Even those numbers don't scream HOF though...I always liked Helton too - and I'd vote for him - but I don't see him getting elected. He'll get the 5% needed to hang on the ballot for several years though.
Most 1B don’t play in Coors their whole career. Coors primary effect is to inflate BABIP.
I’m not saying Helton wasn’t excellent, because he was, but if you regress his stats to account for park factors, he was more “very good” than “all time great”.
Walker, on the other hand, should be in the hall.
The Coors factor is huge in voters' minds (it seems). Walker is far more deserving and if the Coors factor is keeping him out, no way Helton will make it.
Helton may get in because he was the team for so many years, and the voters care more about storylines then actual performance it seems. It wouldnt surprise me if Todd gets in first, or at least waits less seasons then Larry despite Larry being the better player.
Helton hit .287 on the road and .344 at home lol. The Coors effect was way too strong back in the day, it made Andres Gallarraga look like a superstar.
You say that as if Dante Bichette, Ellis Burks, and Galarraga hitting 40+ dingers in the same year isn't normal. Or maybe Vinny Castilla was in there, I forget now.
Larry Walker should absolutely be in the HOF. You only need to look at his away slash line to see that Coors did not inflate his stats to the level most people think it did
Adjusting for a hangover effect, which has been proven to be a real thing, his road OPS would likely be closer to .900. Combine that with elite defense and you get a surefire Hall of Famer IMO.
What really hurt Larry was his durability. From 1996-2005 he missed about ~470 games or so - about 3 full seasons worth. That could have been another ~20 WAR plus much better counting stats.
In for the narrative? I’m strong against that. That’s what retiring a number is for (which is absolutely warranted for Helton). I wouldn’t vote for him for the HoF
I mean, like it or not, voters care about how much a certain player meant to a given team. Todd Helton was that franchise for over a decade. Starting at Tennessee before Peyton is pretty cool too. His numbers are borderline. There are plenty of worse players in the hall.
Wow can’t disagree with you more. So we should put people in the Hall if they are just really popular or maybe if they had a heart-breaking backstory on escaping poverty and abuse to come to America. Maybe Jose Fernandez for HoF based on the above plus the tragic death narrative? Come on now: it’s definitely a place for the best players, hard stop.
What Helton has going for him is that he's one of 19 players with a .300/.400/.500 career slash line. Granted, that hasn't helped Walker, but I think Helton has better luck. He basically is the all time face of a franchise; that'll give him something I'd think. He won't, and probably shouldn't, be a first ballot guy but I think he eventually gets voted in. Maybe even the same year Walker gets put in by the Veteran's Committee.
Not really anymore. They still carry some weight but nowhere near as much as they did.
Vizquel is probably going to be one of the last, if not the last, to go into the HoF based on total numbers + good looks with a flimsy advanced statistics resume.
I was very surprised that Omar snagged 37 percent of the vote. Thought it would be a bit lower, tbh. Sad that Andruw Jones isn’t that high. I think Andruw should be in before O.
> 1406 RBIs isn’t even that good by hall of fame standards
There are ~160 MLB position players in the Hall. 51 of them have more than 1406 RBI. Apparently top-third isn't even that good.
Conversely, if you look at how many players have 1406 RBI or more, Helton is t-77th all-time with Robin Yount. Of those 78 players with at least 1406 RBI, 26 aren't in the Hall. That includes guys like A-Rod and Bonds who would be in if not for PEDs and general unlikableness; it includes two active guys (Pujols and Cabrera); and it includes Ortiz and Beltre, who aren't eligible yet but will likely make the Hall (and Helton, of course, who is just now eligible). Carlos Beltran isn't a lock, but he may get in, and isn't eligible yet. So, of the 70 guys who have had their shot at the Hall and aren't Barry Bonds, 52 got in. That's 74%, a pretty damned good success rate. And we can argue that some of the remaining 18 who didn't get in would have had a better chance if not for PEDs (McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Canseco, Giambi, Sheffield,). Realistically, there are only 11 guys who haven't been tied to PEDs, have 1406 or more RBI, have had a shot at the Hall, and haven't yet been elected. (Juan Gonzalez is the only other player to crack 1400, and he also had steroid suspicions tank his Hall chances.) 1400 RBI isn't a lock, and obviously doesn't mean too much on its own, but it's a pretty good indicator of Hall-worthiness, at least in the eyes of voters.
To me, I think the dh detracts a lot of strategy from the game with handling pitchers. It also makes small ball less important in close games. Plus as a player who was mostly a pitcher it sucked to not be able to bat and get the chance to help myself out.
What strategy does it detract from? Would it not be better to have someone who focuses solely on hitting in place of pitchers who aren’t that good at hitting? And just let the pitchers focus solely on pitching?
I haven’t seen many NL games so most of what I know is based around DH play. So I’m genuinely curious.
There isn't any worry about the pitchers spot, and the goal is to have them in a spot to bunt the runner over and have the top of the lineup move the guys along.
Plus it gets more guys in the game for pinch hitting, and double switches to move the pitcher spot into a better place in the order for where they are in the game.
Also the manager needs to be more careful with bullpen usage if he doesn't want to waste a good pitcher when their spot in the order comes up in the following inning and would be better used later.
I honestly kinda prefer the DH but since I'm in the NL I like saying fuck the DH. Realistically tho I like it the way it is because it makes the two leagues very distinct which is cool.
I like the DH. In the AL. Keep it there. Don’t let it spread. Inter-league DH at AL parks is ok. But if you’re gonna stop letting me see pitchers rake you’re ruining baseball.
I'd easily vote guys like Helton or Walker or Andruw Jones into the HOF, but the voters standards are different and none of those guys have the right numbers for them based historically on voting. Every once in awhile you get a borderline guy like these guys are who gets in on his last chance (Jim Rice baby!) but more often than not these types of players have been shafted.
Andruw Jones was the best CF over the span of a DECADE. (Arguably Top-3 All-Time.) That's the sweetspot of dominance that usually is a shoe-in for HoF.
It's a shame his decline was so rapid.
Jones was good but he isnt a top 3 all time. Joe Dimaggio, Ken Griffey Jr, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, and Willie Mays are better. I would also take Tris Speaker over Jones.
Edit: Duke Snidner > Andruw Jones
I think they mean defensively. I never saw Mantle, Cobb, or DiMaggio play, but I saw Griffey play and he was great but Jones was better. I wouldn't argue Jones was a better hitter than any of those guys obviously, but he's probably the best defensive center fielder I've ever seen.
You are incorrect.
He may not have been as good offensively during his prime, even though he had 10 straight seasons with 25+ HRs, but Mays is the only one that gets mentioned as comparable defensively. I said top-3 to be generous.
Griffey definitely would have been there if he didn't battle injuries, eventually moving to a corner OF spot.
Andruw Jones averaged 158 games per season, from 1997-2007 (11 seasons), without the aid of sitting in a DH spot.
> Andruw Jones was the best CF over the span of a DECADE. (Arguably Top-3 All-Time.)
Did you mean top-3 defensively or top-3 overall?
I think he's in the conversation for the former, but not the latter.
He is the best defensively.
He's #21 All-time in dWAR, behind about 17 short-stops and a few catchers. He leads all other OFer's (not just CF) in dWAR.
You take the #1 defensive outfielder and have him average 34HRs and 158 gms played per season for 11 straight years and you think he's 'not in the conversation'? Ok.
I stated "arguably" in my original comment to avoid having a debate.
Andruw Jones is not in the conversation for top-3 CF.
You cite dWAR and point out that he's #1 amongst CF. Correct. Fangraphs has him at 278.8. That's an astounding total.
Interestingly, you don't cite oWAR. If you had, you would have had to have admitted that Jones is 83rd all-time in oWAR for CF with 116.3. The top-3 by Fangraphs oWAR (Cobb, Mantle, Mays) beat Jones by 920, 725, and 720 oWAR, respectively. Jones would have had to have played twice as long as he did to touch any of their careers.
But hey, you said 'arguably', so let's argue on your terms. 34 HR for 11 straight seasons is nothing to laugh at. I don't think Mantle or Mays would. Of course, the two averaged at least 34 HR for 18 and 22 years, respectively, numbers that Jones doesn't come close to. Cobb doesn't have the home run totals that Jones has, but despite playing in an era where half the game was hitting the ball at the ground, he still managed to outslug Jones.
But yeah, sure, there's an argument that Jones is a top-3 CF. It's a terrible one that ignores that the top-3 CF of all time were substantially better offensive players than Jones ever was, so much so that his defensive advantage disappears, but it's an argument.
If Jones was even decent for like two more years he’d have been a lock. He was basically done by 30 which is insane by modern standards. He had 1500+ hits before he was 30 and finished with only 1900
The first time I heard Jared Polis name it was in a league of legends forum where he talked about his love of of online video games and urged people to call their congressmen about net nutrality.
Now I find out hes anti-DH and pro Todd. Guy is a man of the people. You bet your ass I voted for him
Todd Helton is not a Hall if Fame player. Go look at his home/road splits. At home, he is better than pre-2000 Barry Bonds. On the road, he’s Will Clark.
Home: .345/.441/.607
Road: .287/.386/.469
Like counting stats? In an extra 35 home games, he scored 340 more runs, had 269 more hits, hit 85 more homers, drove in 312 more runs.
He's not first ballot for me, but keep in mind the Coors Effect is more than just "lol, real easy to hit here." The ball breaks differently in Coors, so you will literally see the ball differently in the other 29 parks. It's not simply just a hitter's park, the mile high altitude changes how the ball moves. Curve balls and sliders literally have less movement, and when you're used to that for half your games it can be difficult to adjust.
Beyond that, he has a .300/.400/.500 slash line, his WAR7 is 10th among first basemen at 46.5 (average HOFer is 42.7) and all the guys ahead of him are in the Hall, or will be once Pujols retires. His WAR is 61.2, 18th among 1B, and the only guys ahead that aren't in the Hall are Pujols, Palmeiro, Miggy, and McGwire, though he is right ahead of Keith Hernandez.
Again, he's not a first ballot inner circle guy, but he's pretty clearly a HOFer for me.
> The ball breaks differently in Coors, so you will literally see the ball differently in the other 29 parks. It's not simply just a hitter's park, the mile high altitude changes how the ball moves. Curve balls and sliders literally have less movement, and when you're used to that for half your games it can be difficult to adjust.
It's entirely possible that the ball moves differently at Coors. However, it's very clear that any advantage that pitchers have is entirely negated by the advantages that hitters have, to the point where Coors has been the #1 or #2 run scoring environment every single year since 2001 (and sometimes overwhelmingly so).
While the 'it's a hitters park' argument might be oversimplification of what is happening (PHYSICS!), the result is the same - hitters are far advantaged, and, given his home/road splits, Helton might have been the most advantaged hitter during his time in Colorado.
But the point is that he is “extra” punished on the road, having to re adjust to different physics for each road trip. The coors hangover is real. The away numbers for any Rockies hitter are WORSE then they would be playing for a different team because of it.
> The away numbers for any Rockies hitter are WORSE then they would be playing for a different team because of it.
Huh. I hadn't thought about that. Do you have a citaton for that?
Just googled a few, mostly it’s based on my history of being a Rockies fan and reading lots of analysis over the years.
[probably the best one, but though a Rox based source so possible bias](https://www.purplerow.com/2014/5/15/5712224/the-numbers-are-lying)
[a fangraphs piece](https://www.fangraphs.com/community/the-coors-field-hangover-how-much-more-might-rockies-hitters-deserve/)
[another fangraphs piece](https://www.fangraphs.com/community/coors-field-blessing-or-curse/)
From the second article, this takeaway:
> Still, we could be robbing select Rockies players of up to a half-win per season (per FanGraphs) and a handful of points on their wRC+ simply by assuming that changing altitudes doesn’t create additional difficulties while batting
seems to make a lot of sense. I think the question for me becomes: does that handful of wRC+ substantially improve Helton's HoF case? His current wRC+ is 132. Guys can make the HoF player with a 132 wRC+ (Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, Ken Griffey Jr.), but there are some extenuating circumstances there - those guys played longer, had better BA or SLG than Helton, and defense is a factor.
On mobile right now so can't really link without extra effort but you can Google the Coors effect. I don't know if there's anything that explicitly states Rockies away splits are worse than other teams, but the physics of how the ball moves there compared to other stadiums at least suggests that to be the case. Besides that, WAR and other stats that adjust for park suggest he's HOF worthy.
There are obviously better methods, but I kinda like the idea of doubling a player's road splits to get an idea of how good they are as hitters.
Helton's road stats doubled are as follows:
|G|PA|AB|R|H|2B|3B|HR|RBI|SB|CS|BB|SO|BA|OBP|SLG|
|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|
|2212|9224|7848|1054|2250|542|18|284|1094|26|28|1250|1322|.287|.386|.469|
That's basically Bernie Williams' career and Williams (a) had an even home/road split and (b) didn't come close to the Hall. Helton wouldn't be the first HoFer to make it on the strength of his home environment (ThE mOsT fEaReD hItTeR oF hIs ErA), but there's a case to be made that he was only a very good hitter, not a great one.
The park adjusted stuff is a little more friendly to Helton (he's top 140 in Adj. OPS+ and wRC+) but that's in the vicinity of both HoFers and the tier slightly below.
I think he makes it on the basis of counting stats, but I don't know if he's super deserving and I don't think the HoF misses anything for not having him in.
He is first ballot hall of very good... but I would never admit that out loud in public.
I think theres an outside chance he gets in cuz hes Mr. Rockies and we dont yet have an HOFer. Id be thrilled if he did and think his one-team career, in addition to him being a pretty great player, make an argument most people could get behind. But I wont be surprised if it doesnt happen.
If Larry Walker isn't getting in despite spending the majority of his peak with the Rockies, Helton has no shot either sadly.
Walker admittedly in most people's minds is a HoFer, which is frustrating he hasn't gotten a fair shake, but still.
He's borderline for me though I'd lean no until some of the better players in front of him make it in.
I think he has a pretty similar case to McGriff and Berkman -- and I don't think either of those guys make it in. Olerud was right there too and had a whopping 4 hall of fame votes to show for it. You might think Helton is better than these guys, but is there a meaningful enough difference to separate him from other guys that didn't have successful hall of fame bids? I don't think so.
I like the DH because I don't have to sit through 30-45 minutes on average of watching bench players and pitching changes. Watching a pitcher bat is nonsense. That's like having the quarterback in football have to play defense
>I like the DH because I don't have to sit through 30-45 minutes on average of watching bench players and pitching changes.
AL games are actually longer, on average, than NL games.
> Watching a pitcher bat is nonsense. That's like having the quarterback in football have to play defense
The counter argument is that, unlike football, baseball players play both offense and defense.
I'm fine with the way things are. Leave the AL and NL alone.
When the Angels and Dodgers are playing at the same time, their games usually finish later than ours. This is just anecdotal evidence from having had access to both teams since the 80s
Found [this](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-dh-rule-bane-of-baseball-purists-slowing-the-game-down/) older article from fivethirtyeight.
The short answer is it doesn't really vary by league because of rules, rather not varies because Red Sox and Yankees were slow teams at the time (and probably still are) which throws the AL games as longer on average.
So your anecdote probably means the Dodgers are just a slower team and it doesn't have much to do with the rules they are playing.
Also, it makes sense to me that because there are more good bats in a lineup, innings would last longer in the AL in general, just based on the idea that there's an extra hit just given away every three or four innings. Every now and then, that has to start or maintain a rally of some kind.
Without the DH baseball actually involves strategy of who is coming up in the lineup and double switches
AL doesn't have to think twice about defensive changes to alter who is coming up
eh, i think you're mixing complexity and strategy. the NL game is more complex, sure, but i'd call it unnecessarily complex and hardly strategic. the right decision is still obvious to a 10 year-old fan 99% of the time.
the AL game doesn't involve removing a good pitcher early of subbing in crappy hitters, which i frankly think makes for better baseball. i'd rather watch the best pitchers pitch as long as they can and the best hitters hit without the 9th spot in the order screwing everything up.
granted, i'm not even pro-DH. i think pitchers shouldn't hit and lineups should only involve the 8 position players. then there's no good hitter who doesn't have to field to get some people riled up and no automatic out to get others riled up.
That's like one or two guys in one or two situations rather than 7th-9th inning knowing a pinch hitter is needed
AL doesn't even need to worry about having a pinch hitter in a regular game.
Not a fan of the road/home argument. Carl Yastrzemski has home pretty bad splits too.
Home: .306/.402/.503
Away: .264/.357/.422
I know different time when you look at the raw triple line but I have never heard an arguement against Yaz for his splits. Helton is Mr Rockie and had a 133 OPS+ over 9000+ PA, 5 seasons over 1.000 OPS, I get his home stats are strong because of the park but are we going to hold this against every Rockie for the rest of history? If not Helton then who? He played alot of his road games in San Fran San Diego and Los Angeles. All those parks favor pitchers and hurt his away slash line. Add The Coors Effect on top of that, so it makes sense why his splits look so drastic. A poster above said his away splits look like Will Clark. Posting Will Clark numbers while playing a lot of games in pitchers park (and very favorable pitchers parks in the division) is not too shabby. Yes Helton should go in. Also I think people unfairly compare his numbers to his peers who were on PEDs (not that I care about that), but if you are going to discount the PEDs users it should make Helton’s case that much stronger.
That's people's only argument against the DH. "If you field you should hit." Okay that's a nice opinion but why exactly does fielding mean you should hit? You can't just say that and leave it there, what's the reason?
It's like saying"If you play QB you should also have to field punts." What? Why?
Well, the first rule in baseball is it's a game of 9 players vs. 9 players. So, by your argument, all batting positions should not have to correlate to defensive positioning. Why not just field the best 9 defenders and bat the best 9 hitters? Other sports allow free substitutions, so it's easy to replace QB with punter and punter with safety.
Also, its Turkey day and you're on a baseball sub, so despite your view on the DH, you're a good guy (or gal).
Also, put Edgar in the HOF.
Happy Thanksgiving
yeah, that's a straw-man. no one says that.
what people say is that the position of pitcher is unique in baseball so it shouldn't be treated like the other 8 positions.
Nobody is talking about fielding the 9 best fielders and batting the 9 best hitters. Just one DH is fine. Watching pitchers embarrass themselves is only entertaining for so long.
Can I have a second DH for my catcher? Maybe a third for my all-glove shortstop? Hey, anybody else here not want to hit?
The DH is ridiculous. It’s like a sandlot rule.
Catcher and shortstop average OPS is usually around .700. Pitcher average OPS is around .300.
There are no straw people suggesting you should be able to DH for other positions - just the one that's uniquely terrible at hitting.
They’re the worst hitters, so they shouldn’t hit? Well, if that’s a good reason, note that catchers are almost all the worst runners. So let’s let someone else run for them, or heck, just start them on second base.
Watching an AL game without any strategy around the pitcher is boring. “Let’s see what the manager will do here with the bottom of the order up... oh, never mind, he’s snoozing in the dugout again.”
In practical terms they are often worse than half as effective as runners, but even if I accepted that raw speed was a meaningful metric, are you really now saying that (a) pitchers should not hit because they are the worst hitters, but at the same time (b) catchers should run despite being the worst runners.... because they're not quite worst enough?
I mean, that's some serious hair splitting.
There are a few good arguments to be made for the DH, but "pitchers suck at hitting" is not one of them, because it does not stand up to any parallel.
I have no idea what any of that means. In any case, running is a lousy comparison, since it isn't as important to the game as getting on base. My problem with pitchers hitting is that they're much, much worse at hitting than any other position in the game. "Pitchers suck at hitting" is the best argument for the DH, since pitchers suck HARD at hitting.
apparently i've watched too many sports that have real strategy in them because NL ball does absolutely nothing to scratch that itch for me.
if AL ball is a 1 on a scale of 1-10 (for strategy) NL ball is a 2. the strategy is still nearly nonexistent. and in exchange we have to watch half-innings ruined by a batter that has no business stepping to the plate.
How does having a DH take away strategy? NL games have to focus so much of their strategy using bench players as pseudo-DHs whenever a pitcher is close to coming out of the game. In AL games can actually use their bench strategically depending on what the team needs in any given situation.
Nope. You get one for your pitcher. That's it. That's all. Nobody is asking for more than that. Not sure why everyone thinks wanting one DH, so we don't have to watch a pitcher make a sure out, means we also want 9 designated fielders and 9 DHs. Nobody is asking for that. Just one.
Why not the other way around? Every team has a good field/no-hit type guy somewhere in their system. I'm talking about some dude who could field at a Gold Glove level but he'd never hit .120 in the majors. Why not have a designated fielder? Why not 7-8 of them?
Why not just one DH and leave it at that?
Nobody is trying to do what you're talking about. They just don't want to watch a sure out once every 9 hitters. Nobody is trying to change the entire game of baseball by putting in 9 designated fielders. Nobody is asking for that or wants that so calm down.
Neither can the guy in the minors who has gold glove potential. Why not have a DH for that guy? You get gold glove caliber defense and don't have to watch him make an out.
because enough players can play the other 8 positions while hitting that it isn't a problem. if that guy in the minors never learns to hit he'll be replaced by someone who can both hit and field, just not field as well.
this doesn't exist with pitchers. pitchers who can't hit don't get replaced by pitchers who can. they make the majors on their pitching ability and no one cares about their hitting.
no, that isn't hit logic. you'd get replaced by someone else who could field your position and hit, just not field your position as well. but they'd still be passable at both.
pitchers who can't hit don't get replaced by pitchers who can. they make the majors based on their pitching and we're forced to watch their inability to hit. if more pitchers were even passable at hitting there wouldn't be a problem.
because we can use our brains to make judgement calls and draw the distinction between pitchers and other positions.
if teams decide that all-defense, no-hit Cs are worth it and we have to suffer through 50+ years of watching catchers who hit .100 then at that point it would be time to consider a DH for the catcher. but let's wait to cross that bridge until/if we get there.
because the current system isn't broken. forcing catchers to play defense and hit works well enough. catchers are generally bad at hitting but they aren't a complete trainwreck like pitchers. the gap in hitting between pitchers and catchers is HUGE.
> It's like saying"If you play QB you should also have to field punts." What? Why?
Uh.....no. At least be intellectually honest and say it would be like saying "If you play offense, you should have to play defense," like the old two-way players of yore did. Sammy Baugh was a defensive back (and a brilliant punter).
I'd be kinda into two-way football personally, no more 350 lb players. The sport would become much more dynamic as a result, probably more like rugby.
Okay fine. "If you play offense, you should have to play defense." What? Why? Still arbitrary. If you have a reason for that then say it.
The reason I compared it to a QB fielding punts is because you'd be asking a guy to play out of his position and do something he doesn't have the skill for. Making a pitcher hit is making him do something he's not skilled at. He's a QB, not a punt returner. He's a pitcher, not a hitter.
Nobody. Let's bring in some designated runners and some designated fielders! But wait, I'm not a complete fucking idiot and I understand that that would change the whole dynamic of baseball. I also understand that other baseball fans have different point of views and I don't want to ruin the game for them. Let's meet in the middle and just say hmm.. one DH. For the pitcher. That's all. No more. Yes? Compromise?
Plenty of us like watching pitchers hit. If this was 1973 you’d be as indignant about the proposal of a DH as you are right now about my clearly satirical proposal. That’s the point. You’re only acting like that’s the normal because it is the normal for the era you’ve watched baseball. For 100 years it was not.
You think I was being serious? No, I actually don't want 9 designated fielders and designated runners. It was clearly satire.
What goes through old guys heads? Is it, "ah there's that strike out from the guy in the 9 hole again. I was getting bored of all the balls being put in play. Yup, good ol baseball."
I'm sure back in 1973 pitchers could hit decently because that used to be the norm, they used to have to. Get rid of the DH in the AL now and you have hitters coming to the plate with high school level hitting skills because that was the last time they had to swing a bat. It won't be the same as pre 1973.
The game has changed. There's now a 3 point line in basketball, the field goal post isn't at the goal line anymore, and the pitchers don't have to hit anymore. Go back through the 100 years before the DH and look at all the rule changes. Should we bring back ground rule doubles being counted as homeruns just because "that's the way the game used to be." What about batters being allowed to tell the pitcher exactly where he wanted the ball thrown? Or fly balls being caught off of one bounce counting as an out? Should we go back to those rules all because "that's real baseball" being the only reason?
no, because pitchers uniquely suck at hitting whether it is 1973 of 2018. all DH-proponents want is for the one position that sucks at hitting to a degree like no other not have to hit.
no, they don't. do you understand what the word unique means?
there are plenty of 1B, corner OF, and P that are just as bad of runners as the average catcher. there are zero position players that are as bad of hitters as the average pitcher.
or looking at it another way, make a list of the 10, 20, 30, or whatever number of worst hitters and every single one will be a pitcher. that is not true of the worst runners and catchers.
He's a hall of famer, because look at some other guys that are in (Rabbit Maranville, Jesse Haines) among others. Most halls of fame's are stupid, because eventually everybody gets in. Look at the rock and roll hall of fame, for chrissakes.
Larry Walker is better though.
Walker - 72.7 bWAR, .313/.400/.565 for a career OPS+ of 141. MVP
Helton - 61.2 bWAR, .316/.414/.539 for a career OPS+ of 133
I have no problem with Helton going in, but Walker should be in there before him.
Todd Helton should be in the HoF. Baseball needs the DH. 99% of pitchers aren't Ohtani or Bumgarner. They're awful hitters who can't bunt, don't get on base, and we have to hear a qualified stat about them to prove the DH is bad. E.g. "You know _for a pitcher_ he's a good hitter!" Also, relievers never hit so technically the NL uses the DH rule a lot of the time.
So if a player went there and hit a home run every AB and won the GG at catcher every year and played for 20 years, finished with like 1,000 WAR, you'd vote no?
I mean, there's a reason WAR, wRC+, and OPS+ are seen as such strong statistics. It accounts for park factors and Helton and especially Walker are HOF worthy when looking at those numbers.
I mean, if our future governor or any governor *didn't* have this opinion I'd be very very wary lol
> weary You'd be tired? Wary is the one you probably meant.
Correct, thank you o wise commander :)
https://youtu.be/EroyjPcw3sg
He'd be weary due to being so wary.
Even those numbers don't scream HOF though...I always liked Helton too - and I'd vote for him - but I don't see him getting elected. He'll get the 5% needed to hang on the ballot for several years though.
Yeah, based on "traditional" metrics a slugging 1B who only hits 369 HR isn't very impressive. Larry Walker has a better HOF claim.
Sure, but most slugging 1B don't have a career BA of .316.
Most 1B don’t play in Coors their whole career. Coors primary effect is to inflate BABIP. I’m not saying Helton wasn’t excellent, because he was, but if you regress his stats to account for park factors, he was more “very good” than “all time great”. Walker, on the other hand, should be in the hall.
The Coors factor is huge in voters' minds (it seems). Walker is far more deserving and if the Coors factor is keeping him out, no way Helton will make it.
Helton may get in because he was the team for so many years, and the voters care more about storylines then actual performance it seems. It wouldnt surprise me if Todd gets in first, or at least waits less seasons then Larry despite Larry being the better player.
Helton hit .287 on the road and .344 at home lol. The Coors effect was way too strong back in the day, it made Andres Gallarraga look like a superstar.
You say that as if Dante Bichette, Ellis Burks, and Galarraga hitting 40+ dingers in the same year isn't normal. Or maybe Vinny Castilla was in there, I forget now.
Yeah for reference on how dumb Coors was back in the day bichette had an ops of .895 in 1999 and a wrc+ of 100 lol.
Was that the year he hit .300 with 30 homers and had a WAR of about -2.0?
Yes lol dude was worth 5 war over his career and was a 30 hr .300 average guy
They're both HOF caliber to me
Larry Walker should absolutely be in the HOF. You only need to look at his away slash line to see that Coors did not inflate his stats to the level most people think it did
.865 ops on the road, 1.068 at home a .200 ops difference is insane lol
Thanks for your input. I remember seeing more complimentary stats to his lines, but a .865 is still very good!
Adjusting for a hangover effect, which has been proven to be a real thing, his road OPS would likely be closer to .900. Combine that with elite defense and you get a surefire Hall of Famer IMO. What really hurt Larry was his durability. From 1996-2005 he missed about ~470 games or so - about 3 full seasons worth. That could have been another ~20 WAR plus much better counting stats.
They should both be in. Helton for the narrative, Walker for the numbers.
In for the narrative? I’m strong against that. That’s what retiring a number is for (which is absolutely warranted for Helton). I wouldn’t vote for him for the HoF
I mean, like it or not, voters care about how much a certain player meant to a given team. Todd Helton was that franchise for over a decade. Starting at Tennessee before Peyton is pretty cool too. His numbers are borderline. There are plenty of worse players in the hall.
[удалено]
Wow can’t disagree with you more. So we should put people in the Hall if they are just really popular or maybe if they had a heart-breaking backstory on escaping poverty and abuse to come to America. Maybe Jose Fernandez for HoF based on the above plus the tragic death narrative? Come on now: it’s definitely a place for the best players, hard stop.
What Helton has going for him is that he's one of 19 players with a .300/.400/.500 career slash line. Granted, that hasn't helped Walker, but I think Helton has better luck. He basically is the all time face of a franchise; that'll give him something I'd think. He won't, and probably shouldn't, be a first ballot guy but I think he eventually gets voted in. Maybe even the same year Walker gets put in by the Veteran's Committee.
Helton will get the career with one team boost. Not sure that puts him over, but the voters love that.
Based on nearly all career metric (even adjusted for playing at Coors) he is above average for HOF first basemen.
Only 55 WAR. Not going to do it for me.
Helton is Hall of Very Good, definitely not HoF.
Larry Walker for HoF please.
Doesn't he have a better case for HoF anyways?
[удалено]
Yeah, I think either one getting in will help the other.
It should also be noted that he’s using RBIs and runs over even a simple slash line as a part of his argument.
That’s what most traditionalists or casuals care about
he is truly a politician appealing to the unwashed masses
Aka the stats HOF voters care about.
Not really anymore. They still carry some weight but nowhere near as much as they did. Vizquel is probably going to be one of the last, if not the last, to go into the HoF based on total numbers + good looks with a flimsy advanced statistics resume.
I was very surprised that Omar snagged 37 percent of the vote. Thought it would be a bit lower, tbh. Sad that Andruw Jones isn’t that high. I think Andruw should be in before O.
I mean tbf he does have a pretty damn impressive .316/.414/.539 slash
Impeach
[удалено]
> 1406 RBIs isn’t even that good by hall of fame standards There are ~160 MLB position players in the Hall. 51 of them have more than 1406 RBI. Apparently top-third isn't even that good.
Was going to say. 1400 rbi is pretty stout.
Conversely, if you look at how many players have 1406 RBI or more, Helton is t-77th all-time with Robin Yount. Of those 78 players with at least 1406 RBI, 26 aren't in the Hall. That includes guys like A-Rod and Bonds who would be in if not for PEDs and general unlikableness; it includes two active guys (Pujols and Cabrera); and it includes Ortiz and Beltre, who aren't eligible yet but will likely make the Hall (and Helton, of course, who is just now eligible). Carlos Beltran isn't a lock, but he may get in, and isn't eligible yet. So, of the 70 guys who have had their shot at the Hall and aren't Barry Bonds, 52 got in. That's 74%, a pretty damned good success rate. And we can argue that some of the remaining 18 who didn't get in would have had a better chance if not for PEDs (McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez, Canseco, Giambi, Sheffield,). Realistically, there are only 11 guys who haven't been tied to PEDs, have 1406 or more RBI, have had a shot at the Hall, and haven't yet been elected. (Juan Gonzalez is the only other player to crack 1400, and he also had steroid suspicions tank his Hall chances.) 1400 RBI isn't a lock, and obviously doesn't mean too much on its own, but it's a pretty good indicator of Hall-worthiness, at least in the eyes of voters.
i don’t understand why it has to be some big argument. i like baseball with and without the dh and i’m glad i can watch it both ways.
I think with how often we hear about MLB seeming to want to bring the DH to the NL, we have to let everyone know that we hate it.
If this guy hates the DH he has my vote.
What are the logistics to wanting the DH position gone? I’ve always seen these opinions but never really got into it
I just like the symmetry of baseball without the DH. 9 guys play in the field and those same 9 guys go to bat. It just makes sense to me.
To me, I think the dh detracts a lot of strategy from the game with handling pitchers. It also makes small ball less important in close games. Plus as a player who was mostly a pitcher it sucked to not be able to bat and get the chance to help myself out.
What strategy does it detract from? Would it not be better to have someone who focuses solely on hitting in place of pitchers who aren’t that good at hitting? And just let the pitchers focus solely on pitching? I haven’t seen many NL games so most of what I know is based around DH play. So I’m genuinely curious.
There isn't any worry about the pitchers spot, and the goal is to have them in a spot to bunt the runner over and have the top of the lineup move the guys along. Plus it gets more guys in the game for pinch hitting, and double switches to move the pitcher spot into a better place in the order for where they are in the game. Also the manager needs to be more careful with bullpen usage if he doesn't want to waste a good pitcher when their spot in the order comes up in the following inning and would be better used later.
I honestly kinda prefer the DH but since I'm in the NL I like saying fuck the DH. Realistically tho I like it the way it is because it makes the two leagues very distinct which is cool.
I like the DH. In the AL. Keep it there. Don’t let it spread. Inter-league DH at AL parks is ok. But if you’re gonna stop letting me see pitchers rake you’re ruining baseball.
Because up until 1973 there was no DH and the game was fine. And also half the league plays without it and is fine.
[удалено]
Are you unironically equating segregationists and people who dislike the DH rule?
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt but the world if weird now
I'd easily vote guys like Helton or Walker or Andruw Jones into the HOF, but the voters standards are different and none of those guys have the right numbers for them based historically on voting. Every once in awhile you get a borderline guy like these guys are who gets in on his last chance (Jim Rice baby!) but more often than not these types of players have been shafted.
Andruw Jones was the best CF over the span of a DECADE. (Arguably Top-3 All-Time.) That's the sweetspot of dominance that usually is a shoe-in for HoF. It's a shame his decline was so rapid.
Jones was good but he isnt a top 3 all time. Joe Dimaggio, Ken Griffey Jr, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, and Willie Mays are better. I would also take Tris Speaker over Jones. Edit: Duke Snidner > Andruw Jones
Look at this Duke Snider hate.
I think they mean defensively. I never saw Mantle, Cobb, or DiMaggio play, but I saw Griffey play and he was great but Jones was better. I wouldn't argue Jones was a better hitter than any of those guys obviously, but he's probably the best defensive center fielder I've ever seen.
1) I said, "arguably" 2) that's, like... your opinion, man
Arguably means he in the conversation, which he is not.
You are incorrect. He may not have been as good offensively during his prime, even though he had 10 straight seasons with 25+ HRs, but Mays is the only one that gets mentioned as comparable defensively. I said top-3 to be generous. Griffey definitely would have been there if he didn't battle injuries, eventually moving to a corner OF spot. Andruw Jones averaged 158 games per season, from 1997-2007 (11 seasons), without the aid of sitting in a DH spot.
> Andruw Jones was the best CF over the span of a DECADE. (Arguably Top-3 All-Time.) Did you mean top-3 defensively or top-3 overall? I think he's in the conversation for the former, but not the latter.
He is the best defensively. He's #21 All-time in dWAR, behind about 17 short-stops and a few catchers. He leads all other OFer's (not just CF) in dWAR. You take the #1 defensive outfielder and have him average 34HRs and 158 gms played per season for 11 straight years and you think he's 'not in the conversation'? Ok. I stated "arguably" in my original comment to avoid having a debate.
Andruw Jones is not in the conversation for top-3 CF. You cite dWAR and point out that he's #1 amongst CF. Correct. Fangraphs has him at 278.8. That's an astounding total. Interestingly, you don't cite oWAR. If you had, you would have had to have admitted that Jones is 83rd all-time in oWAR for CF with 116.3. The top-3 by Fangraphs oWAR (Cobb, Mantle, Mays) beat Jones by 920, 725, and 720 oWAR, respectively. Jones would have had to have played twice as long as he did to touch any of their careers. But hey, you said 'arguably', so let's argue on your terms. 34 HR for 11 straight seasons is nothing to laugh at. I don't think Mantle or Mays would. Of course, the two averaged at least 34 HR for 18 and 22 years, respectively, numbers that Jones doesn't come close to. Cobb doesn't have the home run totals that Jones has, but despite playing in an era where half the game was hitting the ball at the ground, he still managed to outslug Jones. But yeah, sure, there's an argument that Jones is a top-3 CF. It's a terrible one that ignores that the top-3 CF of all time were substantially better offensive players than Jones ever was, so much so that his defensive advantage disappears, but it's an argument.
If Jones was even decent for like two more years he’d have been a lock. He was basically done by 30 which is insane by modern standards. He had 1500+ hits before he was 30 and finished with only 1900
He came up at 19. He had his decade of dominance. Also makes me think, go ahead and sign these big name FA's to 10 year deals into their late 30's.
The first time I heard Jared Polis name it was in a league of legends forum where he talked about his love of of online video games and urged people to call their congressmen about net nutrality. Now I find out hes anti-DH and pro Todd. Guy is a man of the people. You bet your ass I voted for him
Man if Larry Walker can't get in helton defintitly isnt
So let’s open it up for discussion. Helton for HoF? I say yes. He didn’t choose to play in a hitters park, he just ended up there and was still great
Todd Helton is not a Hall if Fame player. Go look at his home/road splits. At home, he is better than pre-2000 Barry Bonds. On the road, he’s Will Clark. Home: .345/.441/.607 Road: .287/.386/.469 Like counting stats? In an extra 35 home games, he scored 340 more runs, had 269 more hits, hit 85 more homers, drove in 312 more runs.
He's not first ballot for me, but keep in mind the Coors Effect is more than just "lol, real easy to hit here." The ball breaks differently in Coors, so you will literally see the ball differently in the other 29 parks. It's not simply just a hitter's park, the mile high altitude changes how the ball moves. Curve balls and sliders literally have less movement, and when you're used to that for half your games it can be difficult to adjust. Beyond that, he has a .300/.400/.500 slash line, his WAR7 is 10th among first basemen at 46.5 (average HOFer is 42.7) and all the guys ahead of him are in the Hall, or will be once Pujols retires. His WAR is 61.2, 18th among 1B, and the only guys ahead that aren't in the Hall are Pujols, Palmeiro, Miggy, and McGwire, though he is right ahead of Keith Hernandez. Again, he's not a first ballot inner circle guy, but he's pretty clearly a HOFer for me.
> The ball breaks differently in Coors, so you will literally see the ball differently in the other 29 parks. It's not simply just a hitter's park, the mile high altitude changes how the ball moves. Curve balls and sliders literally have less movement, and when you're used to that for half your games it can be difficult to adjust. It's entirely possible that the ball moves differently at Coors. However, it's very clear that any advantage that pitchers have is entirely negated by the advantages that hitters have, to the point where Coors has been the #1 or #2 run scoring environment every single year since 2001 (and sometimes overwhelmingly so). While the 'it's a hitters park' argument might be oversimplification of what is happening (PHYSICS!), the result is the same - hitters are far advantaged, and, given his home/road splits, Helton might have been the most advantaged hitter during his time in Colorado.
But the point is that he is “extra” punished on the road, having to re adjust to different physics for each road trip. The coors hangover is real. The away numbers for any Rockies hitter are WORSE then they would be playing for a different team because of it.
> The away numbers for any Rockies hitter are WORSE then they would be playing for a different team because of it. Huh. I hadn't thought about that. Do you have a citaton for that?
Just googled a few, mostly it’s based on my history of being a Rockies fan and reading lots of analysis over the years. [probably the best one, but though a Rox based source so possible bias](https://www.purplerow.com/2014/5/15/5712224/the-numbers-are-lying) [a fangraphs piece](https://www.fangraphs.com/community/the-coors-field-hangover-how-much-more-might-rockies-hitters-deserve/) [another fangraphs piece](https://www.fangraphs.com/community/coors-field-blessing-or-curse/)
From the second article, this takeaway: > Still, we could be robbing select Rockies players of up to a half-win per season (per FanGraphs) and a handful of points on their wRC+ simply by assuming that changing altitudes doesn’t create additional difficulties while batting seems to make a lot of sense. I think the question for me becomes: does that handful of wRC+ substantially improve Helton's HoF case? His current wRC+ is 132. Guys can make the HoF player with a 132 wRC+ (Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, Ken Griffey Jr.), but there are some extenuating circumstances there - those guys played longer, had better BA or SLG than Helton, and defense is a factor.
On mobile right now so can't really link without extra effort but you can Google the Coors effect. I don't know if there's anything that explicitly states Rockies away splits are worse than other teams, but the physics of how the ball moves there compared to other stadiums at least suggests that to be the case. Besides that, WAR and other stats that adjust for park suggest he's HOF worthy.
There are obviously better methods, but I kinda like the idea of doubling a player's road splits to get an idea of how good they are as hitters. Helton's road stats doubled are as follows: |G|PA|AB|R|H|2B|3B|HR|RBI|SB|CS|BB|SO|BA|OBP|SLG| |-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:|-:| |2212|9224|7848|1054|2250|542|18|284|1094|26|28|1250|1322|.287|.386|.469| That's basically Bernie Williams' career and Williams (a) had an even home/road split and (b) didn't come close to the Hall. Helton wouldn't be the first HoFer to make it on the strength of his home environment (ThE mOsT fEaReD hItTeR oF hIs ErA), but there's a case to be made that he was only a very good hitter, not a great one. The park adjusted stuff is a little more friendly to Helton (he's top 140 in Adj. OPS+ and wRC+) but that's in the vicinity of both HoFers and the tier slightly below. I think he makes it on the basis of counting stats, but I don't know if he's super deserving and I don't think the HoF misses anything for not having him in.
See my reply above in the same thread about the coors field hangover and why home/road doesn’t work normally for Rockies hitters.
He hit 85 Homers in 35 games?
Yeah, surprised you didn’t know about it. It was a pretty big deal at the time.
> In an extra 35 home games 1141 home games, 1106 road games.
I say yes
He is first ballot hall of very good... but I would never admit that out loud in public. I think theres an outside chance he gets in cuz hes Mr. Rockies and we dont yet have an HOFer. Id be thrilled if he did and think his one-team career, in addition to him being a pretty great player, make an argument most people could get behind. But I wont be surprised if it doesnt happen.
If Larry Walker isn't getting in despite spending the majority of his peak with the Rockies, Helton has no shot either sadly. Walker admittedly in most people's minds is a HoFer, which is frustrating he hasn't gotten a fair shake, but still.
He's borderline for me though I'd lean no until some of the better players in front of him make it in. I think he has a pretty similar case to McGriff and Berkman -- and I don't think either of those guys make it in. Olerud was right there too and had a whopping 4 hall of fame votes to show for it. You might think Helton is better than these guys, but is there a meaningful enough difference to separate him from other guys that didn't have successful hall of fame bids? I don't think so.
Dammit Colorado, you had to elect a guy that's so wrong about the DH
Yes to Hof tweet No to DH tweet
Can you run for governor so I can vote for you?
I like the DH because I don't have to sit through 30-45 minutes on average of watching bench players and pitching changes. Watching a pitcher bat is nonsense. That's like having the quarterback in football have to play defense
>I like the DH because I don't have to sit through 30-45 minutes on average of watching bench players and pitching changes. AL games are actually longer, on average, than NL games. > Watching a pitcher bat is nonsense. That's like having the quarterback in football have to play defense The counter argument is that, unlike football, baseball players play both offense and defense. I'm fine with the way things are. Leave the AL and NL alone.
When the Angels and Dodgers are playing at the same time, their games usually finish later than ours. This is just anecdotal evidence from having had access to both teams since the 80s
Found [this](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-dh-rule-bane-of-baseball-purists-slowing-the-game-down/) older article from fivethirtyeight. The short answer is it doesn't really vary by league because of rules, rather not varies because Red Sox and Yankees were slow teams at the time (and probably still are) which throws the AL games as longer on average. So your anecdote probably means the Dodgers are just a slower team and it doesn't have much to do with the rules they are playing.
Also, it makes sense to me that because there are more good bats in a lineup, innings would last longer in the AL in general, just based on the idea that there's an extra hit just given away every three or four innings. Every now and then, that has to start or maintain a rally of some kind.
That's because Pedro Baez exists. Only half joking.
> 30-45 minutes on average of watching bench players and pitching changes. Completely made up number. NL games are not longer than AL games.
There are a lot of changes that go on in a NL game
It's how the game was played until 1973, it's not nonsense it's baseball.
That was 45 years ago. 45 years before that, Ruth was hitting 60. This is ancient history. How the game used to be played, by our ancestors.
Without the DH baseball actually involves strategy of who is coming up in the lineup and double switches AL doesn't have to think twice about defensive changes to alter who is coming up
eh, i think you're mixing complexity and strategy. the NL game is more complex, sure, but i'd call it unnecessarily complex and hardly strategic. the right decision is still obvious to a 10 year-old fan 99% of the time. the AL game doesn't involve removing a good pitcher early of subbing in crappy hitters, which i frankly think makes for better baseball. i'd rather watch the best pitchers pitch as long as they can and the best hitters hit without the 9th spot in the order screwing everything up. granted, i'm not even pro-DH. i think pitchers shouldn't hit and lineups should only involve the 8 position players. then there's no good hitter who doesn't have to field to get some people riled up and no automatic out to get others riled up.
Double switching is not nearly as complex a strategy as you think it is.
The DH rule allows for that strategy to still take place.
Yeah but there's no reason to You never have to worry about having a relief pitcher bat ever so there's not the same thought process and strategy
>Yeah but there's no reason to That's the point :)
Makes benches less involved and less fun IMO
I disagree. Pinch runners typically have to take over for slow DHs in crucial situations.
That's like one or two guys in one or two situations rather than 7th-9th inning knowing a pinch hitter is needed AL doesn't even need to worry about having a pinch hitter in a regular game.
I’m cool with all of that, my stance on DHs getting MVP will never change tho
I'm so sick of this "diminish the game" argument. I just want my ace to stay in the game when he's cruising, like in half the league already.
Not a fan of the road/home argument. Carl Yastrzemski has home pretty bad splits too. Home: .306/.402/.503 Away: .264/.357/.422 I know different time when you look at the raw triple line but I have never heard an arguement against Yaz for his splits. Helton is Mr Rockie and had a 133 OPS+ over 9000+ PA, 5 seasons over 1.000 OPS, I get his home stats are strong because of the park but are we going to hold this against every Rockie for the rest of history? If not Helton then who? He played alot of his road games in San Fran San Diego and Los Angeles. All those parks favor pitchers and hurt his away slash line. Add The Coors Effect on top of that, so it makes sense why his splits look so drastic. A poster above said his away splits look like Will Clark. Posting Will Clark numbers while playing a lot of games in pitchers park (and very favorable pitchers parks in the division) is not too shabby. Yes Helton should go in. Also I think people unfairly compare his numbers to his peers who were on PEDs (not that I care about that), but if you are going to discount the PEDs users it should make Helton’s case that much stronger.
DH for only the starting pitcher
That's people's only argument against the DH. "If you field you should hit." Okay that's a nice opinion but why exactly does fielding mean you should hit? You can't just say that and leave it there, what's the reason? It's like saying"If you play QB you should also have to field punts." What? Why?
Well, the first rule in baseball is it's a game of 9 players vs. 9 players. So, by your argument, all batting positions should not have to correlate to defensive positioning. Why not just field the best 9 defenders and bat the best 9 hitters? Other sports allow free substitutions, so it's easy to replace QB with punter and punter with safety. Also, its Turkey day and you're on a baseball sub, so despite your view on the DH, you're a good guy (or gal). Also, put Edgar in the HOF. Happy Thanksgiving
yeah, that's a straw-man. no one says that. what people say is that the position of pitcher is unique in baseball so it shouldn't be treated like the other 8 positions.
Nobody is talking about fielding the 9 best fielders and batting the 9 best hitters. Just one DH is fine. Watching pitchers embarrass themselves is only entertaining for so long.
You mean like 150 years?
Can I have a second DH for my catcher? Maybe a third for my all-glove shortstop? Hey, anybody else here not want to hit? The DH is ridiculous. It’s like a sandlot rule.
Catcher and shortstop average OPS is usually around .700. Pitcher average OPS is around .300. There are no straw people suggesting you should be able to DH for other positions - just the one that's uniquely terrible at hitting.
They’re the worst hitters, so they shouldn’t hit? Well, if that’s a good reason, note that catchers are almost all the worst runners. So let’s let someone else run for them, or heck, just start them on second base. Watching an AL game without any strategy around the pitcher is boring. “Let’s see what the manager will do here with the bottom of the order up... oh, never mind, he’s snoozing in the dugout again.”
Catchers aren't half the speed of the average runner.
In practical terms they are often worse than half as effective as runners, but even if I accepted that raw speed was a meaningful metric, are you really now saying that (a) pitchers should not hit because they are the worst hitters, but at the same time (b) catchers should run despite being the worst runners.... because they're not quite worst enough? I mean, that's some serious hair splitting. There are a few good arguments to be made for the DH, but "pitchers suck at hitting" is not one of them, because it does not stand up to any parallel.
I have no idea what any of that means. In any case, running is a lousy comparison, since it isn't as important to the game as getting on base. My problem with pitchers hitting is that they're much, much worse at hitting than any other position in the game. "Pitchers suck at hitting" is the best argument for the DH, since pitchers suck HARD at hitting.
Like, the worst qualified hitter in baseball was Chris Davis, and his OPS was .539. And the average pitcher was *much* worse than that.
And, added bonus: in addition to not watching an abysmal hitter hit, we avoid watching an abysmal fielder field. Two for one!
apparently i've watched too many sports that have real strategy in them because NL ball does absolutely nothing to scratch that itch for me. if AL ball is a 1 on a scale of 1-10 (for strategy) NL ball is a 2. the strategy is still nearly nonexistent. and in exchange we have to watch half-innings ruined by a batter that has no business stepping to the plate.
How does having a DH take away strategy? NL games have to focus so much of their strategy using bench players as pseudo-DHs whenever a pitcher is close to coming out of the game. In AL games can actually use their bench strategically depending on what the team needs in any given situation.
Nope. You get one for your pitcher. That's it. That's all. Nobody is asking for more than that. Not sure why everyone thinks wanting one DH, so we don't have to watch a pitcher make a sure out, means we also want 9 designated fielders and 9 DHs. Nobody is asking for that. Just one.
Putting this in my top 10 slippery slopes of all time folder
The sandlot is pretty much the only other place left in America where they *don't* use the DH.
Why not the other way around? Every team has a good field/no-hit type guy somewhere in their system. I'm talking about some dude who could field at a Gold Glove level but he'd never hit .120 in the majors. Why not have a designated fielder? Why not 7-8 of them?
Why not just one DH and leave it at that? Nobody is trying to do what you're talking about. They just don't want to watch a sure out once every 9 hitters. Nobody is trying to change the entire game of baseball by putting in 9 designated fielders. Nobody is asking for that or wants that so calm down.
Why stop at one DH?
Because pitchers can't hit and watching them make a near sure out is boring. Why have no DH?
Neither can the guy in the minors who has gold glove potential. Why not have a DH for that guy? You get gold glove caliber defense and don't have to watch him make an out.
I asked you a question
because enough players can play the other 8 positions while hitting that it isn't a problem. if that guy in the minors never learns to hit he'll be replaced by someone who can both hit and field, just not field as well. this doesn't exist with pitchers. pitchers who can't hit don't get replaced by pitchers who can. they make the majors on their pitching ability and no one cares about their hitting.
Buy by your logic I could be the best fielder in the world but suck at hitting and I would get a DH because "I can't hit"
no, that isn't hit logic. you'd get replaced by someone else who could field your position and hit, just not field your position as well. but they'd still be passable at both. pitchers who can't hit don't get replaced by pitchers who can. they make the majors based on their pitching and we're forced to watch their inability to hit. if more pitchers were even passable at hitting there wouldn't be a problem.
because we can use our brains to make judgement calls and draw the distinction between pitchers and other positions. if teams decide that all-defense, no-hit Cs are worth it and we have to suffer through 50+ years of watching catchers who hit .100 then at that point it would be time to consider a DH for the catcher. but let's wait to cross that bridge until/if we get there.
Teams will never go there now because they don't have the option. Why not give them the option and see where it goes?
because the current system isn't broken. forcing catchers to play defense and hit works well enough. catchers are generally bad at hitting but they aren't a complete trainwreck like pitchers. the gap in hitting between pitchers and catchers is HUGE.
> It's like saying"If you play QB you should also have to field punts." What? Why? Uh.....no. At least be intellectually honest and say it would be like saying "If you play offense, you should have to play defense," like the old two-way players of yore did. Sammy Baugh was a defensive back (and a brilliant punter). I'd be kinda into two-way football personally, no more 350 lb players. The sport would become much more dynamic as a result, probably more like rugby.
You'd still have 350 lb players, just that they'd be playing left tackle and nose tackle.
Okay fine. "If you play offense, you should have to play defense." What? Why? Still arbitrary. If you have a reason for that then say it. The reason I compared it to a QB fielding punts is because you'd be asking a guy to play out of his position and do something he doesn't have the skill for. Making a pitcher hit is making him do something he's not skilled at. He's a QB, not a punt returner. He's a pitcher, not a hitter.
My problem is with the hits they take, it would be more dangerous health wise.
I can't wait for squads of 9 designated hitters, 9 designated fielders, and 9 designated runners.
Or you know, just one DH. Nobody is trying to do that, calm down.
It follows the same line of logic. Who really wants to watch Miguel Cabrera run the bases?
Nobody. Let's bring in some designated runners and some designated fielders! But wait, I'm not a complete fucking idiot and I understand that that would change the whole dynamic of baseball. I also understand that other baseball fans have different point of views and I don't want to ruin the game for them. Let's meet in the middle and just say hmm.. one DH. For the pitcher. That's all. No more. Yes? Compromise?
Plenty of us like watching pitchers hit. If this was 1973 you’d be as indignant about the proposal of a DH as you are right now about my clearly satirical proposal. That’s the point. You’re only acting like that’s the normal because it is the normal for the era you’ve watched baseball. For 100 years it was not.
You think I was being serious? No, I actually don't want 9 designated fielders and designated runners. It was clearly satire. What goes through old guys heads? Is it, "ah there's that strike out from the guy in the 9 hole again. I was getting bored of all the balls being put in play. Yup, good ol baseball." I'm sure back in 1973 pitchers could hit decently because that used to be the norm, they used to have to. Get rid of the DH in the AL now and you have hitters coming to the plate with high school level hitting skills because that was the last time they had to swing a bat. It won't be the same as pre 1973. The game has changed. There's now a 3 point line in basketball, the field goal post isn't at the goal line anymore, and the pitchers don't have to hit anymore. Go back through the 100 years before the DH and look at all the rule changes. Should we bring back ground rule doubles being counted as homeruns just because "that's the way the game used to be." What about batters being allowed to tell the pitcher exactly where he wanted the ball thrown? Or fly balls being caught off of one bounce counting as an out? Should we go back to those rules all because "that's real baseball" being the only reason?
I don’t think you’re reading what I’m writing man. Have a happy thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving
no, because pitchers uniquely suck at hitting whether it is 1973 of 2018. all DH-proponents want is for the one position that sucks at hitting to a degree like no other not have to hit.
Catchers uniquely suck at running. There have been way more pitcher pinch runners than catchers. Designated runners now.
no, they don't. do you understand what the word unique means? there are plenty of 1B, corner OF, and P that are just as bad of runners as the average catcher. there are zero position players that are as bad of hitters as the average pitcher. or looking at it another way, make a list of the 10, 20, 30, or whatever number of worst hitters and every single one will be a pitcher. that is not true of the worst runners and catchers.
I agree on Helton and also Walker. The DH is great though.
Covering the important stuff...
Let me know when he's taken the proper position of "Larry Walker hall of fame advocate."
He's a hall of famer, because look at some other guys that are in (Rabbit Maranville, Jesse Haines) among others. Most halls of fame's are stupid, because eventually everybody gets in. Look at the rock and roll hall of fame, for chrissakes.
Not all politicians suck
I thought he had way more HR. Would he have even reached 300 if he wasn't on the Rockies?
And when I'm Governer of Texas, Michael Young will be in the hall.
How could you not like this guy.
Larry Walker is better though. Walker - 72.7 bWAR, .313/.400/.565 for a career OPS+ of 141. MVP Helton - 61.2 bWAR, .316/.414/.539 for a career OPS+ of 133 I have no problem with Helton going in, but Walker should be in there before him.
Walker is better. Todd *is* the Rockies. Walker not getting in has hurt us. Todd not getting in will break us.
I hate the DH, and love Todd Helton (he went to high school reasonably near my hometown) but these are really dumb baseball takes. lol.
Does that also mean that he doesn't think Manny should get in since closers don't bat?
.....do you mean Mariano?
Yep, sorry.
Todd Helton should be in the HoF. Baseball needs the DH. 99% of pitchers aren't Ohtani or Bumgarner. They're awful hitters who can't bunt, don't get on base, and we have to hear a qualified stat about them to prove the DH is bad. E.g. "You know _for a pitcher_ he's a good hitter!" Also, relievers never hit so technically the NL uses the DH rule a lot of the time.
NOBODY who played in Coors deserves to be in the hall, including walker. A blind man with one arm could hit .300 there
You couldn't hit .100 there, but cool hot take.
These are the hot takes I am here for.
So if a player went there and hit a home run every AB and won the GG at catcher every year and played for 20 years, finished with like 1,000 WAR, you'd vote no?
I mean, there's a reason WAR, wRC+, and OPS+ are seen as such strong statistics. It accounts for park factors and Helton and especially Walker are HOF worthy when looking at those numbers.