1)  Atlanta fans are up in arms because you forgot John Smoltz.  I'd say he is a mortal lock for the Hall, or at the very least Italtics.

2)  Jeff Francis stands out on that list as being a very poor choice.  If you are going to throw a young pitcher in there like Francis, you should add Jake Peavy, who is smoking Francis in every statistical mark.

3)  and who is "Scptt Rolen" ;)

Who are the least likely HoF candidates listed above?

I'd say Willis or Buerhle for pitchers....

Sexson for a hitter.

I know why you listed them; I just think this is a fun question.

How about a 6 time all star?

Magglio Ordonez is another guy we forgot about.   Also, Carlos Lee probably has an outside shot.

Where's the love for David Eckstein?

Also, I think that Travis Snider should be on there, likely in bold italics.

Hmm...I read the caveats about about how this list was assembled, but still, a few bones to pick...

Hideki Matsui - Whatever his achievements in Japan, I don't think his ML performance should even make him a serious candidate. His is a solidly above average hitter (.290 career EqA), and an average or perhaps somewhat above-average LF. Because of his age, he won't even come close to any of the "milestone" bulk totals like 500 HR or 3000 hits. Factor in a decline phase and I can't see him lasting more than a year on the ballot, at least on merit. Then again, some nutjobs think Jime Rice belongs in the Hall, so you never know.

Chipper Jones - On merit, he should be the definition of a mortal lock, so I would have given him the bold. Career .403 OBP, .317 EqA, and even a .307 BA. Will probably break 400 HR next season, and at least a decent fielder to go along with everything else. That said, the BBWAA numbskulls are unlikely to hold him in quite such high esteem. It will be an absolute travesty if he isn't in on the first ballot.

Daisuke Matsuzaka - I thought you weren't including anyone with less than two years of ML experience? The Japan leagues are NOT the equal of MLB. Based on all available evidence, I think that Matsuzaka's ceiling in MLB, and especially the AL, is as a solid third starter-type, not a Hall of Famer.

David Ortiz - Unlikely to break 500 HR (266 through age 31), a .302 career EqA which will likely drop after his decline phase, and no defensive value whatever. He'll get some votes from people who actually are silly enough to believe in clutch hitting, but hopefully not nearly enough.

Dontrelle Willis - I've been absolutely shocked by how badly Dontrelle has fallen off from his spectacular 2005 season, and moving up to the AL is not going to help him at all. I like the guy a lot and I really hope he puts it back together in Detroit, but I don't see a whole lot of cause for optimism.

Jamie Moyer - Longevity certainly counts, but 22 seasons of, on average, very marginally above-average pitching does not a Hall of Famer make.

Jimmy Rollins - Decent defensive shortstop, basically average hitter overall (.269 EqA), relatively bad at getting on base (.331 OBP). I don't see any reasonable argument, or any evidence that he will improve sufficiently to make such an argument.

Torii Hunter - Almost the definition of an average hitter (.262 EqA career), comically bad at getting on base (.324 OBP), not nearly as good a defender as he's made out to be, and ready to enter his decline phase. Um, what?

Vernon Wells - I love Vernon, but only two of his six full seasons have been anything to write home about.

Adrian Beltre, Richie Sexson, Barry Zito - Not a chance. At all.

If Smoltz gets the bold italics then Schilling should too.  They've got fairly similar career stats

Except for all those save Smoltz has. He's a relatively unique case, I think.

but Schilling has more World Series wins and more dramatic (and impressive) World Series heroics

Ah, so if an irritating, loud-mouthed, grandstanding pitcher dips his sock in red paint before going to the mound in the WS, he's a lock for the Hall?

Sorry, but think about Schilling in the WS just reminded me how insufferable the Red Sox and everyone associated with them are...

Bottom line is that long careers are not viewed well by the writers unless there was a great peak in there somewhere. I guess the HOF is shifting into a 'who did we like back when' thing. Writers give out the Cy/MVP awards then use those as a guideline on who gets into the HOF.

That is a good thing though.  Beltre is a guy who is very likely to reach the 3000 hit mark, yet, should he get in over David Ortiz, who might not have the career numbers, but is probably twice the hitter?  Or how about Brian Giles vs. Beltre, who has been a *Great* overall hitter for the last 10 years, who any baseball writer would take in a heartbeat during his prime over Beltre.

But I'll take Johan Santana for the Hall, even if he only reaches 180-200 wins over Jamie Moyer or David Wells, no matter how much either of those 2 guys end up with.

• he's really high-up on career K's (14th) and 13th in K/9
  
• he's probably going to add another 10 wins or so, which puts him over 225 (assuming he does the on-line gaming thing and retires after this year), which is a good number to start at
• he's been an amazing control pitcher over his year (better than 4K to 1 BB for his career)
• he's got the whole post-season thing going for him
• he's likely to be one of the last pitchers to strike out 300 in a season (with Randy Johnson in '02)
  

The thing is Chicago, I completely disagree with you with regards to Smoltz's fame.  He IS Atlanta baseball.  More than Andruw Jones, Chipper, Glavine, or Maddux - also, I think most baseball purists would argue that his career as a starter exceeds Eck's by a fair margin, as far as wins, length of time and dominance.

As far as modern era pitchers go for the Hall, he should be the standard:  Top of the rotation guy, great stuff, power pitcher, longevity, long stretch of dominace, great career numbers.

Maddux, Glavine, Clemens, Rivera, Schilling, Johnson, and Pedro as better than him for people that played during the same era.  If all those get in, then I start to take a look at Smoltz, but those are a lot of pitchers that are all going to join the ballot at similar times.

And without a doubt every single one of those pitchers will and should get in.  Anyone arguing against Schilling... well, he deserves it.  He might be one of the best playoff starters and big game pitchers in MLB History - and the Boston stuff only solidified that legacy, it certainly didn't create it.  It was a good crop for pitchers, this generation.  But look at what is coming up, after those guys, we'll be lucky to see 7-8 Starting pitchers get into the hall in following 15 years, let alone even be remotely considered.

John,

Some think Chipper Jones and Andruw Jones (who both should crack 400 easily) are marginal too.

Given Chipper's other numbers, I would LOVE to hear any intelligent argument against his inclusion. His is not a borderline case. I know what you mean, though; there are many HoF voters who do not share my view, but as I said, the BBWAA membership is not well-known for making intelligent arguments.

Owen,

As for my comment to the effect that if Smoltz gets in, Schilling gets in, I meant, moreso, that that is what will happen, not what should happen.  Personally, I am not sure that I would vote for either one.  I am definitely a small-hall guy. 

You really do want only the best of the best, huh? As much as I detest Schilling, I would vote for both of them without any reservation. I was just referring to your claim that Schilling and Smoltz have similar stats; Schilling is definitely a Hall of Famer IMO. 

And I am just not sure how I feel about Smoltz' record as a closer - if you are a HOF power-pitching starter, I would hope that you could have been a great one-inning reliever, too. 

That's a good point. I agree with your basic premise, but the fact remain that it is a different role, and very few pitchers in MLB history have been as great as Smoltz in both the starter and late reliever roles. Even setting aside the saves (and not just because the SV is an awful, arbitrary stat that has literally ruined bullpen management in MLB), consider Smoltz' performance in general as a closer (2002-2004): 173 ERA+, reaching a high of 383 (!!!!!!!) in 2003, with a WHIP of 1.00 (0.87 in 2003). Even over only three years, that is an incredible performance. Added to his record as a starter, I don't see how you can keep him out.

Nolan,

Agreed on the last two players, but with Beltre I think you're wrong.  Beltre's only 28 and already has 1400 H, 217 HR, and 700+ R and RBI.  Using some guess work, if he plays to 38 years of age, he'll have around 2900-3000 H, 400+ HR and 1400 R and 1600 RBI...

Good point. My reaction to Beltre was so immediately awful that he's the one guy I didn't bother to look up the numbers for. I don't personally agree with the whole notion of certain bulk totals getting players pretty much an automatic pass into the Hall, but as I said in before, and as you indicate, that is the way that voters tend to think.

Do you really believe this, or are you just being facetious?

You mean, believe that the bloody sock was fake? Not really, but I wouldn't put it past Schilling, either.

Caramon,

He might be one of the best playoff starters and big game pitchers in MLB History

I agree that Schilling should get in. This is not a valid argument as to why (though I have no doubt it will be used as such when the time comes).

CJF,

I'm curious why you say this?  Is it because you equate post-season performance to clutch performance...

I'm not certain how his 19 performances when things matter most can be tossed aside...

It's not really that I think his post season appearances should be "tossed aside", I just don't think he (or anyone else) should be given substantial extra credit for the fact that those things occurred in the post season. There are three main reasons for this. First, even getting to the post season, and thus having an opportunity to put up great post season performances, is primarily a function the quality of the team one plays for; then, if we give extra Hall credit for great postseason performance, we are essentially penalizing players who had few post season appearances for having played on bad or mediocre teams. Second, as you point out, I have a real problem with the nebulous notion of "clutch" performance, and I have similar reservations about "postseason performance" (both the idea that postseason performance is more important, and the notion that certain players have a praeternatural ability to "rise to the occassion"). Finally, even for a player who spends most of his career on good teams that are often in contention, a postseason record generally constitutes a rather small sample spread out over many years, and is therefore of questionable meaningfulness as a measure of that player's true ability. I suppose I'm OK with postseason permance being the "icing on the cake" on someone's Hall resume, but it should not be a substantial part of the basic argument for inclusion.

• NYY (8): Mike Mussina, Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Hideki Matsui, Bobby Abreu
  
• NYM (7): Pedro Martinez, Billy Wagner, Jose Reyes, David Wright, Moises Alou, Carlos Beltran, Carlos Delgado
• ATL (5): Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Chipper Jones, Mark Teixeira, Tim Hudson
• BOS (5): Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Curt Schilling, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez
• DET (5): Justin Verlander, Dontrelle Willis, Ivan Rodriguez, Miguel Cabrera, Gary Sheffield
• SDP (5): Trevor Hoffman, Greg Maddux, Jim Edmonds, Brian Giles, Jake Peavy
• PHI (4): Jamie Moyer, Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins
• CLE (4): C.C. Sabathia, Victor Martinez, Travis Hafner, Grady Sizemore
• LAA (4): Francisco Rodriguez, Vladimir Guerrero, Torii Hunter, John Lackey
• STL (4): Jason Isringhausen, Mark Mulder, Albert Pujols, Troy Glaus
• TOR (4): Roy Halladay, Scott Rolen, Frank Thomas, Vernon Wells
• CHW (3): Mark Buehrle, Jim Thome, Paul Konerko
• COL (3): Jeff Francis, Todd Helton, Matt Holliday
• CHC (3): Carlso Zambrano, Alfonso Soriano, Aramis Ramirez
• HOU (3): Roy Oswalt, Lance Berkman, Miguel Tejada
• LAD (3): Nomar Garciaparra, Jeff Kent, Andruw Jones
• MIL (3): Eric Gagne, Ben Sheets, Prince Fielder
• MIN (3): Johan Santana, Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau
• SA (3): Adrian Beltre, Richie Sexson, Ichiro Suzuki
• ARI (2): Randy Johnson, Brandon Webb
• CIN (2): Adam Dunn, Ken Griffey Jr.
• SF (2): Barry Zito, Omar Vizquel
• OAK (1): Eric Chavez
• TAM (1): Troy Percival
• TEX (1): Michael Young
• Teams with no viable candidates ("best" candidate shown parenthetically): BAL (Erik Bedard), FLA (Hanley Ramirez), KCR (Jose Guillen? Mike Sweeney not currently on roster), PIT (Jason Bay), WAS (Austin Kearns? Lastings Milledge? Wily Mo Pena?)
• Free Agents (8): Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Bartolo Colon, Julio Franco, Kenny Lofton, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa, David Wells
• Managers: Joe Torre, Bobby Cox, Lou Piniella, Terry Francona, Jim Leyland, Mike Scioscia

Mags, I see we agree on almost everything, but Lou Piniella is Lou Piniella?

Really? Already? If he takes CHC to a flag, he's a mortal lock -- almost anyone would be! -- but looking at his record, he's been middling with NYY (by NYY standards), good-not-great with CIN (though he did win his only ring there, at least so far), long-lasting with SEA, with a couple of high points and one great, great regular seson that ended in postseason disappointment, good-as-can-be-expected with TBD, and not off to a bad start with CHC.

1600+ wins, a .517 win %, five flags but just one ring over 20 years. And he's italicized? Really? 

CJF,

If you start to throw out postseason and other statistics, shouldn't you really just look at overall career #'s/ratios, with some accounting for the age that a person retired at?

That's pretty much my take, yes, though I know that's not the way it is. If a player produces overall career numbers and rate stats which, given his length of career, are worthy of the Hall, then I could care less whether he produced at a steady pace, or had a pronounced peak surrounded by some mediocre years. In fact, I would almost prefer the former.

We're not talking generally, we're talking Schilling. And 19 starts is approx. 5% of the # of starts he's had in the regular season. While not the majority, that's not exactly peanuts

Yes. It's also spread over a number of different years, with different teams, and in different leagues. To me, it simply doesn't seem worth singling out postseason performance, rather than just looking at the body of work as a whole.

However, I don't see a problem with penalizing players that played on bad teams and rewarding players that played on good teams. I understand that this means it's more than just what a player did with the ball or bat that makes him get into the HoF, but again, I don't see the problem there.

So...you want the quality of a player's teammates to be a significant factor in whether that player goes in to the Hall of Fame?!? IMO, unless I'm really misunderstanding you, that is batshit insane. Inclusion in the Hall should be about the performance of the player under consideration, independent of his teammates. Nothing else is relevant.

IMO, unless I'm really misunderstanding you, that is batshit insane.

CJF,

Sorry, just me making a bit of an exaggeration in a failed attempt at humor. In seriousness, I understand your position; I just think that the Hall should be purely about honoring the best players, based solely on their own performance. As a result, I don't agree with any standard for inclusion, such as championships or postseason performance (or pitcher's wins, or saves, or RBI/R, for that matter), that depends upon the performance of others. Again, I apologize, I meant no insult.

BOOM! a 500 HR guy who got those extra dingers in games far more important than an April game vs Tampa Bay

Not if that HR in Tampa was the winning run, in the April of a season where that player's team happened to win the pennant by a game. A game in April counts the same in the standings as a game in September, and you have to win in the regular season to even get to the postseason. This is one of the biggest problems I have with counting a postseason game on a player's resume as anything other than one more game.

Sorry, just me making a bit of an exaggeration in a failed attempt at humor. In seriousness, I understand your position; I just think that the Hall should be purely about honoring the best players, based solely on their own performance. As a result, I don't agree with any standard for inclusion, such as championships or postseason performance (or pitcher's wins, or saves, or RBI/R, for that matter), that depends upon the performance of others. Again, I apologize, I meant no insult.

John, I think post seasons should be treated this way:  Not simply added on to the numbers to pad the stats, but taken on a whole as "gravy".  A guy like Schilling should get credit for being one of the best post season pitchers ever, even if those numbers aren't added on to his regular season win totals.

So...you want the quality of a player's teammates to be a significant factor in whether that player goes in to the Hall of Fame?!? IMO, unless I'm really misunderstanding you, that is batshit insane. Inclusion in the Hall should be about the performance of the player under consideration, independent of his teammates. Nothing else is relevant.

Actually, they do that for pitchers already.  It is called "Wins" and "Losses".

CJF,

I am not saying to exclude someone like Ernie Banks (I'd be mauled where I live), but for people that are borderline decisions, I think you need to do, or be involved in, that something extra to get in, whatever it was.

I don't really have a problem with that. As I said earlier, if the postseason performance (or supposed clutch performance, or championships, or being on a particularly memorable/great team) is that little bit extra that nudges a borderline candidate past the cutoff point, that doesn't bother me. As long as a tangible, objective case based purely upon individual performance can reasonably be made for a player, I'm comfortable with the "something extra(s)" being considered as secondary evidence. I made my original point only because Caramon's post read like he was suggesting that it was primarily Schilling's strong performance in his 19 postseason starts that made him Hall-worthy, rather than his strong performance in his 436 starts overall (and again, I would vote for the guy if he had never appeared in the postseason in his career, and I can't stand him or his team).

Actually, they do that for pitchers already.  It is called "Wins" and "Losses".

Right, and for hitters with RBI and RS. Certainly, that sort of thing is the much bigger problem. All I'm saying is we don't have to compound the problem by also making a disproportionately big deal out of performance in the postseason...

Caramon,

Then how far do you want to take that argument Lee? Should we knock .5 points off Mussina's ERA for being forced to play with Derek Jeter as his Shortstop?

Actually, yes, I think when evaluating pitchers it is very important to consider metrics like DERA, or even just K/BB rate and the like, which are (or at least, attempt to be) defense-independent.

Lee, I agree with your distaste of the Red Sox, but I strongly disagree with two of your central points.

I most strongly disagree that K/BB and defence-independent pitching metrics should be included in the Hall of Fame.   These metrics are useful prospectively, in terms of deciding whether you think there's reason to believe pitchers were lucky or unlucky, and whether they are likely to be a useful part of an intelligently constructed roster going forward.  But they are useless retrospectively in ascertaining who performed better, because pitchers don't pitch in order to optimize their K/BB. 

A starting pitcher's job is to log innings and prevent runs.  Period.  I think ERA+ and IP are the most important stats to hand out season- or career-based awards.  The Hall of Fame deliberations should not be a forum for pitchers to make excuses about why their ERA might have been higher than they "deserved."

Using FIP or K/BB to rate past performance is like holding a cake-baking contest and giving first prize to the baker with the best ingredients on paper without tasting or even looking at the cake.  Did the pitcher prevent runs?  That's all that matters in retrospect.  To use a different analogy, it would be like evaluating swimming technique to award the gold medal as opposed to giving it to the person who touches the wall first.

Also, the postseason.  Playoff games are the highest of high-leverage situations -- success brings a championship, failure ends the season.  Playoff games are, in general, contested against the best-hitting and best-pitching teams in baseball.  No veterans get a day off in the playoffs.  No players are used in key situations for "teaching" purposes.  The toughest opponents are employing win-now strategies in the games that matter the most.  And there is an intangible component to the Hall; the most important performances in baseball history are, rightly, in the postseason.  I give very great weight to postseason performance.

Because these are two very different adjustments to make. Adjusting for park and league norms show how a pitcher's actual accomplishment of run prevention stacks up relative to his peers considering the run-scoring environment in which he pitched. Adjusting for FIP is, essentially, a theoretical but speculative attempt to describe how a pitcher might have performed in front of a hypothetical average defence.

If John Dewan could analyze every at-bat throughout history and identify specifically how pitchers were screwed or bailed out by their defence, then it might make more sense to me, but even then I think it's irrelevant to Hall of Fame consideration. The Hall should reward elite past performance, not elite ratios that may possibly have led to better performance with luck or better teammates.

ERA+, by the way, does take bad D into account to a degree. After all, if you're really concerned with crappy defence, you can at least take comfort in the unearned run, which of course does not count against one's ERA+. Along the lines of what Mike Green said, the odds of a pitcher getting consistently held back by "runs that, though earned, are really more the fault of a subpar defence and would have been prevented by an average defence" over the course of his career are so slim as to not matter.

"I guess I just feel starters have been underrepresented lately, although the upcoming wave of fitting candidates will change that for a while."

For me, it's just that closers have been over-represented recently. It's a trend that I hate. Sure, a few hitters have gotten in too easily. (Ryan Sandberg gets in while Whitaker  doesn't even sniff being close), but while it seems to be getting increasingly difficult for hitters and starters to get in, it's getting easier for closers. I am sorry, I just don't value closers (in general) that highly...I mean, Brandon Webb has pitched 1089 IP which is 50 more than Sutter ever pitched and Webb has been more dominant. If Webb hurt is arm, is he in the HOF now? The "best at their role" argument doesn't fly for me either as nobody guys to the hall for being a great pinch-hitter or pinch runner.