To me, he's a no-doubt Hall of Very Good, but that's it.  He has terrific leadoff skills but he has never been the centrepiece of a good offensive club and he has never been the premier player at his position (unlike, say, Jeff Bagwell on both counts).  Defensively, his throwing arm is such a non-deterrent that opposing third base coaches challenge him almost without exception.

He can play for me any day, but his offensive CV does not measure up to those of his more Hall-worthy peers.

Damon's not even Hall of Very Good in my view... just Hall of Good.  I don't think of him as even a minor star.  He puts a decent whole-package game together (except for his throwing arm) but he's a couple of notches below guys like Chet Lemon or Amos Otis or Rick Monday and a notch below a Lloyd Moseby or Jose Cardenal.  Damon will have a longer career than the Shaker because Moseby was done in early by injuries, but Damon wasn't a better player.

It's possible Damon could hang around forever and collect 3000 hits, but that wouldn't make him a Hall of Famer in my book just as it didn't for Harold Baines (who has a better case than Damon anyway).

I could see Damon becoming the 'test case' for 3000 hits being automatic.

A few years back Don Sutton was fighting to get in the Hall with over 300 wins.  His ERA+ was just 108, had 20+ wins just once, never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting (0.43 shares lifetime), came in 22nd once in MVP voting and that was it for that, 4 time all-star (Stieb was a 7 time AS for comparison purposes), black ink of just 8 (average HOF is 40).  He will probably have all HOF'ers on his most comparable list in the end (only ones not in now are Blyleven, John, and Maddux) so not a terrible selection.

Damon by comparison is a 2 time AS, 3 times had MVP votes (13-19th place), black ink of 6, just one HOF'er on most similar to age 32 although Raines and Rose are both on that top 10 as well. 

Sutton had a stronger arguement but had a heck of a fight to get in.  I doubt Damon will get in without some weird peak post 32. 

I am so frustrated with the HOF.  All the voters really care about are "nice round numbers".  If Damon gets 3000 hits, he's a shoe-in.  If he ends up at 2700, he won't make it.  That is why Tim Raines will have lots of trouble getting in.  He was probably the 2nd best leadoff hitter of all time, who had the misfortune of playing during the same period as the greatest, Rickey Henderson. Raines is much better than Lou Brock.  Look:

RAINES: .294 AVG, .385 OBP, .425 SLG .810 OPS 2605 H, 1330 BB, 170 HR 1571 R, 980 RBI, 808 SB, 146 CS

BROCK: .293 AVG, .343 OBP, .410 SLG, .753 OPS, 3023 H, 761 BB, 149 HR, 1610 R, 900 RBI, 938 SB, 307 CS

Comparing the two:

AVG: TIE

OBP: RAINES (wins by far, and this is one of the most important stats for a leadoff hitter)

SLG: RAINES (wins by a little)

OPS: RAINES

HITS: BROCK by 400, but that is only because he didn't walk as much as Raines, and got 2 seasons more At Bats, Brock ended up +400 in hits, and RAINES ended up +600 in Walks, and they scored the same amount of runs.  It should be about even, but those singles make Brock a first-ballot HOF, and Raines will have to fight and claw to get in.

WALKS RAINES by 600 (see above)

HOME RUNS: RAINES

RUNS: About a tie

RBI: RAINES

STOLEN BASES: Brock was the best of his era, and ended up +130 (938 to 808), but he got caught stealing 161 more times  than Raines (307 to 146).  Tim Raines was actually a much better base stealer than Brock, but those ignorant voters could care less about CS. Heck, if someone stole 1000 bases, and got caught 700 times, they'd still probably vote the guy into the HOF. 

SUMMING UP: RAINES is better at OBP, OPS, BB, HR, RBI, and Stealing Bases.  BROCK is better an nothing except leading by 400 hits just becuase he had more At Bats (because of the fewer walks). But those hits translated into LESS RBI and the same amount of Runs.  Clearly TIM RAINES is the better player. 

Bringing us back to Johnny Damon:  None of the other stats matter to HOF voters.  He'll never put up numbers like Raines, especially if we also consider park factors etc).  But, if Damon just "hangs around" to get to 3000, he'll get in.

-Dan

The Brock vs. Raines comparison serves to illustrate what I believe to be the biggest shortcoming in HoF voters: the ability to properly appreciate the walk as an offensive weapon.

Players with terrific OBP's often hurt their HoF cases by walking rather than by flailing away at crummy pitches, adding a few precious hits, HRs and RBIs, if even at an overall net loss. Clearly the counting stats matter more than a silly thing like getting on base. This is the type of thinking that makes the likes of Jeff (.408 OBP) Bagwell underrated and Joe (.306 OBP but just count those 100-RBI seasons!) overrated.

The one who jumped to mind for Johnny Damon was Bernie Williams for me. CF, high profile team(s), good hitter. I've always though Bernie was a borderline case at best, and he seems pretty clearly better than Damon (future Hall Watch entry, I would assume). Like Williams, Damon will lose most of his value if he can't play a passable CF at some point. From watching Damon, it's my impression that he doesn't get great jumps on balls or take great routes, but makes up for it with speed. Obviously his arm is awful, so if he loses a bit of speed, I'm not sure if he'd even be suitable for a corner OF spot.

I'd be shocked if Damon hung on long enough to pile up 3000 hits, he's 6 full seasons with a high average away now at the age of 33, but career projections are always tricky. His career average (.289) doesn't scream HoF, and runs scored never seems to be noted as a vitally important stat like RBI are. If Damon does make it to 3000 hits in 7-8 years, dragging a .280 average and mediocre/bad defense along with him, I can't see how he will deserve induction, barring a long stretch of peak production in his mid-late 30s.

A guy who I'm certain won't get in but should is Fred McGriff.  493 HR.  Close but no cigar even though no one has ever even suggested steroids.  He just didn't peak at the right time. 

OPS+ of 100+ in all but his first (5 PA) and last (81 PA) seasons.  Heck, it was above 100 in both stops in both the seasons he was traded during even.  His postseason line is 303/385/532, with 279/385/605 in the WS.  5 time All-Star, 8 times on the MVP ballot (1.41 shares but no award), top 5 in OPS for 7 straight years.

His top 10 comparables?  4 HOF'ers plus Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Sheffield, Griffey and 2 non-HOF'ers in Galarraga and Chili Davis.

McGriff is killed by his consistancy.  He was always one of the better hitters, but rarely viewed as the best (1 OPS title, 2 HR titles but both were sub-40 HR).  His peak for OPS+ was 165 but he also had 8 other seasons above 140 (Damon's peak is 120).  Also killed by his playing for so many teams - 6 of them, peak being 5 seasons in Toronto and 4 1/2 in Atlanta.

I would be shocked if McGriff makes it within the first 5 years, and woudn't be surprised if he even got dropped from the ballot despite being so much better than so many who are there year in year out.

He [McGriff] just didn't peak at the right time. 

Also, McGriff made the "mistake" of logging over a third of his career AB prior to 1993, when league-wide offensive levels started their dramatic rise (in 1989, he led the AL in HR with 36!). Because of this, if he is compared to players who's careers started after his stared, his raw numbers will no doubt not be properly normalized and won't look as good in comparison.

He also has the Palmeiro comp working against him. They have a virtually identical career OPS+ (134 for McGriff, 132 for Palmeiro), but Palmeiro has longevity on his side, having logged about 1700 more PA's. And if Palmeiro is squeezed out, even if the drug argument is used (though voters may be reluctant to do so, as is the case now with some writers somehow finding McGwire non-HoF worthy based solely on his stats), McGriff figures to surely be squeezed out as well.