2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

[jmh]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Ummm....I covered that in the rest of the post which you conveniently left out, but nice try anyway. Try to console yourself with the thought that the guy I believed belonged made it (Dawson), while the guy Nerd Nation thought should make it didn't (Blyleven).

Sorry if I missed it, but sometimes it's hard to tell what your blatherings are trying to say. I think I've made my point clearly enough that people who aren't too stubborn to listen can understand it.

And oh look, you're calling people nerds again. Do you ever consider the inherent contradiction in claiming to be some sort of an authority based on having watched baseball for longer than other people, and yet interacting with those people as if you were still in high school?

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

The difference between the guy who you think belonged and the guy who just missed out was 20 votes.

You're a nerd too, just a stupid one who uses stats that were invented before television.

I'd rather be a smart nerd than a stupid one like you.

TBA, one glance at me and then at you ought to tell anybody which one of us is a nerd and which one isn't. I'll leave it at that....

Oh, and kindly explain your crush in Blyleven. I never remember a player's exclusion from the Hall ruining my day.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

You guys are really annoying with this debate. It's not the Hall of Great Stats. It's the Hall of Fame. There are some people (Randy Johnson) who just belong and are no-brainers. People who saw him pitch and the stats people all love him. Does someone like Dawson deserve to be in? The stats people say no, the people who saw him say yes. I think his candidacy goes beyond the stats. He was respected and admired by his peers, both teammates and opponents. His election does not "lower the bar" or "open the door" to someone with similar stats. The statistics are complimentary to his candidacy. Likewise, just because someone is respected and admired among his peers does not guarantee him entry - he still needs a body of work that is Hall-worthy.

There is a balance that needs to be applied. Whether it's insight from people who saw him play or from a stat that helps or hurts a case. Stats have their place, just as personal recollection has its place. Neither is 100% right, but neither is 100% wrong. There's a balance, and it's different for every case. I'm sorry it can't be broken down into a quantifiable number or shoehorned into a statistic.

You stats people and Rover should just settle down and accept that it's not an absolute. Like many things in life, it's a great big gray area.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

You guys are really annoying with this debate. It's not the Hall of Great Stats. It's the Hall of Fame. There are some people (Randy Johnson) who just belong and are no-brainers. People who saw him pitch and the stats people all love him. Does someone like Dawson deserve to be in? The stats people say no, the people who saw him say yes. I think his candidacy goes beyond the stats. He was respected and admired by his peers, both teammates and opponents. His election does not "lower the bar" or "open the door" to someone with similar stats. The statistics are complimentary to his candidacy. Likewise, just because someone is respected and admired among his peers does not guarantee him entry - he still needs a body of work that is Hall-worthy.

There is a balance that needs to be applied. Whether it's insight from people who saw him play or from a stat that helps or hurts a case. Stats have their place, just as personal recollection has its place. Neither is 100% right, but neither is 100% wrong. There's a balance, and it's different for every case. I'm sorry it can't be broken down into a quantifiable number or shoehorned into a statistic.

You stats people and Rover should just settle down and accept that it's not an absolute. Like many things in life, it's a great big gray area.

Leave me out of this. I agree with your post 100%. I have to wonder if our statsfriends can say the same thing.

 

[Greyeagle]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

You guys are really annoying with this debate. It's not the Hall of Great Stats. It's the Hall of Fame. There are some people (Randy Johnson) who just belong and are no-brainers. People who saw him pitch and the stats people all love him. Does someone like Dawson deserve to be in? The stats people say no, the people who saw him say yes. I think his candidacy goes beyond the stats. He was respected and admired by his peers, both teammates and opponents. His election does not "lower the bar" or "open the door" to someone with similar stats. The statistics are complimentary to his candidacy. Likewise, just because someone is respected and admired among his peers does not guarantee him entry - he still needs a body of work that is Hall-worthy.

There is a balance that needs to be applied. Whether it's insight from people who saw him play or from a stat that helps or hurts a case. Stats have their place, just as personal recollection has its place. Neither is 100% right, but neither is 100% wrong. There's a balance, and it's different for every case. I'm sorry it can't be broken down into a quantifiable number or shoehorned into a statistic.

You stats people and Rover should just settle down and accept that it's not an absolute. Like many things in life, it's a great big gray area.

I opened a spreadsheet and a baseball game broke out.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Leave me out of this. I agree with your post 100%. I have to wonder if our statsfriends can say the same thing.

I think the Respect and Admiration by their peers goes a long way towards being worthy. As a Hitter, the less pitchers wanted to see you in the batters box (and vice versa) says a lot about your worthiness if you back it up with good stats.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

I think the Respect and Admiration by their peers goes a long way towards being worthy. As a Hitter, the less pitchers wanted to see you in the batters box (and vice versa) says a lot about your worthiness if you back it up with good stats.

Agreed.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

"the first ballot is sacred?"

Kill yourself, Marriotti. They're either HoF-worthy or they're not. Don't be an *******.

i can accept a 'first ballot is sacred' logic. otherwise, why are we allow so many chances to vote for a player (assuming he makes the minimum cut)?

Announcement is at 2 pm. Peter Gammons on MLB Network just mentioned his ballot this year: Alomar, Blyleven, Dawson, Larkin, Raines, Trammell, McGwire.

No arguments here with that group.

close to mine... i vote bert, robby, edgar, raines, freddy. (now freddy wasn't on gammons ballot... but if he was )

 

[Slap Shot]

If Bert was named Ernie he would have made it by now. Nobody likes Bert and Ernie ate crackers in bed.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

You guys are really annoying with this debate. It's not the Hall of Great Stats. It's the Hall of Fame. There are some people (Randy Johnson) who just belong and are no-brainers. People who saw him pitch and the stats people all love him. Does someone like Dawson deserve to be in? The stats people say no, the people who saw him say yes. I think his candidacy goes beyond the stats. He was respected and admired by his peers, both teammates and opponents. His election does not "lower the bar" or "open the door" to someone with similar stats. The statistics are complimentary to his candidacy. Likewise, just because someone is respected and admired among his peers does not guarantee him entry - he still needs a body of work that is Hall-worthy.

There is a balance that needs to be applied. Whether it's insight from people who saw him play or from a stat that helps or hurts a case. Stats have their place, just as personal recollection has its place. Neither is 100% right, but neither is 100% wrong. There's a balance, and it's different for every case. I'm sorry it can't be broken down into a quantifiable number or shoehorned into a statistic.

You stats people and Rover should just settle down and accept that it's not an absolute. Like many things in life, it's a great big gray area.

The issue is Rover is a stats person. He's just picking his stats and then deriding people who want to use newer stats. That's where he crossed the line. If you can't see the absurdity of his posts on the matter, then I guess there's nothing I can do for you.

Also I watched Dawson play and outside of 1987 never thought he was a Hall of Famer. Thanks for ignoring the possibility that we might have stats AND personal recollections on our side. I've watched a ton of game on Classic and mlbtv archives and WGN and TBS to see if I missed something and its not there. He was a good player but not great.

 

[Handyman]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Ya know how you know someone is awesome...they call people nerds on a message board!

 

[UMDBulldogHockeyIsKing]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Ya know how you know someone is awesome...they call people nerds on a message board!

It reminds me of that cartoon of the woman imploring her husband to come to bed, but he can't, because "someone is wrong on the internet!"

 

[3W]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Re: Fred McGriff

Apparently this was NOT the Hall of Fame balloting that gets results.

 

[UMDBulldogHockeyIsKing]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Re: Fred McGriff

Apparently this was NOT the Hall of Fame balloting that gets results.

That commercial may have done more damage to his candidacy than steroids ever could.

 

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

That commercial may have done more damage to his candidacy than steroids ever could.

I blame it on him wearing his hat as if he was a train engineer.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

The issue is Rover is a stats person. He's just picking his stats and then deriding people who want to use newer stats. That's where he crossed the line. If you can't see the absurdity of his posts on the matter, then I guess there's nothing I can do for you.

Also I watched Dawson play and outside of 1987 never thought he was a Hall of Famer. Thanks for ignoring the possibility that we might have stats AND personal recollections on our side. I've watched a ton of game on Classic and mlbtv archives and WGN and TBS to see if I missed something and its not there. He was a good player but not great.

Um, no my little friend. I'm deriding you for thinking that your chosen stats are infallible when it comes to evaluating players, especially ones you never saw play. For example....

You watched Dawson play? Interesting...since you were born after the prime of his career. In the 1987 season, you were 4 years old. Funny that you managed to form such an opinion of his season that year.

Next, if you truly are going back and looking over mlbtv archives to watch the 15 years of Dawson's career that you would have missed since you were too young to remember it, then you either need a job or a hobby. I'll let you decide which. This reminds me of your expert opinion that Jim Rice was the worst fielding LF in the game last year, a guy who retired when you were 5. Yup, I'm suuuuure you know what you're talking about on that one to.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Um, no my little friend. I'm deriding you for thinking that your chosen stats are infallible when it comes to evaluating players, especially ones you never saw play. For example....

You watched Dawson play? Interesting...since you were born after the prime of his career. In the 1987 season, you were 4 years old. Funny that you managed to form such an opinion of his season that year.

Next, if you truly are going back and looking over mlbtv archives to watch the 15 years of Dawson's career that you would have missed since you were too young to remember it, then you either need a job or a hobby. I'll let you decide which. This reminds me of your expert opinion that Jim Rice was the worst fielding LF in the game last year, a guy who retired when you were 5. Yup, I'm suuuuure you know what you're talking about on that one to.

I was 6/7 in 1987 and I remember Andre Dawson being one of my favorites growing!

 

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

I'd rather be a smart nerd

well you are definitely can give a good speech, I will give you that....


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cWH1jEgiO0w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cWH1jEgiO0w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Dude Love]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Dan Shaughnessy, 2nd stupidest sports writer in America.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

well you are definitely can give a good speech, I will give you that....

Classic!

I was 6/7 in 1987 and I remember Andre Dawson being one of my favorites growing!

I don't deny the ability to remember a season at age 7. I'm a lot more skeptical at age 4.