 35 years after his last big-league game, while Puckett was elected by the BBWAA on his first ballot. Another good comparison is Larry Doby, whose career in the majors was nearly the same length as Puckett's and who finished less than 3 WAR ahead of Puckett on Jesse's list. Doby played in the '50s (and late '40s), mostly for the Cleveland Indians, twice led the AL in home runs, and finished a close second for the 1954 MVP behind Yogi Berra in a year when three other Indians, including two pitchers, got lots of MVP consideration. More significantly, Doby was the first black player in the AL, and was already a star in the Negro Leagues when he was signed by the Indians in 1947 at the age of 23 -- a couple of extra years of production probably wouldn't have made a huge difference, but Doby's existing production, plus his status, made him a worthy pick. Again, to argue that Puckett doesn't belong would require someone to argue that Doby is far more qualified than Puckett, which I don't see. But again, Doby was elected by the Veterans Committee in 1998, nearly 40 years after his final big-league game. Puckett went in first-ballot. Download attachment: KirbyPuckettHOF.jpg That's really my bone of contention for Puckett as a Hall of Famer. It was pretty clear that Puckett would eventually get into the Hall, but putting him in first-ballot makes a statement about Puckett that isn't really defensible. Is Puckett a Hall of Famer? Sure. Is he a Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, George Brett, Mike Schmidt-level no-doubt Hall of Famer? No, not really. As long as people are willing to accept that Puckett's first-ballot election didn't really mean anything other than that he was well-regarded among baseball writers, I'm OK with him being in the Hall, and somewhat appreciative that he made the Hall when he was still alive to appreciate it, and let us appreciate his reaction to it. And in that sense, I'm not worried anymore about Jack Morris's case for the Hall of Fame. If he doesn't get elected in the next two years, and there are reasons to think he might not, that won't mean he'll never get into the Hall of Fame. Morris is, if anything, the stereotypical Veterans Committee selection -- the guy who didn't necessarily have the numbers, but who had the reputation and the recognition of his peers as a competitor and outstanding player. That Bert Blyleven got elected by the BBWAA and Morris might not doesn't mean that they weren't both outstanding pitchers, and doesn't make one more deserving than the other, just as Puckett's election doesn't make him more deserving than Doby or Combs or any of the other Hall of Fame centerfielders enshrined by the Veterans Committee. Except Hack Wilson, of course. I mean, what's up with that? * - Cobb wasn't just elected on his own first ballot, but was elected on the first-ever Hall of Fame ballot in 1936. Tris Speaker, therefore, had to wait until the second-ever Hall of Fame ballot in 1937 for his own election. In that sense, Speaker's second-ballot selection is more impressive, in my eyes, than anyone's first-ballot selection after 1937. Click here to view the article

Reminds me of the late 90s after Puckett's surprise retirement - the Twins brought in guys like Paul Molitor, Dave Winfield, and Terry Steinbach, not because they'd help the team win, but because nostalgia-intoxicated diehards would keep watching and buying tickets. At least those fans were rewarded with milestones. if actions speak louder than words, then the front office knows the club isn't close to contending; they're just hoping that, by bringing back guys from the 'glory days', they'll keep convincing FOX Sports to keep the local broadcast contract fat until they can ride out the storm.

Nice article, John. But as a counter-point, I'd like to dig up some ancient wisdom: "No single drop of rain believes it is to blame for the flood." From the perspective of Colabello and Gibson, their approach makes perfect sense -- as you say, they can only be really concerned over factors they can control, and working on those allows them to be productive and perhaps even make progress. They're raindrops, and they exist in their own environments. But as an organization, the Twins need to be concerned with the flood. Because that's real, too. Colabello and Gibson are absolutely data points -- they are who they are and their ceilings and floor as individual players are what they are. But they're not necessarily outliers -- there's no guarantee that, just because Colabello was a AAA MVP last year that he's going to be able to contribute this year. And Gibson might well still be regaining arm strength and re-learning how to pitch with his new arm. Sabermetrics can't tell you exactly what Colabello and Gibson are going to do this year. But it's as good as tool as we have to tell you what they're likely to do this year, and if there are other options likely to do as well or better.

- I don't get all the 'I feel sorry for Craig Biggio' comments. Dude is on the ballot for the second year, and he's two votes shy of enshrinement. He's getting in, maybe next year, maybe the year after that, but he's in. It would be unprecedented for a player that close to enshrinement, that early in his eligibility, to not get in. Maybe if he dies before next year's ballot is tallied I'll change my tune, but I don't see any reason to feel sorry for Biggio. - I also don't get the 'why did you waste your vote on Jacque Jones' (or Armando Benitez, or whomever) hate. These guys are on the ballot. They've earned their place on the ballot. If someone is on the ballot, you should be able to vote for them. To say that Jones doesn't deserve votes is to say that he doesn't deserve to be on the ballot, which is both false and stupid. - Lastly, Morris. I've long said that I have no problem with Morris being the guy you have to be better than in order to get into the Hall of Fame as a starting pitcher. Somebody has to be that guy, and Morris actually makes a very good signpost for a number of different reasons. With that said, I have no doubt that he'll still end up getting into the Hall -- he's just going to have to wait another 5 years until he's eligible for the Veterans Committee ballot, at which point he's in. Morris is about as perfect a Vets candidate as can be imagined ('greatness' not reflected in stats, we knew he was a competitor, etc.).

That's part of the problem of living in Minnesota -- even if you've got the hot water of optimism, by the time you throw it in the air, it freezes into the snow-and-ice of reality. Point by point: - Mauer may end up stronger at first base then he's been at catcher, but people seem to keep forgetting that Mauer's MVP year happened in the Metrodome and that Target Field simply isn't the same kind of ballpark for offense. Plus, Mauer's going to be 31 next year -- he's still got some good seasons left in him, for certain, but predicting a breakout season past 30 is a sucker's bet. Speaking of which: - Predicting that Willingham will rebound is extremely optimistic, given his age. The two big problems with older players is that 1) they lose skills, especially hand-eye coordination, and 2) they have a harder time staying healthy and recovering from injury. Willingham's 2012 should not be considered a baseline; it's the healthiest he's ever been in a big league campaign and the best season of his career. Willingham is much more likely to 'rebound' to a 115 OPS+ than a 130, which while improved, won't be so far improved that you'll notice much. - If you think Josmil Pinto is going to be the opening day starter at catcher, you' haven't been watching this team while Ron Gardenhire has been the manager. With very few exceptions (Mauer, primarily), Gardenhire strongly prefers veterans to young players, which means that unless Suzuki washes out in spring training, he's almost certainly going to be given the starting job for the first two months of the season. Given Suzuki's career OPS+ of 86, I'm not expecting he'll set the offense on fire. - You might think center field should get better, but as recently as 2011, center was a serious offensive weakness, despite the presence of Ben Revere (72 OPS+) and Denard Span (90 OPS+). The club scored 619 runs that season, versus 614 last year. Yes, injuries were a factor, but they always are -- the collection of players available for 2014 simply isn't deep enough to withstand any problems. - Hey, I want to believe that Kubel's return to the Twins is the harbinger of a return to 'good old days', but there's little reason to think it will. For starters, with the Twins carrying 12 or even 13 pitchers on their roster, there simply isn't room for a platoon DH who can't play the field, so it's possible that Kubel won't even be on the roster to start with. Even if he is, as a part-time player and pinch-hitter (and Kubel has been a horrible pinch-hitter in his career, with a BA/OPS of .220/667 in the role), he's simply not going to play enough to make much of an impact. Even with all that said, the offense could easily still improve from the barely-above-600 runs it has scored two of the last three seasons. But the Twins scored 700 runs in 2012 and still lost 96 games. Unless the changes to the pitching staff bring a ridiculous increase in the Twins' ability to prevent run scoring (akin to the 671 runs scored they allowed in 2010), even a hundred-run improvement in the offense isn't going to give the team a winning record, much less put them in playoff contention. The rebuilding continues...

Given Parker's story about the Twins already making an offer to Mike Pelfrey (and that offer not being high enough), I'm going to withhold any enthusiasm for a 'big free agent signing'.

Agreed. For someone with Mauer's contract and position on the team, being a great hitter isn't enough. He's also got to be a team leader, help make other players around him better, handle the pitching staff. There may well be a reason that a veteran pitcher like Carl Pavano wanted Butera as his catcher, and it may be related to the rotation's struggles over the last few years. The Keltner List asks, "If this player were the best player on his team, is it likely that team would win the pennant?" One could make the argument that Mauer has never actually been the best player on a division-winning Twins team, that the teams on which Mauer has demonstrably been the best player have been bad teams, and thus that the answer to that question should be 'no'. Harold Reynolds may vastly overestimate the value of 'intangibles' to a player's and ballclub's success, but the longer Mauer's career goes on, the more I am convinced that intangibles do matter, and that Mauer's are very poor.

I suspect the Twins are waiting to hear from Worley's agent as to whether or not he'll accept the assignment (his option was exercised by the Phillies in his rookie year). It seems unlikely he'll decline the assignment, but if he does, that opens a spot on the 40-man; otherwise, he'll likely just be replaced on the 25-man.

Nice point that I hadn't considered -- there's a lot of short-term and expiring contracts coming up, which means that a new manager would have an opportunity to immediately put his own 'stamp' on the Twins. This leads me to believe that the Pohlads may be calling the shots here, deliberately setting up a situation where they can lure a high-profile managerial candidate in the off-season and surround him with folks schooled in the 'Twins way', hoping that may result in a best-of-both-worlds resolution. It'll be interesting to see what Ryan himself does at the end of the season -- if he 're-retires' in the wake of a Gardenhire firing, it'll be a good sign that the Pohlads are cleaning house.

I'll agree that, with Glavine and Maddux entering the ballot next year, it doesn't look like Morris will get into the Hall via the BBWAA election. But guys like Morris are exactly why the Veterans' Committee exists. He'll be in eventually.

Absolutely agree -- the Phillies won over 100 games in 2011 and still have most of those players, so I'm sure they think they're still competitive. On the other hand, it's hard to look at their starting lineup and not see that they're on the clock -- Pence and Mayberry were the only semi-regulars under 30, and Pence turns 30 next year. If they don't pull the trigger real soon, they probably lose their opportunity for another championship before the Halladay/Howard/Rollins era ends. So definitely the Twins and Phillies could value both Worley and Revere differently based on where they're at. The Twins should already know if Hicks is ready for 2013 -- three weeks in spring shouldn't change that evaluation. But if you haven't noticed, the era of 'we're not going to worry about payroll' ended a couple of months after Target Field opened. In that sense, it would be dumb for the Twins to hurry Hicks and get only three good seasons out of five when they could season him and get four good seasons out of six. On the other hand, five good seasons out of five is better than four good seasons out of six, so if the decision has already been made (and you could argue that trading two CFs in a week is a pretty strong indication of a decision), then go for it.

If you say so, man, but you got me interested if I'd looked at the numbers wrong: Phillies 2011: runs scored = 713 runs allowed = 529 Phillies 2012: runs scored = 684 runs allowed = 680 Looks like a breakdown on defense to me. And if the problem on defense was injuries to starting pitchers, well *we just traded for the guy who replaced those injured starters*. That doesn't fill me with confidence. I don't see how this trade makes the Twins any better in 2013, if you assume Hicks isn't going to play because he's not ready. If Hicks is ready, then it's addition by subtraction, but that there's an argument rather than widespread consensus that this is his year (as there was when the Twins dealt Pierzynski) suggests to me that the 'Twins are better next year with this trade' is arguable. Add in the Span trade, and the Twins are clearly not better on offense than they were last year, and offense was about the only thing they did well -- in spots. I won't argue with you about 2014+, because I agree that long-term, restocking the farm system with pitching is a good thing and should, with luck, pay off. I do know the trades have had one concrete impact already -- one season ticket holder I know is not renewing her tickets for next year. So you'll probably have an easier time scoring good seats to watch the 2013 Twins, better or worse.

In general terms, I like the trade myself, but I'm noticing a couple of things not being mentioned: - People are putting the trade in terms of Revere's value, but I think the trade from the Phillies' side has more to do with them having went from 102 wins in 2011 to .500 last year. Their front office likely thinks they're still a prime team, and giving up good pieces that won't get them to their goal next year is OK if you get a piece that will. Revere isn't a star, but if he does what the Phillies expect, which is get on base and play great CF defense, then he'll help them work back up in the standings. (I guess the 'right place at the right time' folks may be making this point, but it seemed pretty oblique compared to the 'oh, look how valuable Revere really was' crowd.) - I think the idea that this trade helps the Twins be competitive in 2013 is pretty silly - after all, if the Phillies thought the players they gave up would help them win more in 2013, they wouldn't have traded them, right? After all, the big failure in Philly wasn't on offense, but in defense and pitching -- they allowed about a run per game more in 2012 than they did in 2011. Revere will help with that, but not by a full run per game. - I also think that if people really think Hicks's upside is rookie-year Torii Hunter, then there's no reason to start him in center in 2013 no matter how good his spring happens to be -- to justify starting his free agent clock early and possibly burning an entire year of eligibility via super-two status, he's got to be ROY-caliber material. I'm finding the 'conspiracy theory' of having a number of Twins future performers starting at AAA this year, where they'll get to work with Paul Molitor as a roving consultant, prior to Gardy being replaced by Molitor for the start of the 2014 season to be more and more credible.

I can't really get behind the thought process on display here. Sure it sounds good to say 'hey, spend more money and get more wins -- the Yankees do', but there are a couple of points standing in my way of supporting that as a short-term strategy: 1) As much as everybody likes to talk about the Yankees, they're one data point -- and we already know that inferences based on small sample sizes often prove flawed. How about the Phillies, who stood pat on payroll and dropped 21 games from 2011 to 2012? The Red Sox, who increased payroll by over $11 million and dropped 21 games into the basement of the East? The Brewers, who upped payroll by over $12 million and dropped 13 games out of playoff consideration? The D'Backs, who spent an extra $20 million and dropped 13 games and out of playoff consideration? Money isn't the obvious answer -- as should be obvious by the simple observation that payroll increases league-wide every year, but the number of wins in the league doesn't. And as noted above, the teams that increase payroll the most don't always get value for it. 2) It's all very well and good to say 'we'll spend money on some better guys'. OK, bang, you're the GM. Who are those 'better guys' you're going to go get? I tried making a similar point on Gleeman's site some years ago, that you couldn't just say you were going to spend money on a 'better third baseman' -- you had to say who you were going to get who was better. If you don't have a plan for how to spend that money, you end up signing guys like Nishioka and Sidney Ponson. Ryan and the brain trust are exactly right -- when the right guy is available, at the right price, get him. Otherwise, let someone else overpay. I mean, let's be honest here, guys -- the 'we don't spend enough money' meme is starting to sound like a broken record, getting repeated over and over again even when it's not deserved. The Twins were in the upper half of baseball in payroll in 2012, and half the teams in the playoffs spent less money than they did. The Twins were in the top 10 in payroll in 2011, and over half the teams in the post-season spent less money, including the division-winning Tigers. It sounds good to vent about money, but the problem isn't payroll -- the problem is finding good players who are worth the price.

I would eagerly read a companion post to this entitled "Could the Twins trade for Alex Rodriguez?"