In 2001, Dave Winfield and Kirby Puckett sailed into the Hall of Fame on their first attempt.  Meanwhile, other first-timers did not fair as well.  Don Mattingly and Dave Stewart each garnered enough votes to remain on the 2002 ballot, but 13 other first-timers failed to muster the requisite 5% to stick around for further consideration including 3 pretty darn good Detroit Tigers: Kirk Gibson, Lance Parrish, and "Sweet" Lou Whitaker. 

Was Lou the greatest 2nd Baseman in history?  No.  Was he the greatest 2nd Baseman of his era? Also no.  My hypothesis, however, is he may be the greatest BBWAA Hall of Fame snub in the last 30 years.  He also may have been the best candidate on the 2001 ballot.  That being said, the voters have always been especially tough on 2nd basemen when it comes to their first ballot.  In fact, only three 2nd basemen in history have ever been inducted on their first try.  See if you can name them.  (I'll post the answer at the end of the article)  

What I found crazy at the time (and still do) is, like Cone, he disappeared after one ballot and garnering a measly 15 votes of support. 

So, let's take a look at the Hall of Fame case for Whitaker:

1. All-Star Game Jersey
2. Mixed Postseason Record
3. 71.4 WAR
4. Three Time Gold Glove Winner
5. 1984
6. 1,000 Runs and 1,000 RBIs
7. All-Time Double Play Record
8. Five time (consecutive) All-Star
9. Rookie of the Year Award Winner
10. Leading Off
11. Black Ink - 1, Gray ink - 31, Hall of Fame Monitor - 86, Hall of Fame Standards - 43.
12. Uniqueness
13. Alan Trammell
14. Average Hall of Famer

1. All-Star Game Jersey.  Great players typically come with great stories.  It's part of the fabric of the game: Babe Ruth's called shot, George Brett's Pine Tar Incident, Nolan Ryan making Robin Ventura pay for charging the mound, Cal Ripken's lap around the stadium to thank fans after besting Lou Gehrig's record streak, etc, are all examples of stories that are almost too good to be true.  Sometimes the stories are touching (Ruth hitting a homerun for a sick child), sometimes the stories are hysterical (Anything Yogi Berra has said or didn't say), sometimes the stories are embarrassing (Sammy Sosa's corked bat) and sometimes the stories are just rude (Marichal hitting John Roseboro in the head with a bat).  Perhaps one of the strangest stories is the time Lou Whitaker forgot to bring his jersey to the 1985 All-Star game.  Whitaker had left a bag in the backseat of his car with his jersey, helmet, hat, glove, and batting gloves.  Fortunately, he was able to borrow a helmet from Bert Blyleven, a glove from Cal Ripken, and batting gloves from Damaso Garcia.  Trouble was, no one had an extra "Lou Whitaker Jersey" or Tigers hat, so one of the clubhouse folks actually purchased a generic Tigers jersey and cap.  Next, they used a black marker to color Whitaker's number "1" on the back. (Pictured above)  Today, the jersey sits in one of the most prestigious museums in the country - The Smithsonian.  While this moment does not help or hurt his case, it is a part of the Lou Whitaker story.  George Brett isn't in the Hall because he famously went ballistic but it really adds a dimension to his story that the numbers can't convey.  For Whitaker, forgetting his jersey was unforgettable.

2. Mixed postseason record. There is no denying the 1984 Detroit Tigers were dominant.  There is also no denying that Whitaker was a key player on this team.  While all that is true, the Tigers only made it to two postseasons during Sweet Lou's career.  In his 13 post-season games, he did exactly what a leadoff hitter is supposed to do - he got on base (.350 OBP) and scored runs (13).  Aside from that he did very little offensively, hitting just one solo homerun (for his one postseason RBI), stole one base, and hit a measly .206.  To be fair, his best post-season series was the '84 World Series where he posted a nice .278/.409/.389 line.  I view his mixed postseason record as net neutral.  He accomplished the stated purpose of the leadoff hitter but was otherwise unremarkable.  In the end his mixed postseason record does not help his case and may hurt it.

3. 71.4 WAR.  Next we'll look at career value.  Using Wins Above Replacement, there are just 6 secondbasemen with a higher WAR than Whitaker.  All 6 are in the Hall of Fame.  In fact, 11 of the next 16 are in the Hall.  The ones that aren't are either going to be Hall of Famers (Biggio) or have a strong case themselves (Grich, Randolph, Utley, and Kent).  Think about it.  There are 19 Hall of Famers who played 1,000 or more games at 2B.  Whitaker's Wins Above Replacement is better than all but six of them.  At the beginning of this article, I mentioned that Whitaker may have been the best player on the ballot when he was unceremoniously dumped.  Winfield played 22 seasons and ended up with 59.4 WAR in nearly 600 more games.  Puckett ended up with 48.2 WAR in his 12 seasons; though in about 600 fewer games than Whitaker.  Puckett did average slightly more WAR per season (4.0) than Whitaker (3.8) but it's pretty close.  Overall, Whitaker's Wins Above Replacement is possibly his best argument.  

4. Three Time Gold Glove Winner.  Whitaker's skills with the bat often overshadowed his skills with the glove.  Only 10 2nd basemen have won more Gold Gloves.  Three is not a remarkable total, per se, but is a very strong total.  Defensive statistics are abundant but are still often met with suspicion.  One thing is certain, regardless of the defensive metric you favor, Whitaker scores well.  Fan of Range Factor?  Whitaker's (5.4/9 Innings) is better than ANY Hall of Famer.  Prefer the antiquated Fielding Percentage? Only Sandberg and Alomar are better among Hall of Famers.  Perhaps you like Total Zone?  Only Maz and Nellie Fox have a higher Total Zone among Hall of Famers than Lou.  Prefer defensive WAR?  Only 6 Hall of Fame 2nd basemen have more than Lou's 15.4, and Mazeroski is the only one that actually played baseball after 1950.  Like actual things you can count?  Looking for some bulk numbers?  Lou has the 6th most assists of any 2nd baseman in history, the 4th most Double Plays, and the 11th most putouts.  The reality is three Gold Gloves will not get you into the Hall of Fame.  But one thing is clear, Lou Whitaker was one of the greatest defensive 2nd basemen in history.  This is another strong piece of evidence in his case.

5. 1984.  In 1984, the Detroit Tigers got off to the greatest start in baseball history, going 35-5 in their first 40 games.  While they didn't clinch the division with 35 wins, it sure seemed like the race was over after those 40 games.  This was one of the few times in history where the beginning of the season was far more interesting than the end.  Those 40 games became legendary.  No matter what else happened that season, the torrid 35-5 start was impossible to overcome.  We often point to strong Septembers when placing context on a pennant race.  In 1984, September was completely unimportant to the pennant race.  This was all about those 40 games and like he was throughout his career, Whitaker was a catalyst getting on base nearly 2 times per game (73 times) hitting .317/.385/.427 with 31 Runs Scored.  1984 was not Whitaker's best season, but he was still the best 2nd baseman in the AL and they would not have had the historic start without him.  In terms of his case, being one of the best players on a Championship Team never hurts.

6. 1,000 Runs and 1,000 RBIs. Only 210 players in Major League history have ever scored 1,000 Runs AND knocked in 1,000.  Lou Whitaker is one of these 210.  91 of the 210 are currently Hall of Famers.  The rest are all pretty good (Vada Pinson, Torri Hunter, etc) to great players (Derek Jeter, Chipper Jones, Craig Biggio, etc).  However, there are only 16 2nd Basemen in history who have accomplished 1,000 Runs/1,000 RBIs: 11 are Hall of Famers, two are definite or borderline Hall of Famers (Biggio and Kent), two are a never going to be Hall of Famers (Julio Franco and 19th Century player Fred Pfeffer), and one is Lou Whitaker.  On balance, not bad for a leadoff hitter.  I would say this is good for his case.  It isn't the type of career milestone that gets you into the Hall of Fame like the 3,000 Hits or the 300 Wins, but it's nevertheless impressive and pretty exclusive.

7. All-Time Double Play Record. When reviewing a player's case for the Hall of Fame, there are several pieces to the puzzle to consider.  Did this player dominate his league or his position in his era?  Did this player do something so remarkable, it's never been done before?  In baseball there are certain indelible records: 511, 4,256, 2,632, 5,714, etc. It's time to add another one to the list: 879.  Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell turned a Major League record 879 Double Plays; the most of any Keystone Combo in baseball history.  To give that a little context, among active players, Jeter and Cano are currently on top with 555.  The second highest total in history appears to be Aparicio and Fox with ~598.  As it is, Whitaker turned the 4th most DPs of any 2nd baseman in history.  By the way, 7 of the top 10 are in the Hall.  The only 3 not enshrined?  Whitaker, Willie Randolph, and Frank White.  But I digress.  The point is, Whitaker and Trammell not only hold the DP record, it isn't even close.  Holding any all-time record is impressive, sharing it with Trammell is poetic.  This is a strong piece of evidence in the Hall of Fame case for Lou Whitaker.

8. Five time (consecutive) All-Star. At a glance, five All-Star selections is impressive but not exactly overwhelming evidence to support one's Hall of Fame case.  However, in this case it is the consecutive that makes this an interesting piece of Whitaker's Hall of Fame case.  Before we get to the consecutive portion of this discussion how does five All-Star selections measure up?  It looks "ok".  18 other 2nd basemen have been selected to more than Whitaker's five and while there are many legends above him, there's also a couple of guys like Gil McDougal and Johnny Temple.  During Whitaker's career he played at the same time as some other pretty great 2nd basemen and there is quite a balance of All-Star Games spread among his contemporaries (Grich & Randolph - 6, & White - 5).  What does strengthen Whitaker's case is the consecutive part.  In history, 15 2nd basemen, including Sweet Lou, have been selected to five or more consecutive All-Star teams.  Of the remaining 14, there are 11 HOFers, 1 certain HOFer (Biggio), 1 active but building a potential HOF resume (Utley), and Bobby Richardson who retired in his prime.  Five consecutive All-Star selections doesn't make him a Hall of Famer, but it's a definite positive in his case.  It is also evidence that, in his prime, he was the best 2nd baseman in the AL.

9. Rookie of the Year Award Winner.  There have been plenty of Rookie of the Year Award Winners to miss out on fulfilling the potential of their rookie campaign. It is also hard to imagine winning an award in one's rookie season would have any bearing on making the Hall of Fame. But consider: There have been 130 ROY Winners.  Of these, 96 have been retired at least 5 years.  Of the 96, 14 have been inducted into the Hall of Fame or 14.6%.  This is substantially higher than the less than 2% of all players who have been inducted into the HOF.  Of the 34 who are either still active or haven't been retired long enough, there are five MVP winners and a 3,000 Hit Club Member (Pujols, Ichiro, Verlander, Posey, Pedroia, and Jeter).  Among ROYs there are another four players who have been retired 5+ years and have strong HOF cases themselves (Rose, McGwire, Piazza, and Bagwell).  All this shows is a lot of great players have won the Rookie of the Year Award.  However, there are also plenty of busts in the ROY ranks (Hamelin, Cordova, Charboneau, etc).  Winning a Rookie of the Year Award neither helps of hurts a Hall of Fame case, but it does indicate a greater likelihood of finding a Hall of Famer than not winning the award.  For Whitaker, it is just another example of how consistent he was throughout his career - even from the beginning.

10. Leading Off.  The primary job of any leadoff hitter is to get on base and Lou Whitaker got on base.  Among all leadoff hitters whose career overlapped Whitaker's, only 14 have a better career OBP than Whitaker's .363.  There are three Hall of Famers in the list (Boggs, Molitor, and Rickey), two eventual Hall of Famers (Biggio and Raines), and one outcast (Rose).  The remaining eight are all very good and range from the speedy, Kenny Lofton, to one of the most underrated players of his era, Brian Downing.  Looking at all 15, Whitaker was one of only five to post an OPS above .800.  He also managed to score over 18% of the time he led off a game (11th best on this list, Lofton was the best among his contemporaries being the only one at 22%). Whitaker strukout just 11% of the time when leading off a game.  Only five of his contemporaries had a better rate of not striking out (Rose, Boggs, Randolph, Butler, and Raines).  As a side note, speaking strictly in terms of leadoff hitters, Rickey is clearly the best of his (or perhaps any) era, but Kenny Lofton was a LOT better than I thought. However, this is about Lou.  Overall, he was one of the best leadoff hitters of his time but not THE best.  His prowess as a leadoff hitter is a slight positive, but doesn't really strengthen his case. 

11. Black Ink - 1, Gray ink - 31, Hall of Fame Monitor - 86, Hall of Fame Standards - 43. Two of these are in the Hall of Fame neighborhood (Hall of Fame Monitor and Standards) and two of these are complete whiffs (Black and Gray Ink). What this tells me about Lou Whitaker is he wasn't the type of player to top the league in the major hitting categories but accumulated enough stats as a middle infielder that he probably should have been given a longer look than the 15 Votes he received.  Overall, this is probably the weakest part of his case.

12. Uniqueness. Lou Whitaker was very unique.  There are few players in history like him.  And of the ten most similar to him, four are Hall of Famers (Sandberg, Alomar, Morgan, and Larkin).  In fact, he was so unique five of the ten players most similar to him aren't even 2nd basemen.  His most similar, was a contemporary in the NL, Ryne Sandberg.  Perhaps just as interesting is who is atop HOF Joe Morgan's similar player list: Lou Whitaker.  Sometimes a player's uniqueness can be an asset.  Voters will look at a great player and say, "There's never been anything like this before.  Clearly he's a Hall of Famer."  Sandy Koufax, for example.  Or Cal Ripken Jr.  I think, in Lou Whitaker's case his uniqueness worked against him.  Perhaps voters said, "There's never been anything really like this before. I don't know what to do with him."  What was Lou Whitaker?  Imagine someone with the offensive skills of an decent hitting Outfielder (like Bryce Harper) playing 2nd base with the defensive skills of a slick fielding Shortstop (like Elvis Andrus).  Overall, Whitaker's uniqueness should be an asset.  There's really never been another 2nd baseman like him.  Also of interest? The second most similar player in baseball history to Lou Whitaker: Alan Trammell.

13. Alan Trammell - It is impossible to talk about Lou Whitaker without mentioning Alan Trammell.  Sometimes statistics tell the whole story and we are left with an obvious hit you over the head answer to whether or not someone is a Hall of Famer; even when it's a statistic that doesn't hold the same perceived value it once did.  For example, Cy Young won 511 Games - obvious Hall of Famer, Mario Mendoza hit .215 - obviously not a Hall of Famer.  Other times, statistics don't tell the whole story.  Sometimes it is a matter of perception.  People who saw Bill Mazeroski play will tell you he was one of the greatest defensive 2nd basemen of all-time.  People who saw Dave Kingman play will tell you he was one of the worst defensive 1st basemen of all-time.  I lived through the Whitaker-Trammell era of baseball.  I saw them play along with millions of other people.  It seemed every time the Tigers were on TV, an announcer would say something to the effect, "Won't it be great seeing Trammell and Whitaker go into the Hall of Fame?" or "Wouldn't it be great if these two got inducted in the same year?"  Anyone I talked to back then took for granted Whitaker and Trammell were obvious future Hall of Famers.  This fits into the "I know it when I see it" category made famous by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. Seeing Trammell and Whitaker play sure felt like I was watching two Hall of Famers.  There are few players in history so indelibly linked that, together, they are perhaps better than they are apart.  (Tinkers, Evers, and Chance come to mind)  This duo were the very definition of Detroit Tigers baseball for a generation and are arguably the greatest 2B/SS combination, not just in their era, but in history.  Overall, I'd say this is a plus in Whitaker's case; albeit an intangible one. 

14. Average Hall of Famer. After studying Lou Whitaker's career this closely, there was an interesting trend I noticed.  Something that probably helps his case more than anything I've mentioned so far.  He looks average...when compared to Hall of Fame 2nd Basemen.  Consider the following comparing the 19 Hall of Fame 2nd Basemen to Lou Whitaker: 
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman played 18 seasons; Lou played 19
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman played 2,159 Games; Lou played 2,390
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had 8,057 ABs; Lou had 8,570
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman scored 1,300 Runs; Lou scored 1,386
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had 2,442 Hits; Lou had 2,369
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman hit 417 Doubles; Lou hit 420
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had 1,080 RBIs; Lou had 1,084
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had an OBP of .374; Lou had .363
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had a SLG of .437; Lou had .429
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had an OPS of .810; Lou had .789
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had 66 Wins Above Replacement; Lou had 71.4
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman made 7 All Star Games; Lou made 5
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman's OPS+ was 121; Lou's was 117
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman hit more triples (105) than Lou (65), but Lou slugged a bunch more Homeruns (244) than the average Hall of Fame 2nd baseman (149). 
See, to me, the best piece of evidence in Lou Whitaker's case for the Hall of Fame is that he looks like your typical Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman.  His career fits right in with the rest.  In fact, he'd be right in the middle of the pack of the best in history.

When reviewing the case for Lou Whitaker, he really looks like a Hall of Famer.  Is he Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle?  Obviously not.  But as I've said previously, the Hall hasn't been just for the Willie Mays and Mickey Mantles in a long time.  What Lou Whitaker is, is one of the greatest 2nd basemen who ever played the game - be it offensively or defensively.  While there are some who exceed his skills in one, there are few 2nd basemen who exceeded his prowess in both. 

The reality is, Whitaker's era is sorely underrepresented in the Hall.  There are only four Hall of Fame 2nd basemen who played any seasons during Whitaker's 19 year career.  One is Joe Morgan, who is difficult to consider a contemporary since his best seasons came before Whitaker started playing.  Another is Rod Carew who was primarily a 1st baseman by the time Lou took over 2nd in Detroit.  Another is Roberto Alomar who's career began more than 10 years after Whitaker's began.  The other is Ryne Sandberg.  Sandberg is the only Hall of Fame 2nd baseman to have played the majority of his career in the 1980s or have played more than 5 seasons in that decade.  Among Whitaker's contemporaries, I believe Sandberg was the standard in the NL both offensively and defensively.  In the AL, Frank White, Willie Randolph, and Bobby Grich all could lay claim to part of these arguments and perhaps have Hall of Fame cases to be made themselves.  But Whitaker looks like a no-brainer when considering his dominance with the glove and at the plate.  There's really never been anyone like him and he should be in the Hall instead of the biggest BBWAA oversight in recent memory.  It's clear only 15 voters got it right in 2001.  Hopefully the 11 who choose the next Veteran's Committee nominees will be among the 15 who voted for Lou.

Thanks for reading,
Jeff

As for the answer to the trivia question...Jackie Robinson, Joe Morgan, and Rod Carew. 

Perhaps I am being gullible...duped.  It wouldn't be the first time.  Here we are, 6 days before baseball season officially begins and I have fallen into the trap that is "Spring Optimism".  See, I am one who largely ignores Spring Training.  I may watch a pitch here or there and certainly follow the random transactions (Kyle Loshe signing with the Brewers, for example).  But I largely ignore the scores and the standings.  See, I've been burned before. 

In 1999, the Royals were the Kings of Spring, leaving camp with a Major League best 22-9 mark.  That season was a disaster.  Not only did we finish 64-97, it was right in the middle of the Tony Muser era and led to the ousting of GM Herk Robinson.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Herk was not a good General Manager.  He was completely unable to transition us from the George Brett/Ewing Kaufman era and let's face it, being the guy to succeed John Schuerholz is just asking for trouble.  But all this led us into the abyss that was Allard Baird - quite possibly the most inept executive in baseball history this side of Frank and Stanley Robison. 

So fast forward to 2013 and here we are with the best Spring Training Record in our beloved franchise's history.  We have outscored our opponents by 65 runs!  Our pitching has been outstanding!  Our hitters are...well, hitting.  Brandon Wood looks like he might finally live up to those lofty expectations!  Wil who?  I'm starting to believe!  This could be our year!  In fact, I am officially predicting we take the Central Division.  Forget "hoping to compete for a Wild Card"... I want the Central!  We are dominating! 

See?  I've done it again.  Too bad it's only March. 

Thanks for reading.
Jeff

I stumbled across another of my articles from Baseball Nation about the 3,000 Hit Club.  At the time, Jeter had just joined the club and many people were suggesting the Club "ain't what it used to be" because the Club was apparently under assault by the likes of Johnny Damon and Omar Vizquel.  (Technically, it may still be as both still want to play this year.)  I also made a brief mention of Pudge toward the end of the article who ultimately retired before challenging Mr. Clemente.  Here was my take on the exclusiveness of the 3,000 Hit Club:

Not to get off on a rant here, but...

Ever since Derek Jeter joined the 3,000 hit club I have read some articles questioning the impressiveness of this achievement.  In fact, a common argument stems from some of the next potential members.  It seems if Omar Vizquel and/or Johnny Damon crash the party then all hope is lost. 

Now, I am no Jeter fan (see 2010 All-Star Game), but 3,000 hits is still impressive and exclusive.  I don't care if Damon or Omar get there.  I seem to remember a similar discussion about Al Oliver being a shoo-in and he didn't make it.  I also recollect Frank Robinson being a mortal lock for 600 homers and he stalled at 586.  In fact, go to the Babe Ruth museum and see who sponsored Ruth's 600 Homerun...it's Frank and he inscribed something to the effect "For when I get here."   I am pretty sure more than one person assumed Mattingly was going to conquer both 500 homers and 3,000 hits.

The beauty of the 3,000 hit club is that it has always included members who got there in a multitude of ways.  Sure, you have Wade Boggs and (his hero and mine) George Brett who hit for high averages but there is also room for Lou Brock and Cal Ripken Jr who weren't .300 hitters.  While you get the natural born contact hitters like Tony Gwynn, you also get power guys like Aaron and Murray.  You want controversy?  Look no further than #1 on the list, and I don't mean Pete Rose.  Sure Pete is controversial and sits at #1, but I am talking about the club's 1st member.  It seems Cap Anson's exact hit total changes every couple of years because in his playing days walks counted as hits.  There's a DH in the club (Paul Molitor), an "accidental" steroid user (Palmeiro), a guy loved by everyone (Musial) and a guy hated by everyone (Cobb).  We get a humanitarian standing at the gate like a vigilant guard protecting the entrance waiting to gun anyone out with the flick of his wrist (Clemente) and a pariah at the top of the list betting no one will approach his hallowed mark (Rose). There is the prototypical athlete who could have played any sport (Winfield) and the atypical member who could play any position (Biggio).  You have a player who was so well thought of his team changed their name to his (Lajoie) but you also have a player who was sometimes booed by his own fans (Yaz).  There's the flashy players like Rickey and the Say Hey Kid and the blue-collar players like Kaline and Yount.   

To me the 3,000 hit club is the one club that truly reflects everything great about baseball.  From angels to assholes, it's the one club for everyone, but not just anyone.  You have to earn your way in or Clemente will stop you in your tracks.  So I say good luck to Omar and Damon (and Pudge for that matter), you'll need it.  

But that's just me, I could be wrong.

In 2009 the Hall of Fame voters inducted Rickey Henderson on his first ballot and Jim Rice on his last.  Those same voters decided David Brian Cone was not only unworthy of the Hall of Fame, but unworthy of even remaining on the ballot. 

From my perspective Cone was a great pitcher.  Without even studying his career closely, I figured him to be a borderline Hall of Fame candidate who might linger on the ballot and maybe get one of those late pushes that helped Blyleven and Rice get in (and probably Jack Morris next year).  At the very least he might be Tommy John and get 15 cracks without breaking through.  But to not even muster the minimum 5% to remain on the ballot after one try?  Preposterous. 

As a Royals fan, Cone was "the one who got away, came back, and got away again."  I am convinced, with Saberhagen and Cone atop the rotation, the Royals may have given King George one or two more World Series rings.  But that's ok, we got Ed Hearn. 

So, let's take a look at the Hall of Fame case for Cone:

1. The Perfect Game
2. Impressive postseason record
3. 58.8 WAR
4. .606 Winning Percentage
5. Two 20-win Seasons
6. 2,668 Strikeouts
7. Five sub-3.00 ERA seasons
8. Five time All-Star
9. Cy Young Award Winner
10. 8.28 Strikeouts Per 9 Innings 
11. Black Ink - 19, Gray ink - 168, Hall of Fame Monitor - 103, Hall of Fame Standards - 39.
12. Uniqueness
13. Career ERA of 3.46
14. 194 + 8 Wins

1. The Perfect Game - On July 18th, 1999 the cermonial first pitch was tossed by Don Larsen to Yogi Berra on "Yogi Berra Day" at Yankees Stadium.  Cone must have been inspired, because he took the ball and proceeded to pitch the 16th Perfect Game in Major League history against the Montreal Expos.  Along with Larsen's, it is the only other "Interleague" Perfect Game.  What made this particularly remarkable was the 33 minute rain delay in the 3rd inning.  The image of Cone falling to his knees after the final pitch remains one of those moments burned into our collective minds.    

2. Impressive postseason record. 8-3 overall with a 3.80 ERA.  2-0 in the World Series with a 2.12 ERA in 29.2 IP. Cone was a member of 5 World Championship teams.  Cone was not the "Ace" for the 1992 Blue Jays, rather he was a hired gun for the stretch run.  He did pitch great for them.  His other 4 Championships were as a part of the Yankees behemoth that closed out the 20th Century:  1996 - Injured with an aneurysm in his arm, Cone missed a lot of the season, but, with apologies to Andy Pettitte, was still the best pitcher in the rotation.  1998 - One of the greatest teams in history, Cone and Wells were the best pitchers.  1999 - Back to Back Champions and Cone was the best pitcher in the rotation again.  2000 - Let's face it.  The Yankees won in 2000 despite Cone, who was awful.  On balance, being arguably, the best pitcher on 4 different World Championship teams certainly counts toward his Hall of Fame case.

3. 58.8 WAR.  Let's take a look at career value.  Using Wins Above Replacement, there are 11 Pitchers with a higher WAR than Cone and not in the Hall.  Of the 11, two are 19th Century Pitchers (Tony Mullane and Jim McCormick), four are not yet eligible for the Hall but likely going in (Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and Mike Mussina), two are currently on the ballot (Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling), and the remaining three would have to go in via the Veteran's Committee if at all, (Luis Tiant, Kevin Brown, Rick Reuschel).  First, let me point out, there are plenty of Hall of Famers below Cone on this list including perceived "no-brainer" Hall of Famers like Mordecai Brown and Hal Newhouser.  But focusing on those above him, Tiant, Brown, and Reuschel are really the best arguments against Cone on the WAR front, but one could also argue that Tiant and Brown are borderline Hall of Famers themselves.  The anomaly here is Big Daddy.  In fact, seeing Rueschel ranked as having the 97th highest WAR total in history almost undermines the statistic.  But I digress.  On balance, Cone's WAR is actually one of his strongest arguments.

4. .606 Winning Percentage.  His .606 Winning Percentage is 98th best all-time.  As I mentioned in the Schilling article, this compares favorably to Hall of Famers Warren Spahn, Herb Pennock and Walter Johnson (in fact his is better than those guys).  Cone's Winning Percentage is better than Tom Seaver's.  Another interesting fact?  Cone pitched 17 seasons.  Of all pitchers in history with 17+ seasons on their resume, only ONE Hall of Fame eligible pitcher has a better winning percentage than Cone who has not been inducted - Roger Clemens.  All in all winning percentage in and of itself does not constitute a Hall of Famer, but only 26 current Hall of Famers have a better winning percentage, so this certainly helps his argument.

5. Two 20-win Seasons. Not exactly the kind of stat that makes you go, "Wow!  Now THAT's Hall of Fame worthy!"  But there is one interesting footnote...Cone went 10 years between 20 Win campaigns.  This is the longest span between 20 win seasons.  Like Schilling, Cone's 20-win seasons aren't going help other than to be able to say he won 20 games at least once. It may even hurt.

6. 2,668 Strikeouts. This includes six 200-plus seasons.  Cone also led the league in strikeouts twice.  He sits at #22 on the All-Time Strikeout list. Of the eligible pitchers on the list, all but four (Clemens, Schilling, Lolich, and Tanana) are in the Hall of Fame. If we extend to the top 30, Chuck Finley and Jerry Koosman are not. As mentioned in the Schilling article, the ineligible pitchers include two "no-brainer Hall of Famers": Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux, and three "may/should make it with a decent argument but each has question marks": Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Mike Mussina. So, all in all top 30 in strikeouts still looks pretty solid. This helps Cone.  That being said, it is starting to look like the "3,000" Strikeout Club is the real place to be.  This hurts Cone.

7. Five sub-3.00 ERA seasons. Many Hall of Famers have more. This isn't really going to help him though, like the 20-win argument, he will at least get credit for it. Something that seems to still be hurting Jack Morris. 

8. Five time All-Star. Like Schilling's Six, also a great total. Once again impressive since it speaks to coaches picking him rather than fans. Without the All-Star selections his case would also have a big hole.

9. Cy Young Award Winner.  Not winning the Cy Young hurts Schilling's case, but clearly helps Cone's.  He was a Cy Young contender (Top 5) in 3 other seasons and even managed to garner a few MVP votes over the years.  However, his overall "Award Share" total is not a good as Schilling's; though it is still an excellent 35th all-time.  Of the 34 pitchers above him about half are either in the Hall or will be.  Winning the award helps his case, but is not, in and of itself, a reason to induct him into the Hall.

10. 8.28 Strikeouts Per 9 Innings. This is good for 26th All-Time.  Obviously a fantastic historical rate.  Being one of the best of all-time in any category is always impressive.  However, when reviewing the 25 names above his,there are two Hall of Famers (Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax), a few probable/possible Hall of Famers (Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, Justin Verlander, etc) and a lot of pitchers who will never make the Hall (Kerry Wood, Erik Bedard, JR Richard, Eric Plunk, etc).  On balance, his strikeout rate has no bearing on his candidacy. 

11. Black Ink - 19, Gray ink - 168, Hall of Fame Monitor - 103, Hall of Fame Standards - 39. One of these puts him on par with average and likely hall of famers. Two of these are misses, but at least close (Gray Ink and Hall of Fame Standards). And he's a swing and a miss on the Black Ink. What this tells me about David Cone is he was consistently among the league leaders in many important categories, but rarely THE leader. 

12. Uniqueness. Cone was not as unique as Schilling, but he was fairly unique.  Two of Cone's most similar pitchers are in the Hall of Fame (Dazzy Vance and Bob Lemon).  His most similar pitcher is Doc Gooden at 945.  8 of the other 9 are clustered around 900.  Like Schilling he is not so unique as to say there has never been anyone like him, (see Nolan Ryan where Carlton at 755 was the most similar), but similarly unique in the Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton way that there weren't a lot of pitchers like him.

13. Career ERA of 3.46.  Hmmm...his career ERA is the exact same as Curt Schilling's.  So I can just regurgitate what I said about Curt: This is probably going to hurt his argument. At a quick glance, there are only 7 Hall of Fame Pitchers worse.  That being said, his ERA+ (121) is slightly better than the most recently inducted pitcher, Bert Blyleven (118). In fact, his ERA+ would be right in the middle of the Hall of Fame as there are 32 HOFers with a better ERA+ (Including Ruth).  What's all this mean?  Though his ERA probably hurts his argument, his ERA+ provides some context that helps his case.

14. 194 + 8 Wins. This hurts his argument.  300 Wins makes a pitcher's career look aesthetically pleasing.  200 Wins does not, per se, but missing 200 Wins can make an otherwise stellar career feel like it's missing something.  However, if we include the postseason, Cone surpasses the 200 Win barrier at least making his case a little better.  But again, 200 Wins doesn't get you into the Hall.  For Cone, this is a strike against him.

Overall, the argument looks decent for Cone. It's certainly not as solid as Schilling's argument.  But he's at least a decent candidate and certainly worthy of more than the paltry 21 votes he received prior to being bounced from the ballot.  From a gut perspective, Cone seemed like a future Hall of Famer at times, but not all the time.  He had a reputation as a horse and was known for some ridiculous pitch counts (166 in one game, for example).  There may be more deserving players that should go in first (the aforementioned Tiant, for example), but Cone would be a fine addition to the Hall.  Regardless, he certainly should have lasted longer than one and done.  Coupled with the logjam on the current ballot, the Veteran's Committee is probably going to be busy for years to come.

Speaking of players who were unceremoniously dumped from the ballot after one try, Lou Whitaker is perhaps the best example of the BBWAA getting it wrong.  Maybe we'll take his case next time...

Thanks for reading,
Jeff

Clearly Luke must have used some Jedi mind tricks on this one.  As reported by Dick Kaegel on mlb.com:

"Pitcher Luke Hochevar was pleased with the one-year, $4,560,000 contract that he agreed to with the Royals on Friday."

No kidding.  He just fleeced us.  How does someone perform THAT horribly and warrant a 30% raise?!

The Royals have had an unusual off-season; one of their most active in years.   Seeing them actually make high-impact moves has sent Royals Nation into a bit of a frenzy.  What makes it particularly strange is these moves have made all of us simultaneously a bit nervous, angry, and excited.

Adding a top of the rotation starter was an absolute priority this off-season.  Certainly acquiring James Shields accomplished this goal.  Trouble is the cost, (top prospect in baseball under team control for 6 years), may prove too much. Especially when we factor in having Frenchy and his .665 OPS patrolling RF for another year. We can use any measure we want:

Statistical fanatic?  Francoeur's WAR was -2.7 last year while Shields' WAR was 2.2.  In theory, Shileds replaces our worst starter from 2012, a combination of Will Smith and Jonathan Sanchez (combined for 38 starts) who combined gave us a -1.4 WAR.  This gives us a 3.6 improvement.  If we had kept Wil and handed him RF we would have picked up 2.7 wins if he were simply replacement level. 

Are you into "Old School" numbers and hate confangled modern statistics like "WAR"?  How about this?  Frenchy batted 5th for half of the season until he was mercifully moved down to 7th and had 49 RBIs in 603 plate appearances!  He hit .235.  We could have had ANY other Right Fielder in the game and probably got more production.  By the way, when he moved down to 7th he hit an awesome .196 - ugly in any language.

But THE trade wasn't our only off-season maneuver.  We also gave Jeremy Guthrie a Brinks Truck worth of cash for 3 years based on 3 months of good pitching.  We handed our resident 36 Year Old innings eater $4.5 Million for one more year.  We gave Getz another year too.  We've invited a slew of "hasbeens" (Tejada) and "neverwases" (Brandon Wood) to camp in hopes of striking lightning. 

And if you read a lot of articles from "experts" and comments from fans, the moves have been met with mostly negative opinions (me included) always with the caveat of "but at least Moore is doing something" or "Moore's job is clearly on the line."  And despite all of this, I feel better about the Royals going into 2013 than I have in years.  I hope Shields is an Ace.  I expect Hosmer to bounce back (go look at Ron Santo and Rod Carew at the same age and see how similar they look to Hos).  I love our offense.  Our bullpen is still strong. Perhaps Frenchy can return to 2011 form again!  Maybe, just maybe one or more of our hurt, young pitchers can come back and dazzle us!  Maybe we can sneak into the playoffs as a Wild Card where anything can happen!  Hope, after all, springs eternal. 

But then there goes Moore again, testing our collective optimism by giving Luke a raise.  To create a winning culture, you need accountability, yet we seem to love rewarding failure.  Not that Greinke would have returned, but if we simply let Chen and Hoch go, traded Frenchy away, and took the money we saved on letting Soria go, we could have afforded Zack.  But alas, we have to endure one more year of Hoch.  We're KC fans and we're pulling for him, but geesh, there's only so much we can take!

Gil Meche went 6-15 in his last two seasons with us and retired rather than continue to take the Royals' money.  Perhaps he should give Luke a call.

Last year I wrote an article for sbnation.com reviewing the case for Curt Schilling's Hall of Fame candidacy.  Since no one got elected this year, I thought it'd be a good time to post that article here.  Over on sbnation I also ran a poll and Curt received 67% of the vote.  Not bad for an informal public poll.  From time to time, we can debate other worthy (or unworthy) candidates.  Should be fun...here's the article:

First, let me start by saying I am a Royals fan.  So, perhaps discussing Curt Schilling seems odd since he never played for Kansas City.  But his career has always been fascinating to me so I figured why not start here? Since Curt Schilling retired I have seen numerous debates on his Hall of Fame worthiness. Before I enter this debate I must establish the fact that over the years I have changed my perspective on the Hall of Fame.  Now that we have inducted the Rizzutos and Mazeroskis of the world, I believe if someone is even borderline we might as well let them in. And why not? Who does it hurt? If someone is close, why not make a bunch of fans happy that "their guy" got in? Was I a fan of Jim Rice? No. Did I think I was watching a Hall of Famer at the time? Not really. But should he be in the Hall of Fame? Sure, why not? Heck there is a list of players not in that I would be fine with. I may not advocate on their behalf, but I certainly have no problem if they go in.  We are already way past the point of the Hall of Fame being a club just for Babe Ruth and Willie Mays.

Back to Schilling. Simply based on the above, I am inclined to agree that Schilling can go in to the Hall of Fame. But let's look at the evidence and see how he compares:

1. Bloody sock
2. Dominant postseason record
3. The Curse of Babe Ruth
4. near-.600 Winning Percentage
5. Three 20-win Seasons
6. 3,000 Strikeouts including three 300-plus seasons
7. Four seasons of sub-3.00 ERA seasons
8. Six time All-Star
9. Three times runner up Cy Young
10. Number one all-time strikeout to walk ratio (4.38/1)
11. Black Ink-42, Gray ink - 205, Hall of Fame Monitor - 171, Hall of Fame Standards - 46
12. Uniqueness
13. Career ERA of 3.46
14. 216 Wins

1. Bloody sock. This is one of those "moments" many Hall of Famers have simply because the hall is filled with great players and great players almost always have extraordinary moments. In and of itself it certainly does not make one a hall of famer, but could come in handy if it's close. This is the kind of thing that will stick in the voters minds and if they are going back and forth could make them check the box. Though, it hasn't exactly helped Jack Morris (1991 World Series) or Roger Maris (1961 61 Homers) or Tuffy Rhodes (1994 3 Homers on opening day).

2. Dominant postseason record. 11-2 over all with a 2.23 ERA. 4-1 in the World Series with a 2.06 ERA. One of only 2 pitchers to start 3 games in one World Series in the last 20 years (Jack Morris being the other in that aforementioned 1991 series).

3. The Curse of Babe Ruth. While Curt didn't singlehandedly break the curse, he certainly played a pivotal role with his 21-6 record and 6 shutout innings in the World Series.

4. near-.600 Winning Percentage. On the one hand, his .597 Career Winning percentage is essentially in the neighborhood of Hall of Famers Warren Spahn, Herb Pennock and Walter Johnson. On the other hand Teddy Higuera, John Candelaria and Wes Ferrell also live in that neighborhood. All in all winning percentage in and of itself does not constitute a Hall of Famer, but his is better than 31 current Hall of Famers, so this certainly helps his argument.

5. Three 20-win Seasons. Like many "strikeout" pitchers Curt had seasons where he couldn't seem to put it all together. Seasons where he'd win 16 games but post a 4.00+ ERA or strikeout 300+ batters and win just 15 or so games. Of course other than '93 Phillies, he pitched for some pretty ordinary teams. Then in Arizona it all clicked. He was with a good team and won 22 games, a World Series, posted a sub-3.00 ERA and was still striking batters out at a healthy clip while continuing to improve his walk totals. However, as a Hall of Famer, Curt's three 20-win seasons aren't going help other than to be able to say he won 20 games at least once. It may even hurt.

6. 3,000 Strikeouts including three 300-plus seasons. Schilling sits at #15 on the All-Time Strikeout list. Of the eligible pitchers on the list, every single one above him is in the Hall of Fame (and for the first time in a long time I can finally stop saying except for Blyleven). If we extend to the top 30, Mickey Lolich, Frank Tanana, David Cone, Chuck Finley, and Jerry Koosman are not. Of the pitchers ineligible, two are "no-brainer Hall of Famers": Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux. One "should be but now may not because of steroids Hall of Famer": Roger Clemens. And three "may/should make it with a decent argument but each has question marks": Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Mike Mussina. So, all in all top 30 in strikeouts looks pretty solid. This helps Schilling.

7. Four seasons of sub-3.00 ERA seasons. Many Hall of Famers have more. This isn't really going to help him though, like the 20-win argument, he will at least get credit for it. Something that really hurts Jack Morris.

8. Six time All-Star. A great total. For a pitcher, impressive since it speaks to coaches picking him rather than fans. Without the All-Star selections his case would have a big hole.

9. Three times runner up Cy Young. Not winning the Cy Young will undoubtedly hurt him. However, for the voters considering the Schilling case I will point out that he has the highest "Award Share" total in history to have not won the award. (16th all-time). By the way, for those that decided to put Goose and Sutter in, I will take a moment to remind you that you forgot our beloved Quisenberry. (#2 on the list) Oh, and for the Ryan fans out there who know he was robbed in 1981 and 1987, he's #3.

10. Number one all-time strikeout to walk ratio (4.38/1). (yeah, I had no idea either). Ok, technically he is listed at #2 behind Tommy Bond from the 1870s. But with all due respect to Mr. Bond, I am going to set him aside and consider Schilling #1 in the "modern" era. I'll be honest, when I found this out it pretty much convinced me that Schilling belongs in the Hall. In the Sabermetric era, I expect on base percentage has and will continue to grow in the minds of voters. I also expect strikeout-walk ratio could enter the debate. So, why not? If Schilling is the best ever, that's a pretty salient point.

11. Black Ink-42, Gray ink - 205, Hall of Fame Monitor - 171, Hall of Fame Standards - 46. 3 of these put him on par with average and likely hall of famers. Even the one where he misses, Hall of Fame Standards, he just misses the average of 50. This all probably doesn't help his argument, but indicates he's likely to garner support just based on what we know about hall of famers and the voters' tendencies.

12. Uniqueness. On the one hand only 3 of Schillings 10 most similar pitchers are in the Hall of Fame. And they aren't the hall's most rock-solid members: Drysdale, Vance and Catfish. On the other hand, only 2 pitchers scored a similarity score of 900+ with the most similar being Kevin Brown at 920. All this tells me is that Schilling was relatively unique. Certainly not so unique as to say there has never been anyone like him, (see Nolan Ryan where Carlton at 755 was the most similar), but unique in the Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton way that there weren't a lot of pitchers like him.

13. Career ERA of 3.46. This is probably going to hurt his argument. At a quick glance, there are only 7 Hall of Fame Pitchers worse.

14. 216 Wins. Not going to help his argument. Any pitcher in the Hall with around 200 wins is not in the Hall because of their win total. I always look at there being 3 types of typical Hall of Famers that are voted in by the writers: 1. Those in because of overall career value. Longevity driven. Players like Don Sutton. Stick around long enough, hit a big number we can't ignore and you are in the club. If he really does come back, Jamie Moyer could be next. 2. Those in because of peak value. Someone who was so dominant over a short period of time that voters felt they could not ignore their greatness. Sandy Koufax is the best example. Kirby Puckett is another example and I suspect Pedro Martinez will be next. This category is "perceived" and the most subjective of the groups. Sometimes it works in a players favor: Hack Wilson. Sometimes it does not: Roger Maris. And finally #3. Those in because of the dominance in all areas of the game for a long period of time. The hit you over the head, "duh" Hall of Famers...Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Brett, etc. Schilling, if he gets in, will have to be based on #2. Perhaps it is the bloody sock. Maybe it will be the strikeout-walk ratio. Maybe it will be the overall postseason. One thing is certain...it will not be the 200 wins. The ONLY thing the wins really do for him is prevent a "he didn't even get to 200 wins" argument against him.

Overall, the argument looks pretty good for Schilling. From a gut perspective, I certainly thought I was watching one of the greats when he was at his peak. Then again, I thought the same thing when Dale Murphy won his back to back MVPs and was a dominant force in the 80s. If it were my ballot, I'd vote for both of them.

Of course, if he goes in, I am compelled to ask what about David Cone? He only got 21 votes and won't be on the ballot ever again. He has a very Schilling-esque resume. Maybe we'll look at him next time.


Jeff

Welcome to Skip's Cards!  You have reached our blog where we will discuss anything and everything related to sports, sports cards, pop culture, and whatever strikes us.  Have a topic in mind?  Just send a note to us at info@skipscards.com or comment below.  The point is to have fun talking about our favorite topics. 

Looking for something Animal related?  Check out Judi's Favorite Animals Blog!  You can find it in the links to the left.

Thank you for checking us out and if there is ever anything you're looking for that you don't see on our site, just let me know...I either have it or will find it for you.  :-)