Article: Future Hall-Of-Famer Cards: Sure Thing Hitters

[steve B]

A very long time ago I put aside cards of players I figured had a shot in some way. From just popular players with decent stats, or guys with a chance at 300 wins, 3000 hits or 400Hr. Which were all the big landmarks at the time.

The steroid era and more recently the swing for the fences and don't worry about strikeouts made 400HR pretty much a losing thing.

I found that box a while ago, and looked. Only a few had made it. Yount and a handful of others.
Many did not. Like Johnny Ray, who seemed on the path to 3000 hits, being generally well over 150 a year. ended up at 1502 after 10 years, including his first when he only had 31 games. I suspect a lack of power and the then common thing of releasing veteran players who were solid enough to get paid well in favor of kids who might be better or worse but at least were cheap finished him off.

It's an interesting box to go through.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Good list. Surprised it's such a short one.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Good list. Surprised it's such a short one.

Thanks! The pitchers list is also fairly short as well (4 names). I'm hoping to do another few on players who are on the Hall of Fame path...from the very close (Votto) to those further away (Machado).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Thanks! The pitchers list is also fairly short as well (4 names). I'm hoping to do another few on players who are on the Hall of Fame path...from the very close (Votto) to those further away (Machado).

Presumably Kershaw, Verlander, Scherzer and Greinke?

I think Votto is pretty close, Harper, and scandal aside you could surely write in Altuve.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's an interesting box to go through.

I bet...it really goes to show that it takes a while to really know. If you were to try to pick from all the rookies in a given time period which would be hall of famers, you'd probably not be very close (Todd Van Poppel, Bryan Taylor)

If you go a few more years, the numbers get better but a lot of misses still (Gooden, Eric Davis).

It's only after 10 years you'd probably hit on 50% (Mattingly), and 15+ years when guys are "sure things". It's a marathon, not a sprint!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I bet...it really goes to show that it takes a while to really know. If you were to try to pick from all the rookies in a given time period which would be hall of famers, you'd probably not be very close (Todd Van Poppel, Bryan Taylor)

If you go a few more years, the numbers get better but a lot of misses still (Gooden, Eric Davis).

It's only after 10 years you'd probably hit on 50% (Mattingly), and 15+ years when guys are "sure things". It's a marathon, not a sprint!

I would think at 10 years you could do better than 50 percent?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would think at 10 years you could do better than 50 percent?

Maybe 50% is too low...but it's certainly not all that close to 100%. I bet we could do some analysis, but it'd be a lot of research.

A few names that jump out as "people thought they were in at 10 years" might include Mattingly, Garvey, Murphy, Joe Carter, Albert Belle, and a whole buncha steroids guys that probably skew the results and should be ignored.

On the other side of the coin, I think of guys already in like Eck, Lee Smith, and of course Harold Baines (maybe we should ignore that one too), and future likely inductees like Billy Wagner, Kenny Lofton, Carlos Beltran.

An example with a couple guys named Adrian- at 10 years into their careers, you'd think Adrian Gonzalez was a likely hall of famer, and Adrian Beltre nowhere near a HOFer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of that list I think Garvey and Carter didn't so much drop off as history came to take a dimmer view of their status with the advent of metrics.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of that list I think Garvey and Carter didn't so much drop off as history came to take a dimmer view of their status with the advent of metrics.

Yes, that's a fair point...player performance is one variable, but there are others. The rise of analytics changed the way we look at the game. The steroid era blew up the old standards - 500 HR, 3,000 hits, etc. The game has changed a lot, too...and changes constantly.

I'm only 45, but the baseball I watched as a kid was different than the baseball of the mid-90's-mid-2000's, which was different than the baseball of the mid 2000's to mid-2010's, which is different than the baseball of today.

Lots of variables, for sure...and it all makes prediction difficult. Plus, hamstrings, elbow ligaments, and eyeballs all can go bad at rates that are tough to figure out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Yes, that's a fair point...player performance is one variable, but there are others. The rise of analytics changed the way we look at the game. The steroid era blew up the old standards - 500 HR, 3,000 hits, etc. The game has changed a lot, too...and changes constantly.

I'm only 45, but the baseball I watched as a kid was different than the baseball of the mid-90's-mid-2000's, which was different than the baseball of the mid 2000's to mid-2010's, which is different than the baseball of today.

Lots of variables, for sure...and it all makes prediction difficult. Plus, hamstrings, elbow ligaments, and eyeballs all can go bad at rates that are tough to figure out.

Speaking of which, Mike Trout and his strained calf muscle. I mean, is he EVER coming back?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Yes, that's a fair point...player performance is one variable, but there are others. The rise of analytics changed the way we look at the game. The steroid era blew up the old standards - 500 HR, 3,000 hits, etc. The game has changed a lot, too...and changes constantly.

I'm only 45, but the baseball I watched as a kid was different than the baseball of the mid-90's-mid-2000's, which was different than the baseball of the mid 2000's to mid-2010's, which is different than the baseball of today.

Lots of variables, for sure...and it all makes prediction difficult. Plus, hamstrings, elbow ligaments, and eyeballs all can go bad at rates that are tough to figure out.

I personally think we've gone too far in the direction of 4 hour games with 8 pitching changes on each side, and a lifetime between pitches. There was a lot to be said for the pitcher getting the ball back, looking in for the sign, and serving up the next pitch.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I bet...it really goes to show that it takes a while to really know. If you were to try to pick from all the rookies in a given time period which would be hall of famers, you'd probably not be very close (Todd Van Poppel, Bryan Taylor)

If you go a few more years, the numbers get better but a lot of misses still (Gooden, Eric Davis).

It's only after 10 years you'd probably hit on 50% (Mattingly), and 15+ years when guys are "sure things". It's a marathon, not a sprint!

My criteria skewed it more towards established players, and not many rookies.
I was figuring the "rookie" thing would go away once people realized that things were way past the stage where more of them got tossed when a kids collection got dumped by Mom.
So hardly any rookies unless I just happened to end up with them.

If I remember right, I was WAY under 50%.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by steve B

A very long time ago I put aside cards of players I figured had a shot in some way. From just popular players with decent stats, or guys with a chance at 300 wins, 3000 hits or 400Hr. Which were all the big landmarks at the time.

The steroid era and more recently the swing for the fences and don't worry about strikeouts made 400HR pretty much a losing thing.

I found that box a while ago, and looked. Only a few had made it. Yount and a handful of others.
Many did not. Like Johnny Ray, who seemed on the path to 3000 hits, being generally well over 150 a year. ended up at 1502 after 10 years, including his first when he only had 31 games. I suspect a lack of power and the then common thing of releasing veteran players who were solid enough to get paid well in favor of kids who might be better or worse but at least were cheap finished him off.

It's an interesting box to go through.

LOL, I was a big Johnny Ray mark back in the day to. Socked away all my Johnny Ray and Steve Sax rookies. They were 1-2 in the ROY voting in '82 (and I played 2nd base in Little League at the time).

Johnny was more under the radar though, so I thought I had a diamond in the rough that nobody else was paying attention to. He was probably a more well rounded player then Sax was also.

Pretty good ballplayer, but not exactly "generational".

I had a soft spot for 2nd basemen. Willie Randolph was my favorite player for awhile, and I remember hoarding Damaso Garcia Rookie cards for some unknown reason.

[RayBShotz]

Originally Posted by steve B

A very long time ago I put aside cards of players I figured had a shot in some way. From just popular players with decent stats, or guys with a chance at 300 wins, 3000 hits or 400Hr. Which were all the big landmarks at the time.

The steroid era and more recently the swing for the fences and don't worry about strikeouts made 400HR pretty much a losing thing.

I found that box a while ago, and looked. Only a few had made it. Yount and a handful of others.
Many did not. Like Johnny Ray, who seemed on the path to 3000 hits, being generally well over 150 a year. ended up at 1502 after 10 years, including his first when he only had 31 games. I suspect a lack of power and the then common thing of releasing veteran players who were solid enough to get paid well in favor of kids who might be better or worse but at least were cheap finished him off.

It's an interesting box to go through.

I would not have guessed in a million years that Johnny Ray got 1500+ hits.
Wow. RayB