USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
- Thread starter GreatLakerMohawk
- Start date
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
No no... Today kingman would be encouraged to take a pitch every now and then while then he was learned to put the ball in play.
I always bring up how Teddy was killed in the Boston papers for taking a close pitch and preferring a walk to trying to force a swing. Seems silly to us how he was considered selfish and thought to be doing it to protect his average.
No no... Today kingman would be encouraged to take a pitch every now and then while then he was learned to put the ball in play.
I always bring up how Teddy was killed in the Boston papers for taking a close pitch and preferring a walk to trying to force a swing. Seems silly to us how he was considered selfish and thought to be doing it to protect his average.
Terrierbyassociation
Fight Cancer, Wherever You Find It
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Kingman was encouraged to take a pitch back then, even as Frenchy is encouraged to do so now but he's not changing anything.
And regarding Teddy Ballgame, the guy who interviewed me for a job a couple of months ago would tell you Teddy wasn't walking to help the team he really was that selfish.
Kingman was encouraged to take a pitch back then, even as Frenchy is encouraged to do so now but he's not changing anything.
And regarding Teddy Ballgame, the guy who interviewed me for a job a couple of months ago would tell you Teddy wasn't walking to help the team he really was that selfish.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Non-PED McGwire had an OPS+ of 143 from from 1986 to 1994. That's on par with Harmon Killebrew and Eddie Matthews, and ahead of plenty of other Hall of Famers. Batting average is a tremendously poor representation of a hitter's value yet you keep on citing it as if it were the be-all-end-all.over 1989-90-91, mac hit .231 .235 .201 (which were his 3rd, 4th, and 5th full seasons). his manager kept him on the bench at the end of the year in 91 to prevent him from having to carry the humiliation of batting under the mendoza line on his baseball card. (and even with his superior walk totals the obp was only 339, 370, and 330 - one good year of three)
if we are just comparing 'good' to 'mediocre', i wouldn't have bothered -- but i thought you were calling the non-cheating mac hof worthy (which pedro is, vs pascual, who ain't). very different analogy
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
I cited it as being on par with Dave kingman.
Mac WAS Dave kingman with more walks. You though appear to be citing walks as the be all end all to making the hof, because that single item is the only difference between the two players there.
I cited it as being on par with Dave kingman.
Mac WAS Dave kingman with more walks. You though appear to be citing walks as the be all end all to making the hof, because that single item is the only difference between the two players there.
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Why is it every Poindexter backed into a corner on stats obsession reflexively whips out the "oh, you just don't understand". See, in my case, its not that I don't think you people understand, I think you're elevating your favorite stats above all others to reach ridiculous conclusions, all in the name of being 'contrary to conventional wisdom' which apparently is some sort of badge of honor, even if you're wrong about the particular issue (JD Drew 3rd best hitting OF in the league for example).
RBI's, and runs, are the most direct stats that measure the goal of the real life game, not the fantasy league game - which is scoring runs. What part of that do you not agree with?
Regarding walks, walks are not as valuable as singles. Why? Name me a time when somebody drove in the runner from second with a walk? How about from 3rd base in a non-bases loaded situation? Or a runner went from 1st to 3rd on a walk?
See, baseball is not a computer simulation. Assigning point values for on base % does not get you awarded the World Series. The sooner you guys figure that out the better.
Kep - that's dependent on whether they've left their parents house by age 28, as 90% of them haven't yet. I'm not sure too many women are interested in a 28 year old living at home virgin who wants to spend all his time in the basement crunching fantasy league statistical info.
Why is it every Poindexter backed into a corner on stats obsession reflexively whips out the "oh, you just don't understand". See, in my case, its not that I don't think you people understand, I think you're elevating your favorite stats above all others to reach ridiculous conclusions, all in the name of being 'contrary to conventional wisdom' which apparently is some sort of badge of honor, even if you're wrong about the particular issue (JD Drew 3rd best hitting OF in the league for example).
RBI's, and runs, are the most direct stats that measure the goal of the real life game, not the fantasy league game - which is scoring runs. What part of that do you not agree with?
Regarding walks, walks are not as valuable as singles. Why? Name me a time when somebody drove in the runner from second with a walk? How about from 3rd base in a non-bases loaded situation? Or a runner went from 1st to 3rd on a walk?
See, baseball is not a computer simulation. Assigning point values for on base % does not get you awarded the World Series. The sooner you guys figure that out the better.
And the nerd gets the pretty girl in the end. Just like real life*. Money > muscles.
(* they don't wake up until they're 28. But they do.)
Kep - that's dependent on whether they've left their parents house by age 28, as 90% of them haven't yet. I'm not sure too many women are interested in a 28 year old living at home virgin who wants to spend all his time in the basement crunching fantasy league statistical info.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Walks are not as good as some singles with a runners on base, but they are still better than an out. A walk is equal to a single more often than not, either because the runner(s) wouldn't have advanced more than a base anyway or because no one was on base at the time.
That said, I wish the stat geeks would turn to football for awhile rather than remaining fixated on baseball. I'd love to see a major college or pro team try out the "always go for it on 4th down" strategy, because the numbers say it should be beneficial: by always going for it, you have more options on 2nd and 3rd down than you otherwise would, and the benefits of keeping your offense on the field more often outweighs the field position considerations if you turn it over on downs.
Walks are not as good as some singles with a runners on base, but they are still better than an out. A walk is equal to a single more often than not, either because the runner(s) wouldn't have advanced more than a base anyway or because no one was on base at the time.
That said, I wish the stat geeks would turn to football for awhile rather than remaining fixated on baseball. I'd love to see a major college or pro team try out the "always go for it on 4th down" strategy, because the numbers say it should be beneficial: by always going for it, you have more options on 2nd and 3rd down than you otherwise would, and the benefits of keeping your offense on the field more often outweighs the field position considerations if you turn it over on downs.
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
unofan,
I'm not dismissive of walks. I just don't elevate them to the same status as hits, or above hits as some people seem to do. I do think as I've said repeatedly a lot depends on what your role is on the team.
These conversations always amuse me as I'm sure a lot of you can tell
but I keep seeing the same themes. Stat people are trying mightly to turn a team game into and individual one, and you can't do that with baseball. Its impossible to find a worthwhile stat that strips out all of the team element to a player's numbers. In a sport with sacrafices, hit and runs, protecting the runner, RBI flyouts & ground outs, etc any player who participates in these activities is penalized in the fantasy league world as opposed to a more selfish player who looks great.
This leads to my second observation, which is has anybody else noticed its always the people who were too young to see a player's career telling the people who did see him play that they don't know what they're talking about.
unofan,
I'm not dismissive of walks. I just don't elevate them to the same status as hits, or above hits as some people seem to do. I do think as I've said repeatedly a lot depends on what your role is on the team.
These conversations always amuse me as I'm sure a lot of you can tell
but I keep seeing the same themes. Stat people are trying mightly to turn a team game into and individual one, and you can't do that with baseball. Its impossible to find a worthwhile stat that strips out all of the team element to a player's numbers. In a sport with sacrafices, hit and runs, protecting the runner, RBI flyouts & ground outs, etc any player who participates in these activities is penalized in the fantasy league world as opposed to a more selfish player who looks great. This leads to my second observation, which is has anybody else noticed its always the people who were too young to see a player's career telling the people who did see him play that they don't know what they're talking about.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
That's how humor works, right?
Has anybody ever noticed that people use "I saw him play and you didn't" to justify any assertion, no matter how unfounded, as well as a dismissive attitude towards anyone who might disagree with those assertions?This leads to my second observation, which is has anybody else noticed its always the people who were too young to see a player's career telling the people who did see him play that they don't know what they're talking about.
Your jokes keep getting funnier and funnier the more you repeat them.Kep - that's dependent on whether they've left their parents house by age 28, as 90% of them haven't yet. I'm not sure too many women are interested in a 28 year old living at home virgin who wants to spend all his time in the basement crunching fantasy league statistical info.
That's how humor works, right?
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Examples jmh please. Because on the "dismissive" scale, how about wins, RBI's, batting average, and runs, all of which the stats people have decided in their infinite wisdom don't matter. Much like watching a guy play during his career.
What I am saying, just to be clear, is that a strictly statistical analysis of a player DOES NOT count for more than watching him play multiple times, nor can you make AS ACCURATE an assessment by only looking a stat book instead of having the benefit of both the stats and a visual memory of the players' performance over time.
The reason why statsnerds get made fun of so much is the idea that they have created a standard by which the human element for both players and those observing the players no longer matters. This coming from generally a bunch of people in their late teens or early 20's.
Look, I'm an arrogant guy. I was even worse in my early 20's if you can believe that. But, even at that time, I would never think of telling some old time Yankees fan that I knew more about Mickey Mantle than they did. That would be ridiculous. Anybody who's had the good fortune to watch him play and then wants to do a comparison between him and say Pujols is a person who's opinion I will value more than someone who's never watched either of them, but wants to strictly do a WAR comparison and declare that their conclusion is unimpeachable.
Examples jmh please. Because on the "dismissive" scale, how about wins, RBI's, batting average, and runs, all of which the stats people have decided in their infinite wisdom don't matter.
Much like watching a guy play during his career. What I am saying, just to be clear, is that a strictly statistical analysis of a player DOES NOT count for more than watching him play multiple times, nor can you make AS ACCURATE an assessment by only looking a stat book instead of having the benefit of both the stats and a visual memory of the players' performance over time.
The reason why statsnerds get made fun of so much is the idea that they have created a standard by which the human element for both players and those observing the players no longer matters. This coming from generally a bunch of people in their late teens or early 20's.
Look, I'm an arrogant guy. I was even worse in my early 20's if you can believe that.
But, even at that time, I would never think of telling some old time Yankees fan that I knew more about Mickey Mantle than they did. That would be ridiculous. Anybody who's had the good fortune to watch him play and then wants to do a comparison between him and say Pujols is a person who's opinion I will value more than someone who's never watched either of them, but wants to strictly do a WAR comparison and declare that their conclusion is unimpeachable.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
You don't get RBIs when you bat 9th either. If you want to use runs and RBIs as a proxy of how much the team thought player X is valuable then by all means, do so and accept it as such. Don't tell me that runs and RBIs are going to truely answer the question of talent.
Oh, Rover, if you haven't noticed, I don't give a rip about being conventional or being counter-culture. I don't know what half of these exotic baseball stat formulations are... I'd only guess at the definition of OPS. I want the most efficient information which describes the situation and its importance. Most of these new generation baseball stats try to measure a player on his own standing and try to remove outside influences. The only thing that keeps true baseball from being a result of "God's simulation" is psychological factors and physiological factors (illness, fatigure, etc.).
Why is it every Poindexter backed into a corner on stats obsession reflexively whips out the "oh, you just don't understand". See, in my case, its not that I don't think you people understand, I think you're elevating your favorite stats above all others to reach ridiculous conclusions, all in the name of being 'contrary to conventional wisdom' which apparently is some sort of badge of honor, even if you're wrong about the particular issue (JD Drew 3rd best hitting OF in the league for example).
RBI's, and runs, are the most direct stats that measure the goal of the real life game, not the fantasy league game - which is scoring runs. What part of that do you not agree with?
Regarding walks, walks are not as valuable as singles. Why? Name me a time when somebody drove in the runner from second with a walk? How about from 3rd base in a non-bases loaded situation? Or a runner went from 1st to 3rd on a walk?
See, baseball is not a computer simulation. Assigning point values for on base % does not get you awarded the World Series. The sooner you guys figure that out the better.
You don't get RBIs when you bat 9th either. If you want to use runs and RBIs as a proxy of how much the team thought player X is valuable then by all means, do so and accept it as such. Don't tell me that runs and RBIs are going to truely answer the question of talent.
Oh, Rover, if you haven't noticed, I don't give a rip about being conventional or being counter-culture. I don't know what half of these exotic baseball stat formulations are... I'd only guess at the definition of OPS. I want the most efficient information which describes the situation and its importance. Most of these new generation baseball stats try to measure a player on his own standing and try to remove outside influences. The only thing that keeps true baseball from being a result of "God's simulation" is psychological factors and physiological factors (illness, fatigure, etc.).
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Rover, if you saw someone play every single game of his career, and saw every at bat and play he made in the field, and have the ability to recount them all from memory, then you have a point. Otherwise, you're a raving lunatic.
Rover, if you saw someone play every single game of his career, and saw every at bat and play he made in the field, and have the ability to recount them all from memory, then you have a point. Otherwise, you're a raving lunatic.
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Sorry, but that's nerdspeak. Much like you don't have to poll every single person in an area to get a sense of how they feel on an issue, you likewise do not need to view every single at bat of a guy's career.
The situation we are in now however is that the guys coming up for HOF eligibility are the very same ones who I watched play the most as their careers spanned my prime baseball watching years. So, I can write from experience. If someone starts a who's better: Koufax or Gibson debate, I'm not going to jump in both guns blazing because I wasn't around during their careers. Somebody telling me who was born the year he retired that Rice was the worst defensive LF in baseball and therefore he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall is an idiot, and will get treated as such as I can assess from memory pretty easily how good or bad a fielder he was based on the hundreds of games of his that I watched.
Sorry, but that's nerdspeak. Much like you don't have to poll every single person in an area to get a sense of how they feel on an issue, you likewise do not need to view every single at bat of a guy's career.
The situation we are in now however is that the guys coming up for HOF eligibility are the very same ones who I watched play the most as their careers spanned my prime baseball watching years. So, I can write from experience. If someone starts a who's better: Koufax or Gibson debate, I'm not going to jump in both guns blazing because I wasn't around during their careers. Somebody telling me who was born the year he retired that Rice was the worst defensive LF in baseball and therefore he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall is an idiot, and will get treated as such as I can assess from memory pretty easily how good or bad a fielder he was based on the hundreds of games of his that I watched.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Nerdspeak or not, you're still a raving lunatic.
Nerdspeak or not, you're still a raving lunatic.
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Notice I didn't argue with that point.
Nerdspeak or not, you're still a raving lunatic.
Notice I didn't argue with that point.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
And while we're at it, why should anyone put much emphasis on batting average if OPS (for example) is available and correlates so much better with actually scoring runs? The difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is that I have reasons for being dismissive of player stats like RBI and runs and wins and batting average (that's as opposed to runs and wins as team stats), whereas when someone pulls something out that you don't like you just fall back on the same tired crap about "nerdspeak" or whatever else.
But why make an evaluation based on possibly flawed recollection (we're talking about things that happened years ago) of a limited sample size (because it's not like anybody who's discussed this watched all or, likely, even half, of any player's games), when we can look at things through a lens that actually DOES take into account every single at bat of a guy's career?
And while we're at it, why should anyone put much emphasis on batting average if OPS (for example) is available and correlates so much better with actually scoring runs? The difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is that I have reasons for being dismissive of player stats like RBI and runs and wins and batting average (that's as opposed to runs and wins as team stats), whereas when someone pulls something out that you don't like you just fall back on the same tired crap about "nerdspeak" or whatever else.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class
Perhaps because at the time the players in question were playing, batting average, runs, and RBIs were the metrics people used to judge said players. If the sport didn't emphasize walks, and indeed managers, media, etc. frowned upon them as "selfish," then doesn't a metric that emphasiszes walks (like OPS) kinda paint a distorted view? Isn't it a bit like looking at the Ming Dynasty through 21st Century American eyes and trying to judge them by our own values?
The game evolves, and the metrics involved evolve with them. But who's to say that some .260, 40 HR, 110 RBI guy from 1980 couldn't have traded power for on-base percentage if he'd played in an era that valued walks more? That, in my mind, is why personal knowledge sometimes has insight the numbers don't.
Perhaps because at the time the players in question were playing, batting average, runs, and RBIs were the metrics people used to judge said players. If the sport didn't emphasize walks, and indeed managers, media, etc. frowned upon them as "selfish," then doesn't a metric that emphasiszes walks (like OPS) kinda paint a distorted view? Isn't it a bit like looking at the Ming Dynasty through 21st Century American eyes and trying to judge them by our own values?
The game evolves, and the metrics involved evolve with them. But who's to say that some .260, 40 HR, 110 RBI guy from 1980 couldn't have traded power for on-base percentage if he'd played in an era that valued walks more? That, in my mind, is why personal knowledge sometimes has insight the numbers don't.
Last edited: