Lance Berkman HOF potential?

[kdailey4315]

mark my words. your panda will be hitting below .250 in three years. he does not take care of himself at all and cannot hit like miguel cabrera.

Can I quote this and put it in my sig so in 3 years we can all see how wrong you'll be?

 

[donrusscrusademan]

mark my words. your panda will be hitting below .250 in three years. he does not take care of himself at all and cannot hit like miguel cabrera.

Can I quote this and put it in my sig so in 3 years we can all see how wrong you'll be?

he will be playing in 3 years, but at a lower weight.
keith hackney will pay a visit and show him his potential

 

[predatorkj]

led the league 3 times- 2 in doubles and once in rbi

compare to my guy Edgar Martinez (to whom everyone thinks wont get in) has led the league 12 times.

so will Berkman lead the league in something 9 more times, or just play a long time and increase the numbers? not sure.

I hate to say this because I know there is a fine line between longevity and stat padding, but I just think Edgar missed any real chance by a few more years. If he were able to hang around long enough to get 2500+ hits, ~400 HR's and retain that sweet .310+ ba, he would of atleast had a valid argument for the hall. But as it stands, no one is really looking to enshrine a ~2200 hit, ~300 HR player, who never really gained the kind of popularity that pushes people over the edge. A good ball player? Absolutely! A great MLB career? Definitely! A HOF'er? No.

I brought up Berkman because I do believe it's actually possible for him, slim but possible. If he can by some chance get to 2000+ hits, ~450 HR's and approach 1500 RBI's while retaining that ~.300 Ba, add a few AS appearances and get honorable mentions in a couple more MVP discussions, he has a legitimate chance.

Edgar, since his totals and accomplishments are done and final, are easy to critique.

I think Edgar should be in. Just my opinion. Also...I don't believe in being a compiler. I feel as long as you maintain the necessary talent to stay in the majors...then you are not compiling but merely playing and working like the rest of the players. Take Biggio for instance. He was trying to go too far and it was very evident his last year he played. But then again...McClain played on the ability to cash in on the milestone so all ended well. Even if it did cost the astros somewhat. But its not like he wouldn't get in if he hadn't played that last year.

I think if a player just hasn't got "it" anymore...he will be reasonably weeded out. Especially when the ownership sees that they can bring up new talent that will perform better for way less money.

 

[jgro85]

Lmao, I love how people life to qualify Hall of Fame status by how many MVPs, championships, or All-Star appearances someone has.

Funny how?

MVP = pretty dominating amongst your peers for that perticular year. Also implys popularity to a degree. Both of which garner HOF votes when placed in context.

AS Appearances = the popularity of an individual player, not always but usually based on how well they play. You know, chicks love the long ball, ect.. And since the Hall of Fame is partly based on how popular a perticular player was/is, I do not see how this is not valid as somewhat of a guage.

Championships = National exposure, accomplishment, achievement, and noteriety. All of which sway voters and popular opinion. All of which help with voting in to the Hall.


What exactly is your take on this?

My take is that the Hall of Fame shouldn't be a popularity contest. You should get into the Hall of Fame, surprise, by how good you were at baseball! I have many things for my argument that you would probably agree with, but it won't matter since your "take" is that the HOF is about popularity. However, I will post my arguments just the same, with hopes of pointing out shortcomings of such a reasoning process.

MVP:
An MVP award is circumstantial, and more so in baseball than in any other sport. You won't win an MVP if you are on a horrible team barring one or two exceptions (i.e. Dawson, and consider how many times it's happened over the many years of the sport's history). Plus, call me a stat geek, but I'd rather use stuff like ERA+ and OPS+ to compare players to other players of a certain era.

AS Appearances:
Again I realize that you realize it's a popularity contest. But in no way, shape, or form should they be used to determine whether or not someone makes it into the HOF. It's a popularity contest voted on by drunk idiots and 9 year-olds at Royals-Indians games in early May. It should not be used as a barometer of anything. Fred Lynn was an AS 9 times; Strawberry was an AS 8 times. Scott Cooper and Ron Coomer were 2-time All-Stars. Not voting for someone because he never started an all-star game is like not voting for a congressman because he was never voted "most likely to be a congressman" in high school. And what about the players in the land before time when there were no AS games? ???

Championships:
Yes, I agree with you. They give you national exposure, etc. Just like MVP awards, championships are completely circumstantial. It solely depends on the team. How you can possibly measure how good someone is because their team makes the postseason is beyond me. Everyone on one team has to all produce in the same exact year in order to create a championship. In baseball, one guy hitting 40 home runs and driving in 100 runs will not instantly make a team better unless he has good players around him. I won't bother making a list of players who were awesome and never won championships, because it'd include way too many people like: KEN GRIFFEY, HARMON KILLEBREW, JIM THOME, TONY GWYNN, BERT BLYLEVEN (yes he should be in) and probably a couple hundred others. But, Jorge Posada won like 18 championships, so he's better, even though his output was at best 1/9th of the reason why the Yankees won those championships.

I could go on and on. If someone else cites that someone made an All-Star team or led the league in something a few times and should be in the HOF, I'm going to shoot a squirrel. How someone can not understand this makes me question God's crude sense of humor.

But yeah, if it's a popularity contest then nothing I just said really matters.

 

[matfanofold]

Lmao, I love how people life to qualify Hall of Fame status by how many MVPs, championships, or All-Star appearances someone has.

Funny how?

MVP = pretty dominating amongst your peers for that perticular year. Also implys popularity to a degree. Both of which garner HOF votes when placed in context.

AS Appearances = the popularity of an individual player, not always but usually based on how well they play. You know, chicks love the long ball, ect.. And since the Hall of Fame is partly based on how popular a perticular player was/is, I do not see how this is not valid as somewhat of a guage.

Championships = National exposure, accomplishment, achievement, and noteriety. All of which sway voters and popular opinion. All of which help with voting in to the Hall.


What exactly is your take on this?

My take is that the Hall of Fame shouldn't be a popularity contest. You should get into the Hall of Fame, surprise, by how good you were at baseball! I have many things for my argument that you would probably agree with, but it won't matter since your "take" is that the HOF is about popularity. However, I will post my arguments just the same, with hopes of pointing out shortcomings of such a reasoning process.

MVP:
An MVP award is circumstantial, and more so in baseball than in any other sport. You won't win an MVP if you are on a horrible team barring one or two exceptions (i.e. Dawson, and consider how many times it's happened over the many years of the sport's history). Plus, call me a stat geek, but I'd rather use stuff like ERA+ and OPS+ to compare players to other players of a certain era.

AS Appearances:
Again I realize that you realize it's a popularity contest. But in no way, shape, or form should they be used to determine whether or not someone makes it into the HOF. It's a popularity contest voted on by drunk idiots and 9 year-olds at Royals-Indians games in early May. It should not be used as a barometer of anything. Fred Lynn was an AS 9 times; Strawberry was an AS 8 times. Scott Cooper and Ron Coomer were 2-time All-Stars. Not voting for someone because he never started an all-star game is like not voting for a congressman because he was never voted "most likely to be a congressman" in high school. And what about the players in the land before time when there were no AS games? ???

Championships:
Yes, I agree with you. They give you national exposure, etc. Just like MVP awards, championships are completely circumstantial. It solely depends on the team. How you can possibly measure how good someone is because their team makes the postseason is beyond me. Everyone on one team has to all produce in the same exact year in order to create a championship. In baseball, one guy hitting 40 home runs and driving in 100 runs will not instantly make a team better unless he has good players around him. I won't bother making a list of players who were awesome and never won championships, because it'd include way too many people like: KEN GRIFFEY, HARMON KILLEBREW, JIM THOME, TONY GWYNN, BERT BLYLEVEN (yes he should be in) and probably a couple hundred others. But, Jorge Posada won like 18 championships, so he's better, even though his output was at best 1/9th of the reason why the Yankees won those championships.

I could go on and on. If someone else cites that someone made an All-Star team or led the league in something a few times and should be in the HOF, I'm going to shoot a squirrel. How someone can not understand this makes me question God's crude sense of humor.

But yeah, if it's a popularity contest then nothing I just said really matters.

I guess one of the harder things to understand about the HOF is that it is in some respect a popularity contest. Not soley based on it, but not soley based on stats alone eithor. Understanding that is all that is required to see the validity in such things like MVP's, AS games, and the like. Please do not shoot any squirrels.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Hall of FAME

I still can't understand why some people don't get that. It's right in the name for crying out loud. The obviousness of it smacks you right in the face. It's not the Hall of Stats.

 

[lordsepic]

Personally, I think he is going to have to put up another 5-6 years of MVP like numbers to be seriously considered. And since he is 34 now, I just do not see him producing at that level until he is 40. I think he will be lucky to get to 430 HR's. And lets face it, with no MVP's, just a handful of AS appearances, barely a shot at 2000 hits, and a .299 lifetime ba, his only hope to even be considered is 500 HR's. Right now I'd have to say he does not make it.

Your thoughts?

Hard to get an MVP when Bonds and Pujols were playing in your league your entire career...

I don't think MVP's will mean anything in voting since no one will have MVP's in the NL during this past 10 year span...Since 2001 Only Bonds (4), Pujols (3), Howard (1) and Rollins (1) have MVP awards in the NL... there are definitely HOF'ers playing right now... however with that said Berkman has no shot at the hall

 

[jgro85]

Hall of FAME

I still can't understand why some people don't get that. It's right in the name for crying out loud. The obviousness of it smacks you right in the face. It's not the Hall of Stats.

Trust me, I completely understand it. I just don't think that's what it should be, and that's my opinion. To prove another point, I bet most people don't know more than half of the players in the hall because they weren't famous at all.

 

[thenumberonemetfan]

Hall of FAME

I still can't understand why some people don't get that. It's right in the name for crying out loud. The obviousness of it smacks you right in the face. It's not the Hall of Stats.

Trust me, I completely understand it. I just don't think that's what it should be, and that's my opinion. To prove another point, I bet most people don't know more than half of the players in the hall because they weren't famous at all.

At their time they were pretty well known

 

[boomo]

about as much chance as dwight gooden

 

[jgro85]

Hall of FAME

I still can't understand why some people don't get that. It's right in the name for crying out loud. The obviousness of it smacks you right in the face. It's not the Hall of Stats.

Trust me, I completely understand it. I just don't think that's what it should be, and that's my opinion. To prove another point, I bet most people don't know more than half of the players in the hall because they weren't famous at all.

At their time they were pretty well known

Can you give examples then prove your point?

 

[predatorkj]

Lmao, I love how people life to qualify Hall of Fame status by how many MVPs, championships, or All-Star appearances someone has.

Funny how?

MVP = pretty dominating amongst your peers for that perticular year. Also implys popularity to a degree. Both of which garner HOF votes when placed in context.

AS Appearances = the popularity of an individual player, not always but usually based on how well they play. You know, chicks love the long ball, ect.. And since the Hall of Fame is partly based on how popular a perticular player was/is, I do not see how this is not valid as somewhat of a guage.

Championships = National exposure, accomplishment, achievement, and noteriety. All of which sway voters and popular opinion. All of which help with voting in to the Hall.


What exactly is your take on this?

My take is that the Hall of Fame shouldn't be a popularity contest. You should get into the Hall of Fame, surprise, by how good you were at baseball! I have many things for my argument that you would probably agree with, but it won't matter since your "take" is that the HOF is about popularity. However, I will post my arguments just the same, with hopes of pointing out shortcomings of such a reasoning process.

MVP:
An MVP award is circumstantial, and more so in baseball than in any other sport. You won't win an MVP if you are on a horrible team barring one or two exceptions (i.e. Dawson, and consider how many times it's happened over the many years of the sport's history). Plus, call me a stat geek, but I'd rather use stuff like ERA+ and OPS+ to compare players to other players of a certain era.

AS Appearances:
Again I realize that you realize it's a popularity contest. But in no way, shape, or form should they be used to determine whether or not someone makes it into the HOF. It's a popularity contest voted on by drunk idiots and 9 year-olds at Royals-Indians games in early May. It should not be used as a barometer of anything. Fred Lynn was an AS 9 times; Strawberry was an AS 8 times. Scott Cooper and Ron Coomer were 2-time All-Stars. Not voting for someone because he never started an all-star game is like not voting for a congressman because he was never voted "most likely to be a congressman" in high school. And what about the players in the land before time when there were no AS games? ???

Championships:
Yes, I agree with you. They give you national exposure, etc. Just like MVP awards, championships are completely circumstantial. It solely depends on the team. How you can possibly measure how good someone is because their team makes the postseason is beyond me. Everyone on one team has to all produce in the same exact year in order to create a championship. In baseball, one guy hitting 40 home runs and driving in 100 runs will not instantly make a team better unless he has good players around him. I won't bother making a list of players who were awesome and never won championships, because it'd include way too many people like: KEN GRIFFEY, HARMON KILLEBREW, JIM THOME, TONY GWYNN, BERT BLYLEVEN (yes he should be in) and probably a couple hundred others. But, Jorge Posada won like 18 championships, so he's better, even though his output was at best 1/9th of the reason why the Yankees won those championships.

I could go on and on. If someone else cites that someone made an All-Star team or led the league in something a few times and should be in the HOF, I'm going to shoot a squirrel. How someone can not understand this makes me question God's crude sense of humor.

But yeah, if it's a popularity contest then nothing I just said really matters.

I guess one of the harder things to understand about the HOF is that it is in some respect a popularity contest. Not soley based on it, but not soley based on stats alone eithor. Understanding that is all that is required to see the validity in such things like MVP's, AS games, and the like. Please do not shoot any squirrels.

It has to be an amalgam of fame and stats. Otherwise people like Roger Maris would be in based on fame alone. Another thing to keep in mind...there are quite a few good players who are not necessarily famous the world over. I could totally see somebody saying a no namer who wasn't popular in his own team's city doesn't have a chance but take a guy who is on the border of getting in based on stats. It doesn't necessarily mean that he will be popular outside of his city. But in his city he might be like God. So that is why I just can't see it being more of a fame thing. What are you doing? Basing the fame part of your decision based on a particular city? That's not a very good way to go about it. And unless they were like Bonds, Pujols, A-Rod, or Howard...they may not be popular in every city. I think we can agree that if you have to have certain stats to even be considered...then you can say it has more to do with stats and not so much the fame thing. I think people see the word fame and get way too caught up on it. I don't think its so literal.

 

[craftysouthpaw]

Hall of FAME

I still can't understand why some people don't get that. It's right in the name for crying out loud. The obviousness of it smacks you right in the face. It's not the Hall of Stats.

It may be in the name but that is clearly not the intention. Maybe "fame" meant something different in 1936. The Hall's published criteria for the voters is "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." Absolutely nothing about fame as a criteria. Exceling at the published criteria might lead to "fame", but "fame" isn't something that voters use when casting their votes. Plus, how do you define "fame" anyway? The published criteria is vague enough.

If "fame" were the criteria, guys like like Maris, Larsen, Vandermeer, Bobby Thomson, etc., etc., etc. would be in.

Berkman's "record" and "playing ability" surely puts him in the discussion. His adjusted OPS+ is 2nd best all-time for a switch hitter behind only Mantle. He might slip behind Chipper as he ages but pretty good company. Contributions to the team is basically synonomous with "record" and "playing ability" - if you have an OPS + of 147, you pass that test with flying colors. The other criteria are obviously much more subjective but there is nothing known that would cause him to lose points there.

He isn't a HOF'er yet in my opinion, but if he passes some milestones (say 2,000+ hits and 400+ homers) without a significant erosion to his rate stats, he merits serious consideration.

 

[sportscardtheory]

It may be in the name but that is clearly not the intention. Maybe "fame" meant something different in 1936. The Hall's published criteria for the voters is "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." Absolutely nothing about fame as a criteria. Exceling at the published criteria might lead to "fame", but "fame" isn't something that voters use when casting their votes. Plus, how do you define "fame" anyway? The published criteria is vague enough.

If "fame" were the criteria, guys like like Maris, Larsen, Vandermeer, Bobby Thomson, etc., etc., etc. would be in.

Berkman's "record" and "playing ability" surely puts him in the discussion. His adjusted OPS+ is 2nd best all-time for a switch hitter behind only Mantle. He might slip behind Chipper as he ages but pretty good company. Contributions to the team is basically synonomous with "record" and "playing ability" - if you have an OPS + of 147, you pass that test with flying colors. The other criteria are obviously much more subjective but there is nothing known that would cause him to lose points there.

He isn't a HOF'er yet in my opinion, but if he passes some milestones (say 2,000+ hits and 400+ homers) without a significant erosion to his rate stats, he merits serious consideration.

"the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." all have everything to do with a player's "fame". Fame is the sum of all of that criteria. Of course we are dealing with a "level" of fame. Andruw Jones has fame, but not enough to get in, IMO, unless he really turns around his career and adds a lot to his stats.