Prospect Retro: Gary Sheffield

by John Sickels on Apr 21, 2006 9:43 AM EDT in News Comment 70 comments

Prospect Retrospective: Gary Sheffield

Younger fans perceive Gary Sheffield as an old dude, a guy in his mid-30s who has been around forever. But older fans like me remember him as a precocious prospect back in the mid-1980s, a potentially tremendous hitter, but a guy with a volatile personality and erratic behavior on and off the field.

Gary Sheffield grew up in one of the rougher neighborhoods in Tampa, Florida. His mother is the sister of Dwight Gooden, making Sheffield Gooden's nephew despite their relative closeness in age. Sheffield got in trouble frequently as a child, but his parents were strict and tried hard to keep him in line. He showed enough discipline to succeed academically, and he was a star on the baseball diamond, dominating for Tampa's Hillsboro High. He was named High School Player of the Year by Gatorade in 1986, and earned a spot in the first round, sixth overall, selected by the Milwaukee Brewers. Some teams liked him as a pitcher due to his arm strength, but his bat was special and the Brewers kept him at shortstop.

Sheffield destroyed the Pioneer League in his first look at pro pitching, hitting .365 with a .640 SLG in 57 games for Helena. He drew 20 walks against only 14 strikeouts in 222 at-bats. He also stole 14 bases to go with his 15 homers. His defense was erratic, but otherwise he performed exceptionally well. At this point he'd rate as a Grade A- at a minimum and perhaps a straight Grade A.

Sheffield got a lot of attention in 1987, but for the wrong reasons. He spent much of his bonus money on strange things like a solid gold car, and on gold inlays for his front teeth. He also hit .277 with 17 homers, 103 RBI, 25 steals, 81 walks, and only 49 strikeouts in 469 at-bats for Stockton in the California League. At age 18. Those are remarkable numbers, particularly the BB/K/AB ratio. Sheffield's combination of explosive bat speed and superb strike zone judgment augured well for his future, provided that other issues didn't get in the way. He was developing a reputation as a malcontent in the clubhouse. On pure numbers alone he'd be a certain Grade A prospect; you might want to cut that a tad to Grade A- depending on how much weight to give the personality issues.

1988 began at Double-A El Paso, where Sheffield hit .314 with 19 homers in just 77 games. Promoted to Triple-A, he hit .344 with nine homers in 57 games for Denver, with a 21/22/212 BB/K/AB mark. Sure, it was El Paso and Denver. . .the air was thin. . .but to perform like that at that level at age 19 was remarkable. Sheffield received a major league trial that year, playing in 24 games and hitting .238 but with 4 homers. Stardom seemed assured if he kept his head attached. Once again, Grade A or A- if you were really worried about the personality..

Sheffield hit just .247 for the Brewers in 1989, struggling with injuries. But he took a big step forward in 1990, hitting .294 with 10 homers, 44 walks, and only 41 strikeouts in 487 at-bats. He was moved to third base to replace the injured Paul Molitor, a move which annoyed Sheffield. He perceived a racial component to the move, and his attitude continued to sour. Despite a vigorous workout schedule (testament to his work ethic), Sheffield continued to have injury problems in 1991 and hit only .194. He was also vocal about his dislike of the Milwaukee front office. At that point the Brewers gave up on him and traded him to the Padres.

Healthy in San Diego, Sheffield hit .330/.385/.580 with 33 homers and 100 RBI in 1992. The next few seasons saw a salary-motivated trade to Florida, continued problems with injuries, but excellent offensive production. Sheffield seems to have mellowed a bit from his early days, though controversy still seems to follow him around.

As a prospect, Sheffield showed exceptional offensive skills, particularly in the BB/K/AB department. What he has done in the majors is no surprise at all from a sabermetric perspective. His injury seasons may keep him from racking up 3,000 hits and other impressive counting stats, but at his peak he was one of the best hitters baseball has seen in the last 50 years.

Hall of Famer?

Comparable Players to Gary Sheffield

Jeff Bagwell
Reggie Jackson
Billy Williams
Duke Snyder
Willie Stargell
Orlando Cepeda
Al Kaline
Johnny Mize

Looks like a Hall of Famer to me. Should the personality issues override the performance?

0 recs | Comment 70 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

hat?

If he makes the HoF, what hat does he wear?

by sabernar on Apr 21, 2006 10:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe something like this

http://www.whoknew.us/images/pimp-daddy-purle.gif

by 3Com Park on Apr 21, 2006 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I almost

shot soda through my nose when I saw that...

"If there wasn't nine guys out in the field, I'd have a hit every time except when I strike out." - Delmon Young

by Brickhaus on Apr 21, 2006 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

From a few months ago

http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2006/1/10/14352/4564

Looks like Not Worthy was the clear pick, followed by a toss up between the Marlins & Dodgers.

by colinadam on Apr 21, 2006 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sheff

His hitting stats suggest enshrinement, but he should be kept out of the HOF because he admittedly made errors on purpose in Milwaukee, and it has been well-established that the ultimate sin against the HOF sense is when you don't attempt to try to win. Joe Jackson was banned for throwing games; Pete Rose was banned for, not even throwing games, but doing something that might give people the impression that the games might not be on the level. So that's clearly enough to keep Sheffield out, IMO. Steroids could also be a factor for him, since unlike Bonds, Sheffield probably needed that extra stat boost to reach a HOF level. I have absolutely no idea why Sheffield has basically gotten away with acting like he has for 20 years with few people complaining about it. He is the worst personality in the game, IMO.

Personality aside, will Rickie Weeks follow the Sheffield career path?

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Apr 21, 2006 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Forgot

i had forgotten about that stuff from when he was with the Brewers. he'll probably get in because people will have forgotten about it or marked it down as the arrogance of youth. if he had done it later in his career it might be more likely to come back and haunt him.
I do agree though, between the steroids and the INTENTIONAL lousy play, this guys has no place in the HoF. His place is in the Hall of Shame.
Which, btw, would be kind of interesting to see a baseball hall of shame built in cooperstown.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 21, 2006 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Youth

He was 20 years old. You think that mistakes someone makes when they're that young are irreparable?

In any case, he hasn't really caused trouble in the clubhouse since he left LA, which is really all that should matter. Yes, he'll go on a rant about how his extension hasn't been picked up yet, but by all accounts he's fairly well liked by most Yankees players, and was very well respected when on the Braves. As soon as he was put in a place where he wasn't expected to be The Man, he mellowed a bit and stopped causing trouble with his teammates.

Sheffield begs the question of which is worse, the guy who is quietly subversive behind his teammates' backs, ala Franco with Armando, or the guy who makes a lot of noise to the press but is fairly subdued with his teammates.

by MontrealMets on Apr 21, 2006 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

comparing shef & rose???

Um, lest you forget, Rose AGREED to be banned from baseball. Why does so many people forget that small fact?

by sabernar on Apr 22, 2006 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Weeks/Sheffield

That's a comp I had not thought of. I'll have to think about that.

Sheffield the worst personality in the game? When he was younger, I'd say probably. Now, I can think of some guys who are worse.

by John Sickels on Apr 21, 2006 10:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

HoF

I'm not a Sheff fan, very far from it, but yes, he deserves to be in.
Career OPS+ of 146 over 10,000 PAs, that's a no-brainer. I'd vote for him if he was a convicted axe murderer. Personality means nothing.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Apr 21, 2006 10:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

re

Personality means nothing. His numbers warrant an enshrinement. We have racists, drunkards, cheaters, etc in the Hall. Sheffield is clean compared to some that are in.

by ScottAZ on Apr 21, 2006 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yep

There are lots of bigger jerks in the Hall than Sheffield.

by John Sickels on Apr 21, 2006 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't it pretty clear....

...that Sheff did take roids? That will become an issue, I think, before any voting takes place...5 years after he retires.

(By the way, I'm not making a moral judgment, just saying his late-career surge has to be judged in the same way BigMac's & Bond's do.)

by Azteca on Apr 21, 2006 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pass

I can understand giving him a pass on the personality, to an extent, but he's also one of the players who was (is?) a steroid user. Why does he get a pass on this?

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 21, 2006 11:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

roids

I agree that it is an issue, but I base my opinion on this question: would the player have been a HoF'er without steroids? Of course, it's all specualtion and opinion, nobody knows for sure... but with Sheffield and Bonds, my answer is "yes". With McGuire and Palmeiro, my answer in "no". The guy I'm really on the fence about regarding this issue is Sammy Sosa.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Apr 21, 2006 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd vote no on all four

Bonds, Palmeiro, and Sheffield all lied under oath about their use or knowledge of using steroids. McGwire didn't answer the question.

At least Giambi told the truth.

by delmonfan on Apr 21, 2006 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would he?

Would Bonds and Sheffield have been HoFers otherwise? probably... and yet they STILL made the decision to cheat. That's almost worse in my eyes. The allure of greatness in a bottle to someone who s mediocre or borderline servicable is somewhat understandable (not forgivable, but understandable). To already HAVE that greatness, to already BE at the top and to decide to cheat anyway... that's disgraceful.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 21, 2006 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He gets a pass

Because everybody is going to get a pass.

by rwperu34 on Apr 22, 2006 5:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

steroids

Well, once again I have to wonder why we aren't talking about all the players (most of them) who took speed in the 60s and 70s (and nowadays for that matter). It was an unfair advantage too.

by John Sickels on Apr 21, 2006 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

nit pick

I notice you used 'unfair advantage' as opposed to 'cheating'. I have had classmates who use speed to stay up longer and get more work done, I don't consider it cheating, nor, really, much of an unfair advantage, similarly some use pot to 'relax' so they can 'focus'. If they were using something to enhance their performance or work in some way (granted I can't think of something that would do that for an architecture student), I would consider that cheating and I'd turn them in to the administration.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 21, 2006 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

speed

Actually I do consider speed a form of cheating. It is just as bad as steroids in my opinion.

by John Sickels on Apr 21, 2006 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

speed

I agree with John. Just read "Ball Four" to see how much speed was abused back in the 60s and 70s. I always point to this whenever I hear so much about steroids. It is still a substance that gives the user an unfair advantage over anyone who wasn't using. That seems like cheating to me.

by arko on Apr 21, 2006 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As bad as steroids?

Do you believe they are bad because of how they affect performance or because of their detrimental effects?

There are all kinds of legitimate substances that increase performance. However until baseball bans a substance, is it cheating, since it is available to everyone?

by Bill on Apr 21, 2006 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speed

Speed is an amphetamine, similar to crystal meth (although crystal meth is stronger), and has been illegal since 1965.

While the effects may not be the same as steroids, it's still (illegal) substance abuse. That a lot of people take speed isn't an excuse for its usage. It does a lot of damage and is habit forming.

I'd actually be more worried now about player obtaining perscriptions for ADD drugs now that amphetamines are banned.

by sasquatch83 on Apr 21, 2006 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speed

Speed was made illegal when it's use as a social drug started to climb, prior to that it was often prescribed for various mental and physical disorders. The problem with speed isn't it's effects on people, it's the dangerous side effects. it's a stimulant, it wakes you up, makes you jittery and then you crash.
In effect, it's not all that different from caffeine, except it's stronger and has worse side effects.
Speed is, rightfully, baned and illegal, but I can't see placing it in the category of a performance enhancer (or cheating) such as steroids and HGH.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 21, 2006 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

speed and steroids - in different categories

I agree with you in that I do not see speed being in anywhere near the same class of steroids both in terms of how much it affects performance and its detrimental effects. That is not to say that speed cannot have very bad side effects when abused, it just seems like comparing heroine to alcohol.

As for the cheating aspect of it, speed cannot turn a guy like Brady Anderson into a 50 home run hitter, so again I don't think speed is in the same class as steroids.

by Bill on Apr 21, 2006 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still cheating though

It's not that they have different effects. Because they do.

But as long as it's giving some players an (illegal) boost, isn't it still cheating?

by sasquatch83 on Apr 21, 2006 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, agreed

Yep, it's cheating. We concur.

But I think the gravity of the offense is important consideration - like telling a white lie to a friend versus lying to a federal grand jury under oath.

by Bill on Apr 21, 2006 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But...

If all those middle relievers that were throwing 95 a couple years ago were juicing, and a fair number of starters it sounds like, then isn't the playing field (relatively) even?

by MontrealMets on Apr 22, 2006 4:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're kidding, right?

Ask the guys who weren't juicing if they think the playing field was even. i suspect they'd laugh in your face.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 22, 2006 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Steroids

I dont think the character issue is the use of steroids - I think it is more the unwillingness to own up to it even when testifying under protection in a court of law.

by cunningt on Apr 22, 2006 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

personality NORMALLY means nothing...

... but when it results in you not trying to win for your team, then it does mean something. That's the very clear HOF precedent.

I'm not saying he should be out because he's a jerk generally. I would really think that anyone who read my post and who was trying to make an honest response to its content could see that I wasn't saying that; it's a silly strawman. I'm saying he should be out for the specific infraction of making errors on purpose. That is exactly the type of case (and the ONLY type of case) where the HOF has taken off-field factors into account -- when the player wasn't doing his best to win, or when his behavior might make the public believe that that was going on. Then you can throw in the steroids too depending how you feel about that, but I don't even think you need it.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Apr 21, 2006 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Never happened

I can't come up with the article citation at the moment, but someone went through each game Sheff played at the relevant time and found that there was no substance to Sheff's "admissions" about purposely making throwing errors to lose games. The author concluded that this was just some ex post facto braggadocio by an immature loudmouth.

by dda on Apr 21, 2006 12:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hatefield

"We have racists, drunkards, cheaters, etc in the Hall".

That is funny that all of those apply to Shef. He makes me absolutely sick. He is one of the guys that hates evey fan. He also has some serious issues with white men. I would never vote for a person that hates me without ever seeing or hearing about me. He probably thinks Barkley was right when he said every player should be allowed to beat up a fan at every game. Shef took it to heart in Boston. I wish those fans would have kicked his ass.

He threw games and took off days for the Brewers, He used steroids on purpose, and he is one of the 10 worst people in sports. Yeah, that sounds like a HOFer that I want my kids to look up to. He takes the angry black athelete steriotype through the roof. I can only wait to see him start smoking crack the second he retires. You know it will happen.

You bring the juice. I'll bring the ginick, Pam Minick!

by Shamus on Apr 21, 2006 12:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The problem is...

...those types of players have never been excluded from the Hall in the past. Being a rolemodel has never been a requirement. It would be inconsistent to start doing so in this case, unless you plan on going back and removing a bunch of the plaques already in there.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Apr 21, 2006 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Difference

We also live in a different culture today than in, say, Ty Cobb's day. The kind of racism that Cobb exhibited was fairly acceptable on a social level. That's not true anymore.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 21, 2006 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Roids

The kind of steroid use that was prolific in the 1990s was acceptable in the social level of MLB at the time.

by limozeen on Apr 21, 2006 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Was it?

I didn't realize you were a former MLBer...
And who said anything about being socially acceptable in MLB? Hardcore drug use may be socially acceptable among heavy metal rockers but it isn't socially acceptable by the society at large. I'm talking about socially acceptable in general. Some regions of the country may have varied but there were still lots of Jim Crowe laws on the books (and being enforced).

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 21, 2006 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A little off-topic

But do you really have to start every post with a derogatory comment?

by limozeen on Apr 22, 2006 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Legit question

We do have guys on here who have played in the minors, for all I know, you did.
However, unless you did play in the minors/majors, i'm not sure you know what was 'socially acceptable' in those.
To answer your question, if the comment being replied to is stupid or deliberately attempts to twist another comment (such as trying to turn sociallly acceptable into socially acceptable in the MLB), then yeah, my reply might very well be of the smart-ass variety.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 22, 2006 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

cobb vs. sheffield

I hate defending Gary Sheffield, but his actions are not in the same league as Cobb. Sheffield may have played the race card a few times in his career, that does not come close to Cobb's laundry list of vile actions, some of which would be considered vile in any era.

I can see the steroid argument for keeping him out of the Hall, but all the other morality/personality stuff? No way. Why would we start to draw the morality line at Gary Sheffield?

by SmokeyJoeWood on Apr 21, 2006 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why

Why would we start to draw the morality line at Gary Sheffield?

I explained this twice now.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Apr 21, 2006 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

a rookie allegedly making bad throws on purpose

Assuming for a sec this actually happened, if you honestly think this is as bad as 1919 and Rose, and should keep him out... we'll have to agree to disagree.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Apr 21, 2006 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Throwing

if he was doing this on purpose, if he was intentionally trying to make his team lose because he was a bitter, selfish prick, then by no means should he come within a whiff of the Hall. I don't care how old he was or if it only cost them one game. It's despicable.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 21, 2006 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if

I agree. Find the game he threw, and then you have a case.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Apr 21, 2006 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sack up and Draw the Line

Where are you going to draw the line? Sack up and draw a line man instead of saying "well these guys are great athletes, it's ok that they beat their wives, blow games and corrupt the integrity of the game". Sack up and draw a line.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 21, 2006 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thats fine, but

...for the sake of accuracy, they should build a new wing in Cooperstown, next to the Baseball Hall of Fame, and call it the Good Samaritan Baseball Hall of Fame. They can keep all the plaques from 2006 on here. :)

by SmokeyJoeWood on Apr 21, 2006 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh....

I'm not very comfortable holding angry, racist black players (Sheffield) to a different standard than we hold angry, racist white players (Cobb).

by NBarnes on Apr 21, 2006 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kidding?

Are you kidding? We already DO!
It's Ok for a black guy to blast a white guy (cuz, y'know, we're all the sons of slave owners anyway and we deserve it) because of his race, but turn the tables around and you'll be chased out of the game.

As far as Cobb v. Sheffield goes... like I said before, just because a certain behaviour was acceptable almost a century ago, doesn't mean it should be acceptable today. We live in a different era and holding higher standards of behaviour is one of the things that demonstrates we've advanced as a civilization.
That and free porn on the net.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 21, 2006 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

please stop

What's the whole "never forget" call about if not slavery, the holocaust, etc. History matters. And while you may disagree with one black man's appeal, it's not ok to mock. Please stop.

by Azteca on Apr 22, 2006 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stop?

Why? I'm sick of being held responsible for something that happened over a century before I was born and decades before any of my family even came to this country.
History does matter, but the present matters more. Get over yourselves.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Apr 22, 2006 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

have you been accused?

Did Shef single you out or something?

by sabernar on Apr 22, 2006 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

don't bring that to me

I didn't say crap about Cobb in my post and you tell me that I support Cobb over Sheffield because he is white.

I think you should take a look at the different cultural standards not only in the US at different time periods, but the rest of the world for that matter.

The US is one of the only countries that color matters. I guess I am way off base because I am some stupid white guy typing at a computer?Right?

I suggest you think about what you say, then look if you are talking to me, then make sure it makes sence before you come at me with this garbage.

I am tired of giving an opinion on a question that is asked then people questioning things I never said.

Stick to the baseball, baseball guys.

You bring the juice. I'll bring the ginick, Pam Minick!

by Shamus on Apr 23, 2006 3:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boston

Um...it might seem it from my responses in here, but I'm not a big Sheff fan. As my name belies, I'm a Mets fan, no love lost with Yanks or Braves (or Dodgers for that matter). Thing is, those Boston fans were getting might physical prior to him touching them at all.. Cameras caught it. And all he did was shove them awau. So, I think the "he beat up a fan argument" is pretty poor.

by MontrealMets on Apr 22, 2006 4:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seems to me.

There are two valid arguments against Sheff being a HOF-er:

Steroids.

Throwing games.

Anyone who takes steroids should be ineligible for the HOF. They were against the rules of MLB when he took them. This should be a no-brainer.

And anyone who throws games in any way should not be allowed in. A couple of times in the past, when he's been faced not even with having a bad contract but just not having an option picked up or his contract not being picked up, he's dogged it.

by abbreviatedman on Apr 21, 2006 1:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

MLB rules

"Anyone who takes steroids should be ineligible for the HOF. They were against the rules of MLB when he took them. This should be a no-brainer."

Well then, we better start tossing a bunch of plaques. Anyone who ever threw an illegal pitch, used a corked bat, anything against MLB rules. If roids are such a no-brainer, there needs to be some serious house cleaning in Cooperstown.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Apr 21, 2006 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think,

and this is just my opinion (obviously), that just because guys got in in the past who cheated doesn't mean that we should allow guys who cheat in now. That seems like pretty poor logic to me, allowing the mistakes of the past to repeat.

To me, the only question is whether you should go back and try to take people out, but that kind of witch hunt seems way too negative to me. Once you're in, you're in. But that doesn't mean that we should let cheaters in in the future.

by abbreviatedman on Apr 21, 2006 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

18 years in the majors as a RF and he has less than 2500 hits and less than 450 home runs.

by ian on Apr 21, 2006 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Position

He's only been in RF for about 11 years. He spent a year and a half at short, and another 3 it 3B before moving to the outfield. Personally, however, I still think he needs another good year or two to get in. When a player's only contribution is with his bat, that bat better have done something special. I don't think you can say he was ever one of the 5 most dominant hitters in baseball (maybe in '96, but that's about it), so his peak better be real long to compensate for those two flaws...

"If there wasn't nine guys out in the field, I'd have a hit every time except when I strike out." - Delmon Young

by Brickhaus on Apr 21, 2006 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dominance

He was considered (wrongly, but not by much) the most dominant hitter in the league for most of 1992. There was talk of triple crowns and all that. Nobody remembers that because right after that 1993 happened and 33 homers has never looked like much ever since.

And you'd be hard-pressed to find 5 more dominant hitters than Sheff in 2000. Or 2001, or 2003. Add to that that he's had a 130 OPS+ or better in 13 of the last 14 seasons, while not missing a lot of games, and I'd say he's done everything he needs to do with that bat.

by mandamin on Apr 22, 2006 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd say

that despite my arguments above about steroids, if you just look at the numbers, the guy's in easy. .297/.399/.527, OPS+ of 146 over an 18-year span is quite impressive. Figure he'll play for at least three more years and he'll hit 500 HRs easily.

I still hope the voters don't let him in, though.

by abbreviatedman on Apr 21, 2006 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

> 450 HR

Actually, he has 452 HR, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. And if he keep going for another year he should have 500 HR.

by sabernar on Apr 22, 2006 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No on HOF

I'd leave him out based on the steroid factor. Unlike Bonds, he's not a HOF player without the steroids. Just look at his numbers before and after 1999.

This whole throwing away one game thing is nonsense. He was a jerk and will always be one. So are dozens of players. The fact that he made an error intentionally to lose one regular season game just so that he could get traded is pretty reprehensible. But, so are players who knowingly show up to games drunk or whatever that could easily compromise their team that day. Does Hack Wilson belong in the HOF? This notion that the throwing incident should keep him out is laughable. I guess Manny Ramirez being benched for a couple of games a couple of years ago because of the Enrique Wilson incident should keep him out? Did he compromise his team by not adhering to team wishes? Yes. Should it keep him out of the HOF? Hell no. C'mon... this is laughable.

I'm not excusing him. To think he's Pete Rose or the Black Sox is over the top. Let's get some perspective here.

by jc3 on Apr 21, 2006 5:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

'99?

What are you talking about his numbers before and after '99? His OPS has stayed pretty consistent. He had four years with an OPS over .900, along with some seriously injury marred seasons (as John said), prior to '99. Some years in horrendous lineups (in Florida). The only full season he's had below .870 OPS is his first full season. '99 is no dividing line.

by MontrealMets on Apr 22, 2006 4:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Helena

I found it funny that his first year of pro ball was in Helen, Montana. I've been to Helena, and I can only imagine what that was like from a kid from a "bad neighbourhood" in Tampa. LOL

by GregJP on Apr 21, 2006 5:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

HoF numbers

Shef's numbers from baseballreference.com:

Black Ink: Batting - 4 (396) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 118 (163) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 57.7 (34) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 132.0 (96) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

by sabernar on Apr 22, 2006 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Helena

I visited Helena a couple years after Sheffield did as Brewer property in 1992.

I don't know if it still exists, but the field back then wasn't a tremendous stadium like most today are used to when they visit a minor league game. Beyond left field (left field line) there is a two story yellow house. Not pale yellow, but canary yellow. Well back in the day Sheffield pulled a Crash Davis and a six pack or two down climbed up the 1st roof and painted a huge (like 10-12') old Milwaukee Brewer logo up there in royal blue paint. You could still see the outline where they tried to paint over it when I was there.

I don't know if it was true, but it was pretty funny. Kenny Felder hit a couple off of that house so it was reachable by human beings.

"Strikeouts are good...groundballs are better. Home runs are okay...but walks SUCK!" Mike Caldwell

by Torncuff on Apr 22, 2006 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sheff

i thought he owned up to using roids that were given to him by bonds' trainer... i could be wrong on that but thats what i remember...it was an interview for espn or something

by johnstjc on Apr 22, 2006 6:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sure

but what he doesn't say is that when him and Bonds were no longer friends he went back to Bonds trainer for more steroids. And blamed the whole thing on Bonds tricking him.

I don't like Bonds. But I hate Sheff & Palmeiro much more. Both of them are blaming others. Sheff trying to blame Bonds. Palmeiro even worse blamed a teammate in Tejada during the season.

by pedrophile on Apr 23, 2006 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs