Sandberg and Boggs
It was a weak year for the Baseball Hall of Fame, and two weak candidates were elected, Ryne Sandberg and Wade Boggs. Both were very good players, but not great players. Boggs had just over 3000 hits, but he got them by hanging on for years after his skills had eroded, basically on his reputation. He had little pop (118 HRs) and, though a decent third-basemen (two Gold Gloves, again on reputation), was nothing spectacular in the field. A very good OBP (.415) gives him a decent OPS (.858), but that's not good enough to put him in the top 100 all time, and playing at a power position his slugging of .443 is not very good. A borderline choice, I think, and I'm not sorry he got in, but I'm sorry he got in on the first ballot, which should be reserved for only the inner circle of HOFers, the Aarons, the Mayses, the Mantles, etc.
As for Sandberg, I'm tired of the old story that he has the second or third most HRs by a second basemen, and that he was a great fielding second basemen. Second basemen are second basemen because (a) they can't field well enough to be shortstops; but (b) because it's relatively more difficult to play than first or left-field, you can get away with having a lighter-hitting player there. Sandberg's numbers are weak for the HoF -- 282 HRs, 1061 RBIs, .796 OPS. To make a comparison that my friends are sick of hearing, consider Ted Simmons, the Cardinals' catcher in the 1970s. Simmons had slightly fewer HRs (248), but many more RBIs (1389), playing in a park, Busch Stadium, that was much less hitter-friendly than Wrigley. His lifetime OPS is .785, again slightly below Sandberg, but, again, the difference is more than made up for by the difference in the two parks where they played their games. (Busch in the 1970s was a much harder park to hit in than it is now... the CF fence was 414 and the power alleys were 386... they're 10-15 feet in from that now.) I think most people would agree that Simmons in the 1970s was a more dangerous hitter than Sandberg in the 1980s. Anyway, it's really close. And Simmons played a much harder position, catcher. (And don't buy the crap that Simmons was a bad fielder. That's only because the standard of that era was Johnny Freakin' Bench. Simmons was no Bench, but he's no Piazza either.) But Simmons can't get a sniff of the HoF! Why?
Why? Because Simmons isn't a Hall of Famer. His numbers are good, but they're just not good enough. But the same should have held true for Sandberg.... good, but not good enough. Yet he's in, because he played in Chicago, because he had a neat nickname, because he was a handsome cuss, whatever. Because, for whatever reason, he was more "famous" than Simmons. And that's why they call it the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of Merit.
UPDATE: And, just to make sure that my Sandberg-bashing is not misinterpreted as pure Cubs-loathing (not to say that I don't loathe the Cubs), I could support the HoF for Andre Dawson. Consider: 8 Gold Gloves in right field versus 10 Gold Gloves at second base (a push in my book), but 438 HRs (versus Sandberg's 282), 1591 RBIs (versus Sandberg's 1061), and a lifetime OPS of .805 (on the back of a lifetime slugging avg. of .482). If guys like Sandberg were not in the HoF, I might say Dawson was borderline (again, he's no Mays, Mantle or Aaron). But if guys like Sandberg are in, how can you keep out a guy who was his freakin' teammate at the same time and has better numbers?
As for Sandberg, I'm tired of the old story that he has the second or third most HRs by a second basemen, and that he was a great fielding second basemen. Second basemen are second basemen because (a) they can't field well enough to be shortstops; but (b) because it's relatively more difficult to play than first or left-field, you can get away with having a lighter-hitting player there. Sandberg's numbers are weak for the HoF -- 282 HRs, 1061 RBIs, .796 OPS. To make a comparison that my friends are sick of hearing, consider Ted Simmons, the Cardinals' catcher in the 1970s. Simmons had slightly fewer HRs (248), but many more RBIs (1389), playing in a park, Busch Stadium, that was much less hitter-friendly than Wrigley. His lifetime OPS is .785, again slightly below Sandberg, but, again, the difference is more than made up for by the difference in the two parks where they played their games. (Busch in the 1970s was a much harder park to hit in than it is now... the CF fence was 414 and the power alleys were 386... they're 10-15 feet in from that now.) I think most people would agree that Simmons in the 1970s was a more dangerous hitter than Sandberg in the 1980s. Anyway, it's really close. And Simmons played a much harder position, catcher. (And don't buy the crap that Simmons was a bad fielder. That's only because the standard of that era was Johnny Freakin' Bench. Simmons was no Bench, but he's no Piazza either.) But Simmons can't get a sniff of the HoF! Why?
Why? Because Simmons isn't a Hall of Famer. His numbers are good, but they're just not good enough. But the same should have held true for Sandberg.... good, but not good enough. Yet he's in, because he played in Chicago, because he had a neat nickname, because he was a handsome cuss, whatever. Because, for whatever reason, he was more "famous" than Simmons. And that's why they call it the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of Merit.
UPDATE: And, just to make sure that my Sandberg-bashing is not misinterpreted as pure Cubs-loathing (not to say that I don't loathe the Cubs), I could support the HoF for Andre Dawson. Consider: 8 Gold Gloves in right field versus 10 Gold Gloves at second base (a push in my book), but 438 HRs (versus Sandberg's 282), 1591 RBIs (versus Sandberg's 1061), and a lifetime OPS of .805 (on the back of a lifetime slugging avg. of .482). If guys like Sandberg were not in the HoF, I might say Dawson was borderline (again, he's no Mays, Mantle or Aaron). But if guys like Sandberg are in, how can you keep out a guy who was his freakin' teammate at the same time and has better numbers?
posted by PDB at 10:26 AM
3 Comments:
Comayo, you're bringing me around on Boggs. I'd add that my further "research" has also turned up the fact that he had a .415 lifetime OBP, which is outstanding, and which is, for my money, the key statistic in baseball. But I wasn't saying he wasn't a Hall of Famer, I was just saying I thought he was questionable as a first ballot guy. Re Sandberg, I'm sticking with my guns.
Thanks for reading.
People are down on Boggs because they feel he should have hit for power and think he hung on to reach 3,000 hits. Reality is reaching 3,000 actually hurts him. By retiring with 3,000 vice 2,850 he allowed the total to distract people from how great he hit throughout the 80's. He was stuck in the minors several years behind Lansford which makes his hit total even more impressive. It seemed he had 200 hits and 100 walks every year.
I'm also surprised by the lack of support for Dawson. However, outfielders from yesterday are being judged against the outrageous numbers of today.
The real shame of this election is the writer have forgotten Bert Blyleven.
Bert Blyleven is a great suggestion. 285 wins, 3700 strikouts, 3.31 lifetime ERA. In the next few years, as the stats for supposedly great pitchers of the present era develop, and we see that Clemens and Maddux are going to be the last 300 win pitchers for a long, long time, Blyleven will look better and better. I see him getting in via the Veterans Committee with no problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home