The baseball HOF should remain tough. The last thing I want it to be is the football HOF where 98% of the population probably can't recognize even a fraction of the players.
Boopotts all of those guys you mentioned are viewed relative to the league they played in. If you did not do that then all of the best pitchers, based on the raw stats produced, would hail from late 1800's and early 1900's(they have the lowest ERA's, but for a reason), and that is why Palmeiro needs to be downgraded for his raw stats(just like everyone else in this time). 35 Home Runs in 2001 does not win as many games as 35 Home Runs in 1978. So you can't view Palmeiro's totals as if they are on the same plane of somebody who got similar totals in an era where those totals meant more wins. That is why those numbers by Palmeiro must be put into the proper context to get closer to validity. That stuff is all well documented.
Koufax is downgraded for pitching in an era condusive towards pitching AND a home park that was an excellent pitchers park. Any good analysis has to do that.
Boopotts, there is nothing wrong with giving an opinion that Palmeiro belongs because he had a fine career(I'm not going to argue that), but the statistical examples you used just aren't valid.
There does have to be some strong accountability based on strong research and evidence. If I said that Fred Lynn, and Ken Singleton belonged in the Hall because of their stature as ballplayers, people would cite stats to say otherwise. I can't just say they had excellent careers that lasted long, they were all-stars, they were MVP or strong MVP candidates, they were on WS teams and division winners. There has to be some accountability, but it has to be well researched and backed up with strong evidence. But the numbers they put up have to be put into the context of when they were accomplished, and how much value it had towards winning games.
I"m not disputing that. What I am disputing is the idea that the contextual value of a player's stats should trump their absolute numbers when being considered for the hall. If you have 300 wins, or whatever, I don't care if it took you 40 years to do it-- IMO you should get in. Again, I reiterate-- Palmiero's numbers, when put in the context of those of his contemporaries, may not be outstanding. But because of his longetivity and his consistent production I think he should be in the Hall.
It's not the truth value of a belief that matters so much as it's utility. You say that Koufax should be downgraded. OK, so then what? In other words, what does that belief entail? This whole discussion is taking place because we're debating who should be in the Hall of Fame-- not who was a better player. Was Griffe 'better' than Palmiero? Was Conigliaro 'better' than Willie McCovey? Who knows? And who cares? For the purposes of THIS discussion those distinctions aren't valuable.
If we're arguing who's better (and now that I look back on it maybe that's where this thread is actually headed, and I'm the one hijacking it) then I see your case. But I've always found 'who's better' debates to be perversely uninteresting. Would Christy Matthewson get lit up in today's game? Again, who knows? Arguing about that kind of stuff always seems to me like an epic waste of time.
<< <i>WHOA! In no way am I being condescending ...... >>
LOL, Skinpinch I'm glad you cleared that up because I was beginning to think the same thing. You were starting to sound like this was quantum physics and the rest of us just couldn't "get outside the box" long enough to figure it out.
That being said and now knowing you meant no harm, it doesn't do a lot for me for you (or anyone else of course) to downgrade the importants of a statistic like the home run or hits and then get on a soapbox spilling stats such as OB%, OPS+, and replacement value. Trying to make one more important than the other seems to be just wrong.
Another point your trying to make is how much better McGwire was than Palmeiro so Palmeiro should not be in the Hall of Fame (his replacement value, 4000 less at bats, etc.) All I can say to that is "No kidding". I mean I could spit out stats that shows Bonds is better than McGwire, and then how Ruth was better than them all. So McGwire is more deserving than Palmeiro. So what does that tell me? It doesn't tell me that Palmeiro shouldn't get in. It just means McGwire was better. Or Bonds is better.
One more thing. And this I don't understand. Replacement value? Palmeiro the last five years (years you're arguing he's just hanging on):
459 runs, 190 homeruns, and 548 RBI's. That's an average of 92, 38, and 110.
If I'm reading your posts correctly, you're saying that if Palmeiro hadn't played so long to build up his stats, his replacement would've picked up the slack or done better? But like you said, the average guy doesn't hit 38 homeruns and have 110 RBI's. Or anywhere close. So how does replacement value stack up for Palmeiro when he's still producing.
I really think this discussion will be over when Palmeiro does reach 600 homeruns, and he's just not that far off. It may be shallow thinking but 600 will get in, and probably always will. But who knows, the game evolves, and the writers recognize this.
boopotts, then that puts you in the group that favors longevity over greatness, and that is fine. YOu want to see those types of players in the Hall, and Palmeiro is one of them. Some guys just want greatness, as long as it lasts the required 10 years.
I prefer longevity, but also want the player to have been at the very top of his position(tops one or two) in his prime, and among the very top(top five and top 3) in the league in his prime. Based on the the past 40 years of slugger type Hall of Famers, the majority of them fit this criteria. Very few do not, and typically those guys had to wait a long time...ala Perez, and Cepeda. My whole reasoning is that Palmeiro currently fits in closer with those guys then the typical guys(because he never was among the top). So that would make him borderline based on that. Two more average/above average years, and he no longer fits in with those guys and he is in, based on a longer time of contributing.
BigRed, I hope my previous post cleared up where I stand.
As for Palmeiro hanging on. NO he is not hanging on. He has been above average for sure. That is what makes him a favorite of many of you, and rightfully so.
After reading my posts, i can see what you mean when I say since McGwire is better, then Palmeiro doesn't belong etc... You are correct, that doesn't make him not belong. I'm just stacking him up with the typical HOFer, but that doesn't mean he can't be a Halll of Famer if he isn't typical. I wouldn't even be bothered too much if he made it. What bothers me more is when people go overboard on the value of his raw numbers, and hence that is where a lot of my posts are directed. Because, that stuff is very well researched and documented to show what I am talking about in relative terms.
<< <i> What bothers me more is when people go overboard on the value of his raw numbers, and hence that is where a lot of my posts are directed. Because, that stuff is very well researched and documented to show what I am talking about in relative terms. >>
<< <i>Zero offense taken. really. Argueing is good for everyone.
as for griffeys conditioning... all one has to do is search google : griffey injury conditioning. You will get previous teammates statements that although he is a natural he is lazy and doesn't practice or warm up. sure it came from dibble, but I believe him. Also many other sources state the same. sure nothing proven in the court of law, but how else can you explain 5 years of injuries at age 30?! Its not from the turf or hitting a wall.
what does anyone else think on the injury topic? Ax thinks its an act of god, I think its laziness. anyone else?
GG >>
I, too, recall all those comments back when Griffey was at his peak. Some of it from teammates who were complaining that Griffey wasn't forced to stretch with his teammates, some of it from opponents (like Sparky Anderson) who felt that Griffey's laziness reflected poorly on him and the game in general, etc.
I think his injuries are a combination of poor conditioning and bad luck. Does Griffey go all-out in the field and sometimes get injured as a result? Sure. But he's also lazy about his conditioning and in "hustle" areas like running out ground balls, popups, etc.
I don't know about everyone else but i'm sure glad we have ax and Skinpinch around to correct our thinking, i'm not sure why Raffy's even getting paid to play baseball as mediocre as he is. big deal 500 / 600 HR and 3,000 + hits. i sure hope Kevin Mench or Marco Scutaro don't stick around for 20+ years and put up those kind of numbers so we have to see those guys in the Hall. Perhaps the Baseball Writers should check with these guys before they vote for the Hall Of Fame. I'm guessing along with Griffey according to them only about 10-15 players qualify for Induction. and to think all these years i thought 500 HR and 3K hits was a big deal. Oh well live and learn.
Comments
GG
Koufax is downgraded for pitching in an era condusive towards pitching AND a home park that was an excellent pitchers park. Any good analysis has to do that.
Boopotts, there is nothing wrong with giving an opinion that Palmeiro belongs because he had a fine career(I'm not going to argue that), but the statistical examples you used just aren't valid.
There does have to be some strong accountability based on strong research and evidence. If I said that Fred Lynn, and Ken Singleton belonged in the Hall because of their stature as ballplayers, people would cite stats to say otherwise. I can't just say they had excellent careers that lasted long, they were all-stars, they were MVP or strong MVP candidates, they were on WS teams and division winners. There has to be some accountability, but it has to be well researched and backed up with strong evidence. But the numbers they put up have to be put into the context of when they were accomplished, and how much value it had towards winning games.
I"m not disputing that. What I am disputing is the idea that the contextual value of a player's stats should trump their absolute numbers when being considered for the hall. If you have 300 wins, or whatever, I don't care if it took you 40 years to do it-- IMO you should get in. Again, I reiterate-- Palmiero's numbers, when put in the context of those of his contemporaries, may not be outstanding. But because of his longetivity and his consistent production I think he should be in the Hall.
It's not the truth value of a belief that matters so much as it's utility. You say that Koufax should be downgraded. OK, so then what? In other words, what does that belief entail? This whole discussion is taking place because we're debating who should be in the Hall of Fame-- not who was a better player. Was Griffe 'better' than Palmiero? Was Conigliaro 'better' than Willie McCovey? Who knows? And who cares? For the purposes of THIS discussion those distinctions aren't valuable.
If we're arguing who's better (and now that I look back on it maybe that's where this thread is actually headed, and I'm the one hijacking it) then I see your case. But I've always found 'who's better' debates to be perversely uninteresting. Would Christy Matthewson get lit up in today's game? Again, who knows? Arguing about that kind of stuff always seems to me like an epic waste of time.
<< <i>WHOA! In no way am I being condescending ...... >>
LOL, Skinpinch I'm glad you cleared that up because I was beginning to think the same thing. You were starting to sound like this was quantum physics and the rest of us just couldn't "get outside the box" long enough to figure it out.
That being said and now knowing you meant no harm, it doesn't do a lot for me for you (or anyone else of course) to downgrade the importants of a statistic like the home run or hits and then get on a soapbox spilling stats such as OB%, OPS+, and replacement value. Trying to make one more important than the other seems to be just wrong.
Another point your trying to make is how much better McGwire was than Palmeiro so Palmeiro should not be in the Hall of Fame (his replacement value, 4000 less at bats, etc.) All I can say to that is "No kidding". I mean I could spit out stats that shows Bonds is better than McGwire, and then how Ruth was better than them all. So McGwire is more deserving than Palmeiro. So what does that tell me? It doesn't tell me that Palmeiro shouldn't get in. It just means McGwire was better. Or Bonds is better.
One more thing. And this I don't understand. Replacement value? Palmeiro the last five years (years you're arguing he's just hanging on):
459 runs, 190 homeruns, and 548 RBI's.
That's an average of 92, 38, and 110.
If I'm reading your posts correctly, you're saying that if Palmeiro hadn't played so long to build up his stats, his replacement would've picked up the slack or done better? But like you said, the average guy doesn't hit 38 homeruns and have 110 RBI's. Or anywhere close. So how does replacement value stack up for Palmeiro when he's still producing.
I really think this discussion will be over when Palmeiro does reach 600 homeruns, and he's just not that far off. It may be shallow thinking but 600 will get in, and probably always will. But who knows, the game evolves, and the writers recognize this.
Good discussion Skinpinch. Keep the thread alive.
I prefer longevity, but also want the player to have been at the very top of his position(tops one or two) in his prime, and among the very top(top five and top 3) in the league in his prime. Based on the the past 40 years of slugger type Hall of Famers, the majority of them fit this criteria. Very few do not, and typically those guys had to wait a long time...ala Perez, and Cepeda. My whole reasoning is that Palmeiro currently fits in closer with those guys then the typical guys(because he never was among the top). So that would make him borderline based on that. Two more average/above average years, and he no longer fits in with those guys and he is in, based on a longer time of contributing.
As for Palmeiro hanging on. NO he is not hanging on. He has been above average for sure. That is what makes him a favorite of many of you, and rightfully so.
After reading my posts, i can see what you mean when I say since McGwire is better, then Palmeiro doesn't belong etc... You are correct, that doesn't make him not belong. I'm just stacking him up with the typical HOFer, but that doesn't mean he can't be a Halll of Famer if he isn't typical. I wouldn't even be bothered too much if he made it. What bothers me more is when people go overboard on the value of his raw numbers, and hence that is where a lot of my posts are directed. Because, that stuff is very well researched and documented to show what I am talking about in relative terms.
<< <i> What bothers me more is when people go overboard on the value of his raw numbers, and hence that is where a lot of my posts are directed. Because, that stuff is very well researched and documented to show what I am talking about in relative terms. >>
I think that's 100% legitimate.
<< <i>Zero offense taken. really. Argueing is good for everyone.
as for griffeys conditioning... all one has to do is search google : griffey injury conditioning. You will get previous teammates statements that although he is a natural he is lazy and doesn't practice or warm up. sure it came from dibble, but I believe him. Also many other sources state the same. sure nothing proven in the court of law, but how else can you explain 5 years of injuries at age 30?! Its not from the turf or hitting a wall.
what does anyone else think on the injury topic? Ax thinks its an act of god, I think its laziness. anyone else?
GG >>
I, too, recall all those comments back when Griffey was at his peak. Some of it from teammates who were complaining that Griffey wasn't forced to stretch with his teammates, some of it from opponents (like Sparky Anderson) who felt that Griffey's laziness reflected poorly on him and the game in general, etc.
I think his injuries are a combination of poor conditioning and bad luck. Does Griffey go all-out in the field and sometimes get injured as a result? Sure. But he's also lazy about his conditioning and in "hustle" areas like running out ground balls, popups, etc.
Tabe