Dallas, remember where you said you would take the better player (Thornton), for the shorter time, as opposed to the average/longevity player? That is always the crux. It is so much easier comparing guys that have similar career lengths.
More on the crux of the problem...You said something to the effect of..."I will take Koufax, and then take my chances down the line..." One other thing that adds strength to your reasoning is the real life implications for a team to keep the longevity guy, and that is salary! That once star veteran is going to command a salary at his more advanced age that is not in line wiht the declining production that is inevitable.
I looked at that issue comparing McGwire to Palmeiro. McGwire could have played a few more years to pad his 'counting' totals, but he only would have gotten worse. Instead, he retired and that money basically turned into Scott Rolen.
Being good simply on longevity is nothing truly remarkable. A player could conceivably go 125 for 500, with punch and judy type power, every season for 24 years and amass 3,000 hits. That makes him a Hall of Famer in a lot of fans minds. BUt that would obviously make him a well below average player, unless he was a catcher or something.
By the way, what were the top five 1B in James's rankings? Last I thought, he had Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, ?, ?.
Let me get this straight - You disagree with James strongly on some of his opinions, you agree with James strongly on others, yet you disagree with anyone who ever dares disagree with him, and then offer his opinions as proof that I am wrong for disagreeing, all the while maintaining that he remains smarter than God, with whom you admittedly often disagree.
Anyways, I think I can do a lot better than "dork" were I to start name calling, but I try to keep it to a minimum. And the excessive sarcasm is just an attempt to lighten up the the discussions, as well as to knock you statgeeks down a few pegs sometimes by exposing how crazy some of your arguments really are (i.e. please read the first paragraph in this post again). The amount of sarcasm is usually directly related to the number of irrelevant and abstract stats you guys barf on thread. For everyone's sake, I'll promise to tone it down if you will as well.
James top 5 firstbasemen were Gehrig, Foxx, McGwire, Bagwell, Murray.
~"Being good simply on longevity is nothing truly remarkable. A player could conceivably go 125 for 500, with punch and judy type power, every season for 24 years and amass 3,000 hits. That makes him a Hall of Famer in a lot of fans minds. BUt that would obviously make him a well below average player, unless he was a catcher or something."~
Realistically a player who went 125 for 500 every season for 24 years should be a Hall of Famer in that it would be truly remarkable that he could keep a job that long. A .250 hitter with punch and judy type power would be lucky to last 3 seasons in the league unless they were a Gold Glover.
There have been a few people who have followed the Punch-and-Judy path to the Hall; Robinson, Aparicio, Mazeroski and Smith come to mind. I think they all hit just a little better than .250 - but none of them got to 3,000. But, like aro said, I think they each may have won a Gold Glove or two.
Take away outstanding fielding, and you have guys like Harold Baines and Rusty Staub and a certain first baseman who came up through the Dodgers organization in the late 60's - none of whom are thought of as HOF material.
But, while we're on the subject, if Robinson, Aparicio, etc. can get in the Hall with Punch-and-Judy offense and an armload of Gold Gloves, how long can they keep out Santo? Santo was a great third baseman, has the armload of Gold Gloves, and when you consider when and where he played, was a much better hitter than any of those guys. I think there's a few guys who have been really screwed by the HOF voters, but Santo has been gang-raped.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I agree about Santo's qualifications relative to some of the other mentioned. But I'd make a case that some of the other mentioned probably don't deserve enshrinement in the first place though. There are too many fringe players in the hall. It all started with Joe Morgan using his influence on the vet committed to get his buddy Tony Perez elected, whick knocked the prestige of hall induction down about 10 notches in my book... Same for Mazeroski's plaque.
Aro, I could have sworn that James amended that top five you had. In his latest writing, he had Murray 3rd, because knocked McGwire and Bagwell down now that he had more claification on how those guys were doing and how accomplishments in this particular era were downgraded. I believe he did it at the end of his book. I skimmed it at the bookstore
As for the 3,000 hit guy, that was of course hypothetical(and a reach on being realistic), but I used it to highlight how just getting 3,000 hits and being average for a long time doesn't make one a HOFer. And of course, being a middle infielder or catcher changes everything on that guy.
dg, I will strongly disagree that I've presented anything close to irrelevant. None of the stuff I do is 'crazy', and it is pretty darn accurate and straighforward. I have seen some crazy formulas etc..., and looking at your type of reasoning you would barf for sure if you saw them. Heck, I almost barf as well, especially knowing that I have told those guys that write the stuff that they are missing some important stuff. They put lists of 100 players to rank, solely by their formula, AND KNOWING THAT IT HAS MAJOR FLAWS(which they can't account for), that I am more than happy to point out (the errors of which I'm not going to list now because that is a lot of writing), they mistakingly think they have found truth. If you think I'm arrogant, their flawed lists are presented as GOSPEL.
Dg, I am a hybrid analyst. I take the good of the Saber world, and the best of the logical, and I come up with stuff closer to the truth than any other corner does. One could say, "I don't make a lot of the things you buy, I make a lot of the things you buy BETTER." like you hear in that commerical. The difference is nothing is bought
Certainly within the ranks of all players, Robinson (Brooks) is a solid hitter, but among HOFers he's in the Punch and Judy ranks with a HR every 40 AB and a lifetime BA of .267. To be fair to Robinson, no HOFer actually fits the Punch-and-Judy model that skinpinch theorized; I just include him because he is in the group that is closest to 3,000 hits and closest to a .250 average. Considering when and where he played, I agree that he is clearly a better hitter than the others in my list. As a hitter, Robinson's very comparable to Staub and Baines, and not that much better than Buckner. He was awesome in his MVP year in 1964, but never approached that level of success before or since.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
This is a prime example where the interpretation of stats can be very misleading. I would have to disagree with this assesment (him being a punch and judy) Brooks case is a lil different cuz he began his career at 18 and played to around 42. So he has a few yrs. at the start of his career and about 5 at the end that have skewed his value as a hitter. JMO
Winpitcher, he had 10 seasons where he had SLG% better than league average, eight of which were well above. Five seasons with OPS+ over 120 (100 is average). So your contestation certainly has merit.
In his 'bookend' years, he had about 1,500 plate appearances that really did skew his overall totals...kind of like Steve Carlton's last few seasons! That is an example of what I mean about determining career value etc.. Brooks didn't need those 1,500 plate apperances at the very beginning and very end of his career to define what kind of player he was. You can't really ignore the years, but you can't hold it against a guy when somebody else wasn't even good enough to play MLB those years either(either by not being good young, or faltering early on ala Dick Allen.). Those extra years still have some value for Brooks though, but it does skew how good he was! It does indeed skew things! I probably just wrote something very confusing. And I've seen that debated by some of the heavy weight stat guys, and it never comes to a resolution.
I think it does that to a lot of players. And that is why there is a little bit of a dilemma there, just like in the case of Thornton vs. Buckner. As arrogant as people think I am, there isn't a 'right' answer for SOME things. There is, however, a right answer on how much a K is worth etc...
We talked about this with the Hall...there really isn't a right answer on that either. Some of that is preference, in fact a lot of it is. The only thing that is objective is a comparison to players already in there...a comparison with strong validity and using the correct measures of course
If DGbaseball recalls, my first response to his Buckner HOF comment was something like, "If you feel he is a HOF, then fine, but the Hall had better open up another wing as there are plenty other of his contemporaries that are more deserving." That is what I mean about the Hall.
Just to be clear, I agree with you that calling Robinson a Punch-and-Judy is unfair; I'm only using the phrase within the context of HOFers - sort of like referring to Charles Barkley as "short" within the context of NBA forwards. Barkley was a tall guy, and Robinson was a very good hitter.
But, even setting aside the first 3 and final 2 years of his career (ages 18,19,20,39,40), Robinson still has 7 full seasons with a combined BA of .242 and a HR every 50 AB. You can expand that to 11 complete seasons with a BA of .253 and a HR every 39 AB. Those numbers aren't awful, but there are very few HOFers with such a large chunk of their careers (11 out of 18 complete seasons) spent as an average hitter. His hitting was pretty darned good in the other 7 seasons, but only HOF good in 2 or 3 of them.
Ken Boyer, who won the MVP the same year Robinson did, was clearly a better offensive performer than Robinson (higher BA, SLG, OBP, HR, RBI/game, R/game, SB, etc.). Robinson is in the HOF and not Boyer because all those extra Punch-and-Judy seasons boosted Robinson's career numbers and, most importantly, Robinson won 16 Gold Gloves to Boyer's 5. Of course, I think Boyer ought to be in the HOF, too, but what Cardinal fan doesn't?
IMO, Robinson is remembered as a better hitter than he really was because (1) he was on a great team, and (2) he was a truly great hitter in the postseason in the late 60's - early 70's, which is the only time most people outside Baltimore got to see him play.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Dallas I should have in my last post said that I realized that. No need to clarify. To answer the question of this thread I would take Hernandez any day over Billy Bucks. Both had outstanding careers but niether are HOF IMO.
SD
many times the written word comes across differently then what is intended.
skinpinch - You are correct. James modified the order to be Gehrig, Foxx, Mize, Murray and Killebrew. McGwire dropped to 8th and Bagwell to tenth.
dallas - In regard to your earlier post - I think most stat heads and non stat heads would agree that Santo is the most deserving player of Hall of Fame enshrinement that is not currently in the Hall and is eligible. As for the other players - Mazeroski is the greatest defensive secondbasemen in history. That alone should get him a place in the Hall of Fame. Smith is the greatest defensive shortstop, and although I will not get into it here, I do believe a highly underrated offensive player in his career.
Aro, you should get into it here about Ozzie Smith. Career OPS+ of 87, and Four time above league average. Add his baserunning, and that pushes hit offensive contribution closer to league average. So, he is basically a tad below a league average offensive player, and that is over 10,000 plate apperances worth. He is an above average offensive shortstop!
Overrated/underatted are often confusing terms, but I would agree that most assume that Ozzie was worthless at the plate. I would say with the reality being that he was an above average offensive player at his position, and only a little below average overall, HE IS UNDERRATED offensively.
By the way, Buckner's career OPS+ is 99. So when you account for the baserunning, Ozzie is getting close to a guy who is being clamored for the HOF just based on his offense!!
No need to go over the defensive merits here Ozzie is a sure HOFer!
P.S. Thanks for the clarification on the 1B I also remember Palmerio being in the mid 20's somewhere, just to throw some fuel on the anti-Palmeiro fire . Let me know if I am correct on that. I skimmed it in the bookstore, so my memory may be hazy on it.
I didn't read this whole thread, but I would take either on my team. Both were solid players - neither HOF worthy. Too bad Buckner got the bum knee. Too bad Keith was a party animal.
Proud of my 16x20 autographed and framed collection - all signed in person. Not big on modern - I'm stuck in the past!
Comments
More on the crux of the problem...You said something to the effect of..."I will take Koufax, and then take my chances down the line..." One other thing that adds strength to your reasoning is the real life implications for a team to keep the longevity guy, and that is salary! That once star veteran is going to command a salary at his more advanced age that is not in line wiht the declining production that is inevitable.
I looked at that issue comparing McGwire to Palmeiro. McGwire could have played a few more years to pad his 'counting' totals, but he only would have gotten worse. Instead, he retired and that money basically turned into Scott Rolen.
Being good simply on longevity is nothing truly remarkable. A player could conceivably go 125 for 500, with punch and judy type power, every season for 24 years and amass 3,000 hits. That makes him a Hall of Famer in a lot of fans minds. BUt that would obviously make him a well below average player, unless he was a catcher or something.
By the way, what were the top five 1B in James's rankings? Last I thought, he had Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, ?, ?.
Anyways, I think I can do a lot better than "dork" were I to start name calling, but I try to keep it to a minimum. And the excessive sarcasm is just an attempt to lighten up the the discussions, as well as to knock you statgeeks down a few pegs sometimes by exposing how crazy some of your arguments really are (i.e. please read the first paragraph in this post again). The amount of sarcasm is usually directly related to the number of irrelevant and abstract stats you guys barf on thread. For everyone's sake, I'll promise to tone it down if you will as well.
In the end, it seems that I, in fact, am the
~"Being good simply on longevity is nothing truly remarkable. A player could conceivably go 125 for 500, with punch and judy type power, every season for 24 years and amass 3,000 hits. That makes him a Hall of Famer in a lot of fans minds. BUt that would obviously make him a well below average player, unless he was a catcher or something."~
Realistically a player who went 125 for 500 every season for 24 years should be a Hall of Famer in that it would be truly remarkable that he could keep a job that long. A .250 hitter with punch and judy type power would be lucky to last 3 seasons in the league unless they were a Gold Glover.
Take away outstanding fielding, and you have guys like Harold Baines and Rusty Staub and a certain first baseman who came up through the Dodgers organization in the late 60's - none of whom are thought of as HOF material.
But, while we're on the subject, if Robinson, Aparicio, etc. can get in the Hall with Punch-and-Judy offense and an armload of Gold Gloves, how long can they keep out Santo? Santo was a great third baseman, has the armload of Gold Gloves, and when you consider when and where he played, was a much better hitter than any of those guys. I think there's a few guys who have been really screwed by the HOF voters, but Santo has been gang-raped.
As for the 3,000 hit guy, that was of course hypothetical(and a reach on being realistic), but I used it to highlight how just getting 3,000 hits and being average for a long time doesn't make one a HOFer. And of course, being a middle infielder or catcher changes everything on that guy.
dg, I will strongly disagree that I've presented anything close to irrelevant. None of the stuff I do is 'crazy', and it is pretty darn accurate and straighforward. I have seen some crazy formulas etc..., and looking at your type of reasoning you would barf for sure if you saw them. Heck, I almost barf as well, especially knowing that I have told those guys that write the stuff that they are missing some important stuff. They put lists of 100 players to rank, solely by their formula, AND KNOWING THAT IT HAS MAJOR FLAWS(which they can't account for), that I am more than happy to point out (the errors of which I'm not going to list now because that is a lot of writing), they mistakingly think they have found truth. If you think I'm arrogant, their flawed lists are presented as GOSPEL.
Dg, I am a hybrid analyst. I take the good of the Saber world, and the best of the logical, and I come up with stuff closer to the truth than any other corner does. One could say, "I don't make a lot of the things you buy, I make a lot of the things you buy BETTER." like you hear in that commerical. The difference is nothing is bought
Robinson? which Robinson? can be considered "punch and judy"?
SD
SD
In his 'bookend' years, he had about 1,500 plate appearances that really did skew his overall totals...kind of like Steve Carlton's last few seasons! That is an example of what I mean about determining career value etc.. Brooks didn't need those 1,500 plate apperances at the very beginning and very end of his career to define what kind of player he was. You can't really ignore the years, but you can't hold it against a guy when somebody else wasn't even good enough to play MLB those years either(either by not being good young, or faltering early on ala Dick Allen.). Those extra years still have some value for Brooks though, but it does skew how good he was! It does indeed skew things! I probably just wrote something very confusing. And I've seen that debated by some of the heavy weight stat guys, and it never comes to a resolution.
I think it does that to a lot of players. And that is why there is a little bit of a dilemma there, just like in the case of Thornton vs. Buckner. As arrogant as people think I am, there isn't a 'right' answer for SOME things. There is, however, a right answer on how much a K is worth etc...
We talked about this with the Hall...there really isn't a right answer on that either. Some of that is preference, in fact a lot of it is. The only thing that is objective is a comparison to players already in there...a comparison with strong validity and using the correct measures of course
If DGbaseball recalls, my first response to his Buckner HOF comment was something like, "If you feel he is a HOF, then fine, but the Hall had better open up another wing as there are plenty other of his contemporaries that are more deserving." That is what I mean about the Hall.
But, even setting aside the first 3 and final 2 years of his career (ages 18,19,20,39,40), Robinson still has 7 full seasons with a combined BA of .242 and a HR every 50 AB. You can expand that to 11 complete seasons with a BA of .253 and a HR every 39 AB. Those numbers aren't awful, but there are very few HOFers with such a large chunk of their careers (11 out of 18 complete seasons) spent as an average hitter. His hitting was pretty darned good in the other 7 seasons, but only HOF good in 2 or 3 of them.
Ken Boyer, who won the MVP the same year Robinson did, was clearly a better offensive performer than Robinson (higher BA, SLG, OBP, HR, RBI/game, R/game, SB, etc.). Robinson is in the HOF and not Boyer because all those extra Punch-and-Judy seasons boosted Robinson's career numbers and, most importantly, Robinson won 16 Gold Gloves to Boyer's 5. Of course, I think Boyer ought to be in the HOF, too, but what Cardinal fan doesn't?
IMO, Robinson is remembered as a better hitter than he really was because (1) he was on a great team, and (2) he was a truly great hitter in the postseason in the late 60's - early 70's, which is the only time most people outside Baltimore got to see him play.
SD
many times the written word comes across differently then what is intended.
dallas - In regard to your earlier post - I think most stat heads and non stat heads would agree that Santo is the most deserving player of Hall of Fame enshrinement that is not currently in the Hall and is eligible.
As for the other players - Mazeroski is the greatest defensive secondbasemen in history. That alone should get him a place in the Hall of Fame. Smith is the greatest defensive shortstop, and although I will not get into it here, I do believe a highly underrated offensive player in his career.
Overrated/underatted are often confusing terms, but I would agree that most assume that Ozzie was worthless at the plate. I would say with the reality being that he was an above average offensive player at his position, and only a little below average overall, HE IS UNDERRATED offensively.
By the way, Buckner's career OPS+ is 99. So when you account for the baserunning, Ozzie is getting close to a guy who is being clamored for the HOF just based on his offense!!
No need to go over the defensive merits here
P.S. Thanks for the clarification on the 1B