@Darin said:
The HOF'er I always name in these threads was about as good as Mario Mendoza.
Rabbit Maranville......... in the golden age of the .400 hitter managed a lifetime BA of .258
which would mean in todays' game he would hit maybe .220
But he was fast wasn't he? Well he was 1920's white guy fast. Which translates today of
having about the same speed as a 42-53 year old Albert Pujols or however old he is.
Great on defense correct? Well if he kept the errors under 50 per year it seems that was a pretty
good defensive year for him.
I'm actually convinced this guy got in the HOF just on a nickname alone. Rabbit.
He should be kicked out just on this simple statistic alone.
As I mentioned he played in the golden age of the .400 hitter. Not uncommon at all for
players to hit over .400 and many players would hit .350-.370 and nobody would blink
an eye because that was common.
But our hero? Well in a long 20+ year career he never hit over .300 !!!!!!!!!!!
I hereby declare Mario Mendoza was a better player then Maranville and its pretty much checkmate on any viable retorts.
You're right.
In discussions such as this, Rabbit Maranville used to be my main whipping boy until Bill Mazeroski came along.
Mazeroski is a good choice also. Like you said he's only a HOF'er because of a famous
post season HR. Maranville is only in because of his nickname.
It was a long time ago since I've read about it, but if i recall correctly, Maranville was a popular player personally. A lot of players liked him and others liked him as well.
Sometimes if not often, likability can get ya places that an unliked person wouldn't get. Such as...lemme think for a second...oh yea, the Baseball Hall of Fame.
I hereby declare Mario Mendoza was a better player then Maranville and its pretty much checkmate on any viable retorts.
As good as the Yaz/Williams joke was, you took the crown with this one! And bonus points for originality; even though I still have no idea what "overrated" means in this thread, I surely would never have thought that Maranville or Mendoza would make an appearance in it. And the irony of declaring possibly the worst baseball player in history as better than a bona fide HOFer, and thereby making Mario Mendoza himself the most overrated player ever - that was a masterstroke. Seriously, very well done.
Thanks Dallas, all compliments appreciated!
It always amused me that Bill James worshippers use stats, sometimes obscure stats, to make their points, and that's fine...I'm not saying there isn't some validity to it. However when the stats don't fit their narrative, then suddenly Bill James becomes irrelevant. LOL
@Darin said:
The HOF'er I always name in these threads was about as good as Mario Mendoza.
Rabbit Maranville......... in the golden age of the .400 hitter managed a lifetime BA of .258
which would mean in todays' game he would hit maybe .220
But he was fast wasn't he? Well he was 1920's white guy fast. Which translates today of
having about the same speed as a 42-53 year old Albert Pujols or however old he is.
Great on defense correct? Well if he kept the errors under 50 per year it seems that was a pretty
good defensive year for him.
I'm actually convinced this guy got in the HOF just on a nickname alone. Rabbit.
He should be kicked out just on this simple statistic alone.
As I mentioned he played in the golden age of the .400 hitter. Not uncommon at all for
players to hit over .400 and many players would hit .350-.370 and nobody would blink
an eye because that was common.
But our hero? Well in a long 20+ year career he never hit over .300 !!!!!!!!!!!
I hereby declare Mario Mendoza was a better player then Maranville and its pretty much checkmate on any viable retorts.
You're right.
In discussions such as this, Rabbit Maranville used to be my main whipping boy until Bill Mazeroski came along.
Mazeroski is a good choice also. Like you said he's only a HOF'er because of a famous
post season HR. Maranville is only in because of his nickname.
It was a long time ago since I've read about it, but if i recall correctly, Maranville was a popular player personally. A lot of players liked him and others liked him as well.
Sometimes if not often, likability can get ya places that an unliked person wouldn't get. Such as...lemme think for a second...oh yea, the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Found this comment about Maranville and it does seem popularity played a huge part
in getting him in the HOF, I didn't write this but the bit about Brett is completely true.....
He was considered something of a clutch hitter (although I tend to find most claims of being “clutch” not involving George Brett to be somewhat dubious). He had an incredibly long career, and he was enormously popular.
Killebrew "beats" Yastrzemski eight out of ten years, and I wouldn't call Carl's 1962 a superb year by any stretch of the imagination.
If you say that the fourth-best left fielder by JAWS doesn't make your top ten left fielders, and disappears if you bring in the entire outfield, then yes, I'll say you rate him poorly.
I can't rate him higher than guys that were better.
You're forgetting that there were a lot of great outfielders better than Yaz; Already mentioned several, here's more; Ruth, Cobb, Speaker, Dimaggio, Snider, Griffey Jr, Musial, Ott, Joe and Reggie Jackson, Larry Walker, and a bunch of guys all with better numbers in other areas.
JAWS is only one number, OPS is another one.
Even though you didn't ask, I see a player with three superb years, six more that were very good, and a solid contributor every year from when he was 20 to when he was 40. That's inner circle.
I never said Carl didn't belong in the HOF.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Darin said:
Goldenage- Dwight Evans should be in the Hof In my opinion.
As an everyday player he was above average in every phase.
Hitting, fielding, baserunning, arm strength. He was so valuable just to
plug into the lineup every day and get the consistency that he brought.
Unlike Maz and Maranville who were so one dimensional or in Rabbits' case
zero dimensional that in the course of a career they just hurt their team so much
with their complete incompetence at the plate.
Another player that should be in the HOF is Will Clark. He's being punished too much
for retiring early. His last season was a great year and he could have continued at
a high level but he simply didn't want to.
Non Hof'er Will Clarks career OPS+ - 137. Maranville- 82. Maz- 84. LOL.
If some players want to make the hall of fame, they have to have signature events in their career that propel them over
the rest of their peers. Some say that Catfish Hunter doesn't belong, but look what he did in the postseason when all the writers/voters were watching. Look what Brooks Robinson did in the 1970 world series when all the voters were watching.
Look at what George Brett did in the postseason which enabled him to get 98 percent of the vote on his first ballot.
Dwight Evans, and for that matter Jim Rice, did not have enough performances like a Brooks, Catfish, or Brett.
If you're a borderline hall of fame player, then you really have to put up some big performances in your career to
show that you were above your peers.
Jim Rice is in the hall but I remember him more for grounding into double plays than anything else.
Dwight Evans had a very nice career, but he never did anything spectacular. He was just very good for many seasons.
Yaz (who has been debated in this thread), had a nice career, but he had a very above average span (like Koufax) which
put him and Sandy above their peers.
This is what stands out to hall of fame voters. Did you do something during your career that puts you above the rest.
If you hit like a platoon player away from home, and never led your team into the postseason because you were too
busy arguing with your team mates and clicking your heels, then you probably don't belong in the hall of fame.
It always amused me that Bill James worshippers use stats, sometimes obscure stats, to make their points, and that's fine...I'm not saying there isn't some validity to it. However when the stats don't fit their narrative, then suddenly Bill James becomes irrelevant. LOL
LOL. I'm starting to get the hang of this thread. Obviously, ignoring "Bill James" stats (or any valid stats) is key to almost every post, which leads to some pretty funny stuff. But you took it a step further here: you ignore Bill James' stats, you reach a conclusion that you can only reach if you know what Bill James says about Maranville (i.e., if you don't ignore them), but your conclusion is the one people would reach if they did ignore Bill James. It's somehow circular and contradictory at the same time. Sorry, it's not as funny as the Mendoza post, so Darin retains the crown (for now - I don't want anybody to stop trying!), but a solid effort.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
It always amused me that Bill James worshippers use stats, sometimes obscure stats, to make their points, and that's fine...I'm not saying there isn't some validity to it. However when the stats don't fit their narrative, then suddenly Bill James becomes irrelevant. LOL
LOL. I'm starting to get the hang of this thread. Obviously, ignoring "Bill James" stats (or any valid stats) is key to almost every post, which leads to some pretty funny stuff. But you took it a step further here: you ignore Bill James' stats, you reach a conclusion that you can only reach if you know what Bill James says about Maranville (i.e., if you don't ignore them), but your conclusion is the one people would reach if they did ignore Bill James. It's somehow circular and contradictory at the same time. Sorry, it's not as funny as the Mendoza post, so Darin retains the crown (for now - I don't want anybody to stop trying!), but a solid effort.
Yea, but i'm not the one who just removed supporting (however you worded it) Bill Mazeroski and Ron Santo from his sigline.
It always amused me that Bill James worshippers use stats, sometimes obscure stats, to make their points, and that's fine...I'm not saying there isn't some validity to it. However when the stats don't fit their narrative, then suddenly Bill James becomes irrelevant. LOL
LOL. I'm starting to get the hang of this thread. Obviously, ignoring "Bill James" stats (or any valid stats) is key to almost every post, which leads to some pretty funny stuff. But you took it a step further here: you ignore Bill James' stats, you reach a conclusion that you can only reach if you know what Bill James says about Maranville (i.e., if you don't ignore them), but your conclusion is the one people would reach if they did ignore Bill James. It's somehow circular and contradictory at the same time. Sorry, it's not as funny as the Mendoza post, so Darin retains the crown (for now - I don't want anybody to stop trying!), but a solid effort.
Yea, but i'm not the one who just removed supporting (however you worded it) Bill Mazeroski and Ron Santo from his sigline.
Yea, but i'm not the one who just removed supporting (however you worded it) Bill Mazeroski and Ron Santo from his sigline.
i guess the heat in this thread got to you?
I have been, still am, and always will be (it's a lifetime appointment) the "Official Defender" of Messrs. Mazeroski and Santo (and Blyleven). I changed my sigline to shield them from the jokes flying around in this thread; I couldn't be sure they'd recognize them as jokes.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Dallas- According to past posts of yours longevity counts for something,
so Rabbit sucked for a lot longer period of time than Mendoza so Mario was superior.
Rabbit hurt his team more simply by playing for them a lot longer than Mendoza.
Its like if another self appointed baseball expert joined the boards and was as full of as
much nonsense as you are. He would be a better poster than you simply by not having as
many posts to his credit. You both would not know what you're talking about, but you've
been doing it for a lot longer just like Rabbit didn't know what he was doing on a baseball
field a lot longer than Mendoza.
@Darin said:
Dallas- According to past posts of yours longevity counts for something,
so Rabbit sucked for a lot longer period of time than Mendoza so Mario was superior.
Rabbit hurt his team more simply by playing for them a lot longer than Mendoza.
Its like if another self appointed baseball expert joined the boards and was as full of as
much nonsense as you are. He would be a better poster than you simply by not having as
many posts to his credit. You both would not know what you're talking about, but you've
been doing it for a lot longer just like Rabbit didn't know what he was doing on a baseball
field a lot longer than Mendoza.
Well that was just mean. You hurt my feelings and made me cry.
{No, I do get the joke. YOU telling ME that I post nonsense. It made me laugh.}
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Yea, but i'm not the one who just removed supporting (however you worded it) Bill Mazeroski and Ron Santo from his sigline.
i guess the heat in this thread got to you?
I have been, still am, and always will be (it's a lifetime appointment) the "Official Defender" of Messrs. Mazeroski and Santo (and Blyleven). I changed my sigline to shield them from the jokes flying around in this thread; I couldn't be sure they'd recognize them as jokes.
Well possibly that made more sense than any of my rambling posts. I blame it on too much healthy organic food. I need to start consuming those good old fashioned corporate made chemistry set frozen dinners again. I think my body may be lacking in the important nutrients found in artificial colors and flavorings.
Well possibly that made more sense than any of my rambling posts. I blame it on too much healthy organic food. I need to start consuming those good old fashioned corporate made chemistry set frozen dinners again. I think my body may be lacking in the important nutrients found in artificial colors and flavorings.
Nothing in this thread makes any sense at all; no need to worry about that. If you're looking for healthier food, I live on Mountain Dew and Winstons and I'm stilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Mike Trout supposedly gets a boost in his value because he plays centerfield. Never mind that he plays it poorly. The advanced stats are finally reflecting what had been apparent to my eyes for years.
He's supposed to be an all-time great hitter, and he certainly is when his team is up or down by 5 or 6 runs, or out of the race and playing out the string against another bottom feeder, but I promise you, he is not nearly the most feared hitter on his own team with the game on the line. The opposing pitchers certainly would much rather avoid Anthony Rendon, and they probably still fear Albert Pujols more, even though he's approaching 50. They may now even be more concerned with Showtime or Upton. Heck, even David Fletcher is probably a more worrisome out for them in a pressure situation. With Trout, if you can locate your pitches up in the zone, he'll either flail away, popping it up or missing the pitch completely, or else just freeze up and watch 3 strikes go by and get rung up with that stupid look on his face. The frustration on Maddon's face every time Trout just stands there watching meatballs go by like a girl in a bikini is evident in every camera cut to the dugout. Talk to some actual Angels fans, they'll tell you the same thing.
I have watched probably 75-80 percent of the Angels games live over the last 3 or 4 years on MLB.TV, and nearly every Trout at bat during that time using the game replay feature the next day. None of this is a new flaw in his game. I've been saying it for years, and even pointed out his propensity for taking called third strikes last August. Mike Trout then proceeded to make me look like a prophet by taking 11 called third strikes in a 13 game span. Do you even realize how bad that is? Swing the bat, superstar!
Arte would have saved himself a lot of money, and understood the definition of overrated, if he'd only read The Count's scouting report.
Comments
It was a long time ago since I've read about it, but if i recall correctly, Maranville was a popular player personally. A lot of players liked him and others liked him as well.
Sometimes if not often, likability can get ya places that an unliked person wouldn't get. Such as...lemme think for a second...oh yea, the Baseball Hall of Fame.
It always amused me that Bill James worshippers use stats, sometimes obscure stats, to make their points, and that's fine...I'm not saying there isn't some validity to it. However when the stats don't fit their narrative, then suddenly Bill James becomes irrelevant. LOL
Found this comment about Maranville and it does seem popularity played a huge part
in getting him in the HOF, I didn't write this but the bit about Brett is completely true.....
He was considered something of a clutch hitter (although I tend to find most claims of being “clutch” not involving George Brett to be somewhat dubious). He had an incredibly long career, and he was enormously popular.
Killebrew's 10 "superb" seasons vs Yaz's best;
Killebrew 1961 OPS 1.012 HR 46 Yaz 1970 1.044/40
1969 1.011/49 1967 1.040/44
1967 .965/44 1965 .932/20
1970 .957/41 1968 .922/23
1966 .929/39 1963 .894/14
1964 .924/49 1977 .877/28
1962 .912/48 1969 .870/40
1960 .909/31 1973 .870/19
1963 .904/45 1974 .859/15
1959 .870/42 1962 .832/19
Killebrew "beats" Yastrzemski eight out of ten years, and I wouldn't call Carl's 1962 a superb year by any stretch of the imagination.
I can't rate him higher than guys that were better.
You're forgetting that there were a lot of great outfielders better than Yaz; Already mentioned several, here's more; Ruth, Cobb, Speaker, Dimaggio, Snider, Griffey Jr, Musial, Ott, Joe and Reggie Jackson, Larry Walker, and a bunch of guys all with better numbers in other areas.
JAWS is only one number, OPS is another one.
I never said Carl didn't belong in the HOF.
If some players want to make the hall of fame, they have to have signature events in their career that propel them over
the rest of their peers. Some say that Catfish Hunter doesn't belong, but look what he did in the postseason when all the writers/voters were watching. Look what Brooks Robinson did in the 1970 world series when all the voters were watching.
Look at what George Brett did in the postseason which enabled him to get 98 percent of the vote on his first ballot.
Dwight Evans, and for that matter Jim Rice, did not have enough performances like a Brooks, Catfish, or Brett.
If you're a borderline hall of fame player, then you really have to put up some big performances in your career to
show that you were above your peers.
Jim Rice is in the hall but I remember him more for grounding into double plays than anything else.
Dwight Evans had a very nice career, but he never did anything spectacular. He was just very good for many seasons.
Yaz (who has been debated in this thread), had a nice career, but he had a very above average span (like Koufax) which
put him and Sandy above their peers.
This is what stands out to hall of fame voters. Did you do something during your career that puts you above the rest.
If you hit like a platoon player away from home, and never led your team into the postseason because you were too
busy arguing with your team mates and clicking your heels, then you probably don't belong in the hall of fame.
LOL. I'm starting to get the hang of this thread. Obviously, ignoring "Bill James" stats (or any valid stats) is key to almost every post, which leads to some pretty funny stuff. But you took it a step further here: you ignore Bill James' stats, you reach a conclusion that you can only reach if you know what Bill James says about Maranville (i.e., if you don't ignore them), but your conclusion is the one people would reach if they did ignore Bill James. It's somehow circular and contradictory at the same time. Sorry, it's not as funny as the Mendoza post, so Darin retains the crown (for now - I don't want anybody to stop trying!), but a solid effort.
Yea, but i'm not the one who just removed supporting (however you worded it) Bill Mazeroski and Ron Santo from his sigline.
i guess the heat in this thread got to you?
Thread can now officially be closed. Thank you all for coming.
I have been, still am, and always will be (it's a lifetime appointment) the "Official Defender" of Messrs. Mazeroski and Santo (and Blyleven). I changed my sigline to shield them from the jokes flying around in this thread; I couldn't be sure they'd recognize them as jokes.
Dallas- According to past posts of yours longevity counts for something,
so Rabbit sucked for a lot longer period of time than Mendoza so Mario was superior.
Rabbit hurt his team more simply by playing for them a lot longer than Mendoza.
Its like if another self appointed baseball expert joined the boards and was as full of as
much nonsense as you are. He would be a better poster than you simply by not having as
many posts to his credit. You both would not know what you're talking about, but you've
been doing it for a lot longer just like Rabbit didn't know what he was doing on a baseball
field a lot longer than Mendoza.
Well that was just mean. You hurt my feelings and made me cry.
{No, I do get the joke. YOU telling ME that I post nonsense. It made me laugh.}
Well possibly that made more sense than any of my rambling posts. I blame it on too much healthy organic food. I need to start consuming those good old fashioned corporate made chemistry set frozen dinners again. I think my body may be lacking in the important nutrients found in artificial colors and flavorings.
Nothing in this thread makes any sense at all; no need to worry about that. If you're looking for healthier food, I live on Mountain Dew and Winstons and I'm stilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Mike Trout supposedly gets a boost in his value because he plays centerfield. Never mind that he plays it poorly. The advanced stats are finally reflecting what had been apparent to my eyes for years.
He's supposed to be an all-time great hitter, and he certainly is when his team is up or down by 5 or 6 runs, or out of the race and playing out the string against another bottom feeder, but I promise you, he is not nearly the most feared hitter on his own team with the game on the line. The opposing pitchers certainly would much rather avoid Anthony Rendon, and they probably still fear Albert Pujols more, even though he's approaching 50. They may now even be more concerned with Showtime or Upton. Heck, even David Fletcher is probably a more worrisome out for them in a pressure situation. With Trout, if you can locate your pitches up in the zone, he'll either flail away, popping it up or missing the pitch completely, or else just freeze up and watch 3 strikes go by and get rung up with that stupid look on his face. The frustration on Maddon's face every time Trout just stands there watching meatballs go by like a girl in a bikini is evident in every camera cut to the dugout. Talk to some actual Angels fans, they'll tell you the same thing.
I have watched probably 75-80 percent of the Angels games live over the last 3 or 4 years on MLB.TV, and nearly every Trout at bat during that time using the game replay feature the next day. None of this is a new flaw in his game. I've been saying it for years, and even pointed out his propensity for taking called third strikes last August. Mike Trout then proceeded to make me look like a prophet by taking 11 called third strikes in a 13 game span. Do you even realize how bad that is? Swing the bat, superstar!
Arte would have saved himself a lot of money, and understood the definition of overrated, if he'd only read The Count's scouting report.