Are these 10 year snapshots good enough...

[leatherman]

for either player to build the foundation for a good HOF argument? This is not a thread to guess these players. I was just impressed with these numbers OVER TEN YEARS and thought it might be a good discussion. For this discussion, I simply want to discuss these offensive numbers of these two players. I realize that the HOF is much more than this.

10 year average of Player X:
151 Games
186 Hits
100 Runs
35 Doubles
35 HRs
114 RBIs
.327 Batting Average
.586 Slugging
OPS+ of 151
60 BBs
69 Ks
Finished in the top 4 in MVP voting four times. 75 postseason ABs with a .240 BA, 1 HR and 7 RBIs.


10 year average of Player Y:
147 Games
167 Hits
95 Runs
38 Doubles
37 Hrs
120 RBIs
.298 Batting Average
.571 Slugging
OPS+ of 146
67 BBs
90 Ks
Finished in top 3 of MVP voting three times. 61 postseason ABs with a .230 BA, 6 HRs and 14 RBIs.


David

 

[ChasHawk]

I think if they continue those numbers for another 5-8 yrs, you could make a solid case for either.

 

[leatherman]

If they average that for just 5 more years, they would each have over 500 HRs and 1700 RBIs, so I think their HOF candidacy wouldn't be in doubt. I want to know your thoughts just based on those 10 years. As a comparison, I give you Kirby Puckett's best 10 year average (he only had 1248 ABs outside of these 10 years):

149 Games
194 Hits
93 Runs
37 Doubles
20 HRs
98 RBIs
.324 Batting Average
.500 Slugging
OPS+ of 132
39 BBs
80 Ks
Finished in the top 3 of MVP voting three times. In 97 postseason ABs, he batted .309 with 5 HRs and 15 RBIs.

 

[UMich92]

Yes they are both good enough for a starting point discussion of their HOF candidacy. The 2nd player is probably more at risk of being affected by 6-8 subpar years bracketing the ten years.

Alex

 

[ChasHawk]

There were other factors taken into consideration where Kirby is concerned.
That's why the HOF is so difficult to gauge anymore.

 

[andyduke86]

I'd say both players are well deserving potential HOFers. I'd have to know who they are to determine fully yes or no.

10 years of well above average numbers like that is better than 15-20 years of slightly above average numbers that allows someone to accumulate "milestone" statistics. It's why guys like Kiner, Koufax, Puckett etc. are in the Hall.

 

[leatherman]

There were other factors taken into consideration where Kirby is concerned.
That's why the HOF is so difficult to gauge anymore.

Right. Kirby's story goes beyond simple statistics. Two World Series titles for a smaller market team will do that for you. However, he wouldn't be in the HOF were it not for his statistics either. But the two players above pretty much dominate Kirby's numbers over the best ten years of Kirby's career.

I will reveal the players later, of course.

David

 

[gracecollector]

But could they field, were they clubhouse leaders, and what positions did they play? Those numbers are only half the story of a HOF discussion.

 

[nborton]

But could they field, were they clubhouse leaders, and what positions did they play? Those numbers are only half the story of a HOF discussion.

That's a really good point. Position is a big part.

 

[leatherman]

But could they field, were they clubhouse leaders, and what positions did they play? Those numbers are only half the story of a HOF discussion.

I realize that, but my original question is about whether or not those 10 years begin to constitute a good argument, or do you need more than just 10 great years?

With rare exceptions, I think we will all agree that the first thing anyone looks at before beginning a HOF discussion is their stats. Of course, Ozzie Smith is an exception. There aren't too many HOFers without impressive offensive numbers. The real question I am looking to get answered is this: Are ten years of dominant hitting enough to get your name in the ring, or do you need more than that?

Here are Jim Edmonds best 10 years (1995-2005, throwing out his injured 1999 season):
142 Games
147 Hits
99 Runs
32 Doubles
32 Hrs
93 RBIs
.295 Batting Average
.556 Slugging
OPS+ of 143
76 BBs
128 Ks
.274 average in 230 postseason ABs, with 13 HR and 43 RBIs.
8 time Gold Glove winner in CF, along with Andruw Jones the two best fielding centerfielders of the 90s-00s.
Top 5 in MVP voting two times.

Even as the 2nd best CF of his day (Griffey), and putting together 10 strong years (OPS+ of 143 is definitely strong), he won't even get a sniff at the HOF.

 

[UMich92]

With Edmonds, his 10 best years gets him a look but I would say only a marginal look. And then reviewing the sum of his career gets him tossed aside.

Alex

 

[leatherman]

Player X is Vladimir Guerrero.
Player Y is Albert Belle.

Didn't want to leave anyone hanging.

d

 

[Jeff D]

Player X is Vladimir Guerrero.
Player Y is Albert Belle.

Your original question was are those 10 year snapshots good enough to build a HOF argument, and I think very few people would argue that they are not. You can certainly build an argument from those stats.

But I think everyone will also agree that those ten years alone don't say enough to get the player in without further justification. IMO ten good years is almost never enough. I want more like 15 dominant (or at least exceptional) years. And if it's only going to be 10 years, there has to be other factors to contribute to their HOF worthiness. But I'm also very stringent with my vote.
And both Vlad and Belle have compelling cases to get them in, and I think most people would agree that they are at least potential HOF candidates.