Brett Butler's HOF Case

[Fuzzy Bear]

Brett Butler goes on the BBWAA ballot for the HOF this year.

IMO, Butler has gone from a darkhorse to a guy who is a little unlikely to get the 5% needed to stay on the ballot, based on some of the guys who have failed to get 5% over the last 2-3 years (most notably Lou Whitaker).

I used to advocate for Butler. He was an old rookie (24) who then spend his first 2 seasons as a part-timer. He played well in obscurity in both Cleveland and San Francisco although he may have been the best CF in the AL at least one of his years in Cleveland. He began to get new recognition as a Dodger, but much of that recognition came from his battle with cancer.

Nevertheless, Butler was, arguably, one of the top 10 best leadoff men of all time. He scored 100 runs 6 times. He was a good baserunner, but not a good base stealer, as evidenced by his success rate stealing.

Butler has 3 HOFers in his 10 most comparable players, with Richie Ashburn being the most comparable. It needs to be said, however, that two of these comps, Harry Hooper and Lloyd Waner, are amongst the weakest of HOFers.

Ashburn, too, was not a strong HOF candidate; he was enshrined posthumously, despite being a broadcaster and having a following. Ashburn's career was short, as well, although he retired young after hitting .306 with the (ugh!) 1962 Mets.

So Butler is in the gray area. I hope he stays on the ballot. However, I don't think I can advocate his case for enshrinement. I'd like to, but there are a lot of guys ahead of him, at various posotions.

[JamesI]

I think Butler, while a very good player, has no chance of election. He is not quite good enough. I will be surprised if he does not fall off the ballot this year.

[LeGrandOrange]

My campaigning for Butler is well documented, and my reasonings are as well, if you can put in Ashburn, why not Butler, etc. Butler would not make Cooperstown look bad at all with his enshrinement, and he's proof that you can do more than hit homers to get in.

That said, writers are stupid and he's one-and-done...even though these same dumbasses put Dave freaking Stewart on for two...

Sorry, pent up frustration.

[Max Power]

One could make a case for Butler being in the Top Ten all-time for lead-off hitters...............

CAREER
SECONDARY AVERAGE >= .01 vs. the league average
OBA >= .045 vs. the league average
RUNS CREATED/GAME > .8 vs. the league average
AVERAGE >= .025 vs. the league average
BPA >= .03 vs. the league average

TOTAL AVERAGE                   TA       SEC      OBA     RC/G      AVG      BPA    
1    Babe Ruth                 1.400     .370     .118     7.86     .054     .284   
2    Ted Williams              1.320     .305     .134     7.93     .075     .247   
3    Lou Gehrig                1.228     .241     .086     5.59     .050     .211   
4    Barry Bonds               1.190     .313     .093     5.12     .029     .231   
5    Jimmie Foxx               1.143     .221     .070     4.66     .039     .188   
6    Mickey Mantle             1.091     .243     .087     4.78     .039     .199   
7    Ty Cobb                   1.057     .107     .093     4.65     .094     .173   
8    Stan Musial               1.028     .135     .079     4.37     .064     .155   
9    Tris Speaker              1.012     .109     .084     3.90     .070     .142   
10   Willie Mays                .982     .174     .054     3.29     .038     .168   
11   Frank Robinson             .961     .161     .062     3.13     .034     .153   
12   Honus Wagner               .945     .092     .060     3.61     .061     .136   
13   Jesse Burkett              .943     .051     .073     3.28     .060     .083   
14   Eddie Collins              .942     .094     .082     2.55     .059     .110   
15   Hank Aaron                 .940     .141     .045     2.96     .042     .150   
16   Paul Waner                 .887     .048     .060     2.41     .049     .075   
17   Tim Raines                 .886     .106     .053     2.01     .029     .102   
18   Fred Clarke                .883     .062     .046     2.22     .037     .086   
19   Cap Anson                  .867     .047     .072     3.46     .060     .082   
20   Nap Lajoie                 .861     .018     .051     3.09     .072     .098   
21   Wade Boggs                 .852     .015     .082     2.40     .063     .041   
22   Al Kaline                  .840     .074     .046     2.05     .039     .087   
23   Carl Yastrzemski           .830     .100     .054     1.98     .028     .085   
24   Brett Butler               .742     .013     .047     0.84     .027     .031   

[Ytown Tribe fan]

If Butler wins the '91 MVP instead of Terry Pendleton, he could have a fair case for staying on the ballot awhile. There were several years from '84 - '92 that Brett was as valuable as anyone in the league.

It's the curse of the leadoff batter, plain and simple. Even with the most famous leadoff batter of all time, some writers focus on his leadoff homeruns and, of course, all those stolen bases -- but Rickey was a hell of a lot more valuable for a hell of a lot more than that.

Butler doesn't have the homers and isn't high on any big lists. But he sure was valuable.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
Ashburn, too, was not a strong HOF candidate; he was enshrined posthumously, despite being a broadcaster and having a following.

Correction:

Ashburn's fans will be happy to hear that this is in error; Richie was enshrined a couple of years before he passed, so he got to enjoy the honor.

[Golden Bear]

Email to: Famous Columnist
From: Golden Bear
Date: 12/6/02, 1:19 PM
Subject: Brett Butler HOF case

In your column today on the HOF ballot, you banish Butler to the realm of "non-viable" candidates with Mark Davis and Danny Tartabull.

Isn't that a little harsh? I don't think he'd make my ballot either, but isn't he at least worth a look? I'm not going to make a full argument for Butler, partly because I don't have time, and partly because I doubt I'd tell you anything you don't know, but to throw a few stats out there:

295 career Win Shares .290 BA .377 OBP 1359 runs scored (162-game avg of 99) 1129 BB 2375 hits 558 SB 68.5% SB% (that could be better) 131 triples (in this era)

He played a near Gold Glove CF. Led the league in triples four times, in runs scored twice, in times on base twice, and in hits, walks, sacrifice hits, and games once each.

OK, he's not a lock like Murray, but he's no Danny Jackson either. He at least belongs with the Steve Garveys and Jim Rices of the ballot.

All of this is in spite of the fact that you're right; he'll probably drop off this year, because the ballot is too crowded. Players with skills like Butler's are unappreciated; they should not be.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 01:37 PM 12/6/02 "Famous Columnist" replied:

Hey, I loved Butler as a player. But he wasn't as good as Amos Otis or Cesar Cedeno or Dom DiMaggio, so it's hard for me to take him seriously as a candidate.

-FC

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Golden Bear replies to FC, 12/6/02, 2:11 PM

Fair. My only point was that he shouldn't be immediately consigned to the "Not" column. He shouldn't, and neither should the guys you list. I think you could make a very good case that he was better than, say, Jack Morris, for example.

Or maybe Jim Rice. I got the New Bill James Abstract for my birthday last month (asked for it last year; took until now); still plowing through it, but it's an amazing reference. Here's how they compare:

Rank: Butler, CF-25; Rice, LF-27

Career WS: Butler, 295; Rice, 282

Top 3 seasons: Butler, 27,27,26; Rice, 36,28,28 (the 36 must be 1978)

Top 5 consecutive: Butler, 124; Rice, 127

Per 162 games: Butler, 21.59; Rice, 21.86

Who's better? Probably Rice, based on the big year, but not by much, and it's certainly not cut-and-dried. So if Rice is a viable candidate, so is Butler.

Or is Rice not really viable either?

END OF EMAIL EXCHANGE

[Golden Bear]

The line I left out of my 2nd email, essentially to be polite, was:

"Or is Rice not really viable either, but you left him in to avoid a major spam by the Red Sox Nation."

Seemed a little too wise guy, but I suspect it may have entered into the thinking. Or maybe FC fell a little bit into the trap of valuing runs scored & stolen bases for a leadoff guy less than RBI and HR by a cleanup hitter. I don't know; he never answered back.

My intent here is not to belittle Rice, whom I'd tend to support as a borderline Hall of Famer. but to demonstrate that Butler was essentially just as good a player. To say that someone is about as good as Jim Rice is to say that they've got a good HOF argument.

The biggest problem with Butler's HOF case is his late start. I don't know whether Butler developed late or whether the Braves circa-1980 were just too clueless to realize what they had, but if Butler had played 2-3 more seasons he'd have 2700-2800 hits and over 1500 runs scored. The only players with 1500+ runs who either are in the HOF or are stone cold locks are Pete Rose (we all know this story), Tim Raines (who should be a lock, but isn't), and a handful of 19th century guys. At that point I think his counting stats get him a long look. But he's just short of that.

Also, it's correct that Ashburn is comparable with Butler, but when you do compare them beyond the basic stats, it's clear that Ashburn was better than Butler in most aspects of the game, and just as good in the rest. Whitey had more speed, was a better basestealer, a better baserunner, was a superior fielder, and (early in his career) had a better arm. Extra-base power is essentially equal, and while Butler probably had more HR power, in terms of absolute value it's negligible. They had about the same plate discipline, but Ashburn was a better percentage hitter.

Butler wasn't as good as Ashburn; there's no shame in that, because Richie was very, very good. I think Ashburn is a legit Hall of Famer, about the middle of the pack. If that's true, than the inferior-but-still-very-good Butler has a shot as a borderline inductee. If you think Ashburn just squeaks in (as the writers seem to), then Butler has no shot.

[Rinkster]

Butler was a fine center fielder, but there are simply too many other center field candidates ahead of him to give him too many votes.

I agree, Butler was underappriciated, probably as much as Ashburn. I believe a valid argument can be made on behalf of Butler, but he still comes up short.

The interesting thing about Ashburn was what got him over the hump:his outstanding number of put-outs. Of course, the reason his put-out totals were so impressive compared to those of a Mays, Pinson, or Flood was his home ballpark in Philly and the fly ball staff of the Phillies. Still, Ashburn was a great player.

An excerpt from Ashburn's induction ceremony speech...

"I want to thank these guys back here (Hall of Fame members) who have made me feel so comfortable. I didn't really feel that comfortable coming up here. It's no secret. They didn't exactly carry me in here on a sedan chair, with blazing trumpets. So I was a little shaky about joining this select group, and they have really been nice to all of us hehe, and I appreciate it. Some of you guys, I played against, and I know why you're here. I'm not always sure why I'm here. I could have been here earlier if it wasn't for some of these guys sitting behind me.

They always said that 'the thing that's kept you out of here is Mickey, Willie, and the Duke.' Well, I don't know about that. There's some other ballplayers that I think have been overlooked. I'm not a crusader, but I...think Ronnie Santo was overlooked because of Ernie Banks. I think Vada Pinson was overlooked because of Frank Robinson...Somebody ought to check the record of our good friend Rusty Staub. I mean, there's some great players out there..."

[Max Power]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Email to: Famous Columnist
From: Golden Bear
Date: 12/6/02, 1:19 PM
Subject: Brett Butler HOF case

In your column today on the HOF ballot, you banish Butler to the realm of "non-viable" candidates with Mark Davis and Danny Tartabull.

Hey, I thought you only sent e-mails on NetShrine ballots!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
Correction:

Ashburn's fans will be happy to hear that this is in error; Richie was enshrined a couple of years before he passed, so he got to enjoy the honor.

OOPS! My bad!

I must have confused Ashburn with Leo Durocher, who, I am sure, was elected shortly after he died. (How could I have done such a thing, confusing one of baseball's nice guys with Leo the Lip?

I'm glad to learn that Ashburn was able to enjoy his moment at Cooperstown before he died.

I do think that anyone who compares Butler to Amos Otis or Dom DiMaggio is both (A) overrating Otis and/or (B) underrating Dom D., whose case would be better if not for WWII, and retiring a little early. Had there been no WWII, DiMaggio would have had a lifetime BA over .300, and at least 2,300 hits. That, plus an OBP that may have been over .400, lifetime. I'm not saying that would have made Dom D. a HOFer; only that it would have significantly strengthened his case.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
My intent here is not to belittle Rice, whom I'd tend to support as a borderline Hall of Famer. but to demonstrate that Butler was essentially just as good a player. To say that someone is about as good as Jim Rice is to say that they've got a good HOF argument.

This is, essentially, my assessment of Butler, made easy. I don't advocate Rice's selection at this time in the same spirit that I don't advocate Butler's. They were good enough, however, and there are HOFers that were not as good as those guys that I'm not quite willing to say "No, NEVER!"

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear

I do think that anyone who compares Butler to Amos Otis or Dom DiMaggio is both (A) overrating Otis and/or (B) underrating Dom D., whose case would be better if not for WWII, and retiring a little early. Had there been no WWII, DiMaggio would have had a lifetime BA over .300, and at least 2,300 hits. That, plus an OBP that may have been over .400, lifetime. I'm not saying that would have made Dom D. a HOFer; only that it would have significantly strengthened his case.

I think FC was referencing Bill James's New Baseball Abstract. Cedeno, Otis, and D. DiMaggio were ranked just above Butler on his list of all-time center fielders.

That's a little cute, if you ask me; James himself admits that the distinctions between #21 and #25 is pretty slight and could easily go the other way. Now, the difference between #25 and #45 is probably big enough to matter, but to state without equivocation that #23 Amos Otis is better than #25 Brett Butler is probably a major stretch. To me, they're pretty close.

I think you're also right that Dom DiMaggio deserves big time extra credit for the war years, which may have kept him from no brainer HOF stats. Come to think of it, FC strongly dislikes Dom's HOF case too -- it may be that he just is a very tough sell on leadoff hitters.

[WiredTiger]

Butler is one of those guys that falls just short in my opinion. He doesn't quite hit enough as an OF to make it. You are right though, he shouldn't be immediately discarded. He did have a very good career and with a couple of breaks could have made the HOF.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
I think FC was referencing Bill James's New Baseball Abstract. Cedeno, Otis, and D. DiMaggio were ranked just above Butler on his list of all-time center fielders.

That's a little cute, if you ask me; James himself admits that the distinctions between #21 and #25 is pretty slight and could easily go the other way. Now, the difference between #25 and #45 is probably big enough to matter, but to state without equivocation that #23 Amos Otis is better than #25 Brett Butler is probably a major stretch. To me, they're pretty close.

I think you're also right that Dom DiMaggio deserves big time extra credit for the war years, which may have kept him from no brainer HOF stats. Come to think of it, FC strongly dislikes Dom's HOF case too -- it may be that he just is a very tough sell on leadoff hitters.

Now, if you want to say that none of them belong or are even close to the Hall, that's defensible. You just can't cherry-pick.