HOF discussion: Andruw Jones

[markakis8]

Almost, if not all, of your posts has something along these lines. All you can remember is his last year with the Braves and his one with the Dodgers. You are letting 2 awful seasons due to his laziness hinder you from remembering what a spectacular player he once was and how strongly he COULD finish his career.

He was lazy, absolutely. And he paid the price. He's full aware of it. But he's not lazy now (as you say). Just watch him play for a week on MLB.tv (if you have it). You can tell he's on fire for baseball again.

In fact, despite his .218 BA, you could tell a difference last year with the Rangers. He was definitely a different ballplayer than when he was with the Dodgers.

Look, I'm not saying those couple of years weren't a trainwreck - they were. I'm also not saying he's in RIGHT NOW, I keep saying over and over again "if he gets to 500 HR". I'm also not saying if he gets to 500, he's a 1st ballot, those horrible years of laziness are going to go against him...

Just remember you have 15 years to make the HOF. I doubt 500 HR and 10 gold gloves would stay on the ballot for all 15.

BTW, how many Hall of Famers do you know of who were lazy and unpopular, because that's what Jones is right now.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I wonder how much of his laziness came from playing/having the same job for a dozen years, and knowing he could still play another 8-10 more. I don't have the same job I had when I was 19 thank god :|

BTW, how many Hall of Famers do you know of who were lazy and unpopular, because that's what Jones is right now.

 

[chief7575]

If Andre Dawson and Jim Rice got in, Andruw gets in.

And that sir is my problem with Andre Dawson and Jim Rice being in. The standard just gets lower and lower. Next it will be "Is Torri Hunter a HOFer?" Answer, "If Andruw Jones is in, he has to be." Where does it end? None of these guys mentioned should be HOFers.

Dawson and Rice were both among the best of their generation, 'face of the game' type players and leaders of their respective teams. Jones is none of that. Statisticly they can be compared, but that is where the comparison ends and Jones falls short. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of stats.

Take Jim Rice out of Fenway and he becomes average. Dawson was not even good enough to carry a team. He very rarely made the playoffs. Even his "MVP" season I blieve the Cubs finished 4th! How can you be valuable when the team is 4th?!?! What, they would have been 5th without him? Without that MVP, he does not make the HOF.

And Cal Ripken won an MVP when his team finished 6th. But don't get me started on that one....

And Andruw will be in the hall for being one of the best defensive CF of all time and his power if he gets to 500 HR. Why can't anyone see that?

So it's okay to hit .225 over a span of 3000 plate appearances if you are an amazing defensive SS and popular player, but it's not okay to hit .158 in one season when you don't even have enough plate appearances to qualify for a competing batting average?

Ozzie is in the all b/c of his supberb defense and "popularity" (which IMO is a horsecrap reason). Andruw is probably one of the top 3 defensive CF of all time and had raw power enough to put him in an elite group of around 30 players EVER.

I mean that's what you are saying. Ozzie's BA is excused b/c of his supberb defense and popularity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I totally agree with markakis8 with his line on Ozzie, re defense and popularity. This always gets me into my why isn't Alan Trammell in the HOF when no hit, all glove Ozzie gets in first ballot and Alan barely gets a vote here and there. He could field AND hit! Ozzie got in on his popularity and backflips.

But then it comes down to more than stats. Key word is "FAME". Not the hall of Stats, not the hall of Gold gloves, not the hall of sportscenter, its the hall of FAME. The whole ball of wax is taken into account. Hall of Fame discussions are fun to read through - who is deserving, who isn't, etc. One of the better ways I have found over the years is to simply say a players name and ask - are they a Hall of Famer? yes or no? You'd be surprised how many people who are very good players - just don't get a yes answer when you do it. I'll take a few off the top of my head.... (and if you have to stew on it - then it should automatically lean towards no)

Andruw Jones - no
Frank Thomas - yes
Ken Griffey Jr - yes
Gary Sheffield - no
Jeff Bagwell - no
Pedro Martinez - yes
Curt Schilling - yes
Jim Edmonds - no
Jim Thome - no

 

[kdailey4315]

The hairs you are splitting are minute, and again you are taking me out of context for your own enjoyment.

Ok, now I'm done.

Awesome. The only thing better than 1 dramatic storm out is 2 dramatic storm outs.

 

[jgro85]

I already stated this in the Berkman thread, but it's not all about FAME. Yeah, the word "Fame" is in the "Hall of Fame", no kidding, but look at the list of people in the HOF and I bet over half of them were not "famous" at all.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I already stated this in the Berkman thread, but it's not all about FAME. Yeah, the word "Fame" is in the "Hall of Fame", no kidding, but look at the list of people in the HOF and I bet over half of them were not "famous" at all.

It's a big part of it. It's why players like Ozzie, Rizzuto and Mazeroski are in. You have every right to dislike it, but it's what it is and it's not changing any time soon. Why do you think players like Blyleven CAN'T get in with the stats they have? Players like him weren't very POPULAR and it affects their votes. It works both ways. It's the players that find a balance or have such a wide margin one way that make it.

 

[jgro85]

I already stated this in the Berkman thread, but it's not all about FAME. Yeah, the word "Fame" is in the "Hall of Fame", no kidding, but look at the list of people in the HOF and I bet over half of them were not "famous" at all.

It's a big part of it. It's why players like Ozzie, Rizzuto and Mazeroski are in. You have every right to dislike it, but it's what it is and it's not changing any time soon. Why do you think players like Blyleven CAN'T get in with the stats they have? Players like him weren't very POPULAR and it affects their votes. It works both ways. It's the players that find a balance or have such a wide margin one way that make it.

I realize that it has some part in it, but it's not the entire formula. There are still a ton of players in the HOF that weren't famous at all. I'm just pointing out the other side of the argument.

 

[craftysouthpaw]

Ozzie and Maz got in because they are both widely regarded as the best ever at their position defensively. Just like Andruw should get in because many metrics show him as the 2nd best defensive CF ever - in conjunction with 400+ home runs. Rizzuto got in because - well, I don't think anyone is really sure why he got in.

I could be convinced Rizzuto is one of the rare cases when "fame" is what did it. More likely is that his election stemmed from the cronyism in the abomination that was the Veteran's Committee (responsible for all of the egregious "mistakes" in the HOF) coupled with some voters believing his overall contributions to the game merited election. When you combine his playing record with his years as a broadcaster, I suppose an argument could be made under the overall contributions clause.

I mentioned this in the Berkman thread but "fame" is not in the Hall's published criteria for election nor does an analysis of the guys already enshrined indicate the voters use "fame" when casting their votes. The guys that made it did so because voters thought their "playing record" - i.e. stats - merited inclusion or because the Veterans Committee wanted all of their buddies in there with them.

 

[kdailey4315]

Just like Andruw should get in because many metrics show him as the 2nd best defensive CF ever - in conjunction with 400+ home runs.

Just curious. Who's No.1 in your opinion?

 

[AndruwHRJones]

And Andruw will be in the hall for being one of the best defensive CF of all time and his power if he gets to 500 HR. Why can't anyone see that?

So it's okay to hit .225 over a span of 3000 plate appearances if you are an amazing defensive SS and popular player, but it's not okay to hit .158 in one season when you don't even have enough plate appearances to qualify for a competing batting average?

Ozzie is in the all b/c of his supberb defense and "popularity" (which IMO is a horsecrap reason). Andruw is probably one of the top 3 defensive CF of all time and had raw power enough to put him in an elite group of around 30 players EVER.

I mean that's what you are saying. Ozzie's BA is excused b/c of his supberb defense and popularity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're scoring points for the wrong side now. Ozzie is in the hall only for his Wizardish Glove, and is often thought of as the worst offensive HOFer. .211 is way better than .158! See where I'm going?

How about ones that hit .211, .230, .222., .248, and .243 five years IN A ROW from the ages 24-28? That would be our beloved Ozzie...

Sheffield would have been a Hall of Famer had he not had a steroid link. Andruw Jones would have been a Hall of Famer if he hadn't fallen flat on his face and become one of the worst players in the the league for 2+ seasons. Hall of Famers DO NOT have spans of awfulness like Jones had the last few seasons. No way he's a Hall of Famer unless he somehow hits 600 HRs with 3,000 hits. Hall of Famers don't hit .158 in a season.

He can turn things around, but I doubt he will. BTW, how many Hall of Famers do you know of who were lazy and unpopular, because that's what Jones is right now.

You apparently don't pay attention to what he is doing currently if you think he is lazy. He played last year for a lowly $500,000, not because he needed the money, but because he wanted to play and get his career back on track. He again signed this year for a lowly $500,000 knowing he would have to compete for playing time again. He lost 20-25 lbs before the season and is now playing the OF again, which Texas didn't even trust him to play last year. Yes he WAS lazy in 2007 and 2008 and he suffered greatly for that laziness. I don't personally think his laziness was more uncommon than most players who play for as long as he has. But it definately showed in his performance and looks. I assume he thought he could get by on skills alone and he was sorely mistaken. But to say that he is lazy NOW is just ridiculous and clearly shows you have no clue what he has been doing the past two seasons.

As for popularity, ANY player who has been irrelavant for 3 seasons becomes unpopular because they are not in the spotlight. But I assure you many fans in Atlanta still root for Andruw and White Sox fans will too if he continues to perform like he is.

 

[sportscardtheory]

And Andruw will be in the hall for being one of the best defensive CF of all time and his power if he gets to 500 HR. Why can't anyone see that?

So it's okay to hit .225 over a span of 3000 plate appearances if you are an amazing defensive SS and popular player, but it's not okay to hit .158 in one season when you don't even have enough plate appearances to qualify for a competing batting average?

Ozzie is in the all b/c of his supberb defense and "popularity" (which IMO is a horsecrap reason). Andruw is probably one of the top 3 defensive CF of all time and had raw power enough to put him in an elite group of around 30 players EVER.

I mean that's what you are saying. Ozzie's BA is excused b/c of his supberb defense and popularity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're scoring points for the wrong side now. Ozzie is in the hall only for his Wizardish Glove, and is often thought of as the worst offensive HOFer. .211 is way better than .158! See where I'm going?

How about ones that hit .211, .230, .222., .248, and .243 five years IN A ROW from the ages 24-28? That would be our beloved Ozzie...

[quote="sportscardtheory":1dhpjgpd]Sheffield would have been a Hall of Famer had he not had a steroid link. Andruw Jones would have been a Hall of Famer if he hadn't fallen flat on his face and become one of the worst players in the the league for 2+ seasons. Hall of Famers DO NOT have spans of awfulness like Jones had the last few seasons. No way he's a Hall of Famer unless he somehow hits 600 HRs with 3,000 hits. Hall of Famers don't hit .158 in a season.

He can turn things around, but I doubt he will. BTW, how many Hall of Famers do you know of who were lazy and unpopular, because that's what Jones is right now.

You apparently don't pay attention to what he is doing currently if you think he is lazy. He played last year for a lowly $500,000, not because he needed the money, but because he wanted to play and get his career back on track. He again signed this year for a lowly $500,000 knowing he would have to compete for playing time again. He lost 20-25 lbs before the season and is now playing the OF again, which Texas didn't even trust him to play last year. Yes he WAS lazy in 2007 and 2008 and he suffered greatly for that laziness. I don't personally think his laziness was more uncommon than most players who play for as long as he has. But it definately showed in his performance and looks. I assume he thought he could get by on skills alone and he was sorely mistaken. But to say that he is lazy NOW is just ridiculous and clearly shows you have no clue what he has been doing the past two seasons.

As for popularity, ANY player who has been irrelavant for 3 seasons becomes unpopular because they are not in the spotlight. But I assure you many fans in Atlanta still root for Andruw and White Sox fans will too if he continues to perform like he is.[/quote:1dhpjgpd]

I said he made himself irrelevant and if he can get back to form, can still be a HOFer. Not really sure I can say it any clearer.

 

[donrusscrusademan]

how many "lock HOF" are in the game right now? and what ratio do you think there should be (in our era)

 

[henderson939]

Markakis8, I know that Deer is a .220 career hitter. The players from the 80's and the players from the mid 90's are two different breeds. So Deer would probably be a .260 hitter with 30-35 HR if he played during Jones era. Remember during the 80's, there were only a handful of guys hitting 35+ HR and maybe a few more that were .300+ hitters. Now there are many guys hitting 35+ HR and batting over .300. Another reason why the Ozzie Smith, Andre Dawson, & Jim Rice anti-hall comments are invalid. They were some of the best players for their era.

 

[markakis8]

If he's thinking the same person I am, it is Willie Mays.

Just like Andruw should get in because many metrics show him as the 2nd best defensive CF ever - in conjunction with 400+ home runs.

Just curious. Who's No.1 in your opinion?

 

[kdailey4315]

If he's thinking the same person I am, it is Willie Mays.

Just like Andruw should get in because many metrics show him as the 2nd best defensive CF ever - in conjunction with 400+ home runs.

Just curious. Who's No.1 in your opinion?

Same here. I was just curious. I didn't want to do a total thread hijack if he didn't say Willie but I would have had to politely disagree.

 

[markakis8]

2 for 2 today with a walk and 2 HR against the Yanks.

 

[donrusscrusademan]

Jones is back!

 

[mwashuc06]

Amazing, reminds me of Ruben Sierra when he came back from the grave.

 

[bodiaz]

If Andre Dawson and Jim Rice got in, Andruw gets in.

And that sir is my problem with Andre Dawson and Jim Rice being in. The standard just gets lower and lower. Next it will be "Is Torri Hunter a HOFer?" Answer, "If Andruw Jones is in, he has to be." Where does it end? None of these guys mentioned should be HOFers.

Dawson and Rice were both among the best of their generation, 'face of the game' type players and leaders of their respective teams. Jones is none of that. Statisticly they can be compared, but that is where the comparison ends and Jones falls short. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of stats.

Take Jim Rice out of Fenway and he becomes average. Dawson was not even good enough to carry a team. He very rarely made the playoffs. Even his "MVP" season I blieve the Cubs finished 4th! How can you be valuable when the team is 4th?!?! What, they would have been 5th without him? Without that MVP, he does not make the HOF.

And Cal Ripken won an MVP when his team finished 6th. But don't get me started on that one....

And Andruw will be in the hall for being one of the best defensive CF of all time and his power if he gets to 500 HR. Why can't anyone see that?

So it's okay to hit .225 over a span of 3000 plate appearances if you are an amazing defensive SS and popular player, but it's not okay to hit .158 in one season when you don't even have enough plate appearances to qualify for a competing batting average?

Ozzie is in the all b/c of his supberb defense and "popularity" (which IMO is a horsecrap reason). Andruw is probably one of the top 3 defensive CF of all time and had raw power enough to put him in an elite group of around 30 players EVER.

I mean that's what you are saying. Ozzie's BA is excused b/c of his supberb defense and popularity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I totally agree with markakis8 with his line on Ozzie, re defense and popularity. This always gets me into my why isn't Alan Trammell in the HOF when no hit, all glove Ozzie gets in first ballot and Alan barely gets a vote here and there. He could field AND hit! Ozzie got in on his popularity and backflips.

But then it comes down to more than stats. Key word is "FAME". Not the hall of Stats, not the hall of Gold gloves, not the hall of sportscenter, its the hall of FAME. The whole ball of wax is taken into account. Hall of Fame discussions are fun to read through - who is deserving, who isn't, etc. One of the better ways I have found over the years is to simply say a players name and ask - are they a Hall of Famer? yes or no? You'd be surprised how many people who are very good players - just don't get a yes answer when you do it. I'll take a few off the top of my head.... (and if you have to stew on it - then it should automatically lean towards no)

Andruw Jones - no
Frank Thomas - yes
Ken Griffey Jr - yes
Gary Sheffield - no
Jeff Bagwell - no
Pedro Martinez - yes
Curt Schilling - yes
Jim Edmonds - no
Jim Thome - no

You have bben thanked for your dead on Ozzie take.

 

[bodiaz]

[quote="jgro85":rmcgf5ir]If Andre Dawson and Jim Rice got in, Andruw gets in.

And that sir is my problem with Andre Dawson and Jim Rice being in. The standard just gets lower and lower. Next it will be "Is Torri Hunter a HOFer?" Answer, "If Andruw Jones is in, he has to be." Where does it end? None of these guys mentioned should be HOFers.

Dawson and Rice were both among the best of their generation, 'face of the game' type players and leaders of their respective teams. Jones is none of that. Statisticly they can be compared, but that is where the comparison ends and Jones falls short. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of stats.

Take Jim Rice out of Fenway and he becomes average. Dawson was not even good enough to carry a team. He very rarely made the playoffs. Even his "MVP" season I blieve the Cubs finished 4th! How can you be valuable when the team is 4th?!?! What, they would have been 5th without him? Without that MVP, he does not make the HOF.

And Cal Ripken won an MVP when his team finished 6th. But don't get me started on that one....

And Andruw will be in the hall for being one of the best defensive CF of all time and his power if he gets to 500 HR. Why can't anyone see that?

So it's okay to hit .225 over a span of 3000 plate appearances if you are an amazing defensive SS and popular player, but it's not okay to hit .158 in one season when you don't even have enough plate appearances to qualify for a competing batting average?

Ozzie is in the all b/c of his supberb defense and "popularity" (which IMO is a horsecrap reason). Andruw is probably one of the top 3 defensive CF of all time and had raw power enough to put him in an elite group of around 30 players EVER.

I mean that's what you are saying. Ozzie's BA is excused b/c of his supberb defense and popularity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I totally agree with markakis8 with his line on Ozzie, re defense and popularity. This always gets me into my why isn't Alan Trammell in the HOF when no hit, all glove Ozzie gets in first ballot and Alan barely gets a vote here and there. He could field AND hit! Ozzie got in on his popularity and backflips.

But then it comes down to more than stats. Key word is "FAME". Not the hall of Stats, not the hall of Gold gloves, not the hall of sportscenter, its the hall of FAME. The whole ball of wax is taken into account. Hall of Fame discussions are fun to read through - who is deserving, who isn't, etc. One of the better ways I have found over the years is to simply say a players name and ask - are they a Hall of Famer? yes or no? You'd be surprised how many people who are very good players - just don't get a yes answer when you do it. I'll take a few off the top of my head.... (and if you have to stew on it - then it should automatically lean towards no)

Andruw Jones - no
Frank Thomas - yes
Ken Griffey Jr - yes
Gary Sheffield - no
Jeff Bagwell - no
Pedro Martinez - yes
Curt Schilling - yes
Jim Edmonds - no
Jim Thome - no

You have bben thanked for your dead on Ozzie take.[/quote:rmcgf5ir]



I actually agree with all yoour yes/nos for HOF. I would not vote for Frank Thomas, but I realize the majority of voters will. I agree that Schilling and Pedro should get in.