What are the Hall of Fame standards for leadoff hitters?

[Golden Bear]

What are the Hall of Fame standards for leadoff hitters?

There really aren't many in the Hall, (although I haven't looked it up).

In a thread on Brett Butler, I supposed that this was one reason (maybe the main reason) why Butler is a hard case. We're all groping a little to deal with a guy for which Triple Crown stats are woefully insufficient.

So, can we quantify this? I mean, we know that Rickey Henderson is a HOF, and I think we know that, say, Frank Taveras isn't. But where's the line?

Tim Raines seems like a HOF to most of us, but we're all also pretty sure he'll have trouble because his Triple Crown numbers are pedestrian. Why is that? What are HOF voters doing wrong?

Why are we having trouble with Butler? I think most of us believe that he is further into the gray area that he looks to be at first glance -- what are we missing at first glance that we don't miss with, say, Dave Parker? Can this be remedied?

Willie Wilson is another guy who recently came and went from the ballot with no fanfare. The guy stole 668 bases at 83.3% efficiency. 668 is 12th all time. He won a batting title and played GG CF for many years. He led the league in triples 5 times, and in runs and hits once each. He holds the single season mark for at-bats with 705. Granted, that's largely because WW wouldn't take a walk, one of his major downsides as a player. There were others, too, but the guy had a case; however, no one made it.

Maury Wills and Bert Campaneris have their Hall backers too. Or how about George Case, for whom there was a mini-movement some years ago (spearheaded by his son, if I recall)? What will become of Kenny Lofton & Marquis Grissom (admittedly, both would have to stave off and turn around natural late 30's dropoff to be credible -- but are they on a path? What would they need to do?) Willie Randolph came up in the old Jeff Kent thread; granted, he was usually a #2 rather than a #1, but it seems like the same evaluation problems exist with him -- great all-around player except no power.

I think part of the problem is that power is such a major part of player evaluation, and the most readily quantifiable in simple counting stats, that it's easy to dismiss a player who is simply bereft of it. Interestingly, the guys top of the leadoff hitter's list -- Rickey, Brock, and Rose -- all had solid double digit HR pop in their primes. Is that the trick? Seriously, folks, if any of these guys were to have 0 HR in a parallel universe but all their other stats were the same (adjusting for runs and hits lost by the lack of HR), they'd still be HOF, wouldn't they? Or is it the power that sets them apart? Maybe -- Rickey and Brock would both miss out on 3000 hits without their HR, for one thing.

Anyway, let me get this thread started and see what you wildcats can do with it over the holidays. I'm leaving town until the 31st, so I won't participate much until then. Maybe the NDF can clear this up once and for all!

[sweaver]

You raise several good points, GB.

Let's go to the general premise that your best hitter should bat #3, or possibly #4. Most Hall members were probably mostly #3 or 4 hitters. Ty Cobb hit 3rd, so did Ruth, Cobb, Eddie Collins, Ted Williams, Joe Morgan (also 2nd). Gehrig, DiMaggio, Aaron hit 4th. The greatest leadoff men ever were probably Rickey, Raines, and Pete Rose. Two are not yet eligible for the Hall, the third is currently banned from selection.

Paul Molitor will probably be elected nearly as soon as he becomes eligible. Would he be the first true leadoff man elected? Wade Boggs batted mostly #3, I believe.

Well, I suppose Lou Brock counts as a true leadoff man, and he's in. Anyone else? You know, most of the great leadoff men are of recent vintage, including Biggio.

[Golden Bear]

For the most part, the practice of putting a great hitter at the top of the lineup is pretty new. Usually a leadoff hitter would be a good hitter who was fast...but when the hitter progressed from good to great, he'd move down to #2, 3, or 4. Exceptions were made when the players skills were uniquely suited for the leadoff role -- such as an extreme lack of power.

But there have been truly great players in the leadoff spot, as you say, and the practice is increasing. Baseball fans need to figure out how to measure that better.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

It may simply take another generation of electors -- guys who aren't stuck in the '50s; guys who don't think that Ed Yost was a lazy hitter for taking all those walks; guys who put OBA on at least an even par with BA; guys who put runs even with RBI.

Until the old farts move on, the Dave Kingman's of the world will always get better treatment than the Tim Raines'.

[Max Power]

What makes a great lead-off hitter? The ability to reach base and the ability to advance bases (on your own or on a hit) - - no? Most say runs too. But, that's too dependent on the guys behind you.

Or, maybe it's the ability not to get thrown out on the bases - instead of the ability to advance?

I don't have my SBE handy - - can anyone do:
7500+ PA, OBA v. Lge Avg > .050, and sort by SB-CS?

[pwdennis]

Boggs was a leadoff hitter during his peak seasons and probably had 3/4 of his AB as a leadoff hitter. A Wade Boggs with a little more speed would be the ideal leadoff hitter

[LeGrandOrange]

I think you'd end up with Carney Lansford if you did that.

I'm trying to do the SBE thing but either my computer is a POS or I'm dyslexic...I can't get anything to come out of it.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
I think you'd end up with Carney Lansford if you did that.

I'm trying to do the SBE thing but either my computer is a POS or I'm dyslexic...I can't get anything to come out of it.

Even without foot speed Boggs was vastly superior to Carney Lansford so I'll assume that "Lansford" was a typo and you meant to type "Ty Cobb" or something similar

[Max Power]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
I'm trying to do the SBE thing but either my computer is a POS or I'm dyslexic...I can't get anything to come out of it.

Mine crashed too - - - I tried OBA v LA > .050, display CS, rank by SB and min 7500 PA - - I'll see if we can get Lee to do it.

[LeGrandOrange]

Originally posted by pwdennis
Even without foot speed Boggs was vastly superior to Carney Lansford so I'll assume that "Lansford" was a typo and you meant to type "Ty Cobb" or something similar

No, I meant to say Lansford...and if you've got a problem with it talk to the hand because the face doesn't want to hear it...

[nyy26wc]

Originally posted by Max Power
I don't have my SBE handy - - can anyone do:
7500+ PA, OBA v. Lge Avg > .050, and sort by SB-CS?

                               SB-CS     OBA       OBA      SB       CS     
1    Rickey Henderson           1068     .402     .068     1403      335   
2    Ty Cobb                     680     .433     .093      892      212   
3    Tim Raines                  662     .385     .053      808      146   
4    Eddie Collins               572     .424     .082      745      173   
5    Joe Morgan                  527     .392     .063      689      162   
6    Barry Bonds                 353     .428     .093      493      140   
7    Tris Speaker                305     .428     .084      434      129   
8    Willie Mays                 235     .384     .054      338      103   
9    Tony Gwynn                  194     .388     .055      319      125   
10   Rod Carew                   166     .393     .068      353      187   
11   Richie Ashburn              142     .396     .058      234       92   
12   Frank Robinson              127     .389     .062      204       77   
T13  Jeff Bagwell                115     .414     .075      185       70   
T13  Mickey Mantle               115     .421     .087      153       38   
15   Rogers Hornsby               71     .434     .091      135       64   
16   Carl Yastrzemski             52     .379     .054      168      116   
17   Harry Heilmann               48     .410     .056      112       64   
18   Stan Musial                  47     .417     .079       78       31   
19   Keith Hernandez              35     .384     .054       98       63   
20   Edgar Martinez               19     .424     .086       48       29   

The 2nd OBA that is listed is vs. the league average.

[Max Power]

Thanks Lee! Guess this tells us that the best lead-off guys are really number 3 hitters!

[pwdennis]

CAREER
OBA >= .375
RUNS >= 1400
WALKS >= 800
HOMERUNS <= 299
AVERAGE >= .275

OBA OBA R BB HR AVG
1 Hamilton .455 1690 1187 40 .344
2 Cobb .433 2245 1249 117 .366
3 Speaker .428 1882 1381 117 .345
4 E. Collins .424 1821 1503 47 .333
5 Brouthers .423 1523 840 106 .342
6 Burkett .415 1720 1029 75 .338
7 Boggs .415 1513 1412 118 .328
8 P. Waner .404 1626 1091 113 .333
9 Gehringer .404 1774 1185 184 .320
10 R. Henderson .402 2248 2141 290 .280
11 J. Kelley .402 1421 911 65 .317
12 Connor .397 1620 1002 138 .317
13 Anson .395 1719 952 97 .329
14 Carew .393 1424 1018 92 .328
15 Wagner .391 1736 963 101 .327
16 Goslin .387 1483 949 248 .316
17 Raines .386 1562 1308 169 .295
18 Hoy .386 1426 1004 40 .287
19 Clarke .386 1619 874 67 .312
20 Van Haltren .385 1639 868 69 .316
21 Rose .375 2165 1566 160 .303

by restricting the HR totals to less than 300 I've mostly eliminated the #3 hitters for the post 1920 period

Carney Lansford hit .290 for his career with a .343 OBA and .411 SLG

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
What are the Hall of Fame standards for leadoff hitters?

I would like to propose some standards.

First, I would like to lump leadoff and #2 hitters in the same category; while the job of a #2 hitter is somewhat different, he is still a table-setter. (In the AL, "leadoff" hitters may well function as a "#2 hitter" in the 3rd inning if the #9 hitter is a "second leadoff man" type who gets on base, a strategy not available in the NL at this point in time.) A leadoff-type hitter, like Butler, often bats in the #2 slot if there is a similar player on the team, usually with more speed (though not always with a higher OBP, and not always the best choice, in fact, to lead off).

While I don't want to advocate a magic stat that would put a leadoff man in the HOF (analagous to, say, Dave Kingman being enshrined because he reached 500 HRs, despite everything else), here are some markers to look for:

(A) The player must have batted leadoff 75% of his career, or leadoff and second, combined, for 90% of his career, to qualify as a "table-setter", and some combination of the following.

(B) A lifetime OBP of over .400. (A "leadoff man's" OBP should be 100 points above his BA, or thereabouts if his BA is under .300, to be considered truly great.) Adjustments could be made for players who played between 1963-68 in this area.

(C) Fifteen hundred (1,500) runs scored for a career is a stat in which a player could be evaluated in terms of "Why not?" instead of "Why?".

(D) The BA and OBP standards should be adjusted for being caught stealing. Every time a player is caught stealing, subtract a hit, and a base. This would separate players who are trying to impress on SB alone, from players whose SBs actually lead to offense generated.

(E) For power-oriented leadoff guys, the OBP should still be 80-100 points higher than BA. I would consider the power-speed # a legit stat for evaluating leadoff-hitters with power, provided that they are batting 1-2 90% of the time.

Aparicio, Campaneris, Wills, and Willie Wilson were NOT GOOD LEADOFF MEN! They stole bases, but did not get on base often enough to justify leading off. Wilson has, IMO, been rightly dismissed as a HOF-level player. Aparicio is, IMO, an overvalued HOFer; no better than Bill Mazeroski who, IMO, cut ahead of a lot of guys more deserving. Wills' HOF case rests more on the fact that he's a lot better than a lot of HOF shortstops than anything else. His case is as good as Aparicio's in that he was, IMO, superior, offensively, but he was not as good with the glove, of course. Their cases are cases of SHORTSTOPS, not of TABLE-SETTERS; they weren't that good in the role.

The HOF has enshrined some leadoff-type guys, many of them 19th century players (Sliding Billy Hamilton), stolen-base guys (Max Carey, a SICC, SmedIndy Crowbar Candidate, IMO who DID have a good glove), Earle Combs (a gift from the Fordham Flash and cronies) and Richie Ashburn. Henderson is a lock, only because of the huge number of records he holds. OBP guys who lead off have not done well with the HOF unless they had .300 averages, 3,000 hits, or something else. Raines will be a borderline case, generating a lot of debate, because sabermetric types will keep his case alive. (Raines does meet the standards I have set forth, with the possible exception of batting 1-2 90% of the time. The Expos foolishly began to bat him 3rd late in his Montreal tenure, and I think that this move was confusing to Raines, and forced him to change his style to where got away from what he did best.)

I don't advocate Butler, because his career was short, and his caught stealing record diminishes his overall effectiveness to where he is, IMO, under the line. However, Butler was a CF. Butler's case is MUCH, MUCH more impressive than if he had played LF for most of his career, as Raines had. Obviously, adjustments to the criteria could be made for defensive contributions, and a player at the left end of the spectrum (LF, RF, 1B, usually LF) is more dependent on his hitting stats than a player at the right end (CF, 3B, 2B, SS).

I have said a lot here, and hope I haven't confused the issue; the matter of evaluating leadoff men is somewhat subjective.

[pwdennis]

I like your thought process here again Fuzzy Bear, but the OBA should be phrased in terms of points above the adjusted league average, something like .50 or .60 above