Sandy Koufax belongs in the Hall of Fame. I believe that. But if he does, then so do many other players who are not currently enshrined.
First, a few things, for the purposes of full disclosure. 1) I'm a BIG Cincinnati Reds fan. So while this isn't exclusively about them, I'll make the case for a couple players that extends to other MLB players as well. Most of the names are just examples. 2) I'm an old guy. I don't completely dig all the analytics. So I'm not going to bog us down with a bunch of analytic stats, such as WAR, and so forth. Primarily because it's not necessary. Secondly, because most of the guys we're talking about weren't playing in a time when analytics were a thing. And lastly, because I find, in general, stats like WAR, while catching the occasional wildcard, really don't enlighten us to anything we didn't already know.
The top five all time WAR leaders, according to Baseball-Reference.com, are Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Barry Bonds, and Willie Mays. Well, duh! Is that a surprise to anyone? I find that stats like WAR usually highlight the guys who everybody already knows to be the best in the game anyway. And they're almost always the guys who lead in the traditional statistics of HR's, RBI's, Batting Average, Wins, Saves, etc. True, there's a few names in the Top 20, and then Top 50, and so on, who catch you by surprise (Pete Alexander, anyone?) And every now and then, a stat like WAR, or OPS+ will highlight a guy who has a couple of surprising seasons, or a diamond in the rough that might otherwise be overlooked. Helps teams dig a little deeper on a player when they're looking for specific needs in filling out a roster. But in general otherwise, the big analytic stat leaders tend to be the same guys who win the batting crowns, and pitching awards. Not always, 100%, but WAY more often than not.
I also don't want to get bogged down with steroids. For the purposes of this argument, let's pretend steroids don't exist. Keeps things cleaner.
So I don't want to get lost in the analytics forest here, mostly because I don't think the HOF is about analytics anyway. The HOF, primarily, is about honoring the guys who were the best in the game when they played. It is pointless to compare Babe Ruth with, say, Reggie Jackson, or Alex Rodriguez, for a variety of reasons we don't need to get into here, but it is safe to say they were at the very top of their game during their respective careers.
So back to Sandy Koufax. Everyone agrees that when Koufax retired, he was considered possibly the best pitcher in the game at that time. And yet, when you look at Koufax's career stats, and ESPECIALLY if you compare those to other pitchers in the HOF, he's mediocre at best.
Koufax's career record is 165-87, with a 2.76 ERA. (Just to be fair, his career WAR is 48.9, WAY down the line from other HOF's.) It's a record that if you read that line next to anybody else's name, you might say he was a good pitcher, but wouldn't think HOF. (Kevin Millwood had 169 career victories, for crying out loud.) No, when you think HOF, you think 300 wins, 3000 strikeouts, lower 2 ERA, etc. Not 165-87.
Furthermore, Koufax wasn't even that great for very long. A quick glance at his 11-career will show that he was relatively BELOW average for the first half dozen years, and then, the light came on and he was perhaps the best in the game for the last six seasons. Only six really HOF worthy years.
So why is Koufax a HOFer? Because during those six years, he was arguably the best pitcher on the planet, and durn-near unhittable. And he retired at the top of his game. Most people believe had he not retired, he could very easily have turned in another 5-10 years of greatness. Perhaps, but of course, we'll never know.
Which is what makes that HOF argument a little unfair. If Ken Griffey Jr. had retired at the same age as Koufax, everyone would have assumed he would have gone on to become the all-time HR King. But he didn't retire, and we all know how the last several injury-plagued years of his career played out. So did Griffey make the HOF because of his first 10 years in the game, or his last 10 years? Break his career in half and you essentially find two different players.
Koufax cited a sore arm as one of his reasons for retirement, so it is just as likely that he would have blown out his arm in the next season or two. And what we're left with is a guy who was really great for a mere six seasons. And yet, it is solely because of those six seasons he is in the HOF. For six years, Sandy Koufax was the best pitcher in baseball.
And really, THAT'S what the HOF is all about. It's about looking at guys careers and asking, "Was he one of the top players in the game for an extended period of time while he played?" Stats are important, and I believe there are some stat thresholds that guarantee a spot in the HOF, but that's just my opinion. (I think you can make a case for Jamie Moyer. Anybody who's good enough to make a MLB roster for 28 seasons ought to get credit for something, no?) Regardless, I think the HOF was and always has been a place for players who you watched for several years and said, "That guy is one of the best in the game."
Let's look at a couple examples: One of the most glaring omissions for the HOF, in my opinion, is Dave Concepcion. I've had all the stat arguments I care to have over his career. As noted before, it is unfair to make his case solely compared to other shortstops in the HOF. Although, to be fair, his stats, both defensively and offensively, stack up pretty well against other SS in the HOF. But not only was the position viewed differently in different eras, Concepcion was a different player from, say, Pee Wee Reese, and a significantly different player from Cal Ripken, who revolutionized the position into an offensive-minded spot.
What we really should be asking is, like Sandy Koufax, was Dave Concepcion considered to be one of the best shortstops in the game while he played? And I think it's more than fair, and not an unpopular assessment, to say that for the better part of a full decade, from the early 70's through the early 80's, Concepcion was one of the best, if not considered THE best shortstop in the game.
Forget all the other players around him on the Big Red Machine (because that's unfair too.) You'd be hard pressed to name a better shortstop during that time. On Baseball-Reference.com, most of the similarity comparisons made are with players whose careers played out primarily before or after Concepcion's. During his time, there really was none better. And the stats, and the awards, and the All-Star nominations bear that out. The likes of Pee Wee Reese and Luis Aparicio came before Concepcion. And the likes of Trammel, Ozzie, and Ripken all had careers that really took off well after Concepcion's prime. Even Robin Yount, who burst on the scene in 1974, really didn't hit his stride until the late 70's, and he finished up a center fielder. His contemporaries included guys like Larry Bowa, Bill Russell, Roy Smalley, and Ivan DeJesus... all decent, solid players in their own right, but nowhere near the caliber of Concepcion. For the middle decade of Concepcion's career, he was the best in the game at his position.
And the same case can be made for many guys. Look at the Dave Parkers, Dwight Evans, Dale Murphys, Bernie Williams, Steve Garveys, Scott Rolens, Roy Oswalts, and Ron Guidrys of the world, just to name a few. All guys who were considered at the very top of the game for the better part of a decade. By contrast, its why players like Tony Perez, Jim Rice, and Harold Baines were overlooked for so long, and likely why guys like Vada Pinson, Bill Buckner, Johnny Damon, Tim Hudson, and Brett Saberhagen get overlooked completely. While their stats match up very well with other HOFers, they just never seemed to be in the conversation of the guys who were the best in the game while they played. I mean, when you think of the best outfielders of the late 50's into the 1960's, you think of guys named Mantle and Mays and Aaron and Robinson. You don't think of names like Pinson. But check his stats sometime against those guys while they were all playing together. Interesting.
And for how long? How many years does a player need to be considered one of the best to qualify. If Koufax is the standard, then it's five or six, although even that is probably an anomaly. It's likely closer to that 10 year/decade scenario. That's why guys like George Foster, Tino Martinez, Eric Davis, etc, don't really make the cut. Guys who were some of the most feared players and sluggers and best pitchers for a handful of seasons, but couldn't sustain the greatness over a real extended period of time. It's likely THE sole reason Roger Maris isn't in the HOF. One or two great seasons just don't cut it.
The stats of all the players above can be debated. And have been, countless times. For every guy who thinks Scott Rolen is worthy of the HOF, there's another guy who thinks he's a bum. The traditional stats may be Hall worthy, but some analytics guy will tell you why he doesn't measure up. And of course, there's always some analytic that shows a guy like Scott Hatteburg deserves to be in the HOF.
Go figure.
If we take the baseball writers out of the picture for a moment -- because today the writers are mostly pompous slugs who like to lecture us on steroids while having made their careers on the backs of steroid users -- there are those who believe the Hall should be reserved for the very great, but even then, there's very little consensus on what stats constitute "very great." But the HOF was and always should be about the fans. They want to see the best players they grew up idolizing in the HOF. A modicum of common sense should prevail, of course. There's always some kid who grew up idolizing Sexto Lezcano for some weird reason. So something has to serve as the baseline to be sure. But in the end, it's about what the fans want, not what some neurotic writer says it should be. (Surveys, incidentally, show fans of all regions and generations overwhelmingly believe Pete Rose should be in the HOF. So he should be, no matter how big of a creep you think he is.)
When you consider that 19.5 thousand men have ever played Major League Baseball, then the 263 players who make up the HOF comprise just barely over 1% of the total to have ever played the game. If you added 100 very deserving players to the HOF immediately, which you could easily do, you'd still have less than 2% of the players all time. Still a very exclusive club.
If Koufax deserves the Hall -- and I believe he does -- then the metrics of his career, and not just the stats, should be considered for all candidates. If you only look at the stats, Koufax doesn't measure up. Four career no-hitters is akin to Adam Dunn hitting nearly 500 HR's in his career. And NOBODY believes Adam Dunn should be in the HOF.
But it isn't just the stats. It's his status. The very best pitcher in the game for the previous six seasons, and the belief that his dominance would have continued had he chosen to stick it out. That alone is why he is in the HOF, and it's why most fans get real itchy when you start talking about Koufax's career stats.
If Koufax deserves to be there, so do a lot of other guys.
