HOF discussion: Andruw Jones

[markakis8]

I would also like to add, I think a great comparison for the HOF with Andruw Jones is Harmon Killebrew.

Both very low average with raw power. AJones obviously wins the defensive end by a landslide and I would give a slight edge to Harmon on the power side.

If Harmon can make the HOF with barely over 2,000 hits and .256 average (573 home runs) and mediocre defense, Andruw Jones will make it with a .260 average, 500 HR, 2200 hits and 10 gold gloves.

 

[Crash Davis]

It's a simple fact. Andruw Jones will be a HOFer if he gets 500 HR and with his gold gloves. 1st ballot? Probably not. But he's a lock. He's debatable and could possibly still get in with 450 HR.

Also, to whomever said they lump all three OF positions together...FALSE. CF is the SS of the outfield.

I believe on how Bill James measures HOF (50 points being the avg HOF) he automatically gives 16 points for 10 years of CF, 13 points for RF and 10 or 11 for LF.

Catchers get 20 points and SS 18 I believe.

It's not a "simple fact" because Jones has not been elected to The Hall yet.

And to compare Jones to Harmon Killebrew is comedic. First of all, Killebrew played in an era when reaching 500 career HRs was uncommon. He was a prolific home run hitter during an era when hitting home runs meant something.

Jones will never make the Hall of Fame. Juan Gonzalez was a better player than Jones and he has no shot of making The Hall. In fact, Gonzalez won two MVP awards.

As more and more players hit 500 career HRs, Jones' statistics will pale in comparison, as if they don't already.

 

[markakis8]

How is comparing Killebrew to Andruw Jones comedic? Explain it. Just b/c not as many people hit 500 home runs back in Harmon's time, doest mean they aren't the same type of hitter...low average, many HRs. You must be stuck on Harmon's legendary status. But they are the SAME type of hitter.

And it is that simple. He will be in the HOF with 500 HRs. You say Juan Gonzalez won't make the HOF and he had 2 MVPs. So does Dale Murphy. Even Willie Hernandez won an MVP.

Well 2 things he doesn't have is 500 HR and 10 gold gloves which is what Andruw Jones could have by the end of his career.

Juan Gone also didnt play on one of the two most dominant teams of the decade and was in the playoffs year in and year out. That helps.

See how simple it is?

It's not a "simple fact" because Jones has not been elected to The Hall yet.

And to compare Jones to Harmon Killebrew is comedic. First of all, Killebrew played in an era when reaching 500 career HRs was uncommon. He was a prolific home run hitter during an era when hitting home runs meant something.

Jones will never make the Hall of Fame. Juan Gonzalez was a better player than Jones and he has no shot of making The Hall. In fact, Gonzalez won two MVP awards.

As more and more players hit 500 career HRs, Jones' statistics will pale in comparison, as if they don't already.

 

[kdailey4315]

What's with all the "top 10 MVP voting?" Is that really supposed to be a good thing? Just being a top 10 player in your league during your career is supposed to get you in the HOF now?

So you think being in the top 10 of MVP voting is not a good thing??

Contextually speaking, if your a player that has been in the top 10 of MVP voting throughout your professional career, then it's a significant indicator of just how well of a ball player you were/are. And not just amongst your positional peers, but all of baseball. It is indeed a valid resource of player dominance and cant possibly be viewed any other way...

But if you care to elaborate on your original thought, I'd love to hear it.

Both leagues give out MVP awards so you're only top 10 in your league not all of baseball. I'm sorry but being a top 20 player in baseball during your career should not get you into the HOF.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

If he wins MVP this year, he's in no matter what

 

[sportscardtheory]

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.

 

[markakis8]

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.

 

[sportscardtheory]

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.

Ozzie was never a great hitter but was one of the most popular players of his era. Andruw Jones hit 51 homeruns in a season and then a couple years later hit .158. Jones was WELL on his way to a HOF career before he hit the wall. He was one of the better defensive CFs in the game and could hit. Too bad he stopped caring and cost himself the HOF.

 

[RL24]

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.

 

[RL24]

What's with all the "top 10 MVP voting?" Is that really supposed to be a good thing? Just being a top 10 player in your league during your career is supposed to get you in the HOF now?

So you think being in the top 10 of MVP voting is not a good thing??

Contextually speaking, if your a player that has been in the top 10 of MVP voting throughout your professional career, then it's a significant indicator of just how well of a ball player you were/are. And not just amongst your positional peers, but all of baseball. It is indeed a valid resource of player dominance and cant possibly be viewed any other way...

But if you care to elaborate on your original thought, I'd love to hear it.

Chrysler was one of the top 10 car manufacturers. Look at them now.


It's not that top 10 isn't a good thing, it's that it's not good enough for the HOF.

 

[leatherman]

Hall of Famers don't hit .158 in a season.

You made me research this. Here are the four HOFers who batted under .200 with over 200 ABs in a season:

Reggie Jackson .194 in 1983 (397 ABs)
Harmon Killebrew .199 in 1975 (312 ABs)
Mike Schmidt .196 in 1973 (367 ABs)
Phil Rizzuto .195 in 1954 (307 ABs)

 

[kdailey4315]

What's with all the "top 10 MVP voting?" Is that really supposed to be a good thing? Just being a top 10 player in your league during your career is supposed to get you in the HOF now?

So you think being in the top 10 of MVP voting is not a good thing??

Contextually speaking, if your a player that has been in the top 10 of MVP voting throughout your professional career, then it's a significant indicator of just how well of a ball player you were/are. And not just amongst your positional peers, but all of baseball. It is indeed a valid resource of player dominance and cant possibly be viewed any other way...

But if you care to elaborate on your original thought, I'd love to hear it.

Chrysler was one of the top 10 car manufacturers. Look at them now.


It's not that top 10 isn't a good thing, it's that it's not good enough for the HOF.

Thank you. That's pretty much what I said in my response to him

 

[sportscardtheory]

Hall of Famers don't hit .158 in a season.

You made me research this. Here are the four HOFers who batted under .200 with over 200 ABs in a season:

Reggie Jackson .194 in 1983 (397 ABs)
Harmon Killebrew .199 in 1975 (312 ABs)
Mike Schmidt .196 in 1973 (367 ABs)
Phil Rizzuto .195 in 1954 (307 ABs)

Interesting info. Now you have me looking, lol.

Jackson had one .300+ season
Killebrew had zero .300+ seasons
Schmidt had one .300+ season
Rizzuto had two .300+ seasons

Jones had one .300+ season

I guess we will have to see how Jones rebounds from his atrocious 2007-2009. If he can regain his form, my opinion on his Hall worthiness could change. I don't see it happening though. Besides Rizzuto, Jones doesn't even compare to the other three, plus .158 is far worse than .194. Plus, it is the Hall of FAME, and his monumental crash will haunt him and cost him votes.

 

[matfanofold]

What's with all the "top 10 MVP voting?" Is that really supposed to be a good thing? Just being a top 10 player in your league during your career is supposed to get you in the HOF now?

So you think being in the top 10 of MVP voting is not a good thing??

Contextually speaking, if your a player that has been in the top 10 of MVP voting throughout your professional career, then it's a significant indicator of just how well of a ball player you were/are. And not just amongst your positional peers, but all of baseball. It is indeed a valid resource of player dominance and cant possibly be viewed any other way...

But if you care to elaborate on your original thought, I'd love to hear it.

Chrysler was one of the top 10 car manufacturers. Look at them now.


It's not that top 10 isn't a good thing, it's that it's not good enough for the HOF.

Thank you. That's pretty much what I said in my response to him

Both of you eithor fail to see the reasoning behind my post, or are flat out purposely wearing blinders. NO WHERE did I say it equates to the HOF. but rather just another factor to look at. And I'm still waiting for a valid response from kdailey4315 and not just a "+1" to some nonsencical comparison between apples and chryslers...

EDIT: Bah, you know what? I really do not even care about this enough to discuss anymore. This place is full of people who are desperate to validate their opinion(s) as to what they think the HOF is, was, should be, ect. but never really look at the Hall for what it actually is. And thats really too bad as it's a place that encompases all of what we find fond in the hobby. Anyone with common sence and perhaps older than 12 knows the HOF is based on many things that have nothing to do with stats, and popularity is one of them. Any player who can routinely be mentioned in the top 10 of MVP voting throughout his career is most definitly popular and quite good. Now, does this equate to HOF on it's own merit? Surely not, but it does represent what HOF players posess and thats top of the game ball playing and popularity. To see this as invalid, or simply reject the reality of this and subsitute it with your own is fruitless. I'm done here. I know what the HOF is, and I love it for what it is and do not care what you think it should be.

 

[kdailey4315]

What's with all the "top 10 MVP voting?" Is that really supposed to be a good thing? Just being a top 10 player in your league during your career is supposed to get you in the HOF now?

So you think being in the top 10 of MVP voting is not a good thing??

Contextually speaking, if your a player that has been in the top 10 of MVP voting throughout your professional career, then it's a significant indicator of just how well of a ball player you were/are. And not just amongst your positional peers, but all of baseball. It is indeed a valid resource of player dominance and cant possibly be viewed any other way...

But if you care to elaborate on your original thought, I'd love to hear it.

Chrysler was one of the top 10 car manufacturers. Look at them now.


It's not that top 10 isn't a good thing, it's that it's not good enough for the HOF.

Thank you. That's pretty much what I said in my response to him

Both of you eithor fail to see the reasoning behind my post, or are flat out purposely wearing blinders. NO WHERE did I say it equates to the HOF. but rather just another factor to look at. And I'm still waiting for a valid response from kdailey4315 and not just a "+1" to some nonsencical comparison between apples and chryslers...

Did you actually read my response to you? I first pointed out your error in saying that someone in the top 10 voting for MVP is a top ten player in baseball. Since both leagues give out awards then that player would only be in the top 20 for all of baseball. Top 20 during your career does not get you into the HOF. Look at Dale Murphy. He had 2 top 5's (That's twice as good as your coveted top 10) and won the award 2 years in a row. Is he in the HOF? Mo Vaughn won it once had a few top 10's and 1 top 5 (again, twice as good as your top 10) Is he a HOF'er?
Is that valid enough for you? My original post said that top 10 MVP votes should not get someone into the HOF. By asking if it's a good thing I meant should that really be in the discussion for a HOF candidate? If you have to resort to top 10 in MVP votes for a few given years you probably don't belong in the HOF.

 

[kdailey4315]

EDIT: Bah, you know what? I really do not even care about this enough to discuss anymore. This place is full of people who are desperate to validate their opinion(s) as to what they think the HOF is, was, should be, ect. but never really look at the Hall for what it actually is. And thats really too bad as it's a place that encompases all of what we find fond in the hobby. Anyone with common sence and perhaps older than 12 knows the HOF is based on many things that have nothing to do with stats, and popularity is one of them. Any player who can routinely be mentioned in the top 10 of MVP voting throughout his career is most definitly popular and quite good. Now, does this equate to HOF on it's own merit? Surely not, but it does represent what HOF players posess and thats top of the game ball playing and popularity. To see this as invalid, or simply reject the reality of this and subsitute it with your own is fruitless. I'm done here. I know what the HOF is, and I love it for what it is and do not care what you think it should be.

So now you're going to take your ball and go home because someone disagrees with you.

 

[matfanofold]

[quote="kdailey4315":2ozruvzt]What's with all the "top 10 MVP voting?" Is that really supposed to be a good thing? Just being a top 10 player in your league during your career is supposed to get you in the HOF now?

So you think being in the top 10 of MVP voting is not a good thing??

Contextually speaking, if your a player that has been in the top 10 of MVP voting throughout your professional career, then it's a significant indicator of just how well of a ball player you were/are. And not just amongst your positional peers, but all of baseball. It is indeed a valid resource of player dominance and cant possibly be viewed any other way...

But if you care to elaborate on your original thought, I'd love to hear it.

Chrysler was one of the top 10 car manufacturers. Look at them now.


It's not that top 10 isn't a good thing, it's that it's not good enough for the HOF.

Thank you. That's pretty much what I said in my response to him

Both of you eithor fail to see the reasoning behind my post, or are flat out purposely wearing blinders. NO WHERE did I say it equates to the HOF. but rather just another factor to look at. And I'm still waiting for a valid response from kdailey4315 and not just a "+1" to some nonsencical comparison between apples and chryslers...

Did you actually read my response to you? I first pointed out your error in saying that someone in the top 10 voting for MVP is a top ten player in baseball. Since both leagues give out awards then that player would only be in the top 20 for all of baseball. Top 20 during your career does not get you into the HOF. Look at Dale Murphy. He had 2 top 5's (That's twice as good as your coveted top 10) and won the award 2 years in a row. Is he in the HOF? Mo Vaughn won it once had a few top 10's and 1 top 5 (again, twice as good as your top 10) Is he a HOF'er?
Is that valid enough for you? My original post said that top 10 MVP votes should not get someone into the HOF. By asking if it's a good thing I meant should that really be in the discussion for a HOF candidate? If you have to resort to top 10 in MVP votes for a few given years you probably don't belong in the HOF.[/quote:2ozruvzt]


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.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Technically a top 10 finisher in one league can be a better player than any of the players in the other league who received MVP votes. A player who finished fourth in one league could be better than the MVP in the other league.

Did you actually read my response to you? I first pointed out your error in saying that someone in the top 10 voting for MVP is a top ten player in baseball. Since both leagues give out awards then that player would only be in the top 20 for all of baseball. Top 20 during your career does not get you into the HOF. Look at Dale Murphy. He had 2 top 5's (That's twice as good as your coveted top 10) and won the award 2 years in a row. Is he in the HOF? Mo Vaughn won it once had a few top 10's and 1 top 5 (again, twice as good as your top 10) Is he a HOF'er?
Is that valid enough for you? My original post said that top 10 MVP votes should not get someone into the HOF. By asking if it's a good thing I meant should that really be in the discussion for a HOF candidate? If you have to resort to top 10 in MVP votes for a few given years you probably don't belong in the HOF.

 

[markakis8]

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.

 

[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...

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.

Excuse? I don't believe so. When Smith wasn't hitting the ball, he was still the best defensive SS in the game and one of the most beloved and popular players of his time. When Andruw Jones isn't hitting the ball, no one gives a shat. He's no longer popular enough to be considered a HOFer. 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.