I think Lackey gets in, but also recall Weaver as an exceptionally wiley pitcher. As in, more than likely, the hitter was going to lose to Weaver. For Lackey 3 WS rings w 3 different clubs — as a CONTRIBUTOR — is famously good, so disagree he’s not HoF. In fact it kind of points out the most important part of HoF when individuals get stuck on certain methodologies. In this case, Lackey highlights the feature that there is more than one definition to a HoF player. Sort of like how folks in politics always confuse the idea that what’s good for town of 1MM, absolutely fails in a town of 10,000. Ironically, since his book will be FULL of these different definitions, I’ll bet Joe has already come around to that fact — despite his regular pot stirring for eyeballs here. Plus, as Joe points out Lackey was fierce, and having Lackey in HoF is a sneaky opportunity to put ‘Boy Named Sue’ on loop in front of Lackey’s HoF plaque.
Love the opening cards Poscast. While the David Roth Lets Remember Some Guys is a recent baseball card highlighter, I would suggest the first inductee into the "let's talk about some baseball cards and crack wise about the players/stats/info on the back of the card" would be The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book by Brendan C. Boyd & Fred C. Harris a great book about baseball cards, primarily ones issued during the 1950s and 1960s, and the players on the cards from the 1970s. I know it's outside the eras of Mike and Joe, any folks out there interested in this limited genre would really enjoy this book. Understand this is not a book about cards or value. E.g. "Vern Stephens hit pop-ups. High pop-ups. Major League pop-ups. Neck straining pop-ups. For this reason he was known as Pop-Up Stephens. ... Vern Stephens could have played his entire career in a stovepipe." / Harvey Haddis card - after explaining his 12 inning near perfect game: "From that evening on Harvey ... wore the baleful and painfully contrived smile he displays for you here as a part of his regular uniform." Or comments on the graphic wonder of a Johnny Unitas card with his hair on too tight or Gus Zernial with 6 baseballs affixed to his bat ("with stamp hinges"?) giving an OK sign.
I had that book long ago. I think it is no longer in my possession, although it is possible it is in a box at my parents' house. Here's the line I will always remember (paraphrased): "Smoky Burgess was fat. Not baseball fat, but fat like your Uncle Al."
Great one. They were all quotable. Back before audiobooks were a thing my brother and I would often entertain each other by reading the descriptions from the book assuming we could do so while choking back the laughs. Hard to find these days though I checked once and I think there's a Kindle or ebook version.
Joe, I see the GoFundMe page is paused. Do you plan to resume it anytime soon? I'm ready to donate! Definitely excited for my Spike Owen essay when I win
I do not understand the ones who are on the Vizquel train, or were on it before his reputation fell. Every argument for Vizquel falls short when Andruw Jones is not in. Jones was at least as good defensively, and considerably better offensively. Vizquel frequently is compared to Ozzie Smith, and Jones was frequently compared to Willie Mays. The difference is lots of people said Jones was better than Mays, and nobody says Vizquel was better than Smith. The other difference is Jones was also good on offense, and Vizquel wasn't.
I agree! Every couple of years there is a player that shocks me that the BBWAA either really loves or really doesn't love. Vizquel was one of those guys when he first got on the ballot. I couldn't believe how much support he got. I mean he was a fine player but I figured he'd debut at 10-12% and fall off the ballot after a year or two.
Anyway, this year it's Francisco Rodriguez. He was a good player but not close to being HOF-worthy. Yet he'll probably end up with a voting % in the double digits. REALLY? K-Rod? SMH. Maybe I'm missing something.
Two others in the past whose support (or lack thereof) surprised me: I thought Jeff Kent would do better than he has and would go in after 5 or 6 years. He was stifled by the loaded ballots to some degree, I guess. I'm also shocked by how well Billy Wagner has done, too. After looking more closely at his career, though, Wags definitely has a case.
Two things on the Poscast. First, I have no idea why something that on the surface sounds like the last thing people would want to listen to - especially without actually seeing the cards - was so entertaining, but it definitely was. Thanks and I guess keep following whatever inspired you to do it
Second, in addition to the guy who wrote the biographical bits for the baseball cards and the guy who holds the one high school baseball record at Jeter’s high school that Jeter doesn’t, I’d like to hear an interview with someone in production/packaging at Topps during the late 70’s - early 80’s. I’d love to know how the packs were assembled - was it random or was there some method to it? Because when I heard the name Lynn McGlothen from the 1980 pack, I immediately remembered him as someone I seemed to get in every other pack of cards I bought one year. I knew absolutely nothing about him as a player but I got so many of his cards. For me that’s a definite category of player - guys who I know to this day only because Topps seemed intent on force feeding me their card.
Jeff Kent: he should probably be in the HOF...but nobody will care (maybe not even Kent himself) if he's NOT in the HOF. When other borderline guys like Hodges, Minnie, or McGriff didn't get in, there was a sense of sadness because they seemed like nice guys. On the flip side are guys like Dave Parker, Albert Belle, and now Jeff Kent. If they never get in will anybody care? Dick Allen was that way for a long time, too, before getting some momentum on the VC ballots.
I know this isn't popular but I'd vote for Omar. By bWAR he's the 9th-greatest defensive player in baseball history and he's a mere 123 hits shy of 3,000. That's not a bad combo. Joe writes that he was "visually marvelous" but I'd cut to the chase and say he was beautiful—one of the most beautiful players I've ever seen play. That should matter. What are we—animals? Let's count beauty for a change.
I am not convinced Omar is the 9th greatest defensive player in baseball history. This seems a little off to me. Omar Vizquel's dbWAR is 7th (for shortstops), but this includes Omar's positional adjustment. Baseball-Reference gives Omar 159 runs in WAR value just for playing difficult defensive positions; and he spent almost 23,000 innings at short. If we look just at the defensive value Omar brought excluding the position he plays he is far less impressive.
Andrelton Simmons, for instance, is below Omar in dbWAR but he's over 70 runs ahead of Omar in actual defensive value. He's only behind Omar because Omar spent twice as much time playing as Simmons. In fact if we just use the rField portion of bWAR:
Mark Belanger: 241 runs (15,300 innings)
Ozzie Smith: 239 runs (21,785 innings)
Andrelton Simmons: 200 runs (10,388 innings)
Cal Ripken: 181 runs (25,958 innings)
Joe Tinker: 180 runs (15,311 innings)
Luis Aparicio: 149 runs (22,408 innings)
Bill Dahlen: 139 runs (21,360 innings)
Bobby Wallace: 133 runs (20,391 innings)
Rabbit Maranville: 130 runs (23,363 innings)
Omar Vizquel: 129 (24,519 innings)
That's just the top 10 shortstops. I don't think Omar has a particularly convincing argument as being close to the best in that group; and that's (again) just the shortstops. Was Omar a better fielder than Brooks Robinson? Willie Mays? Andrew Jones? I don't think so.
If you don't care for the advanced stats, well: Omar was rarely the league leader at shortstop in many categories. He led putouts once, range factor once, double plays turned once. He did lead the league in fielding percentage many times; but I think we can all agree fielding percentage is not a particularly good statistic.
I just don't see the defensive argument for Omar; and he added little value elsewhere. He was a terrible hitter, we all know that, and he wasn't a good base runner. Ozzie & Aparicio were marvelous base runners; Luis led the league in stolen bases several times. Omar stole a lot of bases, but he was caught a lot too.
WOW that's an interesting post, my friend! I think Cal Ripken's defense is somehow underrated. Dude could pick it, though. If we're talking just defense, there's zero chance I'd take Omar over Ozzie, Andrelton, Cal, or Belanger. Omar might - might - be a Top 5 defensive SS. But there is no way that he was one of the 10 best defenders in the game, regardless of position. It seems like he got a lot of credit just for showing up...which is fine, but it doesn't mean he was HOF-worthy.
Oh no I agree. He gets more runs just for playing crucial defensive positions (he spent a fair amount of time at third and second later in his career) as he did for his actual defense.
Vizquel is much more Baines than Raines. He was a very good defensive player who played forever. Baines was a very good offensive player who played forever. Neither should be in. However, I think any writer who cowers behind "Omar was a bad guy so I'm not gonna vote for him!" should be laughed at. Look at what Omar did while he was playing. Was he good enough or not? To Joe Posnanski's credit, he NEVER thought Vizquel was HOF-worthy and never based his vote on anything other than Omar's playing career.
I’ve written this personally on my Substack and at Covering the Corner but Jeff Kent (despite his 377 Home runs) was not a particularly good home run hitter. He never led the league on home runs. He finished in the top 10 once. His homer output is a function of his time, not his prowess.
Kent, despite those home runs, is not particularly close to being the best offensive second baseman ever. If you factor in things like baserunning and double plays: I’m not sure he’s in the top 10. Offensively he reminds me of Scott Rolen; a good offensive player who would not get into the Hall just for his offense.
The difference between Rolen and Kent being: Scott was superb defensively. Kent wasn’t. Kent was a specialist, and he has a wonderful elevator pitch.
I just can't get behind Kent and you probably stated it better than I could. Although I am always skeptical when defense is used as an argument against the HoF (if Ortiz and Thomas can get it with the little D they played . . . ) I always thought offensively he was a product of his time rather than an all-time-great.
Absolutely but you heard very little debate about the fact they rarely wore gloves. But you are right--all-time great hitters and Ortiz was a playoff monster.
I was going to say that when you get that kind of production from a middle infielder that his teams got from Kent, it's a big deal. But I just checked and he was top ten in homers just once. Joe said a lot of guys were hitting homers then but Kent really was not that extraordinary.
i read all the Kent posts except paywall-obscured Athletic, and as a lifelong SF Giants fan (as anyone who has ever read my comments would surely know already), i completely concur that Jeff Kent does NOT belong in the HoF! as i've also stated herein several times, the fact that his teammate of a 1/2 decade Barry Bonds is NOT in the Hall of Fame is an absolute travesty!
Jeff Kent, pre SF, was 28 years old and had a lifetime 107 OPS+ and a best season bWAR of 3.2. He joins the Giants after most players have passed their prime, and proceeds to put up a 136 OPS+ over the next six years, hitting 50% more homers than he did previously, and beating that prior career high bWAR every season including two over 7 in his 30s when virtually every second baseman is on the decline. And he holds that offensive performance reasonably consistent all the way to age 39.
The variable nature of who gets painted with a PED brush offends my sense of propriety.
interesting point re PED, i often wonder if Kent's strident attitude against was a smokescreen for him DOING them? especially considering his numbers from age 28 onwards and when he talked of past great ones NOT playing clean (of course, now it is common knowledge that amphetamines were munched like candy in 60's, 70's, maybe before and after)... another interesting point to ponder is that SF's new ballpark that replaced Candlestick was NOT exactly a hitter's paradise...
I read all of the Jeff Kent posts, except the one in the Athletic (subscription). They make very good points and I agree with almost all of it. The one thing I disagree is that you wrote Jeff Kent has a perfectly acceptable baseball mustache. I disagree with that, I find Kent's mustache to be well below average.
Reading this, the Stupid Place of the Day my brain wants to go is "Gee, what if that were a statistic. Sort of like ERA+, but if 100 is average, let's say Rollie Fingers is a 200, Tim Lincecum is -100, and work from there...".
Love everything about this. Cards and donating. Thank you Joe. Can’t wait to pre order the book from Rainy Day! Canceled my Amazon pre-order so I can support Rainy Day.
I think Lackey gets in, but also recall Weaver as an exceptionally wiley pitcher. As in, more than likely, the hitter was going to lose to Weaver. For Lackey 3 WS rings w 3 different clubs — as a CONTRIBUTOR — is famously good, so disagree he’s not HoF. In fact it kind of points out the most important part of HoF when individuals get stuck on certain methodologies. In this case, Lackey highlights the feature that there is more than one definition to a HoF player. Sort of like how folks in politics always confuse the idea that what’s good for town of 1MM, absolutely fails in a town of 10,000. Ironically, since his book will be FULL of these different definitions, I’ll bet Joe has already come around to that fact — despite his regular pot stirring for eyeballs here. Plus, as Joe points out Lackey was fierce, and having Lackey in HoF is a sneaky opportunity to put ‘Boy Named Sue’ on loop in front of Lackey’s HoF plaque.
How good was dave righetti in 1986 that he was on the top of the 1987 topps box? I must have missed something.
Hi Joe, a friend pointed out that Dave Stewart won WS with 3 teams: '81 Dodgers, '89 A's, and '93 Jays.
Love the opening cards Poscast. While the David Roth Lets Remember Some Guys is a recent baseball card highlighter, I would suggest the first inductee into the "let's talk about some baseball cards and crack wise about the players/stats/info on the back of the card" would be The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book by Brendan C. Boyd & Fred C. Harris a great book about baseball cards, primarily ones issued during the 1950s and 1960s, and the players on the cards from the 1970s. I know it's outside the eras of Mike and Joe, any folks out there interested in this limited genre would really enjoy this book. Understand this is not a book about cards or value. E.g. "Vern Stephens hit pop-ups. High pop-ups. Major League pop-ups. Neck straining pop-ups. For this reason he was known as Pop-Up Stephens. ... Vern Stephens could have played his entire career in a stovepipe." / Harvey Haddis card - after explaining his 12 inning near perfect game: "From that evening on Harvey ... wore the baleful and painfully contrived smile he displays for you here as a part of his regular uniform." Or comments on the graphic wonder of a Johnny Unitas card with his hair on too tight or Gus Zernial with 6 baseballs affixed to his bat ("with stamp hinges"?) giving an OK sign.
I had that book long ago. I think it is no longer in my possession, although it is possible it is in a box at my parents' house. Here's the line I will always remember (paraphrased): "Smoky Burgess was fat. Not baseball fat, but fat like your Uncle Al."
"Putsy fat. Slobby fat. Fat fat. Just plain fat." In a book that was full of funny mini bios, the Smoky Burgess one was a memorable favorite of mine.
Great one. They were all quotable. Back before audiobooks were a thing my brother and I would often entertain each other by reading the descriptions from the book assuming we could do so while choking back the laughs. Hard to find these days though I checked once and I think there's a Kindle or ebook version.
Joe, I see the GoFundMe page is paused. Do you plan to resume it anytime soon? I'm ready to donate! Definitely excited for my Spike Owen essay when I win
I do not understand the ones who are on the Vizquel train, or were on it before his reputation fell. Every argument for Vizquel falls short when Andruw Jones is not in. Jones was at least as good defensively, and considerably better offensively. Vizquel frequently is compared to Ozzie Smith, and Jones was frequently compared to Willie Mays. The difference is lots of people said Jones was better than Mays, and nobody says Vizquel was better than Smith. The other difference is Jones was also good on offense, and Vizquel wasn't.
I agree! Every couple of years there is a player that shocks me that the BBWAA either really loves or really doesn't love. Vizquel was one of those guys when he first got on the ballot. I couldn't believe how much support he got. I mean he was a fine player but I figured he'd debut at 10-12% and fall off the ballot after a year or two.
Anyway, this year it's Francisco Rodriguez. He was a good player but not close to being HOF-worthy. Yet he'll probably end up with a voting % in the double digits. REALLY? K-Rod? SMH. Maybe I'm missing something.
Two others in the past whose support (or lack thereof) surprised me: I thought Jeff Kent would do better than he has and would go in after 5 or 6 years. He was stifled by the loaded ballots to some degree, I guess. I'm also shocked by how well Billy Wagner has done, too. After looking more closely at his career, though, Wags definitely has a case.
Two things on the Poscast. First, I have no idea why something that on the surface sounds like the last thing people would want to listen to - especially without actually seeing the cards - was so entertaining, but it definitely was. Thanks and I guess keep following whatever inspired you to do it
Second, in addition to the guy who wrote the biographical bits for the baseball cards and the guy who holds the one high school baseball record at Jeter’s high school that Jeter doesn’t, I’d like to hear an interview with someone in production/packaging at Topps during the late 70’s - early 80’s. I’d love to know how the packs were assembled - was it random or was there some method to it? Because when I heard the name Lynn McGlothen from the 1980 pack, I immediately remembered him as someone I seemed to get in every other pack of cards I bought one year. I knew absolutely nothing about him as a player but I got so many of his cards. For me that’s a definite category of player - guys who I know to this day only because Topps seemed intent on force feeding me their card.
Jeff Kent: he should probably be in the HOF...but nobody will care (maybe not even Kent himself) if he's NOT in the HOF. When other borderline guys like Hodges, Minnie, or McGriff didn't get in, there was a sense of sadness because they seemed like nice guys. On the flip side are guys like Dave Parker, Albert Belle, and now Jeff Kent. If they never get in will anybody care? Dick Allen was that way for a long time, too, before getting some momentum on the VC ballots.
Joe, in case nobody has already told you, Boulevard Brewng in KC has released a special Buck O’Neil Legendary 22 beer.
I know this isn't popular but I'd vote for Omar. By bWAR he's the 9th-greatest defensive player in baseball history and he's a mere 123 hits shy of 3,000. That's not a bad combo. Joe writes that he was "visually marvelous" but I'd cut to the chase and say he was beautiful—one of the most beautiful players I've ever seen play. That should matter. What are we—animals? Let's count beauty for a change.
I am not convinced Omar is the 9th greatest defensive player in baseball history. This seems a little off to me. Omar Vizquel's dbWAR is 7th (for shortstops), but this includes Omar's positional adjustment. Baseball-Reference gives Omar 159 runs in WAR value just for playing difficult defensive positions; and he spent almost 23,000 innings at short. If we look just at the defensive value Omar brought excluding the position he plays he is far less impressive.
Andrelton Simmons, for instance, is below Omar in dbWAR but he's over 70 runs ahead of Omar in actual defensive value. He's only behind Omar because Omar spent twice as much time playing as Simmons. In fact if we just use the rField portion of bWAR:
Mark Belanger: 241 runs (15,300 innings)
Ozzie Smith: 239 runs (21,785 innings)
Andrelton Simmons: 200 runs (10,388 innings)
Cal Ripken: 181 runs (25,958 innings)
Joe Tinker: 180 runs (15,311 innings)
Luis Aparicio: 149 runs (22,408 innings)
Bill Dahlen: 139 runs (21,360 innings)
Bobby Wallace: 133 runs (20,391 innings)
Rabbit Maranville: 130 runs (23,363 innings)
Omar Vizquel: 129 (24,519 innings)
That's just the top 10 shortstops. I don't think Omar has a particularly convincing argument as being close to the best in that group; and that's (again) just the shortstops. Was Omar a better fielder than Brooks Robinson? Willie Mays? Andrew Jones? I don't think so.
If you don't care for the advanced stats, well: Omar was rarely the league leader at shortstop in many categories. He led putouts once, range factor once, double plays turned once. He did lead the league in fielding percentage many times; but I think we can all agree fielding percentage is not a particularly good statistic.
I just don't see the defensive argument for Omar; and he added little value elsewhere. He was a terrible hitter, we all know that, and he wasn't a good base runner. Ozzie & Aparicio were marvelous base runners; Luis led the league in stolen bases several times. Omar stole a lot of bases, but he was caught a lot too.
WOW that's an interesting post, my friend! I think Cal Ripken's defense is somehow underrated. Dude could pick it, though. If we're talking just defense, there's zero chance I'd take Omar over Ozzie, Andrelton, Cal, or Belanger. Omar might - might - be a Top 5 defensive SS. But there is no way that he was one of the 10 best defenders in the game, regardless of position. It seems like he got a lot of credit just for showing up...which is fine, but it doesn't mean he was HOF-worthy.
I would love to see a study on who got the most help in WAR calculations by just showing up
I can't tell if you're serious or not...but in case you are, here's what lead me to making my comment:
"Baseball-Reference gives Omar 159 runs in WAR value just for playing difficult defensive positions."
Oh no I agree. He gets more runs just for playing crucial defensive positions (he spent a fair amount of time at third and second later in his career) as he did for his actual defense.
May I present to you one Derek S. Jeter:
Rfield -253
Rpos +144.
When I read about “advanced fielding stats” for guys like Maranville or even Belanger, I can only laugh.
I really just meant the defensive portion on WAR
But he was a weak hitter, so using his hits total does not tell his story.
Vizquel is much more Baines than Raines. He was a very good defensive player who played forever. Baines was a very good offensive player who played forever. Neither should be in. However, I think any writer who cowers behind "Omar was a bad guy so I'm not gonna vote for him!" should be laughed at. Look at what Omar did while he was playing. Was he good enough or not? To Joe Posnanski's credit, he NEVER thought Vizquel was HOF-worthy and never based his vote on anything other than Omar's playing career.
I’ve written this personally on my Substack and at Covering the Corner but Jeff Kent (despite his 377 Home runs) was not a particularly good home run hitter. He never led the league on home runs. He finished in the top 10 once. His homer output is a function of his time, not his prowess.
Kent, despite those home runs, is not particularly close to being the best offensive second baseman ever. If you factor in things like baserunning and double plays: I’m not sure he’s in the top 10. Offensively he reminds me of Scott Rolen; a good offensive player who would not get into the Hall just for his offense.
The difference between Rolen and Kent being: Scott was superb defensively. Kent wasn’t. Kent was a specialist, and he has a wonderful elevator pitch.
I just can't get behind Kent and you probably stated it better than I could. Although I am always skeptical when defense is used as an argument against the HoF (if Ortiz and Thomas can get it with the little D they played . . . ) I always thought offensively he was a product of his time rather than an all-time-great.
Jeff Kent was not the hitter Ortiz or Thomas were; both are all time slam dunk great hitters
Absolutely but you heard very little debate about the fact they rarely wore gloves. But you are right--all-time great hitters and Ortiz was a playoff monster.
I was going to say that when you get that kind of production from a middle infielder that his teams got from Kent, it's a big deal. But I just checked and he was top ten in homers just once. Joe said a lot of guys were hitting homers then but Kent really was not that extraordinary.
i read all the Kent posts except paywall-obscured Athletic, and as a lifelong SF Giants fan (as anyone who has ever read my comments would surely know already), i completely concur that Jeff Kent does NOT belong in the HoF! as i've also stated herein several times, the fact that his teammate of a 1/2 decade Barry Bonds is NOT in the Hall of Fame is an absolute travesty!
Jeff Kent, pre SF, was 28 years old and had a lifetime 107 OPS+ and a best season bWAR of 3.2. He joins the Giants after most players have passed their prime, and proceeds to put up a 136 OPS+ over the next six years, hitting 50% more homers than he did previously, and beating that prior career high bWAR every season including two over 7 in his 30s when virtually every second baseman is on the decline. And he holds that offensive performance reasonably consistent all the way to age 39.
The variable nature of who gets painted with a PED brush offends my sense of propriety.
interesting point re PED, i often wonder if Kent's strident attitude against was a smokescreen for him DOING them? especially considering his numbers from age 28 onwards and when he talked of past great ones NOT playing clean (of course, now it is common knowledge that amphetamines were munched like candy in 60's, 70's, maybe before and after)... another interesting point to ponder is that SF's new ballpark that replaced Candlestick was NOT exactly a hitter's paradise...
Edit: I'm deleting my comment because I have nothing new to add about PEDs that hasn't been said or written a zillion times over the last 30 years.
I read all of the Jeff Kent posts, except the one in the Athletic (subscription). They make very good points and I agree with almost all of it. The one thing I disagree is that you wrote Jeff Kent has a perfectly acceptable baseball mustache. I disagree with that, I find Kent's mustache to be well below average.
We need a Baseball Mustache Hall of Fame! Imagine the arguments the vote could generate.
Reading this, the Stupid Place of the Day my brain wants to go is "Gee, what if that were a statistic. Sort of like ERA+, but if 100 is average, let's say Rollie Fingers is a 200, Tim Lincecum is -100, and work from there...".
Love everything about this. Cards and donating. Thank you Joe. Can’t wait to pre order the book from Rainy Day! Canceled my Amazon pre-order so I can support Rainy Day.
Looking forward to both card Poscasts on this week’s drive to Vermont. Thanks for having me, Joe!