Fringe players that don't get enough Hall Support....who do you like?
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
We already know all the fringe Hall of Fame type players that get their backers....Rice, Munson, Mattingly, etc... but I want to see some guys come up with other similar type HOF fringe players that don't get anywhere near the backing, even though they are just as good.
I'll start with a couple...
1) Ron Cey. His offensive value is higher than Rice's, 285 situational BR compared to 190 for Rice, and he was fine at 3B. Add the stuff that matters for the Hall of Fame(but not Hall of MERIT): he was on three World Series teams, was an immensely popular figure for LA, then added to some popularity with the Cubs in '84....and HEY, he has the most valuable baseball card of the 1970's!!
2) Dave Parker. A beast of a hitter, one of the best PEAK hitters who is not in the Hall...and he has some longevity too. Defensive force in RF.
Who are some other guys that are in that type of mold that you can come up with, and with a veery short reason why.
I'll start with a couple...
1) Ron Cey. His offensive value is higher than Rice's, 285 situational BR compared to 190 for Rice, and he was fine at 3B. Add the stuff that matters for the Hall of Fame(but not Hall of MERIT): he was on three World Series teams, was an immensely popular figure for LA, then added to some popularity with the Cubs in '84....and HEY, he has the most valuable baseball card of the 1970's!!
2) Dave Parker. A beast of a hitter, one of the best PEAK hitters who is not in the Hall...and he has some longevity too. Defensive force in RF.
Who are some other guys that are in that type of mold that you can come up with, and with a veery short reason why.
0
Comments
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>We already know all the fringe Hall of Fame type players that get their backers....Rice, Munson, Mattingly, etc... >>
Nice veiled shot. Let me correct you -
Don't lump Jim Rice in with other players that are not legit HOF candidates, just because you personally don't like him. The vast majority of MLB writers seem to think so, as Rice received 346 votes (63.5% of the voters believed he should be in). Mattingly recieved only 54 votes (9.9% of the voters) and Munson received only 2 votes (out of 80 voters) on the last veterans committee ballot.
This hardly makes Rice a "fringe" Hall Of Fame candidate - nice try, though.
Steve
Correcting me, by using the writers opinions, is not exactly correcting me. Many are flat out ignoramous fools when it comes to baseball evaluating. I would be happy to listen to them on sentence structure though. Baseball evaluating from them? Hardly.
I noticed you chimed in on this, but you ignored the question/topic that was brought up before.
Does having a good lineup help a hitter, or doesn't it?
It seems it helps a hitter when it is a hitter you don't like, as in Jeter.
But when it comes to a guy whom you do like, it is a non-factor, as in Rice's case.
It can't be both ways. In your estimation, which is it, for future reference of all the people on this board that you converse with? I use "estimation", as it isn't an opinion...much like a players value isn't opinion. But I would like to know which way you think it is for clarification.
This is bias...the thing you are currently lumping me into with a so-called veiled shot at a guy I supposedly don't 'like'.
After you clarify your estimation, you are welcome to add a guy that is in line with the spirit of the topic. Please, put the references to veiled shots comments, and guys I don't 'like' ideas out of the thread.
As for fringe, I'll second Dale Murphy and Dave Parker (I believe the bad press regarding the drugs is hurting him).
Also, Dave Concepcion, Steve Garvey, Keith Hernandez and here's a stretch as neither will ever get a second look--Lou Whitaker and Bill Madlock
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
Oh, and Ted Simmons
Steve
<< <i>Correcting me, by using the writers opinions, is not exactly correcting me. Many are flat out ignoramous fools when it comes to baseball evaluating. I would be happy to listen to them on sentence structure though. Baseball evaluating from them? Hardly. >>
But, it is correcting you - at least, I am "correcting" your determination that Rice is a "fringe" candidate. When it comes to determining who goes into the Hall and who doesn't, your opinion means as much as mine - which is to say, it doesn't matter at all. No matter how you feel about their ability to properly assess Hall Of Fame merits, the writers have the only votes and opinions that matter. And, according to them, Rice is not a fringe candidate - rather, along with Gossage, he received positive votes from the majority of the writers. You might think he doesn't belong, but you clearly have an opinion that doesn't agree with the majority - and you were trying to pass it off as fact.
<< <i>Does having a good lineup help a hitter, or doesn't it? >>
Yes. Of course it does. But, the lineup, the ballpark, the comfort level of the locker rooms, whatever - doesn't provide all you need to be a Hall Of Famer. As far as Jeter goes, I have said that I feel his reputation is enhanced by the fact that he has played on winning teams for the New York Yankees. I think it's a fair statement to make. I am referring more to his reputation for being "clutch" than anything else - that is the only thing I really took issue with (and provided stats to make my point). Rice played in Fenway Park with some good lineups in the era that he did, nothing can change that. But, I don't agree that this is as big a factor in determining how great a player Rice was as you seem to. For example, would Rice be in already if things went differently in 1978? How does he benefit from that? I think Rice would have put up the numbers needed for induction no matter where his career took place.
How many ballots has rice been on so far? What was this, the eleventh year?
No matter how much you want him in, he is a "fringe" hall of famer. Even if he makes it in next year, he is a fringe HOFer. "Fringe" players make it too somtimes but that does not make them locks, or sure things, they remain a fringe hall of famer that got in. By him not getting in on the first 3 or so ballots you cannot argue against him being a "fringe" HOFer
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
How about Bill Freehan? Before you start laughing, I know, I know, his average sucked, but man, he was
probably THEE best backstop in either league with the exception of Johnny Bench in the 60's.
Now, I am not saying he should be in there, but, what do you all think? GOOD AND BAD, lay it out there!
Tony
KalineFan
You are quite correct about Cey being on the most popular/expensive card of the 70s, and it is not even his rookie card, that's proof enough for me to believe your statement that he had better offensive value than Jim Rice.
<< <i>Rice played in Fenway Park with some good lineups in the era that he did, nothing can change that. But, I don't agree that this is as big a factor in determining how great a player Rice was as you seem to. >>
Being an eternal optimist, I'll take another crack at the question that every Rice backer has dodged for the past year or so (I've asked it several times - not even a whisper in response).
While much of these discussions is certainly opinion, I take the following to be facts:
1. Dave Kingman sucked
2. Dave Kingman hit a lot of HRs
3. Kingman played his career on mostly bad teams with mostly bad teammates
4. In Kingman's single full season in a hitter's park, he hit 48 HR in 532 AB
5. Kingman spent most of his career in strong pitcher's parks
6. Hitting in Fenway boosts a hitter's HRs
7. The Red Sox, in the late 70's and most of the 80's, had a great lineup
8. Hitting a lot of HRs in the middle of a great lineup creates a lot of RBIs
9. If Dave Kingman had played in Fenway he would have hit lots more HR, and gotten lots more RBI
10. If Dave Kingman had played in Fenway, he would still have sucked
From this I conclude that accumulating lots of HRs and RBIs does not mean that a player doesn't suck, let alone that he belongs in the HOF.
With which of the points that I am calling "facts" do you disagree, or do you disagree that my conclusion follows from the facts?
<< <i>ctsoxfan
How many ballots has rice been on so far? What was this, the eleventh year?
No matter how much you want him in, he is a "fringe" hall of famer. Even if he makes it in next year, he is a fringe HOFer. "Fringe" players make it too somtimes but that does not make them locks, or sure things, they remain a fringe hall of famer that got in. By him not getting in on the first 3 or so ballots you cannot argue against him being a "fringe" HOFer >>
It took Dimaggio 4 tries to get in--does that make him a fringe player? Bill Dickey 11 tries. Don Drysdale 10 tries. Campenella 7 tries. Jimmy Foxx 8 tries. Hank Greenberg 10 tries. Point is, just because it takes more than a few tries to get in doesn't make him a fringe Hall of Fame candidate. The writers have their own agendas and own opinions on these players. Suddenly Bruce Sutter is a HOFer. Why? Because the writers finally realized what he gave to the game. Rice is only now being recognized for what he did on the field. No steroids. No sports technology. Put some of these upcoming HOFers in his place and see how well they do.
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
Steve Rogers, former Expos hurler, is another guy. Not a Hall of Famer I know, but this guy's career ERA was 3.17. His career was cut short by arm injuries, but he pitched for some terrible Expos teams early in his career and tossed close to 300 innings a number of seasons. His era for the 12-year span of his career was better than Nolan Ryan's during that same period. I'm not saying he is better than Ryan or a Hall of Famer, but he didn't even get one vote when he came up on the Hall ballot.
Tom Henke is another guy. He retired when he was young, but his last season with the Cardinals was his best season. This guy was a dominant closer. His career numbers are better than Sutter's, but again he fell off the ballot in his first year of eligibility.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
JS
Dave Concepcion is actually the player I had in mind when starting this thread. I believe somebody was on his case in another thread. Great player, nary a consideration. That is the spirit of this. Ditto for Dwight Evans.
These guys are just as good as guys who get much more support...regardless of who somebody likes based on their heart or bias. It is simply reality, not the bias we are accustomed to getting.
Onlyanumber, Bill Madlock is interesting. You have a few guys who fit the spirit of the thread.
Jaxxr my friend, if you don't understand what a joke is...regarding the Cey baseball card, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Ctsox, I'm not going to interrupt your bias of Rice, regardless of the reality...and the things you listed you say that artificially help a players ability(all of which were beneficial to Rice).
Halso...AL OLIVER! Another vote.
Throw one towards Rusty Staub from my end.
<< <i>
As far as Jeter goes, I have said that I feel his reputation is enhanced by the fact that he has played on winning teams for the New York Yankees. I think it's a fair statement to make. I am referring more to his reputation for being "clutch" than anything else - that is the only thing I really took issue with (and provided stats to make my point). >>
No,
I don't think this was the case. You definately lambasted Jeter for having the guys hit around him that he does have. You are back tracking. You hate Derek Jeter, and even if he winds up with 20,000 hits you would be singing to the cows come home against him. Be real Jer!
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."
<< <i>Hey guys, I know this is probably coming out of nowhere for most of you on the HOF fringe players....but,
How about Bill Freehan? Before you start laughing, I know, I know, his average sucked, but man, he was
probably THEE best backstop in either league with the exception of Johnny Bench in the 60's.
Now, I am not saying he should be in there, but, what do you all think? GOOD AND BAD, lay it out there!
Tony
KalineFan
I missed your post earlier but count my vote as a strong second for Freehan. Under any other circumstance - one where a teammate isn't fortunate enough to win 31 games - Freehan wins the MVP running away in 1968 (and he deserved it more that McLain did). Had he won it, I think he'd probably be in. Or, if he had played in any decade other than the 60's, he'd almost certainly be in. Or, if he had played in Fenway, he would certainly be in.
So, definitely no laughing at Freehan and if you're not saying he should be in there you should start. While we're praising Tigers, count my vote for Trammell, too. Just please, for the love of God, don't bring up Jack "Mediocre" Morris!
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."
<< <i>
<< <i>Rice played in Fenway Park with some good lineups in the era that he did, nothing can change that. But, I don't agree that this is as big a factor in determining how great a player Rice was as you seem to. >>
Being an eternal optimist, I'll take another crack at the question that every Rice backer has dodged for the past year or so (I've asked it several times - not even a whisper in response).
While much of these discussions is certainly opinion, I take the following to be facts:
1. Dave Kingman sucked
2. Dave Kingman hit a lot of HRs
3. Kingman played his career on mostly bad teams with mostly bad teammates
4. In Kingman's single full season in a hitter's park, he hit 48 HR in 532 AB
5. Kingman spent most of his career in strong pitcher's parks
6. Hitting in Fenway boosts a hitter's HRs
7. The Red Sox, in the late 70's and most of the 80's, had a great lineup
8. Hitting a lot of HRs in the middle of a great lineup creates a lot of RBIs
9. If Dave Kingman had played in Fenway he would have hit lots more HR, and gotten lots more RBI
10. If Dave Kingman had played in Fenway, he would still have sucked
From this I conclude that accumulating lots of HRs and RBIs does not mean that a player doesn't suck, let alone that he belongs in the HOF.
With which of the points that I am calling "facts" do you disagree, or do you disagree that my conclusion follows from the facts? >>
I almost don't know where to begin with this -
There is no comparison between Dave Kingman and Jim Rice. As you accurately point out, all of those statements above constitute "your opinion" only. I am not sure I would say Kingman "sucked" either, but obviously he was a one-dimensional player who seemed to either hit a home run, or strike out. Gorman Thomas comes to mind as well, for this type of player. So, I thought at first, you were trying to compare Rice to Kingman (absurd though that is).
But then, I read the last statement, which says that Kingman would have still sucked in Fenway Park, where to use your logic - he would have had even better stats than he had by playing in "pitchers parks". So, now are you saying that Fenway Park has no factor in helping a player get to the Hall? Help me understand where you are going with this comparison, and I'll respond to that.
A healthy David Cone can pitch with the best of them. Dwight Gooden was just amazing earning the name Dr. Strikeout. They both had great peaks.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I understand both of your arguments regarding Jim Rice and I fully agree with the analysis. It is beyond opinion but very empirical. Baseball Writers still use traditional stats in evaluating players, but we have used more accurate stats to do our own analysis. Batter Runs is more accurate than Batting Average and RBIs. OPS+ is also better that RBI totals and batting average since it puts numbers into context.
With all due respect to Jerry, I don't think he fully understands the computations presented by all these new stats. I can see his argument using the traditional stats in order to show how superior Rice was. The problem is that those traditional stats do not put the numbers into context, therefore, giving the allusion of Rice having greater peak value than say Mattingly or Murphy and dozens of other players.
I have been following baseball for over 20 years and I always believed in looking at BA, RBI, doubles and total hits. Later on I realized that OBP is a more valuable gauge than just BA. It showed me why the power hitters who struck out a lot were actually valuable because they drew a lot of walks. The BA might be .250, but if the OBP was .388, that was pretty good and the latter stat was a more important consideration of a player's value in the line up. OPS, which I learned about still later was even better because it took OBP and the quality of the hits into account as well. It gave a good way to compare a hitter like John Olerud to a hitter like Jay Buhner on a more level playing field. A HR hitter will hit more HRs than a pure hitter like John Olerud, but a pure hitter gets on base often enough and hits many doubles so they can have just as good an OPS as a power hitter. McGwire led in OPS because he performed well as a power hitter. Mattingly led in OPS not because of HRs, but because he hit a lot of doubles and hit high for average. I like that OPS stat because it is very encompassing of a bunch of variables and gives a legitimate way of comparing the values of power hitters and pure hitters.
From Skinpinch, I got the concept of park adjusted OPS (aka OPS+). That was more accurate than just OPS. This way, it did away with players that capitalized on hitter friendly parks. This stat made it so that the players' OPS had equal proportions of each ball park added into the stat instead of a lopsided amount of Fenway at-bats (which elevates numbers for right handed hitters) or Dodgers Stadium at-bats (which lowers the numbers of hitters overall--poor Steve Garvey).
Batter Runs is the most recent stat brought to my attention. My goodness, this has a whole lot of variables that are accounted for. Truely amazing. Since its new to me, I have not spent the time to truely grasp how all the variables are accounted for. I understand its overall premise, but I just have not dissected it enough for me to feel totally comfortable with it yet.
As children growing up, all we heard about was BA, RBI and HRs. Now suddenly we are presented with new stats and it confuses us. I understand that. But we must not be neophobic and not be afraid to let go of things we held as self evident truths for most of our lives if something more rational comes along. That is the nature of scientific progress. Its not about an opinion or bias.
With all that said, stats are not the only reason why players should get inducted into the HOF (that is clearly stated in its mission statement). There is also the historical, sociological and contribution to the game factor that also needs to be included along side the stats. We use the statistical analysis as a start, then we must also weigh in those other factors that are not measured by numbers and that is where the whole induction game gets tricky.
Guys like Babe Ruth had tremendous stats, but they also had a historical impact on the game. He saved baseball by making it more popular and exciting for everyone. That cannot be measured but we know he made that impact based on the fans' feedback.
We take a look at Dick Allen. Tremendous stats, but nobody liked him. Weak positive impact on the game. No HOF induction.
Tommy Lasorda. Terrible pitcher, but the impact he had on the game is impossible to measure by using numbers. There was something about his enthusiasm for baseball that just permeated to the masses. He knew how to get a bunch of young guys to win the gold medal in baseball during the Olympics. He was no tactician, but made decisions from the gut that later proved victorious.
There are many guys ahead of Jim Rice on a statistical plane, but that does not mean he does not belong in the HOF when we also factor in the other criteria the HOF wants us to look at. There is room for argument there. But for pure stat purposes, Garvey, Mattingly and Hernandez rank above Rice.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Soft, you are correct in the back tracking of CTsox. He clearly said that Jeter would not have the same numbers in a normal lineup. Yet he is NOT saying the same thing about Rice??? He even brought up David Ortiz and Manny.
Ctsox, based on your own assumptions, the next time you list Rice's numbers, it MUST be accompanied by the statement..."these numbers were heavily influenced by being lucky enough to be in a good lineup." If this sentiment is not added, then your words should not even be listened to, as they would be totally baseless, and COMPLETELY filled with bias. Or, you can get off that stance, and give Jeter full credit for the numbers he put up. One of those two must be done to give you even a sliver of credibility!
Your next post should contain one of those two statements.
You can't have it both ways to suit your bias.
In line with the Cone and Gooden nominations....
Bret Saberhagen!
Great to see so much love for Dewy Evans, he was the first name that popped in my mind as well. What an arm from right feild!
I'm not gonna name the "usual suspects" : Dawson, Morris, et al.
How 'bout "Will The Thrill", Fred Lynn, and what about Harry Steinfeldt, the first baseman for the Cubs in their "Tinkers to Evers to Chance" days, who many claim was a better ball player than his more famous team mates, too bad his name doesn't sound nice in verse!
Fred Lynn is another good example, as is Dewey. THey happen to be the BEST two players roaming the Fenway outfield from the late 70's/80's, yet the third best of them gets the lionshare(or Dinosaur share!) of support. This is EXACTLY the spirit of this thread!
Lynn also has unique Hall intangibles like the ROY/MVP season...not to mention being a regular on T.W.I.B highlight films.
Heck, Jim Rice didn't even play in the '75 post season! He isn't even part of the great series in history like his two other outfield mates. How the other two, who are both better offensively, defensively, and on the basepaths, get ZILCH support, and this guy all of it? It must be his last name...they always say you remember things better when you associate them with food
How about John Olerud? He had one monster season when he won the batting title and a couple other seasons which were comparable, but not enough overall. He got on base alot. He can hit for some power as well. He had a stellar Glove.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>There is no comparison between Dave Kingman and Jim Rice. As you accurately point out, all of those statements above constitute "your opinion" only. I am not sure I would say Kingman "sucked" either, but obviously he was a one-dimensional player who seemed to either hit a home run, or strike out. Gorman Thomas comes to mind as well, for this type of player. So, I thought at first, you were trying to compare Rice to Kingman (absurd though that is).
But then, I read the last statement, which says that Kingman would have still sucked in Fenway Park, where to use your logic - he would have had even better stats than he had by playing in "pitchers parks". So, now are you saying that Fenway Park has no factor in helping a player get to the Hall? Help me understand where you are going with this comparison, and I'll respond to that. >>
No, I'm not comparing Rice to Kingman; Rice was clearly better than Kingman. But being better than Kingman ain't saying much, because Kingman sucked. What I'm saying is, if all you are looking at is HRs and RBI and being "feared" - and if you put Kingman in Fenway Park for his entire career - then you, Jerry, are absolutely forced by your arguments on behalf of Rice to conclude that not only did Kingman not suck but that he was a HOFer. Kingman, completely untainted by steroids, would have put up HR and RBI numbers that were better than Jim Rice's, and he would have easily passed the 500 HR mark. And I have absolutely zero doubt that he would be in the HOF today and that you would be arguing that he deserved to be there. {Note that "put up HR and RBI numbers that were better than Jim Rice's" is NOT saying that he was "better" than Rice - that would follow from your arguments but not from mine.}
Consider your last paragraph. You seem surprised that my last point was that Kingman would still have sucked had he played in Fenway. But that's the point - indeed the point of any player analysis that deserves to be taken seriously - which park a player is lucky or unlucky enough to play in ought not be a factor in determining how good he was. I am saying that Fenway Park is an ENORMOUS factor, indeed the single only factor, in making a case for Jim Rice to be in the HOF. You have yet to make an argument on behalf of Rice that could not also be used on behalf of Kingman - had Kingman played in Fenway.
My ultimate point being, if you are making an argument on behalf of Rice, or any player, that might be used to show that Dave Kingman was a good baseball player then you have absolute proof that your argument is wrong. And you are making arguments that unavoidably put Dave Kingman in the HOF if he was lucky enough to play in the right ballpark.
<< <i>Will Clark certainly deserves to be on this thread.
How about John Olerud? He had one monster season when he won the batting title and a couple other seasons which were comparable, but not enough overall. He got on base alot. He can hit for some power as well. He had a stellar Glove. >>
Olerud should be in the Hall of Fame for his swing alone. That's the nicest baseball swing I've ever seen. I'm kidding about Olerud being in the Hall, but it would be nice to see him last past the first ballot. He was a great all-around hitter and a fantastic fielder.
<< <i>
<< <i>Correcting me, by using the writers opinions, is not exactly correcting me. Many are flat out ignoramous fools when it comes to baseball evaluating. I would be happy to listen to them on sentence structure though. Baseball evaluating from them? Hardly. >>
But, it is correcting you - at least, I am "correcting" your determination that Rice is a "fringe" candidate. When it comes to determining who goes into the Hall and who doesn't, your opinion means as much as mine - which is to say, it doesn't matter at all. No matter how you feel about their ability to properly assess Hall Of Fame merits, the writers have the only votes and opinions that matter. And, according to them, Rice is not a fringe candidate - rather, along with Gossage, he received positive votes from the majority of the writers. You might think he doesn't belong, but you clearly have an opinion that doesn't agree with the majority - and you were trying to pass it off as fact.
<< <i>Does having a good lineup help a hitter, or doesn't it? >>
Yes. Of course it does. But, the lineup, the ballpark, the comfort level of the locker rooms, whatever - doesn't provide all you need to be a Hall Of Famer. As far as Jeter goes, I have said that I feel his reputation is enhanced by the fact that he has played on winning teams for the New York Yankees. I think it's a fair statement to make. I am referring more to his reputation for being "clutch" than anything else - that is the only thing I really took issue with (and provided stats to make my point). Rice played in Fenway Park with some good lineups in the era that he did, nothing can change that. But, I don't agree that this is as big a factor in determining how great a player Rice was as you seem to. For example, would Rice be in already if things went differently in 1978? How does he benefit from that? I think Rice would have put up the numbers needed for induction no matter where his career took place. >>
Sorry Jerr, Jete was/is clutch. There's no perception about it. Stats? Where at? Everytime I post on this subject you dissapear from the conversation. Check Jeters' situational numbers here for yourself
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
Albert Belle, Dave Kingman, Jim Rice, etc never gave anyone that warm fuzzy feeling. We all liked what they did on the field, and then we stopped there. As far as Munson, Mattingly, Garvey and again people like that. Their stats though very nice , sometimes steller, just don't hold up over the long haul. These guys meant an awful lot to their fans, but outside their fan base, who would consider their #'s HOF worthy. Guys like Bobby Grich , Rich Gossage , who's numbers and contributions are very far above some that are in , and most that are not, probably again, will never see the light of Cooperstown. Who doesn't consider Gossage to be a better closer or more feared closer than either Fingers or Sutter? I used to get excited when I saw Sutter come into the game. He didn't blow to many games . This applied to Fingers, I never was too happy when he popped out of the bullpen. I was almost always terrified when the "goose " showed up. He had the stats to match. Grich had better power than most 2nd baseman, had tremendous range. He was able to turn the DP better than anyone I saw , other than Mazeroski or Glenn Hubbard. GLEN HUBBARD, The Ozzie smith and Brooks Robinson of 2nd, he has some real nice #'s as well.
There is no magic # that if a player crosses , guarentees the red carpet to the HOF. Political correctness plays a factor. Writers's bias whether personal or professional, shows up each and every year. One or more of the writers(voters) has this great compelling need to let the world know, I AM. I have players that I knew personally, that will always be great to me. They will NEVER make it to the HOF. They will ALWAYS be in my HOF. I love the players that I always wanted to be. The players that are only in it for the money or their own glory , will always have their fans , and some do make to the HALL. This HOF debate has been going since , well since someone's hero beat someone else's hero . DEBATE ON !!!
Gossage
Santo
Raines
No-Rice
Dawson
Morris
Mattingly
Why-It is just my opinion. I expect Gossage, Raines, Rice, and Dawson to eventually make it. Dawson's OBP is pathetic for a HOF outfielder.
BTW-Bill James has clearly demonstrated that who hits around you has virtually no impact on a hitter's performance.
We had a long discussion on the merits of lineup protection previously. Basically, lineup protection is a myth. We went over countless examples/reasons why it is so. Heck, we even showed that Maris was equally as good, or better, when Mantle was NOT behind him in the lineup. There were countless reason for it being a myth, and countless examples. There were hardly a speck of evidence to show its existence.
The reason why I am bringing it up about Rice is that ctsox said that Jeter's hitting is merely a product of being in an excellent lineup, but now that his 'guy' is being examined, he conveniently forgets his stance because it would shine Rice in less of a light...though I'm not sure how being the third best outfielder on your team can shine any more dull. It is sports hypocrisy at its finest....a gentleman who wants it both ways.
I must say it is refreshing to see more people understand the OB% of Dawson being his biggest drawback in value. It is even more refreshing when people undestand ballpark factors. I find it humorous when somebody says something like.....
"I think Rice would have put up the numbers needed for induction no matter where his career took place." I'm curious as to why a .277 BA .330 OB% and .459 SLG% in THOSE OTHER PARKS HE SPEAKS OF, would lead somebody to that conclusion. The answer is bias or misinformation.
It must be nice to walk through life and just ignore all the evidence that conflicts with ones 'beliefs'. Maybe one morning when it is time for work and the sun is shining into my bedroom, I can just ignore it and pretend it isn't there, and maybe it would revert back to evening. Then I can go back to bed. Or I can just be like Carl Everett and pretend that humans put the dinosaur bones in the ground, and that they never existed. It must be a wonderful feeling to be like that.
<< <i>We had a long discussion on the merits of lineup protection previously. Basically, lineup protection is a myth in my opinion. We went over countless examples/reasons why I believe so. Heck, we even showed that Maris was equally as good, or better, when Mantle was NOT behind him in the lineup depending on which data is accurately used and who dictates which said data is used. There were countless reason for it being a myth, and countless examples, but has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to NOT be a legitimate theory . There were hardly a speck of evidence to show its existence , depending on one's perspective and point of view >>
.
Fixed
Edied: Sorry to add a double negative but it would have made my statement contradictory
Maybe handsome Don Mossi too. edit: I just researched and now retract my nomination for The Sphinx -
Bosox1976
Maybe it is you who can't understand ( or perhaps, take ) a joke, my comment about your statment re Cey's card was just that. Please try not to be so uptight.
To any and all,
In general, do you feel the HOF is somewhat diluted ? Both with some recent choices and some old-timers ?
"Fame" is of course a term which has different meanings to different people, and certainly fame can not be measured by any kind of stat, nor any absolute factors, just consider Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson for example. It just apperars too many VERY GOOD players are being given serious evaluations for addmission into what was once supposed to be a place for the really GREAT ballplayers.
????
<< <i>BTW-Bill James has clearly demonstrated that who hits around you has virtually no impact on a hitter's performance. >>
Of course it doesn't. But it has a HUGE impact on the number of runs a player scores and the number of runs he drives in. And if those statistics are important to your evaluation of a player, then (1) it will appear to you that a player's lineup is terribly important and (2) you will do a terrible job of player evaluation.
<< <i>Cecil Cooper. Always felt one of Yount's MVP awards went to the wrong Brewer. >>
You can rest easy now. Robin Yount was far and away the best player in the AL in 1982, while Cooper was the third best Brewer (also behind Molitor).
I remember thinking he was the next Mays for awhile, but injuries forced him out.
I noticed he got a vote for the hall this year.
I can look up his traditional stats, but wondered how he did for a decade by some of these other stats you are using, and compared to other players/ lesser HOF'ers???
shawn
If it needed to be reworded it would have to be something like this..."lineup protection is a myth, a myth that many believe in because they simply don't know any better, and aren't equiped with the knowledge or information to see the painfully obvious. Where as it is true that nothing can be proven true within zero doubt, it can be shown to be multiple more times more accurate and real than what people typically go by. There will still be people who will stare in the face of overwhelming VALID evidence, and just blindly ignore it or dismiss it because it ruins their hero." This is the Carl Everett fan club.
As for anyone that will dismiss a scientifically statistically valid study of baseball, please don't use any statistics then when making an evaluation. It is so common for a guy to dismiss a valid method of statistics, using a quote like "the stats don't tell and measure everything, AND THEN IN THE NEXT SENTENCE USE A STATISTIC TO MEASURE SOMETHING. Only they use a measure that has been shown many different ways to be fatally flawed, and MUCH more so than the one they are dismissing as not measuring EVERYTHING. So if one wants to bash a superior method, fine, but don't look like foolish by using an elementary statistical method in its stead. Just comment on how pretty a guys swing looks, and stick to that stuff.
BigRedMachine...
Eric Davis and Jim Rice's best five seasons. Both occured pre live ball era, so they are comparable as is. Situational Batter Runs...currently the MOST comprehensive and MOST accurate method of telling the players hitting value. Not opinion, but what the players ACTUALLY did in play by play analysis. Based on millions of entries of real life MLB data of nearly every single play by play event from 1960 to 2006... Or you can take some clowns 'opinion' which is basically heresay.
Best Five Season total...
Eric Davis 168
Rice 159 (for some context).
Add some TREMENDOUS stolen base value and overall baserunning during that peak, and Eric Davis belongs in this discussion! He missed his share of games, and that hurts a bit, but you can't deny what he did.
P.S. I have a heck of a sense of humor Jaxxr. And the spirit of this thread is more in tuned with giving guys some love who are just as good(or better) as other guys who seem to get ALL the love for admittance to the Hall. Jim Rice gets it all, yet he had two outfielders on his own team who were better, and they get nearly ZILCH support. That is the spirit of the thread.
Stown, I apologize in advance if my comments are taken as rude, they are not meant to be...though that is how I took your editing my paragraph(not to mention it being faulty rude).
Joe will be a shoe in for the Hall of Fame as a Manager.
Baseball-Reference.com: Joe Torre
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."
<< <i>Dick ( Dont Call Me Richie ) Allen was quite the hitter, some of his ropes were hit awesomely hard, just lacking a bit of elevation, to be homers. This kind of raw power can not be properly evaluated by stats, whether traditional, newer, Jamesian, or otherwise. >>
Jack, it may interest you to know (or it may not, but I'm going to tell you either way) that Dick Allen's awesomeness is in fact picked up by all of the modern (better) evaluation systems. What Allen lacked was not so much a little more elevation, but a decent era and better parks to hit in. Bill James, who considers peak value of relatively greater importance than career value and thus does not ding Allen much for his short career, and his Win Shares system show Allen to be the 15th greatest first baseman ever. BUT, James absolutely crucifies Allen with what he calls the "subjective element" in his ranking formula; if you take away the subjective element, he rates Allen as the second best first baseman in history. Second best: as in better than Jimmy Foxx, Hank Greenberg, Cap Anson, Jeff Bagwell, Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, etc. I'm not saying James is necessarily right about that, and neither is James, since I personally think James has placed too much emphasis on peak vs. career value; but I am saying that if a system doesn't show Allen to be a top-tier HOF-level player, then that system is junk.
{I am NOT saying Allen doesn't get enough HOF support; Allen was one of baseball's greatest jerks and the HOF doesn't need him.}
Now that I think of it, I haven't formally offerred up a name for this thread. It's been a long time since I've mentioned them, so I'll throw out these:
Not HOF-worthy, but more so than most of the others being talked about: Gene Tenace
HOF-worthy but nobody talks about him: Jimmy Wynn
Skinpinch, don't try and put words in my mouth - you cannot tell me I have to chose one of your two arguments, or else my posts are not valid from here on out (or whatever you were trying to convey). Stown nailed it - your opinions are just that - your opinions. I notice you don't take kindly to people that disagree with you. If you need to be right - then so be it. If you need to compare Jim Rice to second tier MLB players to make your points, have fun. But unless you are a member of the baseball writers association that votes for the HOF players, remember that your opinion is just one man's opinion - and no more important than mine or anyone elses. You definitely seem uptight when someone points this out, so this will be the only time I do it.
Enjoy the thread, gentlemen.
And I am not putting words into your mouth, but it would be helpful to know which mouth I am talking to, as it seems you have two. You have still avoided the question of your double talk.
1) Does having a really good lineup make a hitter better than he really is, in which case it would help both Derek Jeter and Jim Rice.
2) DOes having a really good lineup have no affect on a hitters ability, in which case it doesn't factor in the evaluations of Derek Jeter or Jim Rice.
3) Having a good lineup ONLY helps Derek Jeter, but has no effect on Jim Rice. This is your current stance.
Which is it?
And by the way, there was no bait, you derailed the thread on your own merit. The spirit of the thread was clear from the beginning, and most posters recognized it.
And I do get uptight when people dispute well founded valid research with bias ignorance. You are absolutely correct.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>This thread has gotten derailed a few times, and for that I apologize. I should have known better than to take the bait of the initial post - but I did. I have a lot of respect for most of the people in this thread (someone gave me a cheap shot, but I don't think I've ever seen that poster here before), and I'm sure we'll continue to talk smack about a lot of topics and laugh about it later.
Skinpinch, don't try and put words in my mouth - you cannot tell me I have to chose one of your two arguments, or else my posts are not valid from here on out (or whatever you were trying to convey). Stown nailed it - your opinions are just that - your opinions. I notice you don't take kindly to people that disagree with you. If you need to be right - then so be it. If you need to compare Jim Rice to second tier MLB players to make your points, have fun. But unless you are a member of the baseball writers association that votes for the HOF players, remember that your opinion is just one man's opinion - and no more important than mine or anyone elses. You definitely seem uptight when someone points this out, so this will be the only time I do it.
Enjoy the thread, gentlemen. >>
I was the one who gave the cheap shot comparing you to Axtell. Needless to say, I was wrong, no way Axtell would have had enough class to make a post like this, so I just wanted to come out and apologize.
Now back on topic, Eric Davis was HOT for a few years, but ya know who is the guy who to me burned the brightest before vanishing seemingly overnight? Bo Jackson. That guy was insanely good, I still remember one night in 1990 he jacked 3 home runs in Yankee Stadium and maybe woulda knocked out a 4th except he injured himself diving for a ball hit to short center feild (BTW, guy who hit that ball was Dieon Sander, what are the odds?)
Anyway, Bo was THE MAN for a few short years there, then his hip got hurt and all that promise disappeared.