Runs is the most important counting stat in offensive baseball. Not OPS+. For all of Jason Giambi’s fireworks he’s not a better offensive player than Jim Edmonds over his career because Giambi was an absolute statue on the bases.

Alomar was a great baserunner and like with Raines I think it’s something that HOF voters value almost for nothing. I’m not talking about stolen bases so much as getting yourself from 1st to 3rd, from second to home.

Great, great comments here people, really interesting. Thanks!

PLAYER, ………..POS, 2008…. 2009 projected
———————————————————–
Mark Teixeira…. 1B -3.7 …..+0.6
Robinson Cano 2B -5.2 …..-1.7
Derek Jeter……. SS +6.6 ….-1.9
Alex Rodriguez 3B -8.6 …..-3.8
Brett Gardner.. CF +7.2 ….+3.7
Melky Cabrera.. LF -2.5 …..+0.9
Melky Cabrera.. CF +1.4 …..-1.9
Melky Cabrera.. RF -0.5 …..-0.1
Nick Swisher….. LF -0.5 …..+0.7
Nick Swisher….. RF -0.7 …..+0.4

So… last year our D sucked except for Jeter and Gritner????
ARod at NEGATIVE 8.6?
Robbie at NEGATIVE 5.2?

Methinks URZ needs some work.

As for the other guys:
.292
.289
.289
.289
.287
.282

Those are all-time adjusted EqAs of, in order from top to bottom:
Kent
Alomar
Grich
Gehringer
Gordon
Whitaker

Now I think comparing Alomar to Morgan (.314 EqA) is insanity – Morgan is clearly better. But to the others? Alomar has an argument. Offensively, he was better than everyone but Kent, and they are close; and of course he’s tied with Grich and Gehringer. So if one includes defense (using FRAA, adjusted for all-time, because UZR and the rest don’t go back to Gordon and Gehringer) – same order as above:

-1
30
119
25
103
87

FRAA isn’t the only metric in town, but using a combo of it and EqA, Grich is proably the best outside of Morgan. Alomar, I think, is probably behind not only Grich but also Gordon, and maybe Whitaker – but ahead of Gehringer and Kent.

That’s fine, since I did not argue that. However, under most circumstances, the best player at his position in his given era pretty much should go in the HOF. I don’t really see how it could be otherwise, unless the position was historically weak in that era, as I pointed out in [13].

The main problem with HOF discussions is that the parameters for what makes a HOFer are not at all well defined.

For one, is it only for GREAT players, or also excellent players? (I won’t define the difference, but you get the idea)

How much do we count endurance? A guy who play 18 to 20 years will pile up some counting stats. How do you compare a player with excellent counting stats to one with 12 years of much better averages (Alomar to Grich)? I personally do not consider a player with great health and great endurance to necessarily be a great player. I think career averages are more imprtant then counting stats.

By definition, should we have only a certain amount of players at a given position over a given times period… like 1 SS per decade? (obviously this would be a guideline where exceptions are considered).

Unfortunately, there are players in the Hall now that probably shouldn’t be there. This sets a lower bar and allows the “so-and-so is in, so-and-so should be in too” argument.

Typically, as time passes, sports records fall. We expect players to get better as medical, health and conditioning sciences get better. Should we expect a bit more from players now then 40 years ago?

To me, I would like to see it harder to get in, so only the very best make it. Mount Rushmore might not be as grand if there were 10 guys on it. My opinion doesn’t count for anything, but I do wish the people in charge would better define what qualifies somone to get in.

I’m not sure that follows entirely logically. Just because whitaker was better (e.g.) doesn’t make Alomar not a slam dunk. Perhaps they both are, especially given thatthey played in different eras.

Grich ranks 6th among 2B all time, while Alomar comes in 11th, just ahead of Sandberg, but behind contemporaries Whitaker and Biggio. Also, according to Jaffe’s numbers, Alomar would rank as a below average Hall of Fame 2B (which could mean the standard for HoF 2B has been too high).

Player Career Peak JAWS
Eddie Collins 137.9 72.7 105.3*
Rogers Hornsby 128.6 76.6 102.6*
Joe Morgan 127.5 73.5 100.5*
Nap Lajoie 125.7 71.7 98.7*
Bobby Grich 92.3 63.6 78.0
Lou Whitaker 103.4 51.6 77.5
Craig Biggio 90.0 55.0 72.5
Rod Carew 86.1 53.0 69.6*
Charlie Gehringer 84.8 54.2 69.5*
Frankie Frisch 83.3 50.1 66.7*
Roberto Alomar 81.0 51.8 66.4
Ryne Sandberg 75.6 56.4 66.0*
Billy Herman 77.8 51.2 64.5**
Jeff Kent 80.1 47.9 64.0
Jackie Robinson 68.0 57.5 62.8*
Joe Gordon 67.5 53.9 60.7**
Bobby Doerr 72.8 47.7 60.3**
Bid McPhee 77.7 41.7 59.7**
Willie Randolph 70.3 42.4 56.4
Davey Lopes 64.5 47.8 56.2
Avg HoF 2B 84.9 54.6 69.8
*BBWAA elected
**VC elected

wellll….he won it four times, to Alomar’s ten. Now, GG is pretty flawed, but if we are going to invoke it, it is hard to argue against Alomar having the better *reputation* at defense.

Alomar’s advantage over Grich is a few seasons worth of more PAs, but I think the point is that a case can be made either way as to who was the better player (by the way, if you believe in it, RF/G rates Grich higher than Alomar). My whole argument is Alomar isn’t a no-brainer, so if it is possible to make the case for Sandberg, Grich or Whitaker as being a better player, then it’s hard to say Alomar is a slam dunk.

As I see it, if you are one of the few very best at your position in a given era, for a long time, then you are a HOFer. So maybe Grich deserves to get in for an earlier period, but so too does Alomar. The only exception to this would be in some bizarre era if a given position were historically bad such that no player really deserved to get in the HOF. But I don’t see that with the 1990s.

Alomar was more durable, had more total bases, hit for higher average with more power, and was a much better postseason hitter. I’m not saying these are perfect barometers either but they gotta count for something.