2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

[SJHovey]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

There are too many words in this thread.

No. The primary problem with this thread, and most discussions about HOF eligibility, is that people want to base it upon numbers. It really should be like obscene porn, you know it when you see it.

 

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

No. The primary problem with this thread, and most discussions about HOF eligibility, is that people want to base it upon numbers. It really should be like obscene porn, you know it when you see it.

The problem with that is, some people's idea on what obscene porn is in this case is skewed. What if one of the people voting is Amish and obscene porn is catching a glimpse of a bare ankle? Boom - all blow'd up.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

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.

A decades later view of a stats book has no context to it and does not make up for seeing and living in the time that the guy played. All attempts to turn baseball into some sort of video game don't work. Its like saying you know what its like to see combat because you played Call to Duty or whatever on your playstation.

The biggest failing of trying to individualize player stats is it doesn't work for a team sport. The actions a player would take to help the team penalize him by the stats you've elevated as the end-all-be-all. A guy trying to drive in runs, be it thru hits or even making an out, comes out behind a guy looking for walks. RBI's win games directly, as they put runs on the scoreboard. Walks may help, but not necessarily. That's the difference. A .260 hitter jacking up his OPS via walks is something you need to be aware of when looking at this stat. That's why, instead of looking at it individually, look at it in the context of other stats - batting average, RBI's, runs, where the guy is batting, etc. You have to forgive me if I don't find you to be cutting edge on this one.

Regarding OPS vs batting average, here's why batting average is important. You can jack up your OPS with a lot of walks. The problem is, many situations call for a hit, and not a walk as a hit is more valuable for moving runners and driving in runs (again about nobody scoring from second on a walk). When facing a good pitcher who throws strikes and comes after hitters, who would you rather have up, a .260 hitter or a .330 hitter? I'd like the guy with the better chance of hitting safely than someone who's going to keep his bat on his shoulder while the aforementioned good pitcher throws strikes and jumps ahead in the count.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

There are too many words in this thread.

The word/thread ratio is too high, but you're ignoring that the letter/word ratio is much better. Of course, some posters may have used a thesaurus so the numbers are tainted. If not for that would this thread end up in the Hall of Fame? That's a question for revisionist historians.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

The problem with that is, some people's idea on what obscene porn is in this case is skewed. What if one of the people voting is Amish and obscene porn is catching a glimpse of a bare ankle? Boom - all blow'd up.

That's why we appoint judges, and why even if one has a skewed view of the world, you have to trust that community standards will be applied by the majority.

In this case the baseball writers are appointed arbiters of the standards. If I were one, numbers would play a very minor role, and instead I would base it upon my personal observation as to whether the candidate was truly an exceptional player during his time.

 

[TCHB]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

A decades later view of a stats book has no context to it

I hope you know, although I know you don't, how amazingly false this is.

Now, I know I know, no feeding the trolls. But I'm more laughing at how stupid people are. There's a difference.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

I hope you know, although I know you don't, how amazingly false this is.

Now, I know I know, no feeding the trolls. But I'm more laughing at how stupid people are. There's a difference.

Why do you believe Rover's statement that a look back at long ago stats, written down in a book, lacks the context you get from having observed the player actually play, is "amazingly false"?

 

[jmh]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

There are too many words in this thread.

I think this is the thread you were looking for. (And it's on the fourth page, so you should go do something about that.)

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?

That's a fair point, and one I've heard raised before. The fact is, though, that getting on base helps your team score runs, and making outs makes your team less likely to score runs, and scoring runs makes your team more likely to win, and that was just as true in 1965 as it is today. Joe Posnanski touched on this a bit in a post he made today looking at some of the best players in the game from 1970 to today. The paragraph in particular that I'm looking at, in reference to how good Will Clark was from 1987 to 1991:

People often talk about how it can be unfair to judge previous players by today’s standards. But I think it’s unfair that some of the players who did the things that helped teams win baseball games were so under-appreciated. Will Clark had baseball’s best OPS+ from 1987-91 too.

I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure how to reconcile this, though. On the one hand, if it's 1967 and nobody is scoring any runs and a player is told by his coach to bunt or try to ground the ball to the right side with a runner on first base, it's not really fair to hold it against the player for doing what he was told. But on the other hand, outs were valuable in 1967 just like they are today (perhaps more so, given how frequently batters made them), and a player who drew a walk and got that runner to second without risking making one was, without qualification, improving his team's chances of scoring.

Now, obviously he's better off hitting a double in the gap, but a guy who's swinging away might also ground into a double play or pop up - I mean, the risk that those things might happen is the reason why we have "productive outs", based on the assumption that the hitter isn't likely to do something productive (i.e. not make an out) so he may as well do something "productive" (i.e. advance a runner while failing to not make an out).

In conclusion, yes, maybe it is a bit unfair to look at a guy from the 1960s and say "you should've drawn more walks" if that wasn't what he was asked to do. But, I don't think it's any more unfair than to look at a guy like (pulling a name off Posnanski's list) Bobby Grich and say "nobody thought he was a great player when he was playing" and see that result in him getting 11 HoF votes and drop off the ballot in his first year because his skills were underappreciated while he was playing, when, in fact, those skills were objectively tremendously valuable in helping his team win games.

Regarding OPS vs batting average, here's why batting average is important. You can jack up your OPS with a lot of walks. The problem is, many situations call for a hit, and not a walk as a hit is more valuable for moving runners and driving in runs (again about nobody scoring from second on a walk). When facing a good pitcher who throws strikes and comes after hitters, who would you rather have up, a .260 hitter or a .330 hitter? I'd like the guy with the better chance of hitting safely than someone who's going to keep his bat on his shoulder while the aforementioned good pitcher throws strikes and jumps ahead in the count.

I'd rather have a .260 hitter with a .380 OBP than a .330 hitter with a .335 OBP, regardless of who the pitcher is. A good pitcher is going to know that the guy who never draws a walk is going to chase pitches that are up around his eyes and a foot and a half outside, and he's going to use that to get the guy out. Now, look, if we're talking about Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs or Ichiro, the situation is different, but that's because those guys were/are all-time greats with contact skills that put them in the top (say) 5% of all hitters ever. Obviously you'd rather have one of those guys, but then, they all had/have great OBP in addition to great batting average.

And while nobody scores from second on a walk, nobody scores from second if you swing at a ball at the top of your shoes and strike out or hit a weak grounder back to the pitcher either.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

And while nobody scores from second on a walk, nobody scores from second if you swing at a ball at the top of your shoes and strike out or hit a weak grounder back to the pitcher either.

And if you have a high batting average, you're less likely to do this.

Bobby Grich is a good example of what we're saying. Why should we discount the opinion of the people who knew how he was during his playing years, for a revisionist view two decades later by someone who never saw him play? Certainly the people who dismissed his HOF chances were aware of his stats, even if not as extensively as some would like. That's where your analysis is lacking. It says that the people evaluating him in his time were both ignorant of stats (and on base % and slugging % were well known metrics in his day) AND couldn't tell a good player from a great one even if it was staring them in the face for 15-20 years. That makes no sense. Its like second guessing the decision to ban Joe Jackson. What carries more weight, the person who decided right after the time it happened or somebody looking back from 90 years later and thinking that they know better.

 

[jmh]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

And if you have a high batting average, you're less likely to do this.

If you have a lower OBP, by definition you are more likely to do this or make an out in some other way.

Bobby Grich is a good example of what we're saying. Why should we discount the opinion of the people who knew how he was during his playing years, for a revisionist view two decades later by someone who never saw him play?

Because the people who were watching him during his playing years had a worse understanding than we do now of the value of various skills and how those skills result in teams scoring or preventing runs and winning baseball games. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at, for example, the 2009 season summary for the National League, notice that the five teams that scored the most runs were the Phillies, Rockies, Brewers, Dodgers and Marlins, and then notice that they were also the top five in team OPS, and that this was true despite the fact that Philly, Colorado and Milwaukee had mediocre team batting averages. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that this was true in the AL in 2009, nor to notice a similar correlation in both leagues in previous seasons. Simply put, people who believed that high batting average leads to scoring a lot of runs were, at best, oversimplifying the picture.

And regarding Grich in particular, I don't need to have watched him play to know that a 2B who's good in the field, gets on base often, and hits for some power is a very good player. (I don't even think it's a stretch to say that from 1976, when Rod Carew moved to 1B, until 1983, after which Grich started to decline into his mid- and late-30s, he was the best 2B in the AL.) The fact that people didn't recognize it when he was playing because of his low batting average doesn't make it untrue.

 

[TCHB]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Eric Karros is a better hitter than Mickey Mantle because he had more 100 RBI seasons.

That's how it works right?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

On the one hand, if it's 1967 and nobody is scoring any runs and a player is told by his coach to bunt or try to ground the ball to the right side with a runner on first base, it's not really fair to hold it against the player for doing what he was told. But on the other hand, outs were valuable in 1967 just like they are today (perhaps more so, given how frequently batters made them), and a player who drew a walk and got that runner to second without risking making one was, without qualification, improving his team's chances of scoring..

do you think that pitch counts have changed a lot of the base dynamic of how the game is approached.

recently a couple items are counter to this. the great yankee team of the late 90's were known for running up pitch counts. in 2004 mark bellhorn helped the sox win, but was soon dismissed because he stuck out too much.

when you knew you were facing bob gibson, jim palmer or luis tiant. nolan ryan or steve carlton until the game was over, you didn't have the luxury of taking a couple strikes. now you have people wondering if a pitcher with a no hitter will be allowed to continue because he has reached 105 pitches in the 7th inning.

..also interesting that bobby grich, in his two best season (79 & 81) batted 8th a lot. but when he moved to the middle of the order his walks went down---wonder if he thought like rover that as 'that type of hitter' his job was to get the bat on the ball more often than not?

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

do you think that pitch counts have changed a lot of the base dynamic of how the game is approached.

recently a couple items are counter to this. the great yankee team of the late 90's were known for running up pitch counts. in 2004 mark bellhorn helped the sox win, but was soon dismissed because he stuck out too much.

when you knew you were facing bob gibson, jim palmer or luis tiant. nolan ryan or steve carlton until the game was over, you didn't have the luxury of taking a couple strikes. now you have people wondering if a pitcher with a no hitter will be allowed to continue because he has reached 105 pitches in the 7th inning.

..also interesting that bobby grich, in his two best season (79 & 81) batted 8th a lot. but when he moved to the middle of the order his walks went down---wonder if he thought like rover that as 'that type of hitter' his job was to get the bat on the ball more often than not?

First off, pitch counts have changed because there are no hitters anymore to take a break on for starting pitchers. There used to be 4-5 guys every night who weighed 160 pounds soaking wet. Now everyone is jacked, in great shape. There are no hitters to take an at bat off, where you're not throwing your best stuff. If we go back to having almost all the outfielders and middle infielders looking like Juan Pierre...pitch counts might not need to be a big deal.

Secondly, Nolan Ryan is one of the worst guys to mention when hitters couldn't wait for their pitch...the dude was wild as hell. Great fastball but not really a paragon of control. Lots of guys went up against Nolan Ryan hoping to walk.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Lots of guys went up against Nolan Ryan hoping to walk.

yah... because they couldn't see the ball

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

yah... because they couldn't see the ball

That and half the time Nolan Ryan didn't know where the ball was going to go either.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

That and half the time Nolan Ryan didn't know where the ball was going to go either.

but he still wasn't coming out after pitch #95 (my only point)

 

[Patman]

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.

The essence is that you are like a lot of sports writers... you take your opinions based on your gut emotions and some glib figures which reinforce these opinions. Nothing in any of your posts appear to indicate what the "nerds" are missing. Sure you can use a lot of words but you spend most of your time dancing around the point. You seem to emphasize not why you know something better than the rest of us but rather that you know nothing and that you'll do so in a repetitive fashion.

BTW, Rover, the only situations that tend to "call for a hit" are those situations where the next batter is that much more worse than the one currently up... the presumption is that there are one or two outs and you need to score immediately. If I had time I could probably ball park how much worse but then you'll just file it under "nerdity" and move on. Nevertheless if I can do that then so the Red Sox front office (probably enough Wharton people around to make it a Penn extension program... most Ivy League students who are good with numbers should be able to grasp these ideas).

So tell me Rover, why can you count on a guy to gut out a hit. How do you know?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

So tell me Rover, why can you count on a guy to gut out a hit. How do you know?

you look for the large arms and big head (papi, bonds, mac)

guts through science.

 

[Patman]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

First off, pitch counts have changed because there are no hitters anymore to take a break on for starting pitchers. There used to be 4-5 guys every night who weighed 160 pounds soaking wet. Now everyone is jacked, in great shape. There are no hitters to take an at bat off, where you're not throwing your best stuff. If we go back to having almost all the outfielders and middle infielders looking like Juan Pierre...pitch counts might not need to be a big deal.

Secondly, Nolan Ryan is one of the worst guys to mention when hitters couldn't wait for their pitch...the dude was wild as hell. Great fastball but not really a paragon of control. Lots of guys went up against Nolan Ryan hoping to walk.

That's exactly what's going on. Nobody's painting houses in the off-season to pay the bills anymore. Everybody's got an off-season regimen and routines to the end of time. i think a college hockey team today could probably give the USA1980 team more than a run for their money... its a different era.

We also know a lot more about injury physiology. Most of the justifications for the pitch counts its less talent into later innings but rather injury and fatigue throughout the year. The Red Sox, for their faults, are probably most attuned the idea of cost... I think Epstein has a problem that he falls in love with certain guys but they try to look at the bottom line as hard and as close as possible... that's why they so attuned to the pitch count... if they thought they could get more out of their players I'm sure they would. You also have to realize that Nolan Ryan could probably take a few batters less seriously... yeah, you can throw 99MPH fastballs but if you don't have to be as good with the other pitches then you are going to be more durable.

 

[Patman]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

you look for the large arms and big head (papi, bonds, mac)

guts through science.

Its like listening to the urban professional version of Joe Morgan