Michael Young & The Hall Of Fame

Every now and again, I'll stumble across some hypothetical that doesn't pass the instant smell test and doesn't even strike me as all that plausible, but sticks in my head for one reason or another nevertheless ... and with pitchers and catchers finally reporting today but little of actual substance yet transpiring in Surprise, this seems like an appropriate enough time for me to purge it from my thoughts by means of the written word.

Nine days ago, MLB.com's Peter Gammons fired off this tweet: "Michael Young [averages] 199 [hits] per season. He's 34, doesn't walk. If he [averages] 190 hits [over the] next six years, gets to 3,000 and has won GG @ SS & 2B...HOF?" My first instinct was to dismiss this out of hand because, well, Young is a player who is generally regarded as good, and sometimes very good, and more occasionally great, but isn't somebody you're immediately compelled to associate with Hall of Fame-level greatness. But flippant dismissal doesn't fly in baseball analysis unless the proposition is so incredibly and overtly ludicrous that even a casual fan could justifiably crush it, and virtually every player in the 3,000-hit club is also enshrined in Cooperstown, and Young, based on the evidence furnished by Gammons, would at least seem to have a shot -- so, why not?

Last March, Scott Lucas took a statistical sledgehammer to some annoyingly simplistic analysis written in the weeks previous regarding Young's chances of reaching 3,000 hits, and concluded that he was "highly unlikely" to attain that milestone, with even the eternal optimists in the crowd probably having to admit that based on the evidence presented by Scott, Young's chances of pulling it off are no higher than 20 percent. At that time, Young had amassed 1,662 career hits, requiring him to average 191 hits per season over his next seven seasons to reach the 3,000-hit plateau; as of today, he's sitting at 1,848 hits, which will require now require a 192-hit average over the next six seasons -- a feat he hasn't pulled off since 2007, despite having logged two 700-plus-plate appearance seasons since then.

"Ah," you exclaim, "but the designated hitter spot will bolster Young's offense!" All dubiousness of this claim aside (and I've seen it put out there a few times this winter, and I'm not sure I buy it), the reality of the situation is that Young is 1,152 hits shy of where he needs to be, and only five players in major league history have surpassed that figure or come reasonably close to doing so in their age 34-40 seasons (note the generosity in giving Young a seventh year): Sam Rice (1,446), Pete Rose (1,360), Paul Molitor * (1,308), Ty Cobb (1,209), and Honus Wagner (1,149). If we trim that back to ages 34-39 again, only Rice (1,239), Rose (1,220), and Molitor (1,144) even remotely remain in the picture.

[* -- And by the way ... can we please cut it out with this Molitor-Young comp, at least beyond anything relating to positional usage? Yes, they'll be similar in that they'll both be DHing at the age of 34, but through the age of 33, Molitor's average OPS+ was 121, and he posted an OPS+ north of 125 five different times (including a 161 OPS+ at the age of 30). Young, by comparison, has averaged a 105 OPS+, and has only eclipsed the 109 OPS+ mark twice. Comparing their triple-slash AVG/OBP/SLG lines doesn't work for a number of different reasons, including the differences in era, league difficulties, and ballparks. Molitor's name is usually invoked whenever the argument for Young being able to attain 3,000 hits is made, but the problem is that Molitor was vastly superior offensively through the point in his career that Young is at now.]

But since this wouldn't be much of a story if we simply refuted Gammons by saying "well, Young probably won't reach 3,000 hits, so I'm moving on," I began thinking -- what if he did pull it off? Where would he rank in relation to other members of the 3,000-hit club, and how would he rank compared to other Hall of Fame-inducted infielders? In other words, would 3,000 hits be his lone meaningful Cooperstown calling card, and therefore perhaps not the automatic ticket to enshrinement that it has proven to be historically? Are the hallowed numbers like 3,000 and 500 losing some of their significance in the context of Hall of Fame balloting?

To do this, I mowed through the Baseball Reference Play Index database -- note that it uses a different version of wins above replacement (WAR) compared to FanGraphs, although in Young's case the career WAR output is virtually identical between the two metrics -- and made the very favorable assumption that Young will somehow average three WAR per season over the next six seasons, which is probably being too generous ... but, again, we're assuming that Young amasses nearly 200 hits per season over that same period, so one assumption sort of follows the other in this particular instance. 

In this day and age of Hall of Fame balloting, 60 WAR is usually thought of as a major inflection point -- that is, if you're beyond that point over the duration of your career, you probably have a pretty viable case working for you, and if you're at least close, you rightfully deserve a place in the conversation, and if you're not even close ... well, if you're not even close, sometimes you get in anyway, but it's a far more questionable proposition, and it becomes more questionable the further away you are from the mark. In Young's case, he would find himself catapulted into the vicinity of 43 WAR, which would be the second-lowest career mark out of 27 existing members in the 3,000-hit club (second only to Lou Brock's 39.1 WAR), along with arguably the lowest career OPS+ out of the bunch.

"Okay," you're thinking, "so what about his place next to other middle-infielder types who are already in the Hall of Fame? How would he compare to them WAR-wise?" The answer is better, but not excessively so:

Rk	Player	WAR/pos	OPS+	From	To	Age	PA	H	HR	BA	OBP	SLG	Pos
1	Honus Wagner	134.5	150	1897	1917	23-43	11748	3420	101	.328	.391	.467	*6935/84
2	Rogers Hornsby	127.8	175	1915	1937	19-41	9475	2930	301	.358	.434	.577	*465/397
3	Eddie Collins	126.7	142	1906	1930	19-43	12037	3315	47	.333	.424	.429	*4/69875
4	Nap Lajoie	104.2	150	1896	1916	21-41	10460	3242	82	.338	.380	.466	*43/6598
5	Joe Morgan	103.5	132	1963	1984	19-40	11329	2517	268	.271	.392	.427	*4/758D
6	George Davis	90.7	121	1890	1909	19-38	10178	2665	73	.295	.362	.405	*6584/93
7	Cal Ripken	89.9	112	1981	2001	20-40	12883	3184	431	.276	.340	.447	*65/D
8	Charlie Gehringer	80.9	124	1924	1942	21-39	10237	2839	184	.320	.404	.480	*4/35
9	Robin Yount	76.9	115	1974	1993	18-37	12249	3142	251	.285	.342	.430	*68D/73
10	Arky Vaughan	75.6	136	1932	1948	20-36	7721	2103	96	.318	.406	.453	*65/74
11	Frankie Frisch	74.8	110	1919	1937	20-38	10100	2880	105	.316	.369	.432	*45/6
12	Luke Appling	69.3	113	1930	1950	23-43	10243	2749	45	.310	.399	.398	*6/543
13	Pee Wee Reese	66.7	98	1940	1958	21-39	9470	2170	126	.269	.366	.377	*65
14	Ozzie Smith	64.6	87	1978	1996	23-41	10778	2460	28	.262	.337	.328	*6
15	Roberto Alomar	63.5	116	1988	2004	20-36	10400	2724	210	.300	.371	.443	*4/D6
16	Jackie Robinson	63.2	131	1947	1956	28-37	5802	1518	137	.311	.409	.474	*4537/69
17	Joe Cronin	62.5	119	1926	1945	19-38	8838	2285	170	.301	.390	.468	*6/5347
18	Ryne Sandberg	62.0	114	1981	1997	21-37	9282	2386	282	.285	.344	.452	*45/6D
19	Bobby Wallace	60.5	105	1894	1918	20-44	9612	2309	34	.268	.332	.358	*65/1498
20	Bid McPhee	57.9	106	1882	1899	22-39	9429	2258	53	.272	.355	.373	*4/985
21	Lou Boudreau	56.0	120	1938	1952	20-34	7023	1779	68	.295	.380	.415	*6/5342
22	Billy Herman	55.6	112	1931	1947	21-37	8641	2345	47	.304	.367	.407	*4/53
23	Joe Gordon	54.9	120	1938	1950	23-35	6536	1530	253	.268	.357	.466	*4/36
24	Luis Aparicio	49.9	82	1956	1973	22-39	11230	2677	83	.262	.311	.343	*6
25	Joe Tinker	49.2	96	1902	1916	21-35	7152	1690	31	.262	.308	.353	*6/549
Rk	Player	WAR/pos	OPS+	From	To	Age	PA	H	HR	BA	OBP	SLG	Pos
26	Johnny Evers	48.4	106	1902	1929	20-47	7210	1659	12	.270	.356	.334	*4/569
27	Joe Sewell	48.4	108	1920	1933	21-34	8329	2226	49	.312	.391	.413	*65/4
28	Tony Lazzeri	48.3	120	1926	1939	22-35	7303	1840	178	.292	.380	.467	*45/673
29	Bobby Doerr	47.7	115	1937	1951	19-33	8028	2042	223	.288	.362	.461	*4
30	Hughie Jennings	46.4	118	1891	1918	22-49	5648	1526	18	.312	.391	.406	*63/4957
31	Dave Bancroft	46.4	98	1915	1930	24-39	8244	2004	32	.279	.355	.358	*6/457
32	Nellie Fox	44.4	93	1947	1965	19-37	10349	2663	35	.288	.348	.363	*4/53
33	Travis Jackson	43.3	102	1922	1936	18-32	6679	1768	135	.291	.337	.433	*65/49
34	Phil Rizzuto	41.8	93	1941	1956	23-38	6711	1588	38	.273	.351	.355	*6/4
35	Red Schoendienst	40.4	94	1945	1963	22-40	9222	2449	84	.289	.337	.387	*47/658
36	Rabbit Maranville	38.2	82	1912	1935	20-43	11256	2605	28	.258	.318	.340	*64/5
37	Miller Huggins	35.7	107	1904	1916	26-38	6800	1474	9	.265	.382	.314	*4/5
38	George Wright	28.5	125	1871	1882	24-35	2941	866	11	.301	.318	.398	*6/4135
39	Bill Mazeroski	26.9	84	1956	1972	19-35	8379	2016	138	.260	.299	.367	*4/5

What's interesting about this list is the preponderance of pre-World War II players, particularly from No. 25 on down. Joe Posnanski recently pointed out that around 30-50 percent of all players who amassed at least 5,000 career plate appearances and retired between 1930 and 1959 were inducted, compared to consistent sub-20 percent induction totals from 1960-present; this is partly a function of heightened standards with the passage of time, and -- as Posnanski pointed out -- also a function of a far less generous Veterans' Committee in recent years, to whom a good number of those lower-ranked Hall of Famers owe their deepest gratitude. In fact, only one player (Rabbit Maranville) below the No. 24-ranked Luis Aparicio was inducted by way of formal BBWAA ballot, which I suppose says something about the way the present-day BBWAA itself perceives fringier middle-infield candidates.

And, of course, it's not completely about career numbers -- you also need very good peak numbers, which are indicative of your dominance during the prime of your career and a major component of the "fame" bit. My curiosity on this bit drove me to compare Young's career path with that of two similar-WAR players (Phil Rizzuto and Nellie Fox) and the BBWAA-elected Aparicio, with the idea being that at least each of these three played out the majority of their respective careers after World War II and better reflect baseball's "modern era." Each player's best single-season WAR is plotted at the far left, and gradually descends from left to right: 

So, even assuming entrance to the 3,000-hit club, Young's best years still figure to be a few ticks worse than the best years of some of his most viable comps in his WAR bracket; in other words, he would have the longevity and the milestone, but neither the career-long nor the peak performance needed to justify a serious Hall of Fame bid, which could very realistically leave him as the only non-gambling-or-steroids-tainted player in the 3,000-hit club to be on the outside looking in. Again, his fortunes are likely changed in a different era -- on top of everything else, the amount of attention increasingly being paid to modern-day defensive metrics has severely diminished the luster of Young's single Gold Glove award (not two at two different positions, as Gammons purports), so one really can't point to defense as a virtue the way that they can with many of the other players in Young's WAR bracket.

To be clear, I do wish Young all the best. I hope he does pull a Molitor-esque run out of nowhere, and I hope it happens in Texas. But I'm also a pragmatist, and there are so many obstacles standing between Young and these aforementioned high-level achievements that I almost cannot fathom Young pulling off the things that some people still believe he might yet be able to pull off. You might say that I'm arguing a point that no rational person would make and that I've just wasted my time, but if you've read this far and still feel that's the case, I would surmise that you still learned a little something along the way. That's what I'm going after, and with that, back to Surprise we go again.

Comments

[John W]

Joey,

Did I inspire this column with my forum post regarding Young in the HOF' with 3000 hits??? Certainly sounds like it. Nice column.

[anic]

These are the types of anyalytical articles that brought me to this site. I have always felt that graphs/charts are a better way of visually expressing statistics and give us readers a better understanding of whats really going on, epsecially when using comparisons-keep it up. On another note, i just purchased my half season ticket package (odd games) and still have a semi from it.

[Joe]

Anic,

How much did that cost in total?

Joe

[Scooby Dude]

If Young gets to 3000 hits, he seems like a prime candidate to get in via he veterans committee about 40 years from now.

Also, for him to post 3 WAR/yr over the next 6 years, he really needs a move back to 2B, where the Replacement part of WAR is friendlier.

[anic]

Joe,

For 41 games on the home run porch (3 rows back) and a parking pass my buddy and i got 2 seats for $2,000-$1,000/seat. We chose all the odd games (i.e. games 1 and 3) of all series which is a pretty cool deal and we get those seats for playoffs too. I usually only get to about 10 games a season so needless to say i cant wait for April 1st.

[Da Blade]

Love that graphic. MY looks a bit sinister in that pic. Like, 'ha! I got something up my sleeve!'

[Adam]

I hope there is a 3000 hits guy who doesn't get in so we can do away with that automatic qualifier. The Hall of Fame should be for the very best players of their generation, not very good players who stuck around for a long time and hit a ton of slap shot singles the other way.

Hey, 3000 hits is still 3000 hits and it should be celebrated but I don't think it makes you one of the best of all time...even if most (all?) of the current members are some of the greatest. Young could blow by 3000 hits and I still won't consider him great. He's been very good, very consistent and very healthy. Put him in the Rangers Hall of Fame, not Cooperstown.

[K-Mart]

Damn that was hard to follow after a while, bit I think I got it. Anyways, nice work Matches.

[Dave H]

I'd certainly love to see Young produce enough to actually warrant induction into the HOF, but there's enough pulling against him that he might as well hope to win the lottery.

[utb]

The Molitor comp is comical and I'm glad that you addressed that. I have heard that Young will be a great "Molitor-type DH" consistently for the last couple of years.

Molitor was a monster.

[Scooby Dude]

In addition to all the absurdities at the plate of the Molitor Comp, Molitor was a consistant SB threat. In his age 40-41 seasons, he still managed 20 total SBs.

[Pigskinnie]

Great article, Joey. I don't know if you have done a similar one on Raffy's chances for the HOF, but I would find that interesting, too. Raffy's clearly a different situation due to 3000/500 and due to the steroid thing, but the similarities are there, too (very good for a long time but seldom great, few All-Star appearances, joke Gold Gloves, no MVP consideration, etc.).

[Rodney]

Heh, this should destroy the Molitor comp:

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?playerid2=1009040&playerid3=1286&playerid4=&playerid5=

[Dave H]

@Pigskinnie - Palmiero has a much better case. He's compiled 75.5 WAR which places him ahead of Molitor, Yount, Carlton Fisk, our Pudge, and has him sitting at #15 all time for first basemen. He sits at #10 in total bases, #12 in HR, #15 in RBI, #31 in BB, and #24 in hits. Those are by no means my favorite stats, but they're generally weighted heavily by HOF voters. His peak #s aren't great, but they hold up better than Young's.

Palmiero's top 5 similarity scores by baseball-reference are Frank Robinson, Eddie Murray, Ken Griffey Jr., Dave Winfield, and Reggie Jackson. Another measure you could use is Bill James HOF Monitor; it's a stat that James created to measure how likely (not deserving) a player is to be included in the HOF. Generally 100 would be someone who's likely to be in the conversation (like Michael Young) and 130 should be a virtual guarantee of inclusion into the HOF. Palmiero sits at 178. While I might think he's acutally a boarderline case for whether or not he deserves to be in, he certainly blows away most of the requirements the voters seem to have in place. If it weren't for his failed steroid test, Palmiero is most likely in this years HOF class.

[MrC]

Forget Paul Molitor. MY doesn't even stack up to Toby Harrah.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?playerid2=1009040&playerid3=1286&playerid4=1005384&playerid5=

[JFitz]

You rock Joey. Top- notch analysis. Dave H thanks for palmeiro stuff and the forum post a couple days ago on MY.

[HubZ]

I like Mike Young. I also use to be a huge statnic, in my early days.
I can't escape either, at this point in the season. Mike Young may drop
off the face of the Earth in 2011. His .220ave w/two strikes lumes LRG.
in my eyes... concidering he was promoted as being one of the best as
Mr. Clutch. Was it the wrist, the fingers or the beaning? Did his mediocre
play @3B finally get to his 'hitting head' too? He's going to have to 'up his gm'
in 2011 and prove effective as a team member to me. HoF is beyond the fineline.
For all the talk of Young being 'over promoted'~ stilling happening. My brain hurtz.
Louie Aparicio and Nellie Fox... even Mark Bellanger. Young is no comparison.
Not even close to being in their league... hits or not. We know who's "IN" of the 3.

[Joe]

Dave H,

What are Young's similarity scores at baseball-reference? Can I look that up or is that part of your nifty stat subscription?

[HubZ]

...consideriing Young is going to SHOW in Ranger Camp,
I'd certainly love to see a new found commitment to Baseball
and not self-worth. Being a 'Fallen Angel" as Young, it's going
to take more than the press to reform and mold Gumby and his
image. After 10 seasons, can Young make a come back? I'm much
more focused on his 2011 play, over any thought of a dream as HoF'r.

[Dave H]

Joe - here's the top 5 similarities for Young:
1.Travis Jackson
2.Placido Polanco
3.Bill Madlock
4.Rich Aurilia
5.Nomar Garciaparra

[Pull T]

When did Face when a GG at second?

[Dave H]

Joe - I almost forgot. The similarity scores are on the player pages on baseball-reference.com.

[Rangerbourne]

I read the title for this article an died laughing... Get real.

[Rodney]

"We're preparing for Michael to be on the club," said Daniels. "We have to prepare for him to be on the club. In all our meetings, everything we're setting up, the workouts and stuff, are based on that. We're planning on him being on the team."

http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110216&content_id=16652018&vkey=news_tex&c_id=tex

Yup.

[windingmywatch]

Not only did MY not get a GG at 2nd ... he never was an AS at 2nd either. He was just a guy.

[RFFD1]

MY played 2b in the 2006 all-star game. Doesn't make him a future HoF'er, but if he gets to 3000, it will be a part of the conversation.