HOF: Who Gets In Today?

[Thump]

Thump: "Do you think that the fact Donnie Baseball was on shitty teams has something to do with his not getting more love for the HOF?"

Yes and no. Mattingly's career totals don't justify election to the HOF. Period. He's my favorite athlete of all time, and I'm the first person to say that.

However, going back to Bucktastic's example, what's the difference between Mattingly and Puckett? They have almost identical career numbers, they were both great players whose careers were cut short by injury, so what's the difference when one is a 1st ballot inductee and the other won't make it?

Its gotta be the fact that Kirby played on two World Series teams, had a walk-off WS home run, and played in two classic 7-game WS. That's the only difference I can see ..

"BTW, you do realize you can quote someone really easy by highlighting their text and just clicking on the quotation box icon on the top of the screen?"

Yes. I prefer to do it this way.

One thing I can't figure out about you is you talk against Yankee players an awful lot for being such a homer, this thread and the AL MVP thread are a few examples I can think of.

The one thing I will remember from now on when discussing baseball with you is something you said, something to the affect of, "I think with my heart not my head."

You realize you're not the most fun guy to get into a discussion with b/c you never admit any fault in your reasoning or rationale.

 

[Brutus1]

If I ever change my mind about kids and marriage, I .

Read: If I can find a woman that will take me.






:) just a little joke.


Mattingly was the one Yankee you always liked. No matter how 'evil' the Yankees were, he was just a great player to watch.

 

[Sloopy45]

Thump: "One thing I can't figure out about you is you talk against Yankee players an awful lot for being such a homer"

That's the way New York fans are. We love the team, but we criticize adamently when its justified. I actually thought the opposite of what you're saying when I first got to college and would get into baseball conversations with Indians and Reds fans: I could never figure out why they never criticized their own team, and everything (no matter how bad) was just hunky-dory.

That's why guys like Ed Whitson, Rainbow Trout, Jeff Weaver, etc. got run out of NY. Its more the constant criticism of the fans more than the media.

There are a lot of guys who are beyond reproach and will never get criticized: Donny, Jeter, the Great Mariano, David Cone, Paul O'Neill, Bernie, etc. but everyone else is fair game.

"You realize you're not the most fun guy to get into a discussion with b/c you never admit any fault in your reasoning or rationale."

Nah, dude - I fully admit that my bias towards the Yanks and the AL skewes my rationale big time. But that's the way things are.

I also have my own views on baseball: for example, getting back to our previous discussion, I HATE the idea of the "Compiler" getting all the love from the HOF. I'm big on awards, accolades, and kudos being dumped on a player for his Prime years, not for the years when he hung on. I also love to look at and analyze stats, but I don't think stats tell anything when measuring a player.

 

[Thump]

Thump: "One thing I can't figure out about you is you talk against Yankee players an awful lot for being such a homer"

That's the way New York fans are. We love the team, but we criticize adamently when its justified. I actually thought the opposite of what you're saying when I first got to college and would get into baseball conversations with Indians and Reds fans: I could never figure out why they never criticized their own team, and everything (no matter how bad) was just hunky-dory.

That's why guys like Ed Whitson, Rainbow Trout, Jeff Weaver, etc. got run out of NY. Its more the constant criticism of the fans more than the media.

There are a lot of guys who are beyond reproach and will never get criticized: Donny, Jeter, the Great Mariano, David Cone, Paul O'Neill, Bernie, etc. but everyone else is fair game.

"You realize you're not the most fun guy to get into a discussion with b/c you never admit any fault in your reasoning or rationale."

Nah, dude - I fully admit that my bias towards the Yanks and the AL skewes my rationale big time. But that's the way things are.

I also have my own views on baseball: for example, getting back to our previous discussion, I HATE the idea of the "Compiler" getting all the love from the HOF. I'm big on awards, accolades, and kudos being dumped on a player for his Prime years, not for the years when he hung on. I also love to look at and analyze stats, but I don't think stats tell anything when measuring a player.

I appreciate your honesty but just wanted to let you know that may be why a lot of your discussions end up in pissing contests.

But hey, at least you admit it.

 

[AKAK]

I also have my own views on baseball: for example, getting back to our previous discussion, I HATE the idea of the "Compiler" getting all the love from the HOF. I'm big on awards, accolades, and kudos being dumped on a player for his Prime years, not for the years when he hung on. I also love to look at and analyze stats, but I don't think stats tell anything when measuring a player.

This is that subjective problem of "I know greatness when I see it"

Then the problem is, how long does that "greatness" need to last? ie the "prime years?"

3? 5? 7? And what's a great year?

Top 5 in your league major categories, Top 10?

(I'm really starting to look down on the number of MVP's, Cy Youngs, or more specifically, lack there of... ie, I have a problem when baseball writers say, "I'm not voting for you for the hall of fame because you didn't win the MVP-- which I also didn't vote for you for."

I'm torn on compilers, because there is a body of work component...

fwiw, I was not happy about Puckett.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I have a an easy solution for those of you who don't like "compilers".....
quit paying attention to counting stats.

If two players have a comparable sample siaze of AB's look at the stat lines that actually tell you something not doubles, RBI's etc.

Also take out the bullshit about "if player x would have stayed healthy" There are so many guys who injury robbed of a super career its just not even funny.

Thirdly in the WC vs Dm debate what about ballparks? Mattingly played his career in a left handers dream park, WC played the majority of his in freakin Candlestick.

I hated Clark as a person and liked mattingly but when you look at this there is no way you can honestly say DM was "way, way, way" better than Clark unless you are just prone to making widley hyperbolic statements born out of blind homerisim(Sloop).

BA/OBP/SLG/OPS

Will Clark: 7,173 AB's .303/.384/.497/.881

Don Mattingly: 7,003 AB's .307/.358/.471/.829

If I'm the GM of a team today and I have the choice between player A with Clarks stat line and player B with Mattingly's I honestly would take player A although both were obviously fine players.

 

[Brutus1]

Which one had the better glove?

 

[Thump]

Which one had the better glove?

Definitely Mattingly.

 

[Sloopy45]

Jax: "Thirdly in the WC vs Dm debate what about ballparks? Mattingly played his career in a left handers dream park, WC played the majority of his in freakin Candlestick."

Will Clark played his last seven seasons in the Ballpark at Arlington and Camden Yards in stacked line-ups. Clark posted 2 of his 3 best Averages in those seasons, and was able to hang on in those stadiums to allow his lifetime numbers to creep up to Donnie. Mattingly played most of the twilight of his career on a last place team with Mel Hall and a washed up Jesse Barfield behind him. There's the difference.

But I forgot. Baseball is played in a vaacum and the only thing that matters is OPS.

"I hated Clark as a person and liked mattingly but when you look at this there is no way you can honestly say DM was "way, way, way" better than Clark unless you are just prone to making widley hyperbolic statements born out of blind homerisim(Sloop)."

That's not blind homerism. In the long term, yes, both men's career numbers ended up being similar. In their primes, Clark wasn't even in the same galaxy as Mattingly. Period. Look at the RBIs. Look at the Batting Averages. Look at the Hit Totals. Its not even close. One guy was the best player in baseball in his prime, and the other was (maybe) a Top 10 player in the NL in his prime.

But I forgot. Baseball is played in a vaacum and the only thing that matters is OPS.

 

[Jaxbuck]

OPS is not the only thing that matters but it is the single best indicator of offensive prowress. I know it you hate to hear it but I've never seen you offer any sensible alternative.

Unless the line about looking at BA and RBI's is your idea of how to measure it. It wouldn't suprise me, its the stats youve been told are important since tee ball.

 

[Sloopy45]

Jax: "OPS is not the only thing that matters but it is the single best indicator of offensive prowress. I know it you hate to hear it but I've never seen you offer any sensible alternative."

First off, as I've said many times: stats are not the be-all, end-all. They're fun to look at, but they do squat in measuring a player.

Secondly, while OBS is an important stat, it has one fatal flaw: its inflated for players that walk more!! For example, in Ichiro's rookie year, he slapped the phenomenal total of 242 hits, but wasn't in the AL Top 10 in OBP because he only walked 30 times. He finished with an OBP of .381, even though he was on base via hit or walk 272 times that season. By comparison, Carlos Delgado was on-base via hit or walk 271 times that season, but boasted a .408 OBP (5th in the AL) with 160 hits and 111 BB. Think about that mathmatically: if you get on base via base hit, your OBP would be LESS than a player who walked in that same exact situation.

And I don't have to tell you that a hit is a lot more important than a walk: it might be an Extra Base Hit. Could be an RBI. Could lead to an error to put you in scoring position.

This is a perfect example of the disparity in the Will Clark-Don Mattingly discussion. Clark walked much more than Donnie, even though Donnie stroked way more hits (and way more Extra Base Hits) than The Thrill. That's why his OBP was higher. Plain and simple.

And Slugging Pct is a cool stat to look at, but it means two things: jack and shit. It is also skewed by the walk. In 1998, Mark McGwire slugged 70 home runs and finished with a .752 SLG. In 2002, Barry Bonds slugged 46 Home Runs (24 less than the Big Andro), but finished with a .799 SLG, approximately 50 points HIGHER than McGwire. Why you ask?? Because Bonds walked 198 times and only finished with 403 ABs, compared with McGwire's 509 in '98.

And lets look at the difference here: in the 100 or so ABs that seperate Barr-roid and the Sultan of Intravenus Shot, obviously Bonds walked. But, in 25% of those 100 ABs, McGwire hit a home run. McGwire ended up scoring 130 runs that season for his team, 13 more than Barr-Roid's 117 in 2002. McGwire also drove in 147 Runs, 37 more than Barr-Roid's total of 110. So McGwire, while Slugging 50 points LESS, accounted for 50 more runs for the Cardinals.

In your on-going rationale, you offer nothing but constant Player A has a .400 OBP/.700 SLG/1.100 OPS vs Player B's .388 OBP/.612 SLG/1.00 OPS, therefore A > B with no grey area. You completely ignore RBI's or hitting prowess of any kind.

Given that the above analysis will not be understood, I completely concede and declare that Player A of the 1.100 OPS is > Player B of the 1.000 OPS. No need to have any more discussions about baseball when we have the absolute measuring stick of OPS.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Inflated for players that walk more?? By far the dumbest thing I've heard yet.

The fundamental job of a hitter when he comes to the plate is to not make an out. You only get 27 outs in a game, give me enough guys who excell at not making them and we'll score some runs.

The second most important thing is to do damage when he hits it. Give me some guys who mash the ball after the guys get on base in front of them and we'll score even more runs.


OBP takes care of #1

SLG takes care of #2

OPS takes them together and tells you pretty much who the better offensive player is and any saber type will tell you OBP is by far the more important of the two components.

Runs scored and RBI's tell you what kind of team the guy was on and are nice counting stats. You can't project from them due to their dependence on the team. IE you take Pujols and put him in KC and his RBI/Run production is gonna dip his BA/OBP/SLG/OPS line will not change dramatically. He's still Pujols but he'll be lucky to have 100 RBI. Does that mean he started sucking in your book, or that the rest of the team blows?

The reason OPS type stats are such a sore spot for you is that it puts facts in the way of your opinions.

And by the way if stats tell you "squat' about a player why in the fuck do they keep them? What do you use to compare them? Height?

 

[Thump]

Inflated for players that walk more?? By far the dumbest thing I've heard yet?

Couldn't agree more, Sloopy if you've ever played any lick of competitive ball you know you are a horse's ass for saying such nonsense.

A walk is like a single, plain and simple. And yes, you can get RBI's with walks.

I had games where I drew 4 walks and I was more happy than games where maybe I went 2 for 4. It's not easy drawing a walk and it shows that you are a disciplined hitter. Clark had freaking 20-15 or 20-10 vision for crying out loud, and he used it to his advantage to draw more walks.

Discussing issues with you is like talking to an irrational, bitchy wife.

 

[Sloopy45]

Thump: "A walk is like a single, plain and simple. And yes, you can get RBI's with walks."

A walk is not a single. A walk is a walk. Putting the ball in play is something completely different. In all your years of 'competitive ball' did you ever hit a single that was bobbled or got by the OF so that you could reach 2nd? Didn't think so .. and how many RBIs did you get via the BB with a base open? Apparently, you must've come up every time with the bases loaded.

Of a star hitters say, 100 RBIs during the course of a season, how many are driven in via the walk, maybe 3?

But, if you read my post without acting like an incoherent, you would realize that the point of my post was not to diminsh the walk, but to point out that OBP & SLG favor the hitter who gets on base via the walk rather than the base hit.

Apparently, all those years of 'competitive ball' kept you out of the Arithmetic classroom. Or, they didn't teach you how to keep stats.

Lets say we have Player A who went 4 for 10, with two singles, a double, and a HR. Player A has a .400 OBP (4/10).

Now, Player B got on base 4 times with 2 BBs and 2 singles in 10 plate appearences, which counts as 8 ABs. Player B's OBP is .500 (4/8).

Same amount of times on base in the same amount of plate appearences, but B's OBP is 100 points higher.

I don't know if you're thick or just plain stupid. I'm begining to think the latter. Either that, or you can't comprehend a post that lasts longer than one run-on sentence.

 

[osugrad21]

ching...ching...ching...ching