What's new
By:
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

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Kepler said:
You are clearly not familiar with American League baseball.
Click to expand...

See: MN Twins. ;)

Personally, I'd rather have 9 guys hit .275 than have 2 or 3 .300+ hitters and a couple guys hit .200 with 50 HR's each. Better odds. :)

However, in the discussion at hand, SACs are an important part of the game.
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Ok McGwire is better than Kingman...so what that doesn't mean he is Hall Worthy. PEDs or not I wouldnt vote him in based on his numbers.

I love how there are people who think Joe Jackson should ever be allowed in the hall...even if you believe he didn't cheat (or you close your eyes and believe Field of Dreams is real!) he knew what was up. Buck Weaver got banned too despite not being part of the conspiracy and he was never reinstated either...tough cookies.
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

redwing77 said:
Just a question for you citing a rather unlikely, extreme scenario but still...

If I get you correctly, Team B would be the better team that just was unlucky?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Obviously in that one time scenario, youd rather be Team A. But over the long term you'd rather be team B. The odds of you not scoring if you load the bases every inning are so astronomically low it's unbelievable. There's probably a greater chance of you or I getting a home run off a major league pitcher than there is of that scenario playing out
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

redwing77 said:
Just a question for you citing a rather unlikely, extreme scenario but still...

Team A comes up to the plate in the first inning and hits a leadoff home run. They then proceed to get no more base runners the remainder of the game (27 straight outs).

Team B gets the bases loaded every inning but then strikes out three straight times each inning for no runs.

The final score is Team A 1-0.

Which one is better? Team A had no baserunners (if you don't count the home run). Team B had 27.

If I get you correctly, Team B would be the better team that just was unlucky?
Click to expand...

Wins are irrelevant. :p

Even worse than your scenario, imagine a guy hits a ground ball, but the fielder Knoblauchs the ball into the fifth row. He then goes to third on a ground ball (or is *gasp* sacrificed to third!) and scores on a ground ball. The next batter flies out. The team has a .000 BA and OPS, but they score a run and win 1-0.

Nah, that would never happen.
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

joecct said:
Joe Jackson had a lifetime ban from baseball. Since he is no longer among the living, that ban should be over and he should be put into the HOF.

The same should apply to Pete Rose.
Click to expand...

I just have a good deal more sympathy for Joe Jackson and his circumstances than I do for Rose and his circumstances. But, if I was a betting man, I'd say Rose has a better shot of eventual reinstatement and election than Jackson does, which to me would be an injustice.

It's been awhile since I've looked at it in detail, but there's some solid arguments for Jackson being reinstated, certainly much better arguments than Rose advocates can muster, IMHO.
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Bob Gray said:
I just have a good deal more sympathy for Joe Jackson and his circumstances than I do for Rose and his circumstances. But, if I was a betting man, I'd say Rose has a better shot of eventual reinstatement and election than Jackson does, which to me would be an injustice.

It's been awhile since I've looked at it in detail, but there's some solid arguments for Jackson being reinstated, certainly much better arguments than Rose advocates can muster, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Neither should be...cheating should not be forgiven. Throwing a series or betting on baseball are high sins and there can be no going back. Fact is I doubt anyone today even talks about it if Field of Dreams hadn't been made.

BTW...isn't hitting a home run considered "getting on base" anyways? The whole discussion is retarded. (as is any discussion that says sacrificing is statistically bad...stats or no stats sacrificing has its place that it might stop a team from getting mythical runs according to some sabermetric proves nothing)

edit: as for HOF criteria...I think if you need to throw stats around to show your guy deserves it he just might not be hall worthy. The best of the best don't need the "Stat Dejour" to prove they are the best, they show it. If we wanted we could find enough stats to prove anyone is Hall Worthy...but we know by what we SAW whether they were the best of the best. I will take that over VORP and OPS+ any day.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Handyman said:
Neither should be...cheating should not be forgiven. Throwing a series or betting on baseball are high sins and there can be no going back. Fact is I doubt anyone today even talks about it if Field of Dreams hadn't been made.
Click to expand...
I was a baseball junkie as a kid, so I was quite familiar with the Joe Jackson situation well before Field of Dreams came out. I don't think the movie has any impact on those who are serious about the Jackson situation.

It's pretty hard to make a case against a guy who hit the best of any player in the entire Series, on either team. Again, I'm not going to go into the detailed information, but there's a lot more legit questions to ask about the Jackson situation and his fault than there is with Rose.

Here's a great quote from Connie Mack, one of the icons of the era:
"Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning."
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Handyman said:
edit: as for HOF criteria...I think if you need to throw stats around to show your guy deserves it he just might not be hall worthy. The best of the best don't need the "Stat Dejour" to prove they are the best, they show it. If we wanted we could find enough stats to prove anyone is Hall Worthy...but we know by what we SAW whether they were the best of the best. I will take that over VORP and OPS+ any day.
Click to expand...
But then how can you discuss any of this? Then all we'd have is Red Sox fans saying "Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame" and Yankee fans saying "No he shouldn't, Don Mattingly should be in the Hall of Fame" and Mets fans saying "No he shouldn't, not if Keith Hernandez isn't in" and Braves fans saying "What are you talking about, Dale Murphy is a much worse slight than him" ad infinitum. It'd just be a meaningless string of unsubstantiated opinions and fuzzy memories by Jack Handey. "I saw Mike Piazza hit a lot of home runs and he should be in the Hall of Fame" doesn't resolve anything, not any more than "One day I went to a game and Mike Piazza struck out four times and made two throwing errors, he sucks, there's no way he should be in." What you're left with, paraphrasing Monty Python, is mindless gainsaying rather than trying to prove a proposition with a series of logical statements.
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Bob Gray said:
I was a baseball junkie as a kid, so I was quite familiar with the Joe Jackson situation well before Field of Dreams came out. I don't think the movie has any impact on those who are serious about the Jackson situation.

It's pretty hard to make a case against a guy who hit the best of any player in the entire Series, on either team. Again, I'm not going to go into the detailed information, but there's a lot more legit questions to ask about the Jackson situation and his fault than there is with Rose.

Here's a great quote from Connie Mack, one of the icons of the era:
"Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning."
Click to expand...

What evidence did they have against Jackson? I remember in reading the banned players list yesterday, they did reinstate some guys that were banned for gambling (obviously none of the Black Sox), so I wonder what kind of proof they required to ban someone. I haven't read much about it. Know any good books on him, specifically?
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

jen said:
What evidence did they have against Jackson? I remember in reading the banned players list yesterday, they did reinstate some guys that were banned for gambling (obviously none of the Black Sox), so I wonder what kind of proof they required to ban someone. I haven't read much about it. Know any good books on him, specifically?
Click to expand...

The stories changed over the years...at this point it is tough to tell the truth from the revision. Just like while the stats seem to back up what some think (he had the high batting average and the only home run) the fact is he batted about .100 points worse in the games the Sox threw than in the games they won. (he batted .375 for the series but .286 in the games the Sox lost) and his home run was hit in Game 8 when they were down 5-0 and in reality the Series was over. Depending on your bias it is easy to skew things to look however you want them too.

Joe's story sucks because we will never know the truth. Supposedly he gave grand jury testimony saying he took $5000 and knew of the fix but then supposedly he didn't. (they were reproduced according Wikipedia when Jackson tried to sue for his 1921 salary) Supposedly he signed a waiver of immunity and a confession, then supposedly he didn't, then supposedly he was coerced. Supposedly he took $5000 (was promised $20,000) then supposedly he didn't. Supposedly he tried to tell Comiskey, supposedly he was or was not at the meetings...over the years the stories change.

As I said though, Buck Weaver was the one who really got screwed. He took no money, was not in on the conspiracy in any way and no one even hinted he was. He batted .324 (1 less hit than the great and powerful Joe Jackson) in the series, had 4 doubles, a triple and scored 4 runs. He was banned with all the rest because he knew and did nothing. If that is the standard (and it still is because Buck has never and will most likely never be taken off the banned players list) then there is no way they can ever take Joe off and put him the Hall and they shouldn't.
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

jmh said:
But then how can you discuss any of this? Then all we'd have is Red Sox fans saying "Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame" and Yankee fans saying "No he shouldn't, Don Mattingly should be in the Hall of Fame" and Mets fans saying "No he shouldn't, not if Keith Hernandez isn't in" and Braves fans saying "What are you talking about, Dale Murphy is a much worse slight than him" ad infinitum. It'd just be a meaningless string of unsubstantiated opinions and fuzzy memories by Jack Handey. "I saw Mike Piazza hit a lot of home runs and he should be in the Hall of Fame" doesn't resolve anything, not any more than "One day I went to a game and Mike Piazza struck out four times and made two throwing errors, he sucks, there's no way he should be in." What you're left with, paraphrasing Monty Python, is mindless gainsaying rather than trying to prove a proposition with a series of logical statements.
Click to expand...

And stats alleviate that how exactly? Every day we get some new ridiculous stat that shows some new way of looking at things without clarifying anything. Like the article about Raines...now I like Raines and think he is a fantastic player but not because his Win Share or whatever proves he is on par with Roberto Clemente. I like him because, beyond Rickey he was the best leadoff guy around.

Boston fans used stats to show why NOMAH was better than Jeter, Twins fans used stats to explain why Hrbek was better than Mattingly, Bert has been using stats to show why he should be in the hall...its the same argument only the criteria change.

It should be friggin hard to get into the Hall of Fame, 99% of all the people that ever play the game should not be able to do it. I subscribe to the idea that it is the Hall of Fame NOT the Hall of Pretty Good. It is all personal preference :)
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Handyman said:
And stats alleviate that how exactly? Every day we get some new ridiculous stat that shows some new way of looking at things without clarifying anything. Like the article about Raines...now I like Raines and think he is a fantastic player but not because his Win Share or whatever proves he is on par with Roberto Clemente. I like him because, beyond Rickey he was the best leadoff guy around.
Click to expand...
Well, look, you're sort of coloring the debate by deciding that certain stats are "ridiculous". What makes a stat ridiculous? That you haven't used it before? I mean, for as long as the process has been around, stats like "714 home runs" or "511 wins" or "2,130 consecutive games" or "1.12 season ERA" have been a part of the discussion. Why are those stats allowable, but newer stats "ridiculous"? (I should point out that the only remotely "advanced" stat that I've been using when talking about McGwire is OPS, which you get by taking two things that've been on the back of baseball cards for decades and adding them together. This isn't exactly vector calculus here.)

But again, the point is, you think Raines should get in because he was the best leadoff guy around other than Rickey. But what if I say he wasn't? What if I say Vince Coleman was, for example? Or Lenny Dykstra? Now, I'd be wrong, of course, but how would we discuss this further using the framework you're proposing? You'd say "Tim Raines was the best leadoff hitter in the NL for years and years" and I'd say "no he wasn't" and you'd say "yes he was" and we could go back and forth and never get anywhere. If you're not allowed to tell me that Raines had a career OBP of .385 and Coleman had a career OBP of .324, and that Raines stole bases successfully 85% of the time and Coleman stole bases successfully 81% of the time, how does the conversation advance beyond simply contradicting each other?
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

jmh said:
Well, look, you're sort of coloring the debate by deciding that certain stats are "ridiculous". What makes a stat ridiculous? That you haven't used it before? I mean, for as long as the process has been around, stats like "714 home runs" or "511 wins" or "2,130 consecutive games" or "1.12 season ERA" have been a part of the discussion. Why are those stats allowable, but newer stats "ridiculous"? (I should point out that the only remotely "advanced" stat that I've been using when talking about McGwire is OPS, which you get by taking two things that've been on the back of baseball cards for decades and adding them together. This isn't exactly vector calculus here.)

But again, the point is, you think Raines should get in because he was the best leadoff guy around other than Rickey. But what if I say he wasn't? What if I say Vince Coleman was, for example? Or Lenny Dykstra? Now, I'd be wrong, of course, but how would we discuss this further using the framework you're proposing? You'd say "Tim Raines was the best leadoff hitter in the NL for years and years" and I'd say "no he wasn't" and you'd say "yes he was" and we could go back and forth and never get anywhere. If you're not allowed to tell me that Raines had a career OBP of .385 and Coleman had a career OBP of .324, and that Raines stole bases successfully 85% of the time and Coleman stole bases successfully 81% of the time, how does the conversation advance beyond simply contradicting each other?
Click to expand...

No you are misunderstanding, and I think that is because I worded it wrong. I am not saying stats are worthless, they have their place. But they should be used to back up an argument not AS the argument. It is tough to word what I am trying to say, it is an argument I have a lot and it usually requires me to rant quite a bit to finally get my point across because I just havent found a better way to explain how I feel on the matter so I apologize for that.

Remember this is personal opinion, if I was voting how I would look at it. Stats would be used if I was on the fence about someone or it was someone I didn't know. (since that is all that I have) Would that create arguments, yes of course it would. But like I said I am really only interested in allowing the top 1% (most likely even less but it is an easy number to use) into the hall anyways. If Keith Hernandez is in the same conversation with Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly then most likely I am not going to think ANY of them should be in the Hall. The arguments are fun for fanbases to argue who was better but for the Hall I am supposed to step back and see it myself. (if I was a voter)

Sorry I cant be more clear on it I am not trying to be difficult...well no more than usual ;)
 
Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

mookie1995 said:
:rolleyes: up until he turned 29 and got H.U.G.E., big mac was a slightly better dave kingman (more walks, that's it).


so if king kong had cheated, he would have at least held the HR record when bonds passed him (which would have made barry a bit more loved :p )
Click to expand...

jmh said:
McGwire was a tremendously better (hitter than) Dave Kingman. He had Dave Kingman's power plus actually knew how to get on base. PEDs wouldn't have taught Kingman how to take a pitch.
Click to expand...

i'll compare them before mac got juiced and returned post strike... fair enough?
(luckily enough, this is the first nine of 16 seasons for each player)

games__________990 v 1062
plate app_______4006 v 3972
bat avg_________.250 v .241
tb______________1695 v 1805
2b______________137 v 147
3b_______________5 v 20
hr______________238 v 252
rbi______________657 v 663
slg%___________.507 v .504
ops____________.869 v .808
obp____________.361 v .304
sb_______________6 v 63

----------so again, what did i type that was wrong? :confused: (more walks, that's it!):p :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top