but skin that is what you said..............you said of his time.
maybe you should clarify each post then.
yesterday you said to someone "you somthing or other" and then when called upon you claim you were misunderstood.that "you" meant writers......I read it just as the person who you were speaking to did.
steve d
skin you bring a strong statistical annalyis to the table, much of it I agree with, some I do not.
winpitcher, a lot of these pots are written on the fly very quickly, and I am not an english teacher by trade, so when something needs clarifying, then I will clarify it just as I did.
Winpitcher If I did say of his time it was followed with "IN A GIVEN YEAR". That means at any given year he would rank as that. I had that whole list on these message baords months ago, and his ranking was actually worse if his last couple years were included.
It was Koby you were referring to on that. Koby strongly acknowledged that he knew what I was talking about, and I simply failed to add that in there, and as I reread that post I would have read into it the same. The post was directed at the posters who made comments, like the ones you did about baseball being simple and taking the numbers as is, and the writers(as their opinions actually do matter).
I don't have any bias or agenda, but I do see the evidence laid out, and I have learned a whole lot on analysis of players, and I put the inventors of some measurements through rigorous debates and questioning on a lot of their philosophies and fact based analysis.
I have added my own analysis to make some of theirs better, it just isn't published. And no, I am not that thesis guy. I don't have the time to lay it all out and get it out there. Right now I just hit things like this in bits and spurts. I do like to do this to get a pulse on the fans and their thoughts. I've done that my whole life. My whole life I've always debated with people, and people always had strong opinions, but they never bothered to look at facts and evidence. So when I have to debate people that know less off the top of their head, it is actually harder than if I were debating one of those leading stat men. So when I post, I have to merge everything into a small post. I have to figure out what I think people have a grasp on of what I am talking about, or if I have to explain it from step one. So it isn't always easy to lay it out when you have different levels of people you are talking to. So there may be some confusion and rewriting of points. Sometimes it is hard to tell if people skipped a previous post and are responding to something I already talked about, hence possible "beating a dead horse".
on the fly? u best scrol up and re read what you said!
you said "IN HIS TIME" no where did you write in a given year! what is in your head and what you say are 2 different things.
and yes you can be a monday morning quaterback and claim you were misunderstood and all that crap. the bottom line, my reply is based on what you say, not on what you later clarify.
on the fly? I suggest if you want to get a concise interprtation of what your thinking then write it as such.
anyone else having a problem interpretating what skin thinks he says? I sure as hell am.
<< <i> After reading your post again, you need step one to learn what context is. You can't just use the basic stats and raw numbers. There are probably about four books that you would need to read based on your ignorance. A message board is waay to small to explain this stuff if you can't even handle even the simplist concept of context. I'm certainly not going to explain all of that stuff and waste my time. >>
Winpitcher, July 3, 4:11 PM, the first sentence reads "35th player in a given year is being generous!" Are you happy now?
Now Winpitcher, I'm not going to spend all my time looking for message board discrepencies on minute details in my posts. I first wrote about that months ago on here, and if it is 30th, 33rd, or 40th, or more if you count his bad years, I'm not re-writing everything. Hell, you should get the general idea. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you like you are a two year old, should I? You should not spend your time looking for those types of things either, you should go read "The hidden game of baseball" as that is step one to learning at least a little something on context. Now their analysis has some shortcomings in a few areas of stat evaluation, but it should give you the general idea. After that book is read, then we can talk a little about some of the shortcomings. I also have one website for recommendation(if it is still active) that you can look at, but that will be given only after I see a little homework on your part.
Koby, you can go read that book if desired, but for you, you can go and check out Bill James's newest edition of WinShares. Yes, the statheads found a few flaws like no negative value is assigned, but it should give you a good start on who ranks where. Make sure it is the newsest edition as rankings have changed.
Now winpitcher, If I do take the time to spend and document and lay everything out, I will be glad to have you look for discrepencies, as that is something that should be PERFECT, unlike message board blurbs to an ignorant fan where it doesn't really matter.
When you fellas learn a little more I will be happy to exchange emails, numbers etc...and I would be happy to discuss anything you want, but just keep an open mind. Winpitcher, don't fool youself, I've forgotten more about baseball then you will ever know.
ne of the best hitters of his time if it includes the top 35 of his own time
quoting you at that time......I see now you want to change the time line............convienent. you added your other malarky 6 hrs later. cmon for a guy that claims to be so smart you can do better then that?
I sure as heck will not read every post you ever wrote to understand what you think you may have said. i only replied to what you say now. what you said last yr or what is in your mind when your posting is not what I am replying too. I am sorry I simply read a sentence that you write and reply. nothing more, nothing less.
thanks, steve
ps...why did you have to try and belittle people who just tried to enter a conversationa nd have a different opinion? I did not start thsi so called battle of wits and name calling YOU DID. all i did was try to enter the conversation and was called names.
go back and re read please
even after you started I tried to play nice but you just kept goin trying to impress everyone on how much you know. You do not impress me.
6) Which future Hall of Famer will be missed the most in Detroit?
Barry Bonds Ken Griffey Jr. Randy Johnson Greg Maddux Rafael Palmeiro
that question up there is on espn.com under 9 polls of the all star game.. funny how the writers already have raffy as in! sorry to those of you who dont think he is going.... fact is HE IS!
In the HOF voting, you are going to have on average one or two guys get in a year. That means 10-20 guys a decade. Will Palmeiro break into that top 10 or 20? His vital stats reveal that he was in the top 30-40 of his era. However, writers don't always vote for the best players based on stats. Baseball writers are not people like Bill James or skinpinch. I have little doubt Raffy will get in because the mentality of the Baseball Writers indicates he will--but that does not make it right.
The whole argument on this board is not whether he will get the nod, but we are just debating whether it is just.
"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
why are the #'s for hitters changing? here is something to think about. prior to the 1990's only a handful of players ever accomplished this feat... 40 homeruns,100 rbi's and a 300 avg. now it is done routinely. i think this really sums up better what skinpinch is trying to convey about the era we are witnessing. please correct me if i'm wrong. baseball is now hitter friendly... factors include expansion,cozy fan friendly parks,weight trianing,lighter bats,juiced ball(it's tightly wound) more night games(yes it's easier to hit at night),pitchers not being able to pitch inside,batters claiming the inside part of the platewith armour on their arms,(bonds),hitting background in the new parks,i won't even mention steroids as pitchers can use these too. aluminum bats in college (pitchers don't pitch inside to hitters w/aluminum bats)all these factors have arrived in the 1990's.
For the record winpitcher, after your first post my reply was...
"Winpitcher, yeah , those three or four pitchers a game really made it hard for the hitters by allowing record home run rates ! That argument doesn't work considering that a good portion of those pitchers would be in AAA in 1990 as opposed to MLB 2001.
Also, those extra pitchers you see are middle relievers because the starters have to throw more pitches because of the tight strike zone and amount of hits given up. When hitting was a little harder to come by, your ACES were able to stay in the game longer because they didn't have to throw as many pitches. So to answer your question, I would prefer to face that middle reliever who should be in TRIPLE A, as opposed to the ACE who still has plenty of gas left in the tank because of less pitches thrown."
That was a pretty straightforward response to your point. If I strayed from that stance later on, then that was my fault.
I respect people's opinions plenty. A lot of this stuff isn't opinion though. A lot of it is very well studied and researched countless times to minute details. You just seemed to rather dismiss all of that work and research without having anything remotely close to reliable evidence to what you are saying. I geuss I take it more seriously than you.
Obviously this isn't anything really important like other things in the world. But I wouldn't go into NASA and start arguing with their workers because I watched their rocket take off, and read an article on how it worked. I could easily start questioning them on things that on the surface make sense to me, but have been painstakingly gone over to very fine details. I could see them getting upset after a while if I kept probing or claiming it is just their opinion.
Again, this stuff isn't nearly as important as almost anything, but it is strongly researched, and is as close to 'truth' as there can be in this type of subject. I should have recommended the Hidden Game right away for Context info, and the WinShare for up to date rankings. Even those are flawed. There are soo many offshoots to every topic too. Even the offshoots can take hours to delve into and debate. Like ballpark factors for instance. Some players get painted with the wide paint brush of ballpark factors even though it affects different players on different levels.
Or position analayis. Many give SS, CF, 2B, C, and 3rd base higher value compared to LF and 1B, even above and beyond what they do among their own position comparisons. Their reasoning is that the typical 1b is not as good as a defender as the typical SS or CF, and that they couldn't play those positions. Well, what if a center fielder is left handed? He couldn't play 2b, c, SS, or 3B. Yet there are plenty of 1B that could handle those positions better than that lefty CF. So why give the lefty Center Fielder an even bigger value edge over the 1B?? The value should just stop at what they do compared to the average player at their position. An extra 10% or so of value should not be detracted from a 1B like it is done in many analysts books. That should be on a case by case basis.
There is soo much stuff that has been looked at. Millions of plays have been studied and charted to come up with the values of OB% and SlG%, and every offensive event in baseball. Even after all those things are done there is still more to add that a lot of those books don't take into account yet. If you think this was crazy talk, wait till you see how deep it gets on the next step. I don't even want to venture into that on a message board.
So in a nutshell, I'm not making anything up. Some stuff I've learned along the way, some I've figured out by my own research. But regardless, it has been well researched and studied. I studied RBI's and hitting with men on splits oo much it is sickening, and what RBI truly means. Basically, just by looking at the OPS+ it gets you 85% of the way there. Some guys get a little more value with men on hitting(though Palmeiro is not one who gets extra value there!). This is a rant, so if it doesn't make sense, don't start looking for errors and such. Thanks for talking.
Raffy is in he deserves it period. baseball is a game based on stats more then any other sport. his stats are better then a lot of guys already in. so plain and simple he will get in.
Just to let you know, I truely do appreciate your posts. The evidence and stats that back up your conclusions are well founded. Even with all that, you and I both know there is still room for further argument, but I am not going into those minute details.
I liked what you said about the defensive positions and how often first base defense is not regarded as valuable as the other positions. A first baseman must be compared to other first baseman. One cannot just give extra points to a short stop and say that this position is harder to play than first base? It depends on who we are talking about. Shortstops should be compared to other shortstops.
Don Mattingly is judged to be the best defensive first baseman of all time, if not, at least 3rd all time in MLB history. No one gives that any merit saying that it was first base, and not so valuable as shortstop. Its like saying Wade Boggs should not be in the HOF because he did not even get close to 200 homers, let alone 500. Great power hitters belong in the HOF, sure, but not every great player is a power hitter. Some are great because they can get on base by hitting and walking better than the rest---that is Wade Boggs.
"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
Raffy is in he deserves it period. baseball is a game based on stats more then any other sport. his stats are better then a lot of guys already in. so plain and simple he will get in. >>
But not better stats than players of the same era. You can't just look at raw numbers and say 'hey, he's got more home runs than these guys and they're in the hall, so he should be too!'
I think a lot of people who want him in want someone who's hit a bunch of home runs in THEIR era. It's like Ronald Reagan being voted the greatest american of all time by people who called in. People like the HERE and NOW and what's in front of them. Damn the history and damn the context.
If you looked objectively at Raffy's body of work he calls a career, and look at how he performed in regards to those in the league when he played (not those in the past), then it would become apparent that he never dominated his position, never dominated any window of time in his career. He played above average, but dominant? Hardly.
If you can get past the sexy 500+ home runs you will see an above average player, but truly NOT a hall of famer.
one of your claims was that the 500 HR club became cluttered in this era and i dispute that
my reply was that 4 guys is clutter? (it is actually 5 I negelected bonds, 6 if you want to include Murray.
I then went on and said that during another era, the 1959- 1969 era many more guys entered then the era in which you claimed.
If you want to include murray in your era then the era in which I speak also can be extended to around 1975 or so.
you then went on and stated that I did not read the paragraph above the line I specifiacally quoted you on (which btw had nothing to do with your statement) that i was quoting you on. I hope now that i have been concise in this point.
as for palmiero........compare him not to the ruths and cobbs but perhaps to the rabbit maranville's in the hall. when all is said and done the guy has had a career WORTHY of induction to the hall. regardless of where he stood on a yr to yr basis among his peers. steve d
I love to debate and crunch numbers also, and here are my observations after reading this thread -
I am eternally grateful to not be a MENSA member.
Without CONTEXT the world is doomed.
Never repair your eyeglasses with chewing gum or scotch tape.
This thread holds some of the most boorish condescending comments ever written about baseball. No offense but I am reminded of the comment that ends, "those who can't...teach."
Logic sometimes is defeated by spite and therefore I not only vote for Palmeiro for HOF but also will write in his name in the next presidential election.
Comments
maybe you should clarify each post then.
yesterday you said to someone "you somthing or other" and then when called upon you claim you were misunderstood.that "you" meant writers......I read it just as the person who you were speaking to did.
steve d
skin you bring a strong statistical annalyis to the table, much of it I agree with, some I do not.
Winpitcher If I did say of his time it was followed with "IN A GIVEN YEAR". That means at any given year he would rank as that. I had that whole list on these message baords months ago, and his ranking was actually worse if his last couple years were included.
I don't have any bias or agenda, but I do see the evidence laid out, and I have learned a whole lot on analysis of players, and I put the inventors of some measurements through rigorous debates and questioning on a lot of their philosophies and fact based analysis.
I have added my own analysis to make some of theirs better, it just isn't published. And no, I am not that thesis guy. I don't have the time to lay it all out and get it out there. Right now I just hit things like this in bits and spurts. I do like to do this to get a pulse on the fans and their thoughts. I've done that my whole life. My whole life I've always debated with people, and people always had strong opinions, but they never bothered to look at facts and evidence. So when I have to debate people that know less off the top of their head, it is actually harder than if I were debating one of those leading stat men. So when I post, I have to merge everything into a small post. I have to figure out what I think people have a grasp on of what I am talking about, or if I have to explain it from step one. So it isn't always easy to lay it out when you have different levels of people you are talking to. So there may be some confusion and rewriting of points. Sometimes it is hard to tell if people skipped a previous post and are responding to something I already talked about, hence possible "beating a dead horse".
This is fun.
you said "IN HIS TIME" no where did you write in a given year! what is in your head and what you say are 2 different things.
and yes you can be a monday morning quaterback and claim you were misunderstood and all that crap. the bottom line, my reply is based on what you say, not on what you later clarify.
on the fly? I suggest if you want to get a concise interprtation of what your thinking then write it as such.
anyone else having a problem interpretating what skin thinks he says? I sure as hell am.
steve d
show me where you added "ina given year" you can't cuz it aint there................you then went on to another topic!
steve
he did? WHERE? from what i saw he said you had a problem with reading comprehension!
<< <i>
After reading your post again, you need step one to learn what context is. You can't just use the basic stats and raw numbers. There are probably about four books that you would need to read based on your ignorance. A message board is waay to small to explain this stuff if you can't even handle even the simplist concept of context. I'm certainly not going to explain all of that stuff and waste my time. >>
Now Winpitcher, I'm not going to spend all my time looking for message board discrepencies on minute details in my posts. I first wrote about that months ago on here, and if it is 30th, 33rd, or 40th, or more if you count his bad years, I'm not re-writing everything. Hell, you should get the general idea. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you like you are a two year old, should I? You should not spend your time looking for those types of things either, you should go read "The hidden game of baseball" as that is step one to learning at least a little something on context. Now their analysis has some shortcomings in a few areas of stat evaluation, but it should give you the general idea. After that book is read, then we can talk a little about some of the shortcomings. I also have one website for recommendation(if it is still active) that you can look at, but that will be given only after I see a little homework on your part.
Koby, you can go read that book if desired, but for you, you can go and check out Bill James's newest edition of WinShares. Yes, the statheads found a few flaws like no negative value is assigned, but it should give you a good start on who ranks where. Make sure it is the newsest edition as rankings have changed.
Now winpitcher, If I do take the time to spend and document and lay everything out, I will be glad to have you look for discrepencies, as that is something that should be PERFECT, unlike message board blurbs to an ignorant fan where it doesn't really matter.
yeah im sure you have ..........
ne of the best hitters of his time if it includes the top 35 of his own time
quoting you at that time......I see now you want to change the time line............convienent. you added your other malarky 6 hrs later. cmon for a guy that claims to be so smart you can do better then that?
I sure as heck will not read every post you ever wrote to understand what you think you may have said. i only replied to what you say now. what you said last yr or what is in your mind when your posting is not what I am replying too. I am sorry I simply read a sentence that you write and reply. nothing more, nothing less.
thanks, steve
ps...why did you have to try and belittle people who just tried to enter a conversationa nd have a different opinion? I did not start thsi so called battle of wits and name calling YOU DID. all i did was try to enter the conversation and was called names.
go back and re read please
even after you started I tried to play nice but you just kept goin trying to impress everyone on how much you know. You do not impress me.
Barry Bonds
Ken Griffey Jr.
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Rafael Palmeiro
that question up there is on espn.com under 9 polls of the all star game.. funny how the writers already have raffy as in! sorry to those of you who dont think he is going.... fact is HE IS!
edit to add the link!raffy is in the hof like it or not!
The whole argument on this board is not whether he will get the nod, but we are just debating whether it is just.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
"Winpitcher, yeah , those three or four pitchers a game really made it hard for the hitters by allowing record home run rates ! That argument doesn't work considering that a good portion of those pitchers would be in AAA in 1990 as opposed to MLB 2001.
Also, those extra pitchers you see are middle relievers because the starters have to throw more pitches because of the tight strike zone and amount of hits given up. When hitting was a little harder to come by, your ACES were able to stay in the game longer because they didn't have to throw as many pitches. So to answer your question, I would prefer to face that middle reliever who should be in TRIPLE A, as opposed to the ACE who still has plenty of gas left in the tank because of less pitches thrown."
That was a pretty straightforward response to your point. If I strayed from that stance later on, then that was my fault.
I respect people's opinions plenty. A lot of this stuff isn't opinion though. A lot of it is very well studied and researched countless times to minute details. You just seemed to rather dismiss all of that work and research without having anything remotely close to reliable evidence to what you are saying. I geuss I take it more seriously than you.
Obviously this isn't anything really important like other things in the world. But I wouldn't go into NASA and start arguing with their workers because I watched their rocket take off, and read an article on how it worked. I could easily start questioning them on things that on the surface make sense to me, but have been painstakingly gone over to very fine details. I could see them getting upset after a while if I kept probing or claiming it is just their opinion.
Again, this stuff isn't nearly as important as almost anything, but it is strongly researched, and is as close to 'truth' as there can be in this type of subject. I should have recommended the Hidden Game right away for Context info, and the WinShare for up to date rankings. Even those are flawed. There are soo many offshoots to every topic too. Even the offshoots can take hours to delve into and debate. Like ballpark factors for instance. Some players get painted with the wide paint brush of ballpark factors even though it affects different players on different levels.
Or position analayis. Many give SS, CF, 2B, C, and 3rd base higher value compared to LF and 1B, even above and beyond what they do among their own position comparisons. Their reasoning is that the typical 1b is not as good as a defender as the typical SS or CF, and that they couldn't play those positions. Well, what if a center fielder is left handed? He couldn't play 2b, c, SS, or 3B. Yet there are plenty of 1B that could handle those positions better than that lefty CF. So why give the lefty Center Fielder an even bigger value edge over the 1B?? The value should just stop at what they do compared to the average player at their position. An extra 10% or so of value should not be detracted from a 1B like it is done in many analysts books. That should be on a case by case basis.
There is soo much stuff that has been looked at. Millions of plays have been studied and charted to come up with the values of OB% and SlG%, and every offensive event in baseball. Even after all those things are done there is still more to add that a lot of those books don't take into account yet. If you think this was crazy talk, wait till you see how deep it gets on the next step. I don't even want to venture into that on a message board.
So in a nutshell, I'm not making anything up. Some stuff I've learned along the way, some I've figured out by my own research. But regardless, it has been well researched and studied. I studied RBI's and hitting with men on splits oo much it is sickening, and what RBI truly means. Basically, just by looking at the OPS+ it gets you 85% of the way there. Some guys get a little more value with men on hitting(though Palmeiro is not one who gets extra value there!). This is a rant, so if it doesn't make sense, don't start looking for errors and such. Thanks for talking.
Raffy is in he deserves it period. baseball is a game based on stats more then any other sport. his stats are better then a lot of guys already in. so plain and simple he will get in.
Just to let you know, I truely do appreciate your posts. The evidence and stats that back up your conclusions are well founded. Even with all that, you and I both know there is still room for further argument, but I am not going into those minute details.
I liked what you said about the defensive positions and how often first base defense is not regarded as valuable as the other positions. A first baseman must be compared to other first baseman. One cannot just give extra points to a short stop and say that this position is harder to play than first base? It depends on who we are talking about. Shortstops should be compared to other shortstops.
Don Mattingly is judged to be the best defensive first baseman of all time, if not, at least 3rd all time in MLB history. No one gives that any merit saying that it was first base, and not so valuable as shortstop. Its like saying Wade Boggs should not be in the HOF because he did not even get close to 200 homers, let alone 500. Great power hitters belong in the HOF, sure, but not every great player is a power hitter. Some are great because they can get on base by hitting and walking better than the rest---that is Wade Boggs.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>What??
Raffy is in he deserves it period. baseball is a game based on stats more then any other sport. his stats are better then a lot of guys already in. so plain and simple he will get in. >>
But not better stats than players of the same era. You can't just look at raw numbers and say 'hey, he's got more home runs than these guys and they're in the hall, so he should be too!'
I think a lot of people who want him in want someone who's hit a bunch of home runs in THEIR era. It's like Ronald Reagan being voted the greatest american of all time by people who called in. People like the HERE and NOW and what's in front of them. Damn the history and damn the context.
If you looked objectively at Raffy's body of work he calls a career, and look at how he performed in regards to those in the league when he played (not those in the past), then it would become apparent that he never dominated his position, never dominated any window of time in his career. He played above average, but dominant? Hardly.
If you can get past the sexy 500+ home runs you will see an above average player, but truly NOT a hall of famer.
I am going to try and keep this simple and easy
one of your claims was that the 500 HR club became cluttered in this era and i dispute that
my reply was that 4 guys is clutter? (it is actually 5 I negelected bonds, 6 if you want to include Murray.
I then went on and said that during another era, the 1959- 1969 era many more guys entered then the era in which you claimed.
If you want to include murray in your era then the era in which I speak also can be extended to around 1975 or so.
you then went on and stated that I did not read the paragraph above the line I specifiacally quoted you on (which btw had nothing to do with your statement) that i was quoting you on. I hope now that i have been concise in this point.
steve D
steve d
Wow.
I love to debate and crunch numbers also, and here are my observations after reading this thread -
I am eternally grateful to not be a MENSA member.
Without CONTEXT the world is doomed.
Never repair your eyeglasses with chewing gum or scotch tape.
This thread holds some of the most boorish condescending comments ever written about baseball. No offense but I am reminded of the comment that ends, "those who can't...teach."
Logic sometimes is defeated by spite and therefore I not only vote for Palmeiro for HOF but also will write in his name in the next presidential election.