Your position is that if a guy pitches with a 110 ERA+ for 5 seasons he's a better pitcher than the guy who pitched for 15 seasons and had a 109 ERA+.
I'll try one last time, since what you wrote here is completely wrong.
Let's assume that every season is 270 innings for each pitcher and that the league average ERA is 4.00.
The pitcher who pitched for 5 seasons had an ERA 10% better than average, or 3.60. A 3.60 ERA for 5 seasons at 270 innings per season means the pitcher allowed 5 * 270 * 3.60 / 9 = 540 earned runs, where an average pitcher would have allowed 600. This pitcher's RAA is therefore 600 - 540 = 60.
The pitcher who pitched for 15 seasons had an ERA 9% better than average, or 3.64. A 3.64 ERA for 15 seasons at 270 innings per season means the pitcher allowed 15 * 270 * 3.64 / 9 = 1,638 earned runs, where an average pitcher would have allowed 1,800. This pitcher's RAA is therefore 1,800 - 1,638 = 162. This pitcher is not just better than the other pitcher, he is a lot better.
As I said, repeatedly, RAA is a function of both ERA AND innings pitched. The pitchers, like Siebert or Matlack, who have a higher RAA than Hunter despite pitching fewer innings do so for two reasons:
When they did pitch, they were essentially equal to Hunter
When they didn't pitch, and Hunter did, Hunter was a bad pitcher, which drags him down
Now that you know that my rankings do take innings pitched into account, and that pitching poorly is treated as worse than not pitching at all, you know all you need to know about my lists. If you disagree with Hunter's position on either list (RAA or RAR) then please explain why. I assume you are not disagreeing that a lower ERA is better than a higher ERA. The only thing that leaves for you to disagree with is that pitching poorly is worse than not pitching at all; that is, you must believe that pitching poorly is better than not pitching at all, and that pitching poorly for a long time is the reason that Hunter was a better pitcher than Matlack. But that's what you denied thinking, so I'm still lost.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
... if your best argument is "so-and-so is in" then you really do no belong.
Agreed, but just to be clear, there is nobody in the HOF less deserving than Vizquel so he doesn't even have this weak argument available to him.
Rabbit Maranville- the amazing talent who managed a .256 batting avg. in the golden age of the .400 hitters.
Yes, back to Omar.
Below are listed some undisputable FACTS regarding Vizquel.
Omar Vizquel played more games at shortstop than any other man in the history of baseball. Played in 2,968 games 12th all time all positions.
His .9847 fielding percentage was_ highest ever_ for all MLB shortstops min. 1,000 games.
His 1,744 career double plays turned are most for SS all-time.
Scored 1445 runs second only to Honus Wagner, shortstops, all time.
He also won 11 Gold Gloves, second to Ozzie at shortstop all time.
His 404 stolen bases are 5th all time for Shortstops.
He was top 5 in hits all time in hits for shortstops.
"Hung around" and "didn't deserve it" are opinions. This post is about facts.
"Worst guy in the HOF if he got in" I doubt it, but somebody has to be the worst, doesn't in itself mean he doesn't "deserve" it.
There's NO WAY he's not better than some already in the HOF and yes, that's a good argument for induction.
I didn't really follow him even when he was in the AL, even less when he went to the NL.
I couldn't care less if he gets in or he is denied, but I did go through my 1990 Bowman cards and pulled his rookies out, just in case. Not going to give them away.......yet. Wish he would have made the 89 set.
;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Joe- Vizquel was a lot better than Rabbit.
Maranville supposedly was a fast, get on base and score runs type hitter. Nope.
He only scored 1256 runs in a long 20+ year career. Stole 25 or so bases per year
until his mid twenties when his SB totals started dropping.
Well he was good on defense then. Nope. 631 errors lifetime. Vizquel only had 183.
Vizquel was much better than Rabbit and probably several of those old timers who are way overrated.
@JoeBanzai said:
Not playing HAS to be worse than playing badly.
OK, at least now you've said it explicitly. What separates Hunter from Matlack is that Hunter pitched badly for 1,000 innings while Matlack no longer pitched. And it is your, now explicit, position that pitching badly for 1,000 innings is something that bolsters a HOF resume. You denied thinking that earlier, so you can understand my confusion, but now that you've settled on an answer I know where we disagree.
Given your position I won't try to argue anymore for the first list I made, the one based on RAA, runs allowed compared to an average pitcher. Your position that pitching worse than an average pitcher has value (it does) is correct, and your position that pitching worse than an average pitcher adds to a pitcher's HOF case is a defensible opinion (although I disagree).
So I'll focus only on my revised list, the one that compared RAR, or runs allowed compared to a replacement level pitcher (one that the team might call up from AAA). Matlack beats Hunter on that list, too. What that means is that once Matlack retired, at which point he was providing no value at all, his team could replace him with anyone that happened to be available, pitch that guy for 1,000 innings and still come out ahead of the teams that were employing Hunter. In other words, given the hypothetical choice of signing Matlack, knowing he would only pitch 2,500 innings, or Hunter, knowing he would pitch 3,500 innings, a rational team would sign Matlack. They would get 2,500 innings out of Matlack that were enough better than Hunter, that no matter who they used to pitch those extra 1,000 innings they'd still come out ahead. Both Matlack's former team and Hunter's actual team would get 1,000 innings of poor pitching, but Hunter's team would be paying a veteran's salary for those innings while Matlack's team would be paying league minimum. My contention is that there is no "value" in paying more money for something that is readily available for less money. Your position, assuming you aren't going to change it again, is that there is not only value, but so much value that it elevates Hunter into the HOF conversation.
And note that on the RAR list Hunter did pass a lot of short career guys who had been ahead of him on the RAA list. He passes those pitchers on the theory that pitching badly does still have value, and for the sake of this discussion I am conceding that point. But pitching so badly that literally ANY pitcher could take those innings and do just as well? I am not conceding that pitching THAT badly has any value at all, and in fact has negative value since a pitcher pitching that badly can be replaced for less money, or even not replaced at all but relegated to relieving in blowouts and replaced in the rotation by a better than replacement level pitcher already on the roster.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@BriantheTaxGuy said:
... if your best argument is "so-and-so is in" then you really do no belong.
Agreed, but just to be clear, there is nobody in the HOF less deserving than Vizquel so he doesn't even have this weak argument available to him.
Rabbit Maranville- the amazing talent who managed a .256 batting avg. in the golden age of the .400 hitters.
Maranville was considered, at the time he was inducted, the GOAT fielding shortstop. He may or may not have been, but he was certainly great and he's in that small group who were inducted as fielders only. Vizquel was a better baseball player than Maranville, but Maranville, in my opinion, is a more deserving HOFer because of his plausible GOAT status. Just an opinion, but one that the HOF shares; they have always made space for GOATs, provided what a player was GOAT at was deemed important enough.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
Not playing HAS to be worse than playing badly.
OK, at least now you've said it explicitly. What separates Hunter from Matlack is that Hunter pitched badly for 1,000 innings while Matlack no longer pitched. And it is your, now explicit, position that pitching badly for 1,000 innings is something that bolsters a HOF resume. You denied thinking that earlier, so you can understand my confusion, but now that you've settled on an answer I know where we disagree.
Given your position I won't try to argue anymore for the first list I made, the one based on RAA, runs allowed compared to an average pitcher. Your position that pitching worse than an average pitcher has value (it does) is correct, and your position that pitching worse than an average pitcher adds to a pitcher's HOF case is a defensible opinion (although I disagree).
So I'll focus only on my revised list, the one that compared RAR, or runs allowed compared to a replacement level pitcher (one that the team might call up from AAA). Matlack beats Hunter on that list, too. What that means is that once Matlack retired, at which point he was providing no value at all, his team could replace him with anyone that happened to be available, pitch that guy for 1,000 innings and still come out ahead of the teams that were employing Hunter. In other words, given the hypothetical choice of signing Matlack, knowing he would only pitch 2,500 innings, or Hunter, knowing he would pitch 3,500 innings, a rational team would sign Matlack. They would get 2,500 innings out of Matlack that were enough better than Hunter, that no matter who they used to pitch those extra 1,000 innings they'd still come out ahead. Both Matlack's former team and Hunter's actual team would get 1,000 innings of poor pitching, but Hunter's team would be paying a veteran's salary for those innings while Matlack's team would be paying league minimum. My contention is that there is no "value" in paying more money for something that is readily available for less money. Your position, assuming you aren't going to change it again, is that there is not only value, but so much value that it elevates Hunter into the HOF conversation.
And note that on the RAR list Hunter did pass a lot of short career guys who had been ahead of him on the RAA list. He passes those pitchers on the theory that pitching badly does still have value, and for the sake of this discussion I am conceding that point. But pitching so badly that literally ANY pitcher could take those innings and do just as well? I am not conceding that pitching THAT badly has any value at all, and in fact has negative value since a pitcher pitching that badly can be replaced for less money, or even not replaced at all but relegated to relieving in blowouts and replaced in the rotation by a better than replacement level pitcher already on the roster.
You're still confused.
But now I understand your confusion! Your saying that Matlack and the next guy (or the guy before) together were better than Hunter. That's a different argument, and only MAYBE correct. You better hope the next guy (or the guy before) was pretty good, he might be below average.
Hey it looks like you are right! Dave Stewart came in right about the time Matlack bit the dust, and even though he wasn't great for a couple of seasons (or even with the same team) his 1987-90 run puts the Matlack/Stewart combo WAY ahead of Hunter. I guess that makes Stewart better than Hunter too!
Pretty nice how that worked out for you. Man, you really crushed me that time!
No matter how you try to spin the numbers, (and one number NEVER proves player A is "better" than player B ), Jon Matlack, (a fine pitcher for a couple of seasons) will still never be as good of a pitcher as Catfish Hunter.
And it is your, now explicit, position that Mark Fydrich, should be in the HOF! Bring in your theoretical player after Fydrich's arm fell off, and just plug in whatever number you like and Mark's in the HOF. I always liked that guy, he was so weird!
Have a Happy New Year. I'm done with the Hunter debate.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
But now I understand your confusion! Your saying that Matlack and the next guy (or the guy before) together were better than Hunter. That's a different argument, and only MAYBE correct. You better hope the next guy (or the guy before) was pretty good, he might be below average.
This is the point that you're still not grasping. I don't need to hope that the next guy is pretty good. I don't need to hope that the next guy is good at all. I don't even need to hope that he's just below average. I just need him to be a pitcher, any pitcher, even a terrible pitcher, and I'm still going to come out ahead of the team stuck with Hunter. If Matlack's replacement turns out to be good, then I'm miles ahead, but even if I use a parade of terrible pitchers who keep getting released or sent back to the minors, I still come out ahead of Hunter's teams. Matlack was that much better than Hunter that he built a "cushion" over Hunter that simply can't be eliminated no matter who I get to pitch those innings.
No matter how you try to spin the numbers, (and one number NEVER proves player A is "better" than player B ), Jon Matlack, (a fine pitcher for a couple of seasons) will still never bee as good of a pitcher as Catfish Hunter.
You keep saying this, but you have never once tried to explain why you believe this other than to say sucking for a long time is better than retiring. Sucking is sucking, and I will never be convinced that the longer a player sucks the better he is, but on that proposition rests 100% of your "case" for Hunter.
And it is your, now explicit, position that Mark Fydrich, should be in the HOF! Bring in your theoretical player after Fydrich's arm fell off, and just plug in whatever number you like and Mark's in the HOF. I always liked that guy, he was so weird!
To get Fidrych into the HOF, in the theoretical way you are using, would require replacing him with a pitcher who was very, very good. This is, again, the part you aren't grasping. I am not replacing Matlack with "whatever pitcher I like", I'm replacing him with a terrible pitcher right on the line of being good enough to pitch in the major leagues at all. Nobody "likes" the replacement pitchers I am using, but everyone has a bunch of them available all the time, almost for free. Replace Fidrych with one of those pitchers and after 15 years you'd have a pitcher not just miles worse than Hunter, but the worst pitcher of all time.
Have a Happy New Year. I'm done with the Hunter debate.
And a Happy New Year to you, too!
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
of all the recent highly debatable HOF/borderline players, Vizquel is the one who doesn't even need advanced stats to disprove. He was fine. Pretty good for a few years, a premier out-maker for the majority. Defensively, he's gotten by because of ESPN's "Web Gems". He was pretty good, but he wasn't even JJ Hardy good. He had great hands. What he didn't have was a great arm. He wasn't David Eckstein, but he also wasn't far off from Ryan Theriot. Pretty sure that's why Seattle traded him in the first place. They weren't sure he wasn't a 2B and they had Bret Boone already frosting his tips so they dumped Vizquel for Felix Fermin who was a questionable SS in his own right (they released him like a year and a half later... and A-rod was drafted like 4 months after the Vizquel trade so they didn't trade Vizquel because A-rod was on the way...).
So if one were to say, you can have 10-12 years of a healthy Omar Vizquel in his average season, or you can have 10-12 years of a healthy & average season of Rafael Furcal or JJ Hardy, I'll take either of the latter two every single time.
@lanemyer85 said:
of all the recent highly debatable HOF/borderline players, Vizquel is the one who doesn't even need advanced stats to disprove. He was fine. Pretty good for a few years, a premier out-maker for the majority. Defensively, he's gotten by because of ESPN's "Web Gems". He was pretty good, but he wasn't even JJ Hardy good. He had great hands. What he didn't have was a great arm. He wasn't David Eckstein, but he also wasn't far off from Ryan Theriot. Pretty sure that's why Seattle traded him in the first place. They weren't sure he wasn't a 2B and they had Bret Boone already frosting his tips so they dumped Vizquel for Felix Fermin who was a questionable SS in his own right (they released him like a year and a half later... and A-rod was drafted like 4 months after the Vizquel trade so they didn't trade Vizquel because A-rod was on the way...).
So if one were to say, you can have 10-12 years of a healthy Omar Vizquel in his average season, or you can have 10-12 years of a healthy & average season of Rafael Furcal or JJ Hardy, I'll take either of the latter two every single time.
But how was he on the forecheck?
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Perhaps someone ought to devise a stat (or has someone already) OPSIP and OPS+IP. Those would seem to be useful.
If I understand you correctly, you are looking for a stat that combines OPS+ (how well did he pitch) with IP (for how long). If so, that stat does exist - it's the RAA stat that I used to make my first list above. And I agree that it's a very useful stat, and one that eliminates the need for virtually every other stat. The difference between having a given pitcher on your team or having a generic "average" pitcher is RAA. Catfish Hunter had an RAA in 1975 of 43; that's a great season and by far the best of Hunter's career. For the remainder of his career, Hunter's RAA is -8. This phenomenon - having RAA in one season exceeding career RAA - describes Catfish Hunter, Mark Fidrych, and a whole lot of short career forgettable pitchers. There is no other pitcher in the HOF who is remotely close, nor, of course, should there be.
I'm sorry. I was unclear. I was looking for a stat analogous to WHIP to account for power, so giving up a triple would be worse than a walk. Scaling it for park factors would make it both less accessible and more valuable.
@daltex said:
I'm sorry. I was unclear. I was looking for a stat analogous to WHIP to account for power, so giving up a triple would be worse than a walk. Scaling it for park factors would make it both less accessible and more valuable.
Gotcha. That stat doesn't exist, except in the extremely limited sense that I calculated it for one season in one league in this thread. Hunter led the league in WHIP in 1974, his Cy Young year, with a figure below 1.0, but falls to seventh after adjustments. The adjusted WHIP stats are in my post about halfway through the thread.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
It's a little like saying Steve Garvey was great defensively at 1B because of his fielding percentage. It ignores that he had the range of a statue.
Garvey was great defensively at 1B. His range was fine, it was his arm that was his weakness and what made him so godawful at 3B. But he was a superstar at digging balls out of the dirt, fielding bunts, and as noted, made very few errors. Now, the contest for best fielding first baseman isn't far from a tallest midget contest, but I have laughed at Garvey's HOF supporters so often I felt the need to give credit where credit is due.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
With all the numbers he has, I really think you guys should be mentally prepared to see him in the HOF.
The induction of Harold Baines has me mentally prepared for the induction of pretty much any random baseball player, and Garvey certainly qualifies. There's not a dime's worth of difference between Steve Garvey and Mark Grace, and had Grace played on a better team and looked like Captain America then he'd have lasted longer than a single ballot before the HOF forgot about him. But he'd still be Mark Grace, he'd still be the same player as Steve Garvey, and he still wouldn't belong in the HOF.
Or rather, he wouldn't belong in the HOF as it existed before Hunter/Rice/Morris/Baines got in. On the path it's going not only will Garvey get in, Bob Watson, Cecil Cooper, and, eventually, Kent Hrbek and Ron Fairly will get in. But rather than just accept that one day I'll be arguing about Bruce Bochte's HOF qualifications, I will continue to point out the chasm of talent that exists between players like Steve Garvey and the players who populated the HOF until recently.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
With all the numbers he has, I really think you guys should be mentally prepared to see him in the HOF.
The induction of Harold Baines has me mentally prepared for the induction of pretty much any random baseball player, and Garvey certainly qualifies. There's not a dime's worth of difference between Steve Garvey and Mark Grace, and had Grace played on a better team and looked like Captain America then he'd have lasted longer than a single ballot before the HOF forgot about him. But he'd still be Mark Grace, he'd still be the same player as Steve Garvey, and he still wouldn't belong in the HOF.
Or rather, he wouldn't belong in the HOF as it existed before Hunter/Rice/Morris/Baines got in. On the path it's going not only will Garvey get in, Bob Watson, Cecil Cooper, and, eventually, Kent Hrbek and Ron Fairly will get in. But rather than just accept that one day I'll be arguing about Bruce Bochte's HOF qualifications, I will continue to point out the chasm of talent that exists between players like Steve Garvey and the players who populated the HOF until recently.
I was referring to Vizquel, not Garvey.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
All those GG and the voters are wrong. Highest Fielding % and he had poor range.
I would think that the guy who played the longest would make errors in his "old man years" and not maintain the highest fielding %.
the range wasn't the problem, his range was fine. His arm was average at best. Probably a little below. He had great hands, great at coming in on the ball, good laterally, just didn't have the arm. Next time you see the Mets on TV, or the Rockies with Trevor Story etc, watch where they position themselves. Lindor plays really deep because he has the arm to throw guys out from the dirt/grass cutout. Thus that boosts his range factor, and that's why his Outs Above Average and those types of stats are what they are. The deeper you're able to play without getting burned, the more outs you're converting. I'm sure there are youtube clips of Vizquel's "highlight reel" plays available for refreshers, but I'm also sure if you see one where he's ranging into the (SS/3B) hole on the backhand and throwing the runner out, it's going to be Danny Tartabull & the Steinway that's strapped to his back "running", and that throw will have bend and cut because it's not going to be getting confused as a Shawon Dunston-grade seed.
All those GG and the voters are wrong. Highest Fielding % and he had poor range.
I would think that the guy who played the longest would make errors in his "old man years" and not maintain the highest fielding %.
the range wasn't the problem, his range was fine. His arm was average at best. Probably a little below. He had great hands, great at coming in on the ball, good laterally, just didn't have the arm. Next time you see the Mets on TV, or the Rockies with Trevor Story etc, watch where they position themselves. Lindor plays really deep because he has the arm to throw guys out from the dirt/grass cutout. Thus that boosts his range factor, and that's why his Outs Above Average and those types of stats are what they are. The deeper you're able to play without getting burned, the more outs you're converting. I'm sure there are youtube clips of Vizquel's "highlight reel" plays available for refreshers, but I'm also sure if you see one where he's ranging into the (SS/3B) hole on the backhand and throwing the runner out, it's going to be Danny Tartabull & the Steinway that's strapped to his back "running".
I did hear he had a poor arm, but made up for it by getting rid of the ball quickly.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I did hear he had a poor arm, but made up for it by getting rid of the ball quickly.
sure that can work some of the time, if the ball is hit in front of him or slightly laterally, sure, but certainly not all of the time. If the batter had some speed then he probably moved in before the pitch was even thrown thus he's cutting his range down and opening a wider hole for a batter.
@JoeBanzai said:
With all the numbers he has, I really think you guys should be mentally prepared to see him in the HOF.
The induction of Harold Baines has me mentally prepared for the induction of pretty much any random baseball player, and Garvey certainly qualifies. There's not a dime's worth of difference between Steve Garvey and Mark Grace, and had Grace played on a better team and looked like Captain America then he'd have lasted longer than a single ballot before the HOF forgot about him. But he'd still be Mark Grace, he'd still be the same player as Steve Garvey, and he still wouldn't belong in the HOF.
Or rather, he wouldn't belong in the HOF as it existed before Hunter/Rice/Morris/Baines got in. On the path it's going not only will Garvey get in, Bob Watson, Cecil Cooper, and, eventually, Kent Hrbek and Ron Fairly will get in. But rather than just accept that one day I'll be arguing about Bruce Bochte's HOF qualifications, I will continue to point out the chasm of talent that exists between players like Steve Garvey and the players who populated the HOF until recently.
I think Grace is noticeably, but not significantly, better than Garvey was.
This is where we part company. I think the HoF has always had problems admitting people who aren't close to the best players on the outside. Chick Hafey went in 50 years ago, for example.
I think Grace is noticeably, but not significantly, better than Garvey was.
I didn't look close enough to split that hair; you may be right, but whatever difference there is on offense is going to be within the margin of error on the difference in their defense. I think we can both agree that to think of Garvey as a HOFer and not Mark Grace makes no sense. And to think of either of them as HOFers but not Will Clark or Keith Hernandez is probably evidence of a genetic defect.
This is where we part company. I think the HoF has always had problems admitting people who aren't close to the best players on the outside. Chick Hafey went in 50 years ago, for example.
Until recently, the largest streak on the HOF bowl was put there by Frankie Frisch when he chaired the Veteran's Committee in 1971. Along with Hafey, they inducted Rube Marguard, Joe "Highpockets" Kelly, Harry Hooper, and Dave Bancroft. With the exception of the abysmal Class of '71, the HOF had admitted only a very small handful of laughably undeserving members, until Catfish Hunter and Jim Rice opened the floodgates. So I do disagree that the HOF had "always" admitted players who weren't close to the best. I think it's inevitable at this point, though, that they always will in the future.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I did hear he had a poor arm, but made up for it by getting rid of the ball quickly.
sure that can work some of the time, if the ball is hit in front of him or slightly laterally, sure, but certainly not all of the time. If the batter had some speed then he probably moved in before the pitch was even thrown thus he's cutting his range down and opening a wider hole for a batter.
I don't care if he gets in or not, and couldn't care less about his personal life, but I think he will get in.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@coolstanley said:
I hope Steve Garvey gets in. Always enjoyed watching his Dodgers in the Post-season. Great player.
While I always object to identifying any team as "his" team, if you're going to do that with the Dodgers then you should use Ron Cey, the best player on that team in those years. Cey was the best player on the team most seasons, and there wasn't even a single season where Garvey was the best, including 1974 when he won the MVP and Jimmy Wynn was the best Dodger by a mile and a half.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Before the recent negative publicity, I thought Vizquel was building momentum for the HOF just based on the votes he has been getting. Last year, he had over 50% and currently, he is at 38.7%. The allegations seem to be affecting him. We can argue the merits of his case for the HOF as many of you have already done, but I never studied Vizquel so deeply to comment on that. As far as the allegations of abuse that have been brought up, this is something for the legal field to resolve. I am not privy to the evidence of that case as I am for player statistics. The HOF voting history is what caught my attention to Vizquel. We have seen players get into the HOF that few of us could have ever guessed.
Vizquel still has time to make it into the HOF. We have to see where these allegations as reported in the news lead him.
Public Ballots: 141
Anonymous/Unverifiable Ballots: 9
% of Ballots Known: 37.9%
"Last Updated:
1/18/2021 at 05:51 PST"
Curt Schilling 74.7%
Barry Bonds 72.0%
Roger Clemens 71.3%
Scott Rolen 64.7%
Todd Helton 54.7%
Billy Wagner 48.0%
Gary Sheffield 46.0%
Andruw Jones 41.3%
Omar Vizquel 38.7%
Manny Ramirez 34.7%
Jeff Kent 28.7%
Sammy Sosa 22.0%
Andy Pettitte 16.0%
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
I think Grace is noticeably, but not significantly, better than Garvey was.
I didn't look close enough to split that hair; you may be right, but whatever difference there is on offense is going to be within the margin of error on the difference in their defense. I think we can both agree that to think of Garvey as a HOFer and not Mark Grace makes no sense. And to think of either of them as HOFers but not Will Clark or Keith Hernandez is probably evidence of a genetic defect.
This is where we part company. I think the HoF has always had problems admitting people who aren't close to the best players on the outside. Chick Hafey went in 50 years ago, for example.
Until recently, the largest streak on the HOF bowl was put there by Frankie Frisch when he chaired the Veteran's Committee in 1971. Along with Hafey, they inducted Rube Marguard, Joe "Highpockets" Kelly, Harry Hooper, and Dave Bancroft. With the exception of the abysmal Class of '71, the HOF had admitted only a very small handful of laughably undeserving members, until Catfish Hunter and Jim Rice opened the floodgates. So I do disagree that the HOF had "always" admitted players who weren't close to the best. I think it's inevitable at this point, though, that they always will in the future.
Please, take a look at, say, 1945. I'd say that is long enough ago to be considered "always". The selections that year include a few all-time greats (Brouthers, Clarke), and a few who have no business there (Duffy, O'Rourke), but also players like Bresnahan who are marginal HoFers under today's standards, but not obviously unworthy, but who never should have gotten in before Schang (will never be installed) and Cochrane (1947).
If you extend 1971 to the whole early 1970s, I'll agree that that was the worst time, even worse than present days, but it wasn't the start of it.
Jim Rice wasn't as bad as you make him out to be. He was clearly the third best of the Red Sox outfielders of that era, and clearly doesn't belong in the HoF, but there are many worse players in there and, at least for a very short time, he was elite. Bottom line: he was no Jim Wynn, but he was no Steve Garvey, either.
@coolstanley said:
I hope Steve Garvey gets in. Always enjoyed watching his Dodgers in the Post-season. Great player.
While I always object to identifying any team as "his" team, if you're going to do that with the Dodgers then you should use Ron Cey, the best player on that team in those years. Cey was the best player on the team most seasons, and there wasn't even a single season where Garvey was the best, including 1974 when he won the MVP and Jimmy Wynn was the best Dodger by a mile and a half.
Please, take a look at, say, 1945. I'd say that is long enough ago to be considered "always". The selections that year include a few all-time greats (Brouthers, Clarke), and a few who have no business there (Duffy, O'Rourke), but also players like Bresnahan who are marginal HoFers under today's standards, but not obviously unworthy, but who never should have gotten in before Schang (will never be installed) and Cochrane (1947).
I disagree on Bresnahan. He was a catcher and an excellent one, and he played catcher at a time when catching even half of a team's games was uncommon. But despite his limited playing time, he still ranks higher than Campanella and Molina on the all-time JAWS list. He played in the deadball era in a pitcher's park so his offensive numbers hardly jump out at you, but they're pretty darn good, and they're outstanding for a catcher (his career OPS+ is the same as Bench's).
I could go either way on O'Rourke, but he doesn't bother me; he was a huge star and one of the best players in the NL for a long time (top 10 in pretty much everything year in and year out). I'll absolutely grant you that the quality of play in the 1870's was terrible, but it was MLB, and O'Rourke was probably the second best player (behind Anson) in it for a decade or more.
I agree Duffy has no business in the HOF; I assume his .440 batting average one season, career .326 and big RBI numbers is what did it. I am more forgiving of the voters who put him in than Rice's voters, though, because there was nobody around in 1945 to point out how easy it was to hit .326 and drive in 100+ runs in the NL in the 1890's. Bill James had devoted books worth of material to explain how Rice's numbers were a Fenway phenomenon long before his induction, and anyone with half a brain could just look up his road numbers to see that he was no better than Chili Davis.
The Frisch years still stand out like a turd in a punchbowl, but I don't think anyone before then bothers me nearly as much as Hunter/Rice/Morris/Baines. If those four can remain just four more turds for a long time, that'll be great. But we're already talking about Omar Vizquel and Steve Garvey's name just won't go away, and I think eventually we won't be able to find the punch in the turdbowl.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Gansetttime said:
Vizquel is very similar to Ozzie Smith, so why not?
They are similar in that they both played shortstop, but that's about where the similarity ends. Smith towers over all of them, too, but Campaneris and Fregosi would also be insulted to be compared to Vizquel.
I agree 100%. Omar never led the league in SS assists, and finished higher than 4th once. Had league average range. Received one down ballot MVP vote in his career.
@coolstanley said:
I hope Steve Garvey gets in. Always enjoyed watching his Dodgers in the Post-season. Great player.
While I always object to identifying any team as "his" team, if you're going to do that with the Dodgers then you should use Ron Cey, the best player on that team in those years. Cey was the best player on the team most seasons, and there wasn't even a single season where Garvey was the best, including 1974 when he won the MVP and Jimmy Wynn was the best Dodger by a mile and a half.
Thats your opinion and I disagree.
Why? Wynn had a much higher OPS and played a more demanding position. He was much better than Garvey.
@coolstanley said:
I hope Steve Garvey gets in. Always enjoyed watching his Dodgers in the Post-season. Great player.
While I always object to identifying any team as "his" team, if you're going to do that with the Dodgers then you should use Ron Cey, the best player on that team in those years. Cey was the best player on the team most seasons, and there wasn't even a single season where Garvey was the best, including 1974 when he won the MVP and Jimmy Wynn was the best Dodger by a mile and a half.
Thats your opinion and I disagree.
Why? Wynn had a much higher OPS and played a more demanding position. He was much better than Garvey.
And a nice 250 BA lol. Wynn only played 2 yrs with the Dodgers.
Cey was the best player on the team most seasons, and there wasn't even a single season where Garvey was the best, including 1974 when he won the MVP and Jimmy Wynn was the best Dodger by a mile and a half.
How on earth did Garvey win the MVP in 1974? Schmidt, Morgan and Bench were better as well as Wynn. Reggie Smith was in the mix and was their best hitter in 1977 and 1978.
As far as the Cey/Garvey comparison, as hitters they were pretty close. Garvey was a little better from 1973-78, Cey a little better after that.
Garvey had 2 of his better years when the Dodgers moved him out of the clean-up spot and put him at #5 behind Cey. A much better spot for him. Smith/Cey/Garvey must have been a nightmare for pitchers in '77 and '78!
Third base is a much tougher position and Cey's value is raised quite a bit. Cey was the much better walker.
I was surprised at how high Garvey's SLG was and at how seldom he walked. I was also amazed at how consistent Garvey was when looking at his splits.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Cey was the best player on the team most seasons, and there wasn't even a single season where Garvey was the best, including 1974 when he won the MVP and Jimmy Wynn was the best Dodger by a mile and a half.
How on earth did Garvey win the MVP in 1974? Schmidt, Morgan and Bench were better as well as Wynn. Reggie Smith was in the mix and was their best hitter in 1977 and 1978.
As far as the Cey/Garvey comparison, as hitters they were pretty close. Garvey was a little better from 1973-78, Cey a little better after that.
Garvey had 2 of his better years when the Dodgers moved him out of the clean-up spot and put him at #5 behind Cey. A much better spot for him. Smith/Cey/Garvey must have been a nightmare for pitchers in '77 and '78!
Third base is a much tougher position and Cey's value is raised quite a bit. Cey was the much better walker.
I was surprised at how high Garvey's SLG was and at how seldom he walked. I was also amazed at how consistent Garvey was when looking at his splits.
All of the Dodgers regulars were remarkably consistent, and the Dodgers were blessed to keep that infield together for so long. But as good and consistent as their core players (including the very underrated Willie Crawford) were, their success was always determined by others: Wynn in '74, Smith in '77 and '78, and however well their offense did, their pitching was better almost every year. I don't think it's a huge deal that the only 70's Dodger in the HOF is Don Sutton, but if I had to add more I would vote for (in order): Wynn, Smith, John, Cey, Lopes, Garvey, Messersmith.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'm not quite through kicking this horse. The meat of Garvey's career is 1974-1986; that includes all of his full seasons and, trust me, if I added any years at the front or back of that period it would hurt Garvey in this analysis, not help him. In those 13 seasons Garvey accumulated 252 Win Shares (Bill James' measure, and the very best stat out there; it includes offense and defense). 252 over 13 years is in a range I would characterize as "very good". I looked at the best 13 year stretches of every player whose career overlapped Garvey's by at least five years, and found their Win Shares for their best overlapping stretch. (i.e., Rose has a better stretch than the one shown here, but it doesn't overlap Garvey's best stretch by at least five years. I know, more complicated than it needed to be). These are the players who beat Garvey, just confined to his own era:
"N" marks those not in the HOF (I counted Rose as a HOFer for this purpose). The HOF "line" is pretty clear; it's right around 300, and everyone who is in the HOF who is much below that is either being recognized for their fielding, or is a mistake.
Garvey is, by this measure, the 47th best player from his own era, and the 25th best player from his own era not in the HOF. Of the N's on this list, any of the ones over 290 wouldn't bother me at all as HOFers. Below that, all around 280, I see Whitaker, Bando, and Evans who, as excellent infielders, wouldn't bother me either. Below that, there are no deserving HOFers in waiting, and when you can't top Toby Harrah, you should be embarrassed to even think about it.
If you expand the scope a bit, Jimmy Wynn's best 13 year streak is 297, but it was well before Garvey's stretch so it doesn't count. And please note Tim Raines place on this list, and contemplate the drooling morons who didn't think he belonged in the HOF; it boggles the mind. And finally, note that there are still 15 players, just from that same era, better than Jim Rice who are not in the HOF.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
I'm not quite through kicking this horse. The meat of Garvey's career is 1974-1986; that includes all of his full seasons and, trust me, if I added any years at the front or back of that period it would hurt Garvey in this analysis, not help him. In those 13 seasons Garvey accumulated 252 Win Shares (Bill James' measure, and the very best stat out there; it includes offense and defense). 252 over 13 years is in a range I would characterize as "very good". I looked at the best 13 year stretches of every player whose career overlapped Garvey's by at least five years, and found their Win Shares for their best overlapping stretch. (i.e., Rose has a better stretch than the one shown here, but it doesn't overlap Garvey's best stretch by at least five years. I know, more complicated than it needed to be). These are the players who beat Garvey, just confined to his own era:
"N" marks those not in the HOF (I counted Rose as a HOFer for this purpose). The HOF "line" is pretty clear; it's right around 300, and everyone who is in the HOF who is much below that is either being recognized for their fielding, or is a mistake.
Garvey is, by this measure, the 47th best player from his own era, and the 25th best player from his own era not in the HOF. Of the N's on this list, any of the ones over 290 wouldn't bother me at all as HOFers. Below that, all around 280, I see Whitaker, Bando, and Evans who, as excellent infielders, wouldn't bother me either. Below that, there are no deserving HOFers in waiting, and when you can't top Toby Harrah, you should be embarrassed to even think about it.
If you expand the scope a bit, Jimmy Wynn's best 13 year streak is 297, but it was well before Garvey's stretch so it doesn't count. And please note Tim Raines place on this list, and contemplate the drooling morons who didn't think he belonged in the HOF; it boggles the mind. And finally, note that there are still 15 players, just from that same era, better than Jim Rice who are not in the HOF.
Not a "bum" on that list!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I was surprised at how high Garvey's SLG was and at how seldom he walked. I was also amazed at how consistent Garvey was when looking at his splits.
Garvey got 200 hits year in and year out. Thing is, 200 hit seasons come in three forms:
1. They are among the greatest seasons ever
2. They are among the most overrated seasons ever
3. They happened in the 1920's and 1930's when 200-hit seasons are just called "seasons"
Ted Williams never got 200 hits, Mickey Mantle never got 200 hits, Willie Mays only did it once. Unless you are one of the greatest hitters to ever walk the planet, accumulating 200 hits in a single season requires that you swing at almost every pitch. If, in 100 ABs, you get 30 hits and make 70 outs, you are nowhere near as valuable as the guy who got 25 hits, 15 walks, and made 60 outs. Anyone who simply can't control themselves should put some masking tape on their computer screens to block out the columns showing hits and batting average on baseball-reference. Any player whose greatness rests on those, and isn't immediately obvious from looking at everything else, is not great.
Nope, no bums. But some less than great players. Unless your vision of the HOF includes Toby Harrah, who was no bum, it's time to get a little perspective on Steve Garvey. Harold Baines, by the way, scores 225, which is below Gene Tenace, Ken Griffey, Sr., and Kent Hrbek - and just a hair above Ron Fairly. Still no bums, but come on.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@coolstanley said:
I hope Steve Garvey gets in. Always enjoyed watching his Dodgers in the Post-season. Great player.
While I always object to identifying any team as "his" team, if you're going to do that with the Dodgers then you should use Ron Cey, the best player on that team in those years. Cey was the best player on the team most seasons, and there wasn't even a single season where Garvey was the best, including 1974 when he won the MVP and Jimmy Wynn was the best Dodger by a mile and a half.
Thats your opinion and I disagree.
Why? Wynn had a much higher OPS and played a more demanding position. He was much better than Garvey.
And a nice 250 BA lol. Wynn only played 2 yrs with the Dodgers.
What’s your point? Both your statements are true, but irrelevant.
If Garvey ever gets in before Keith Hernandez I might get violent and go full shaman
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Is defense and Post-season factor into win shares? People on message boards can debate eye test vs analytics. Its called a Hall Of Fame and Garvey was easily one of the top 5-10 most popular players in his era.
Comments
I'll try one last time, since what you wrote here is completely wrong.
Let's assume that every season is 270 innings for each pitcher and that the league average ERA is 4.00.
The pitcher who pitched for 5 seasons had an ERA 10% better than average, or 3.60. A 3.60 ERA for 5 seasons at 270 innings per season means the pitcher allowed 5 * 270 * 3.60 / 9 = 540 earned runs, where an average pitcher would have allowed 600. This pitcher's RAA is therefore 600 - 540 = 60.
The pitcher who pitched for 15 seasons had an ERA 9% better than average, or 3.64. A 3.64 ERA for 15 seasons at 270 innings per season means the pitcher allowed 15 * 270 * 3.64 / 9 = 1,638 earned runs, where an average pitcher would have allowed 1,800. This pitcher's RAA is therefore 1,800 - 1,638 = 162. This pitcher is not just better than the other pitcher, he is a lot better.
As I said, repeatedly, RAA is a function of both ERA AND innings pitched. The pitchers, like Siebert or Matlack, who have a higher RAA than Hunter despite pitching fewer innings do so for two reasons:
Now that you know that my rankings do take innings pitched into account, and that pitching poorly is treated as worse than not pitching at all, you know all you need to know about my lists. If you disagree with Hunter's position on either list (RAA or RAR) then please explain why. I assume you are not disagreeing that a lower ERA is better than a higher ERA. The only thing that leaves for you to disagree with is that pitching poorly is worse than not pitching at all; that is, you must believe that pitching poorly is better than not pitching at all, and that pitching poorly for a long time is the reason that Hunter was a better pitcher than Matlack. But that's what you denied thinking, so I'm still lost.
I am a better pitcher than them all. I NEVER pitched.
A players inability to make any team means he's WORSE than the WORST player that can make any team.
Not playing HAS to be worse than playing badly.
Rabbit Maranville- the amazing talent who managed a .256 batting avg. in the golden age of the .400 hitters.
Yes, back to Omar.
Below are listed some undisputable FACTS regarding Vizquel.
Omar Vizquel played more games at shortstop than any other man in the history of baseball. Played in 2,968 games 12th all time all positions.
His .9847 fielding percentage was_ highest ever_ for all MLB shortstops min. 1,000 games.
His 1,744 career double plays turned are most for SS all-time.
Scored 1445 runs second only to Honus Wagner, shortstops, all time.
He also won 11 Gold Gloves, second to Ozzie at shortstop all time.
His 404 stolen bases are 5th all time for Shortstops.
He was top 5 in hits all time in hits for shortstops.
"Hung around" and "didn't deserve it" are opinions. This post is about facts.
"Worst guy in the HOF if he got in" I doubt it, but somebody has to be the worst, doesn't in itself mean he doesn't "deserve" it.
There's NO WAY he's not better than some already in the HOF and yes, that's a good argument for induction.
I didn't really follow him even when he was in the AL, even less when he went to the NL.
I couldn't care less if he gets in or he is denied, but I did go through my 1990 Bowman cards and pulled his rookies out, just in case. Not going to give them away.......yet. Wish he would have made the 89 set.
;-)
Joe- Vizquel was a lot better than Rabbit.
Maranville supposedly was a fast, get on base and score runs type hitter. Nope.
He only scored 1256 runs in a long 20+ year career. Stole 25 or so bases per year
until his mid twenties when his SB totals started dropping.
Well he was good on defense then. Nope. 631 errors lifetime. Vizquel only had 183.
Vizquel was much better than Rabbit and probably several of those old timers who are way overrated.
OK, at least now you've said it explicitly. What separates Hunter from Matlack is that Hunter pitched badly for 1,000 innings while Matlack no longer pitched. And it is your, now explicit, position that pitching badly for 1,000 innings is something that bolsters a HOF resume. You denied thinking that earlier, so you can understand my confusion, but now that you've settled on an answer I know where we disagree.
Given your position I won't try to argue anymore for the first list I made, the one based on RAA, runs allowed compared to an average pitcher. Your position that pitching worse than an average pitcher has value (it does) is correct, and your position that pitching worse than an average pitcher adds to a pitcher's HOF case is a defensible opinion (although I disagree).
So I'll focus only on my revised list, the one that compared RAR, or runs allowed compared to a replacement level pitcher (one that the team might call up from AAA). Matlack beats Hunter on that list, too. What that means is that once Matlack retired, at which point he was providing no value at all, his team could replace him with anyone that happened to be available, pitch that guy for 1,000 innings and still come out ahead of the teams that were employing Hunter. In other words, given the hypothetical choice of signing Matlack, knowing he would only pitch 2,500 innings, or Hunter, knowing he would pitch 3,500 innings, a rational team would sign Matlack. They would get 2,500 innings out of Matlack that were enough better than Hunter, that no matter who they used to pitch those extra 1,000 innings they'd still come out ahead. Both Matlack's former team and Hunter's actual team would get 1,000 innings of poor pitching, but Hunter's team would be paying a veteran's salary for those innings while Matlack's team would be paying league minimum. My contention is that there is no "value" in paying more money for something that is readily available for less money. Your position, assuming you aren't going to change it again, is that there is not only value, but so much value that it elevates Hunter into the HOF conversation.
And note that on the RAR list Hunter did pass a lot of short career guys who had been ahead of him on the RAA list. He passes those pitchers on the theory that pitching badly does still have value, and for the sake of this discussion I am conceding that point. But pitching so badly that literally ANY pitcher could take those innings and do just as well? I am not conceding that pitching THAT badly has any value at all, and in fact has negative value since a pitcher pitching that badly can be replaced for less money, or even not replaced at all but relegated to relieving in blowouts and replaced in the rotation by a better than replacement level pitcher already on the roster.
Maranville was considered, at the time he was inducted, the GOAT fielding shortstop. He may or may not have been, but he was certainly great and he's in that small group who were inducted as fielders only. Vizquel was a better baseball player than Maranville, but Maranville, in my opinion, is a more deserving HOFer because of his plausible GOAT status. Just an opinion, but one that the HOF shares; they have always made space for GOATs, provided what a player was GOAT at was deemed important enough.
You're still confused.
But now I understand your confusion! Your saying that Matlack and the next guy (or the guy before) together were better than Hunter. That's a different argument, and only MAYBE correct. You better hope the next guy (or the guy before) was pretty good, he might be below average.
Hey it looks like you are right! Dave Stewart came in right about the time Matlack bit the dust, and even though he wasn't great for a couple of seasons (or even with the same team) his 1987-90 run puts the Matlack/Stewart combo WAY ahead of Hunter. I guess that makes Stewart better than Hunter too!
Pretty nice how that worked out for you. Man, you really crushed me that time!
No matter how you try to spin the numbers, (and one number NEVER proves player A is "better" than player B ), Jon Matlack, (a fine pitcher for a couple of seasons) will still never be as good of a pitcher as Catfish Hunter.
And it is your, now explicit, position that Mark Fydrich, should be in the HOF! Bring in your theoretical player after Fydrich's arm fell off, and just plug in whatever number you like and Mark's in the HOF. I always liked that guy, he was so weird!
Have a Happy New Year. I'm done with the Hunter debate.
Surely you understand why.
This is the point that you're still not grasping. I don't need to hope that the next guy is pretty good. I don't need to hope that the next guy is good at all. I don't even need to hope that he's just below average. I just need him to be a pitcher, any pitcher, even a terrible pitcher, and I'm still going to come out ahead of the team stuck with Hunter. If Matlack's replacement turns out to be good, then I'm miles ahead, but even if I use a parade of terrible pitchers who keep getting released or sent back to the minors, I still come out ahead of Hunter's teams. Matlack was that much better than Hunter that he built a "cushion" over Hunter that simply can't be eliminated no matter who I get to pitch those innings.
You keep saying this, but you have never once tried to explain why you believe this other than to say sucking for a long time is better than retiring. Sucking is sucking, and I will never be convinced that the longer a player sucks the better he is, but on that proposition rests 100% of your "case" for Hunter.
To get Fidrych into the HOF, in the theoretical way you are using, would require replacing him with a pitcher who was very, very good. This is, again, the part you aren't grasping. I am not replacing Matlack with "whatever pitcher I like", I'm replacing him with a terrible pitcher right on the line of being good enough to pitch in the major leagues at all. Nobody "likes" the replacement pitchers I am using, but everyone has a bunch of them available all the time, almost for free. Replace Fidrych with one of those pitchers and after 15 years you'd have a pitcher not just miles worse than Hunter, but the worst pitcher of all time.
And a Happy New Year to you, too!
of all the recent highly debatable HOF/borderline players, Vizquel is the one who doesn't even need advanced stats to disprove. He was fine. Pretty good for a few years, a premier out-maker for the majority. Defensively, he's gotten by because of ESPN's "Web Gems". He was pretty good, but he wasn't even JJ Hardy good. He had great hands. What he didn't have was a great arm. He wasn't David Eckstein, but he also wasn't far off from Ryan Theriot. Pretty sure that's why Seattle traded him in the first place. They weren't sure he wasn't a 2B and they had Bret Boone already frosting his tips so they dumped Vizquel for Felix Fermin who was a questionable SS in his own right (they released him like a year and a half later... and A-rod was drafted like 4 months after the Vizquel trade so they didn't trade Vizquel because A-rod was on the way...).
So if one were to say, you can have 10-12 years of a healthy Omar Vizquel in his average season, or you can have 10-12 years of a healthy & average season of Rafael Furcal or JJ Hardy, I'll take either of the latter two every single time.
But how was he on the forecheck?
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
average boots, not much jam. Needs another year with Curt Fraser in Grand Rapids.
I'm sorry. I was unclear. I was looking for a stat analogous to WHIP to account for power, so giving up a triple would be worse than a walk. Scaling it for park factors would make it both less accessible and more valuable.
Gotcha. That stat doesn't exist, except in the extremely limited sense that I calculated it for one season in one league in this thread. Hunter led the league in WHIP in 1974, his Cy Young year, with a figure below 1.0, but falls to seventh after adjustments. The adjusted WHIP stats are in my post about halfway through the thread.
.
I always thought he was a HOFer. I expected him to be in already. 9th all time in defensive WAR and just 123 hits from 3,000
Most games at SS and highest fielding % as well all-time.
I am still unsure of why many are saying he wasn't a great fielder, but I didn't see him play, only going off of numbers, and that can be a problem.
It's a little like saying Steve Garvey was great defensively at 1B because of his fielding percentage. It ignores that he had the range of a statue.
Garvey was great defensively at 1B. His range was fine, it was his arm that was his weakness and what made him so godawful at 3B. But he was a superstar at digging balls out of the dirt, fielding bunts, and as noted, made very few errors. Now, the contest for best fielding first baseman isn't far from a tallest midget contest, but I have laughed at Garvey's HOF supporters so often I felt the need to give credit where credit is due.
Again, I can't dispute what you are saying because I didn't see him enough.
All those GG and the voters are wrong. Highest Fielding % and he had poor range.
I would think that the guy who played the longest would make errors in his "old man years" and not maintain the highest fielding %.
With all the numbers he has, I really think you guys should be mentally prepared to see him in the HOF.
The induction of Harold Baines has me mentally prepared for the induction of pretty much any random baseball player, and Garvey certainly qualifies. There's not a dime's worth of difference between Steve Garvey and Mark Grace, and had Grace played on a better team and looked like Captain America then he'd have lasted longer than a single ballot before the HOF forgot about him. But he'd still be Mark Grace, he'd still be the same player as Steve Garvey, and he still wouldn't belong in the HOF.
Or rather, he wouldn't belong in the HOF as it existed before Hunter/Rice/Morris/Baines got in. On the path it's going not only will Garvey get in, Bob Watson, Cecil Cooper, and, eventually, Kent Hrbek and Ron Fairly will get in. But rather than just accept that one day I'll be arguing about Bruce Bochte's HOF qualifications, I will continue to point out the chasm of talent that exists between players like Steve Garvey and the players who populated the HOF until recently.
I was referring to Vizquel, not Garvey.
the range wasn't the problem, his range was fine. His arm was average at best. Probably a little below. He had great hands, great at coming in on the ball, good laterally, just didn't have the arm. Next time you see the Mets on TV, or the Rockies with Trevor Story etc, watch where they position themselves. Lindor plays really deep because he has the arm to throw guys out from the dirt/grass cutout. Thus that boosts his range factor, and that's why his Outs Above Average and those types of stats are what they are. The deeper you're able to play without getting burned, the more outs you're converting. I'm sure there are youtube clips of Vizquel's "highlight reel" plays available for refreshers, but I'm also sure if you see one where he's ranging into the (SS/3B) hole on the backhand and throwing the runner out, it's going to be Danny Tartabull & the Steinway that's strapped to his back "running", and that throw will have bend and cut because it's not going to be getting confused as a Shawon Dunston-grade seed.
I did hear he had a poor arm, but made up for it by getting rid of the ball quickly.
.
sure that can work some of the time, if the ball is hit in front of him or slightly laterally, sure, but certainly not all of the time. If the batter had some speed then he probably moved in before the pitch was even thrown thus he's cutting his range down and opening a wider hole for a batter.
I think Grace is noticeably, but not significantly, better than Garvey was.
This is where we part company. I think the HoF has always had problems admitting people who aren't close to the best players on the outside. Chick Hafey went in 50 years ago, for example.
.
I didn't look close enough to split that hair; you may be right, but whatever difference there is on offense is going to be within the margin of error on the difference in their defense. I think we can both agree that to think of Garvey as a HOFer and not Mark Grace makes no sense. And to think of either of them as HOFers but not Will Clark or Keith Hernandez is probably evidence of a genetic defect.
Until recently, the largest streak on the HOF bowl was put there by Frankie Frisch when he chaired the Veteran's Committee in 1971. Along with Hafey, they inducted Rube Marguard, Joe "Highpockets" Kelly, Harry Hooper, and Dave Bancroft. With the exception of the abysmal Class of '71, the HOF had admitted only a very small handful of laughably undeserving members, until Catfish Hunter and Jim Rice opened the floodgates. So I do disagree that the HOF had "always" admitted players who weren't close to the best. I think it's inevitable at this point, though, that they always will in the future.
I hope Steve Garvey gets in. Always enjoyed watching his Dodgers in the Post-season. Great player.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I don't care if he gets in or not, and couldn't care less about his personal life, but I think he will get in.
While I always object to identifying any team as "his" team, if you're going to do that with the Dodgers then you should use Ron Cey, the best player on that team in those years. Cey was the best player on the team most seasons, and there wasn't even a single season where Garvey was the best, including 1974 when he won the MVP and Jimmy Wynn was the best Dodger by a mile and a half.
Before the recent negative publicity, I thought Vizquel was building momentum for the HOF just based on the votes he has been getting. Last year, he had over 50% and currently, he is at 38.7%. The allegations seem to be affecting him. We can argue the merits of his case for the HOF as many of you have already done, but I never studied Vizquel so deeply to comment on that. As far as the allegations of abuse that have been brought up, this is something for the legal field to resolve. I am not privy to the evidence of that case as I am for player statistics. The HOF voting history is what caught my attention to Vizquel. We have seen players get into the HOF that few of us could have ever guessed.
Vizquel still has time to make it into the HOF. We have to see where these allegations as reported in the news lead him.
Public Ballots: 141
Anonymous/Unverifiable Ballots: 9
% of Ballots Known: 37.9%
"Last Updated:
1/18/2021 at 05:51 PST"
Curt Schilling 74.7%
Barry Bonds 72.0%
Roger Clemens 71.3%
Scott Rolen 64.7%
Todd Helton 54.7%
Billy Wagner 48.0%
Gary Sheffield 46.0%
Andruw Jones 41.3%
Omar Vizquel 38.7%
Manny Ramirez 34.7%
Jeff Kent 28.7%
Sammy Sosa 22.0%
Andy Pettitte 16.0%
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I will strongly agree with this.
Please, take a look at, say, 1945. I'd say that is long enough ago to be considered "always". The selections that year include a few all-time greats (Brouthers, Clarke), and a few who have no business there (Duffy, O'Rourke), but also players like Bresnahan who are marginal HoFers under today's standards, but not obviously unworthy, but who never should have gotten in before Schang (will never be installed) and Cochrane (1947).
If you extend 1971 to the whole early 1970s, I'll agree that that was the worst time, even worse than present days, but it wasn't the start of it.
Jim Rice wasn't as bad as you make him out to be. He was clearly the third best of the Red Sox outfielders of that era, and clearly doesn't belong in the HoF, but there are many worse players in there and, at least for a very short time, he was elite. Bottom line: he was no Jim Wynn, but he was no Steve Garvey, either.
Thats your opinion and I disagree.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I disagree on Bresnahan. He was a catcher and an excellent one, and he played catcher at a time when catching even half of a team's games was uncommon. But despite his limited playing time, he still ranks higher than Campanella and Molina on the all-time JAWS list. He played in the deadball era in a pitcher's park so his offensive numbers hardly jump out at you, but they're pretty darn good, and they're outstanding for a catcher (his career OPS+ is the same as Bench's).
I could go either way on O'Rourke, but he doesn't bother me; he was a huge star and one of the best players in the NL for a long time (top 10 in pretty much everything year in and year out). I'll absolutely grant you that the quality of play in the 1870's was terrible, but it was MLB, and O'Rourke was probably the second best player (behind Anson) in it for a decade or more.
I agree Duffy has no business in the HOF; I assume his .440 batting average one season, career .326 and big RBI numbers is what did it. I am more forgiving of the voters who put him in than Rice's voters, though, because there was nobody around in 1945 to point out how easy it was to hit .326 and drive in 100+ runs in the NL in the 1890's. Bill James had devoted books worth of material to explain how Rice's numbers were a Fenway phenomenon long before his induction, and anyone with half a brain could just look up his road numbers to see that he was no better than Chili Davis.
The Frisch years still stand out like a turd in a punchbowl, but I don't think anyone before then bothers me nearly as much as Hunter/Rice/Morris/Baines. If those four can remain just four more turds for a long time, that'll be great. But we're already talking about Omar Vizquel and Steve Garvey's name just won't go away, and I think eventually we won't be able to find the punch in the turdbowl.
I agree 100%. Omar never led the league in SS assists, and finished higher than 4th once. Had league average range. Received one down ballot MVP vote in his career.
As Bill James said, he has a great defensive reputation without the numbers to back it up.
Why? Wynn had a much higher OPS and played a more demanding position. He was much better than Garvey.
Doesn't he have the highest fielding % all time at SS while also playing the most games?
And a nice 250 BA lol. Wynn only played 2 yrs with the Dodgers.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Cey was the best player on the team most seasons, and there wasn't even a single season where Garvey was the best, including 1974 when he won the MVP and Jimmy Wynn was the best Dodger by a mile and a half.
How on earth did Garvey win the MVP in 1974? Schmidt, Morgan and Bench were better as well as Wynn. Reggie Smith was in the mix and was their best hitter in 1977 and 1978.
As far as the Cey/Garvey comparison, as hitters they were pretty close. Garvey was a little better from 1973-78, Cey a little better after that.
Garvey had 2 of his better years when the Dodgers moved him out of the clean-up spot and put him at #5 behind Cey. A much better spot for him. Smith/Cey/Garvey must have been a nightmare for pitchers in '77 and '78!
Third base is a much tougher position and Cey's value is raised quite a bit. Cey was the much better walker.
I was surprised at how high Garvey's SLG was and at how seldom he walked. I was also amazed at how consistent Garvey was when looking at his splits.
All of the Dodgers regulars were remarkably consistent, and the Dodgers were blessed to keep that infield together for so long. But as good and consistent as their core players (including the very underrated Willie Crawford) were, their success was always determined by others: Wynn in '74, Smith in '77 and '78, and however well their offense did, their pitching was better almost every year. I don't think it's a huge deal that the only 70's Dodger in the HOF is Don Sutton, but if I had to add more I would vote for (in order): Wynn, Smith, John, Cey, Lopes, Garvey, Messersmith.
I'm not quite through kicking this horse. The meat of Garvey's career is 1974-1986; that includes all of his full seasons and, trust me, if I added any years at the front or back of that period it would hurt Garvey in this analysis, not help him. In those 13 seasons Garvey accumulated 252 Win Shares (Bill James' measure, and the very best stat out there; it includes offense and defense). 252 over 13 years is in a range I would characterize as "very good". I looked at the best 13 year stretches of every player whose career overlapped Garvey's by at least five years, and found their Win Shares for their best overlapping stretch. (i.e., Rose has a better stretch than the one shown here, but it doesn't overlap Garvey's best stretch by at least five years. I know, more complicated than it needed to be). These are the players who beat Garvey, just confined to his own era:
"N" marks those not in the HOF (I counted Rose as a HOFer for this purpose). The HOF "line" is pretty clear; it's right around 300, and everyone who is in the HOF who is much below that is either being recognized for their fielding, or is a mistake.
Garvey is, by this measure, the 47th best player from his own era, and the 25th best player from his own era not in the HOF. Of the N's on this list, any of the ones over 290 wouldn't bother me at all as HOFers. Below that, all around 280, I see Whitaker, Bando, and Evans who, as excellent infielders, wouldn't bother me either. Below that, there are no deserving HOFers in waiting, and when you can't top Toby Harrah, you should be embarrassed to even think about it.
If you expand the scope a bit, Jimmy Wynn's best 13 year streak is 297, but it was well before Garvey's stretch so it doesn't count. And please note Tim Raines place on this list, and contemplate the drooling morons who didn't think he belonged in the HOF; it boggles the mind. And finally, note that there are still 15 players, just from that same era, better than Jim Rice who are not in the HOF.
Not a "bum" on that list!
Garvey got 200 hits year in and year out. Thing is, 200 hit seasons come in three forms:
1. They are among the greatest seasons ever
2. They are among the most overrated seasons ever
3. They happened in the 1920's and 1930's when 200-hit seasons are just called "seasons"
Ted Williams never got 200 hits, Mickey Mantle never got 200 hits, Willie Mays only did it once. Unless you are one of the greatest hitters to ever walk the planet, accumulating 200 hits in a single season requires that you swing at almost every pitch. If, in 100 ABs, you get 30 hits and make 70 outs, you are nowhere near as valuable as the guy who got 25 hits, 15 walks, and made 60 outs. Anyone who simply can't control themselves should put some masking tape on their computer screens to block out the columns showing hits and batting average on baseball-reference. Any player whose greatness rests on those, and isn't immediately obvious from looking at everything else, is not great.
Nope, no bums. But some less than great players. Unless your vision of the HOF includes Toby Harrah, who was no bum, it's time to get a little perspective on Steve Garvey. Harold Baines, by the way, scores 225, which is below Gene Tenace, Ken Griffey, Sr., and Kent Hrbek - and just a hair above Ron Fairly. Still no bums, but come on.
What’s your point? Both your statements are true, but irrelevant.
If Garvey ever gets in before Keith Hernandez I might get violent and go full shaman
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Is defense and Post-season factor into win shares? People on message boards can debate eye test vs analytics. Its called a Hall Of Fame and Garvey was easily one of the top 5-10 most popular players in his era.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21