Nobody compared Hebner to Hodges. You just simply brushed away the objective facts about Hodges clutch hitting, and the objective analysis on his hitting ability. Instead, you insist on using your feelings, or perception of him. Those feelings are worthless in determining how good he was, and people may have those some feelings about Hebner...neither of which will make them as good as your feelings think they are, nor will invalidate what the objective analysis tells you about them.
You made some attempt at recognizing the RBI chances, you said: "I do not diagree that Hodges had RBI chances- but that is part of the game- Power hitters get those opportunities- as did Mays, Musial, Kiner, Mize and others."
Yeah, power hitters get them, BUT SOME GET MORE!!
If you don't understand the difference in getting more, we should have a free throw contest to see who can make the most free throws. You get 18 free throws to see how many you can make, and I get 30. You will be whistling a different tune if those circumstances are applied directly to you.
Some players get 'extra' RBI's because they are presented with a lot of opportunities from their teammates, and some get extra RBI's because they get more of their hits in RBI situations, as opposed to when nobody is on base.
Problem is, the players who get the extra RBI because of their teammates ability to get on base and run well, are often given the credit. THey are often thought of as 'clutch' even though their clutch is resulting from their teammates, not them.
THen there are guys who really did do a good job of getting the extra RBI because THEY hit well with men on base. Dave Parker is one of those guys. Here is his hitting with nobody on, Runners in Scoring Position, and Men on Base.
SItuation..........BA......OB%.....SLG% Nobody on ......270....316.......476 RISP.................292....364.......489 Men on Base....312....364.......511
Keep in mind that Dave Parker was a full time player until age 40, so his percentages drop through the old man years, and can give a skewed perception if compared against the percentages of a player who only played til age 35 and then was no longer good enough to hold down a MLB job.
But what we are looking at here is how Parker got a lot of RBI because along with being an excellent hitter, he did his best hitting with men on base and Runners in Scoring position, as opposed to when nobody was on base.
So a little extra credit going to Parker is not out of line. To Hodges? No.
RBI lovers for the HOF, where is the love for Dave Parker? He had 1,493.....200+ more than Hodges.
But what we are looking at here is how Parker got a lot of RBI because along with being an excellent hitter, he did his best hitting with men on base and Runners in Scoring position, as opposed to when nobody was on base.
So a little extra credit going to Parker is not out of line. To Hodges? No.
RBI lovers for the HOF, where is the love for Dave Parker? He had 1,493.....200+ more than Hodges. >>
The same reason he got robbed of the 85 MVP. He was a drug user so the voters say no he shouldnt be in. Even though he has HOF numbers.
<< <i>Nobody compared Hebner to Hodges. You just simply brushed away the objective facts about Hodges clutch hitting, and the objective analysis on his hitting ability. Instead, you insist on using your feelings, or perception of him. Those feelings are worthless in determining how good he was, and people may have those some feelings about Hebner...neither of which will make them as good as your feelings think they are, nor will invalidate what the objective analysis tells you about them. >>
You made some attempt at recognizing the RBI chances, you said: "I do not diagree that Hodges had RBI chances- but that is part of the game- Power hitters get those opportunities- as did Mays, Musial, Kiner, Mize and others."
Yeah, power hitters get them, BUT SOME GET MORE!!
If you don't understand the difference in getting more, we should have a free throw contest to see who can make the most free throws. You get 18 free throws to see how many you can make, and I get 30. You will be whistling a different tune if those circumstances are applied directly to you.
Let's start with the brush offs-
Earlier in this thread, I attempted to expand the scope of the discussion to include taking it in a fundamentally different direction- Considering how many players qualify for the HOF, and based on that total number, what would be a reasonable number of players to have in the HOF? Even though the common thought on this thread seems to be that players such as Hodges water down the talent in the HOF, there has been no discussion of what percentage of those that played the game had an impact in terms of either setting a standards or records in their day, playing far better than their contemporaries or connecting with their team to the point that contributions are those that are unable to be measured? Is it reasonable for 5 to even 7% of the total number of players in MLB history that qualify for the HOF be inducted? Then, if that is reasonable, what would the number be as well as the criteria for consideration for induction into the HOF?
If you are that concerned with statistics and numbers in terms of who is in or out of the HOL and I remain persuaded that accurate data has not been captured for reasons previously delineated (which was brushed off), then such a question is not only reasonable, but shakes the very foundation for which the numbers used and relied upon in any analysis of the players worthy of consideration-
As for getting more opportunities- the free throw argument just does not pass the straight face test- In a perfect world, having the same opportunity is fair and appropriate. I am for what is fair. Sports is alittle different- and while competition should be fair, and it really is fair in terms of rules, etc., the strategy involved for the ultimate goal of winning the game makes the process by which we measure and compare player performances is often not fair. There is a huge difference between you and me having a free throw contest and a 162 game MLB season. Further, there is a big difference between teams, line ups and players, pitching, the rotation of pitching staffs, what pitchers batters faced in the clutch situations and the quality of that pitching from the days of Gil Hodges to that of Dave Parker to determine much of anything... (no slide to Parker, he was a great player as well...).
Players really need to be compared to their contemporaries and those that played before them. Hodges can not and should not be dismissed for the HOF because Parker is not in. Parker has good numbers and is worthy of consideration- he has been considered and his case for induction is compelling.
I understand getting more- and less- Unfortunately, the statistical analysis provided and as compelling as you seem to think it is, is not persuasive to me to rely soley on numbers as to who is in or out of the HOF. Baseball is not just about numbers, it is about the legacy a player leaves and what fans remember. It is about the thrill, athletic ability and sportsmanship a player brings to his team and what his peers, teammates and opponents think and remember. It is about the lasting contributions a player makes to the game- setting a higher standard as well as targets for those that follow. Those targes are not mere numbers but include much more.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Coinkat, like I said, different cases can be made for the HOF...my post was in relation to the clutch comment and the RBI's.
The only debate I really care to engage in with the HOF is the 'who is better' debate. With the vague guidelines of the HOF, and the unfair subjective perceptions used to justify a case for a player over a SUPERIOR player is something not even worth discussing.
Examples like"he transcended that generation," "he was feared," "he was the face of the championship team," all that stuff used to make players look better than they really were, is basically nonsense, and all that junk could be applied to different players in any way shape or form.
EDITED TO ADD:
Well said by Grote below. Actually, no sport is as reliant on numbers, or lends itself so well to be objectively evaluated by precise statistical measurements, as baseball is. The stories and memories are great too...but do nothing to tell you how good a player was.
it is not persuasive to me to rely soley on numbers as to who is in or out of the HOF. Baseball is not just about numbers,
With all due respect, this statement is ridiculous. On what criteria shall we base worthiness for the HOF then? Perception? Memories of fans who "watched these guys play and believed they were all time greats"? That sounds rather subjective to me. To the contrary, numbers and stats are inherently objective...you may not share an opinion regarding a player's worth, but the numbers do not lie. As Bill Parcells once famously stated, "You are what you record says you are." To eschew numbers and stats for some other basis of evaluation when it comes to whether a player belongs in the HOF or not, is really rather foolish. You can try to cloak this foolishness in intellectual verbiage, but as you stated, "it doesn't pass the straight face test."
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<<< I understand getting more- and less- Unfortunately, the statistical analysis provided and as compelling as you seem to think it is, is not persuasive to me to rely soley on numbers as to who is in or out of the HOF. Baseball is not just about numbers, >>>
I don't wanna speak for coincat but he did state basically not to rely solely on numbers - he didn't say don't rely at all on numbers. No baseball fan even in the first grade would say that stats and numbers aren't important...of course they are important...but they absolutely should NOT be the sole criteria for election into the Hall of Fame.
I have no desire to make this a long post so I'll keep it short...I believe in greatness more than the "accumulation of numbers" for entry into the Hall. I'll take a short Koufax like career, that meets the Hall's requirements for entry, for my Hall of Fame selection over some Jim Kaat career anyday. There's even been some talk on this board about the possibility of Jamie Moyer being elected to the Hall. Are you kidding me? That would be almost as ridiculous as Bill Mazeroski getting in.
Frankly, I feel for the most part that Saberman's ideas are wrong...I'll take a sports fan or sports writer's viewpoint who saw a lot of games of a particular player actually playing, than microscopically analyzing a bunch of stats to determine greatness. I've said this before - if ya need stats to determine a player's greatness for entry into the Hall...then in my opinion that player shouldn't get in - That's "My" Hall of Fame...I don't want my Hall of Fame watered down but sadly in reality, it is watered down to some extent.
I'll take a short Koufax like career, that meets the Hall's requirements for entry, for my Hall of Fame selection over some Jim Kaat career anyday. There's even been some talk on this board about the possibility of Jamie Moyer being elected to the Hall.
That just underscores my point with regard to stats, because if you compare Koufax to either Kaat or Moyer, you will quickly realize that the most important stats (ERA, WHIP, ERA+, CG, SO, K:BB) illustrate the obvious. In any case, wins is probably the most misleading of any baseball stat, if we're going to discuss stats that is, more so than RBIs and batting average which are equally misleading in many cases. The key to understanding the meaning behind the numbers is to know which stats are the most meaningful, and those that are rarely reward a player for simply hanging around..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
..I'll take a sports fan or sports writer's viewpoint
The same sportswriters who awarded the AL MVP to Joe Gordon over Ted Williams in 1942, the same writers who awarded Rafael Pamiero the Gold Glove when he played about 28 games at 1B in 1999, the same writers who voted in Bill Mazeroski, the same fans who claim that Jack Morris deserves to be in the HOF because he was always a "clutch" and "big game" pitcher like clockwork in the postseason, the same fans who swore that A-Rod could never hit in the clutch till the 2009 World Series? Sorry, but I'll stick with stats, thank you very much, LOL...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>..I'll take a sports fan or sports writer's viewpoint
The same sportswriters who awarded the AL MVP to Joe Gordon over Ted Williams in 1942, the same writers who awarded Rafael Pamiero the Gold Glove when he played about 28 games at 1B in 1999, the same writers who voted in Bill Mazeroski, the same fans who claim that Jack Morris deserves to be in the HOF because he was always a "clutch" and "big game" pitcher like clockwork in the postseason, the same fans who swore that A-Rod could never hit in the clutch till the 2009 World Series? Sorry, but I'll stick with stats, thank you very much, LOL... >>
ARod is a bad example - Did he get some clutch hits in that Series?...yes he did, but the Yankees would have won that World Series without ARod, so there was no extreme pressure on ARod to perform. The Yankees were playing hot and were not going to be denied that season. ARod is still a talented choke artist in my opinion.
Sure mistakes can be made, but frankly, in "My" Hall of Fame, a player should be eligible for induction right after retirement and gets voted in within 3 years after retirement or he doesn't get in. Naturally if he becomes a manager, he could get voted in for that at a later time when he retires from managing. Why a player should "improve" in the voting from year to year when he is retired is beyond me.
When I become commissioner of MLB, I plan to implement these changes, and throw out of the Hall of Fame all those players who I feel don't deserve to be in there.
In "your" HOF, Ryan Howard would already have his bust bronzed, LOL...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
ARod is a bad example - Did he get some clutch hits in that Series?...yes he did, but the Yankees would have won that World Series without ARod,
Doesn't matter, as I wasn't just referring to the World Series, but the entire postseason, debunking once and for all the concept of a "clutch" or "choke" player. Give a player enough opportunities and he will revert to his norm, either turning him into a guy who couldn't perform that suddenly could, or vice versa. In that sense, it was a very good example, actually..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>ARod is a bad example - Did he get some clutch hits in that Series?...yes he did, but the Yankees would have won that World Series without ARod,
Doesn't matter, as I wasn't just referring to the World Series, but the entire postseason, debunking once and for all the concept of a "clutch" or "choke" player. Give a player enough opportunities and he will revert to his norm, either turning him into a guy who couldn't perform that suddenly could, or vice versa. In that sense, it was a very good example, actually.. >>
<<< debunking once and for all the concept of a "clutch" or "choke" player. >>>
You couldn't be more wrong about that. As much as I hate to say it, Mike Schmidt was one of the worst choke artists I ever saw considering his talent. People wonder why Philly fans used to boo him, and that's exactly why. ARod is a choke artist as well, albeit like Schmidt a very talented choke artist...and a decent performance by ARod under not much pressure last season doesn't change that in my viewpoint.
ARod is still a talented choke artist in my opinion.
Here is an excellent example, actually, of how a fan's perception (in this case, SteveK), is entirely inaccurate when it comes to reality.
Arod's career postseason BA is .302, his OBP is .409, slugging% is .568 and OPS .977.
Are those the numbers of a choke artist? Most players would gladly take those numbers, I'm quite sure..
More accurately, they are the numbers of a player who has certainly had his share of struggles in the postseason, but who absolutely carried his team or was on fire in other playoff series that the "fan" conveniently overlooks or glosses over when "remembering" a particular player's performance.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
In "your" HOF, Ryan Howard would already have his bust bronzed, LOL... >>
Ryan isn't a Hall of Famer yet, but he is on the way...we'll see...he's got a long way to go. I'm not gonna water down my Hall of Fame, even with players I like. My Hall of Fame isn't a popularity contest, it's about greatness and at the end of his career if Howard wasn't great, then he doesn't get in.
<< <i>ARod is still a talented choke artist in my opinion.
Here is an excellent example, actually, of how a fan's perception (in this case, SteveK), is entirely inaccurate when it comes to reality.
Arod's career postseason BA is .302, his OBP is .409, slugging% is .568 and OPS .977.
Are those the numbers of a choke artist? Most players would gladly take those numbers, I'm quite sure..
More accurately, they are the numbers of a player who has certainly had his share of struggles in the postseason, but who absolutely carried his team or was on fire in other playoff series that the "fan" conveniently overlooks or glosses over when "remembering" a particular player's performance. >>
In Arod's 17 year career, he's only led his team to get into one, count 'em, 1 World Series, despite being on teams with the highest payrolls in MLB. And as mentioned, there is no doubt that Yankees team would have won that WS without Arod there. That tells ya all ya really need to know about whether ARod is clutch or not. Case closed.
In Arod's 17 year career, he's only led his team to get into one, count 'em, 1 World Series, despite being on teams with the highest payrolls in MLB. And as mentioned, there is no doubt that Yankees team would have won that WS without Arod there. That tells ya all ya really need to know about whether ARod is clutch or not. Case closed.
Wrong again. Would the Yankees have even reached the World Series if Arod hadn't had the postseason he did last season? I'd say that it is very debatable at least (though you conveniently gloss over that fact with this "team of destiny" horsecrap). And like I said, you are the perfect reason why fans can't be counted on for objective or realistic analysis, as the "choke artist" in question has batted over .300, had an OBP of over .400, and an OPS of about 1.000 in his postseason career. Maybe Arod should have taken the mound a few times and pitched a couple shutouts, too, LOL...
Edit: I am not even an A-Rod fan, really, but the stats speak for themselves, if you are openminded enough to really look at them and set aside your preconceptions and prejuduces...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>In Arod's 17 year career, he's only led his team to get into one, count 'em, 1 World Series, despite being on teams with the highest payrolls in MLB. And as mentioned, there is no doubt that Yankees team would have won that WS without Arod there. That tells ya all ya really need to know about whether ARod is clutch or not. Case closed.
Wrong again. Would the Yankees have even reached the World Series if Arod hadn't had the postseason he did last season? I'd say that it is very debatable at least (though you conveniently gloss over that fact with this "team of destiny" horsecrap). And like I said, you are the perfect reason why fans can't be counted on for objective or realistic analysis, as the "choke artist" in question has batted over .300, had an OBP of over .400, and an OPS of about 1.000 in his postseason career. Maybe Arod should have taken the mound a few times and pitched a couple shutouts, too, LOL...
Edit: I am not even an A-Rod fan, really, but the stats speak for themselves, if you are openminded enough to really look at them and set aside your preconceptions and prejuduces... >>
I never stated ARod wouldn't be in the HOF because obviously he will. I've watched perhaps 100 - 200 games in which he has played over the years, a fair random sampling in my opinion, and you'd have to be blind not to clearly see that often in key important situations, late in the game when a clutch hit is needed, he looks like a deer staring at oncoming headlights, and he usually does not come through in the clutch....same personna as Mike Schmidt.
And of course your comrade (in this thread) Saberman, will probably say my comments are just the rantings of an ignorant fan who only remembers the bad things ARod did, but that would be false because it gets to the point of "expecting" him to fail in these clutch situations and he has many times over the years. I am of course not the only one with that viewpoint, and all the stats in the world won't set that different.
The aberration is that ARod got some "clutch" hits in the last post season, but again that team was so good, and so hot, and it was so obvious...that ARod wasn't even needed for the Yankees to win - the Yankees would have still won if Charley Smith was playing third base...and all that probably helped ARod relax a bit and so he performed better. Give ARod a truly clutch situation whereby he is definitively needed and he will fold up again like a cheap suit. That's not perception - that's reality.
Certain MLB players regardless of their talent, play better in tough situations and some don't - that's not even debatable. ARod don't. Case was reopened and reviewed, vedict is the same...ARod is a talented choke artist - case closed.
A very good short answer... and being brief has never been my virtue.
There are no right answers- I would rather see the HOF consider the total picture. As we all know and appreciate, baseball is a team sport and using just numbers and statstics really fails because there are just too many variables that are part of the game that truly prevent numbers as being the only measurement and the SOLE consideration for induction.
Grote 15:
My sincere apologies that you found my statement in such low standing... However, if HOF induction should be predicated SOLELY on numbers and just numbers as the only determining factor- Please... post the NUMBER requirements by position, and let's eliminate the current selection process in its entirety and take the human factor out completely.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>There are no right answers- I would rather see the HOF consider the total picture. As we all know and appreciate, baseball is a team sport and using just numbers and statstics really fails because there are just too many variables that are part of the game that truly prevent numbers as being the only measurement and the SOLE consideration for induction. >>
BTW, I changed my mind - I agree with Grote15 and Saberman that stats should be the major factor in Hall of Fame selection...and let me please be the first, it's my honor, to nominate Mr. Eddie Gaedel for entry into the Hall of Fame because of his remarkable career perfect 1.000 on base percentage. You'd be hard pressed to find any other Hall of Famer with an OBP even close to this.
BTW, I changed my mind - I agree with Grote15 and Saberman that stats should be the major factor in Hall of Fame selection...and let me please be the first, it's my honor, to nominate Mr. Eddie Gaedel for entry into the Hall of Fame because of his remarkable career perfect 1.000 on base percentage. You'd be hard pressed to find any other Hall of Famer with an OBP even close to this.
SteveK, based on some of your assumptions and perceptions, that recommendation is actually not that surprising, LOL!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I never stated ARod wouldn't be in the HOF because obviously he will. I've watched perhaps 100 - 200 games in which he has played over the years, a fair random sampling in my opinion, and you'd have to be blind not to clearly see that often in key important situations, late in the game when a clutch hit is needed, he looks like a deer staring at oncoming headlights, and he usually does not come through in the clutch....same personna as Mike Schmidt. >>
Lessee...
- has hit over .300 in 6 of the 11 full postseason series in which he played - career .288 BA in innings 7-9, when nearly everyone's BA drops - career .298 BA in tie games - career .301 BA with RISP - career .308 BA with men on base - career 87 tOPS+ RISP, 2 outs - career 91 tOPS+ late & close
The first 5 stats show him to be a decent clutch performer - granted he did have 2 atrocious postseasons in 2005 & 2006 with the Yankees - and the last two question that #. My conclusion? While A-Rod may not be the greatest clutch hitter around, he's certainly far from a flop.
<< <i>I never stated ARod wouldn't be in the HOF because obviously he will. I've watched perhaps 100 - 200 games in which he has played over the years, a fair random sampling in my opinion, and you'd have to be blind not to clearly see that often in key important situations, late in the game when a clutch hit is needed, he looks like a deer staring at oncoming headlights, and he usually does not come through in the clutch....same personna as Mike Schmidt. >>
Lessee...
- has hit over .300 in 6 of the 11 full postseason series in which he played - career .288 BA in innings 7-9, when nearly everyone's BA drops - career .298 BA in tie games - career .301 BA with RISP - career .308 BA with men on base - career 87 tOPS+ RISP, 2 outs - career 91 tOPS+ late & close
The first 5 stats show him to be a decent clutch performer - granted he did have 2 atrocious postseasons in 2005 & 2006 with the Yankees - and the last two question that #. My conclusion? While A-Rod may not be the greatest clutch hitter around, he's certainly far from a flop.
Tabe >>
Lemme give you an average example...ARod goes 2 for 4 then comes up in the ninth in a key situation, his team down by 1, runners on second and third, he wiffs and his team loses...appears as though he had a nice game, and this type of game every game would result in a Hall of Fame career...but his team lost the game. I see this happen a lot with ARod, and there's a lot of fans out there who also see the same thing. It's not perception, it's reality. He's a talented choke artist.
<< <i>Lemme give you an average example...ARod goes 2 for 4 then comes up in the ninth in a key situation, his team down by 1, runners on second and third, he wiffs and his team loses. >>
I don't recall him whiffing, I do remember the pop ups though.
Don't confuse SteveK with facts or hard evidence. His "memory" of what he saw and "his" HOF is all you need to know when evaluating how good a player is..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Lemme give you an average example...ARod goes 2 for 4 then comes up in the ninth in a key situation, his team down by 1, runners on second and third, he wiffs and his team loses. >>
I don't recall him whiffing, I do remember the pop ups though.
How many Yankee games do you watch a year? 10, 20, 30? It can't be too many because if you did watch them on a regular basis, you'd see that Arod has had a TON of big hits late in games, especially over the past two seasons...just the other night he had a gamewinning HR in the 8th inning...I guess your "perception" or "memory" is a bit faulty, SteveK...maybe you ought to lay off the Sam Adams while watching the game..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Don't confuse SteveK with facts or hard evidence. His "memory" of what he saw and "his" HOF is all you need to know when evaluating how good a player is.. >>
You can laugh if you want, but you know or should know, before last season, ask most Yankees fans if ARod was a talented choke artist and they would have agreed with me.
You know, I've noticed that a watched pot never boils...I know some people are gonna try and tell me that this is just my perception, and that Arod was really a very productive hitter in late game situations, too, but I tell you that watched pot NEVER boils, I don;t care what anyone says...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
How many Yankee games do you watch a year? 10, 20, 30? It can't be too many because if you did watch them on a regular basis, you'd see that Arod has had a TON of big hits late in games, especially over the past two seasons...just the other night he had a gamewinning HR in the 8th inning...I guess your "perception" or "memory" is a bit faulty, SteveK...maybe you ought to lay off the Sam Adams while watching the game.. >>
And wasn't it you who emphatically stated that Marv Throneberry should be in the Hall of Fame?
And wasn't it you who emphatically stated that Marv Throneberry should be in the Hall of Fame?
That was the Mets Hall of Fame...even I would have to admit that Marvelous Marv might come up just short of Cooperstown..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
< And wasn't it you who emphatically stated that Marv Throneberry should be in the Hall of Fame?
That was the Mets Hall of Fame...even I would have to admit that Marvelous Marv might come up just short of Cooperstown.. >>
To me it's all Sports Talk, just having fun, and to me it's fun to have brazen opinions and viewpoints.....
.....but I sincerely mean it whenever I say the New York Mint sucks.
The freedom to express dissenting opinions is one of the reasons we should all raise a glass and toast the birth of this great nation...
And I like a lively debate as much as anyone...
However, I'm still waiting to see a PCGS graded New York Mint coin up for sale on ebay...unless of course you're referring to the West Point Mint that is..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Lemme give you an average example...ARod goes 2 for 4 then comes up in the ninth in a key situation, his team down by 1, runners on second and third, he wiffs and his team loses...appears as though he had a nice game, and this type of game every game would result in a Hall of Fame career...but his team lost the game. I see this happen a lot with ARod, and there's a lot of fans out there who also see the same thing. It's not perception, it's reality. He's a talented choke artist. >>
Well, the numbers say different.
And, in case you'd forgotten, runs scored in the 1st count just as much as those scored in the 9th
As a lifelong Yankees fan I can say Arod definately is a choke artst in critical situations.
A run in the 9th in a close game is far more critical than any run in the first 8. Yes they all count 1. In a close game a batter's mission may not be to get a hit. He may just advance a runner into scoring position. Bat control...going inside-out to hit behind a runner...TEAM HITTING. Yankees do not do this very well at all. Teaching of fundamentals is lacking in the Yankee organization. Arod can'r do it all all. Yesterdays game is a good example. tight game...9th inning...man in scoring position...arod strikes out looking very bad. He did that at least 2x.
Last year I/m not sure the Yankees make the playoffs w/o Arod's hitting. Expectations are much higher for Arod and his salary than just about any other major leager. Not all outs in the 9th inning are equal. More often than not Arod just strikes out...no advancing of runners....just an ole fashioned K.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>As a lifelong Yankees fan I can say Arod definately is a choke artst in critical situations.
A run in the 9th in a close game is far more critical than any run in the first 8. Yes they all count 1. In a close game a batter's mission may not be to get a hit. He may just advance a runner into scoring position. Bat control...going inside-out to hit behind a runner...TEAM HITTING. Yankees do not do this very well at all. Teaching of fundamentals is lacking in the Yankee organization. Arod can'r do it all all. Yesterdays game is a good example. tight game...9th inning...man in scoring position...arod strikes out looking very bad. He did that at least 2x.
Last year I/m not sure the Yankees make the playoffs w/o Arod's hitting. Expectations are much higher for Arod and his salary than just about any other major leager. Not all outs in the 9th inning are equal. More often than not Arod just strikes out...no advancing of runners....just an ole fashioned K. >>
Yep, and you pointed out some good reasons why. Another reason Phillies fans used to boo Schmidt was the appearance that he didn't care - After striking out, Schmidt would seemingly nonchalant walk back to the dugout. Schmidt later said that wasn't true, that even though he wanted to keep his cool, inside the non-performance was eating him up inside...and I believe him. Especially because Schmidt one day suddenly retired in the middle of the season, even though he wasn't playing all that bad, but he wasn't playing at an All Star level, and he couldn't take that with himself.
Some players, I dunno why, just have a personality type to relax in key situations, and focus better than others, and control those adrenaline rush emotions. Schmidt couldn't and ARod can't...it's just the way it is...and some players, even lesser talented players excel at pinch hitting because managers understand that these type of players relish those tense situations and do respond accordingly, often even better than when there is no pressure at all.
Grote15 will understand this eventually as he's a new fan to the game. I remember in a post awhile ago, I had to explain to him why runners run to first base first, and not to third base first.
THe thread about clutch has already put that nonsense to bed. No need to elaborate, just reference that thread for your answers
I agree that there is no set point about HOF cut off lines and such, and that will always be debatable, but it isn't nearly as debatable on determining the better hitter, or a better player.
So you want to put Hodges in, or Rice. Fine, but what do you tell all the other players who were better, but who are on the outside looking in? It is B.S. to those guys, because the other guys are being put in for wild fancy perceptions, which usually resulted from being in a beneficial situation, like being lucky enough to be on a team filled with great players, or a big city where lots of people got to see them and pine how good they were.
SteveK, your Eddie Gaedel example is a reason why stats are important. He had a 1.000 OB%, but no slugging percentage. He also had ZERO batter runs. Why would a stat guy put in a player with zero batter runs?
Actually, Gaedel belongs in the HOF according to the guys in your camp, who view the HOF as a place for players who 'impacted' fans, or the great stories. The Gaedel story is pretty famous, no? THat is right up your alley....put guys in because of a perception or biased viewpoint. Biased viewpoints for players is the root cause for the enshrinement!
THe thread about clutch has already put that nonsense to bed. No need to elaborate, just reference that thread for your answers
I agree that there is no set point about HOF cut off lines and such, and that will always be debatable, but it isn't nearly as debatable on determining the better hitter, or a better player.
So you want to put Hodges in, or Rice. Fine, but what do you tell all the other players who were better, but who are on the outside looking in? It is B.S. to those guys, because the other guys are being put in for wild fancy perceptions, which usually resulted from being in a beneficial situation, like being lucky enough to be on a team filled with great players, or a big city where lots of people got to see them and pine how good they were.
SteveK, your Eddie Gaedel example is a reason why stats are important. He had a 1.000 OB%, but no slugging percentage. He also had ZERO batter runs. Why would a stat guy put in a player with zero batter runs?
Actually, Gaedel belongs in the HOF according to the guys in your camp, who view the HOF as a place for players who 'impacted' fans, or the great stories. The Gaedel story is pretty famous, no? THat is right up your alley....put guys in because of a perception or biased viewpoint. Biased viewpoints for players is the root cause for the enshrinement! >>
I've explained "clutch" in a few recent posts - it's easy to understand and smart managers understand it as well, and use it to try to win ballgames. Some players are clutch and some aren't - that is reality, not perception. Are there variances, exceptions, in almost everything? Yes, there can be but ARod is not a clutch player and I mentioned Schmidt, one of my favorite players, to show there is not prejudice on my part in my viewpoint. It is what it is.
I'll sum up my viewpint on the HOF - I believe that GREAT players only should be in the HOF, not very good players, not excellent players, not players with only great stories, and not Roger Maris, another one of my favorite players who "impacted fans" back in 1961, and it shouldn't be about the accumulation of stats...it's about being great while meeting the minimum requirements for HOF induction. Koufax was great, Mantle was great, despite being choke artists Schmidt was great and so is ARod - Bill Mazeroski was not great, and he wasn't even an excellent overall player in my opinion. Just being an excellent, even outstanding, defensive second baseman is like being the tallest midget in the circus, with apologies in my comment to Eddie Gaedel.
<< <i><<I'll sum up my viewpint on the HOF - I believe that GREAT players only should be in the HOF, not very good players, not excellent players, not players with only great stories, and not Roger Maris, another one of my favorite players who "impacted fans" back in 1961, and it shouldn't be about the accumulation of stats...it's about being great while meeting the minimum requirements for HOF induction. Koufax was great, Mantle was great, despite being choke artists Schmidt was great and so is ARod - Bill Mazeroski was not great, and he wasn't even an excellent overall player in my opinion. Just being an excellent, even outstanding, defensive second baseman is like being the tallest midget in the circus, with apologies in my comment to Eddie Gaedel.>>
stevek,
I hate being pedantic but "excellent" is almost always considered a higher superlative than "great". But we all get what you're trying to say.
However, you're example is rather a simple one. I can see how Koufax was great, though some may make counterarguments. He has carved out a significant lore in baseball history and actually DID perform at a very high level for many years. As for Mantle, Schmidt or ARod (sans steroids), those are VERY obvious examples of HOF players, clutch or not. And Maz is a PERFECT example of a player that is NOT Hall of Fame worthy in my opinion. Hodges was much better than Maz as far as I'm concerned but not near HOF levels. So what is your opinion on Hodges?
Also, I would agree that ARod has clearly had some "clutch" problems in VERY key situations prior to 2009. >>
I'll tell you my opinion on Gil Hodges, and you can use search to confirm this because I've stated this before...one of the first high grade cards I ever bought on ebay back when I decided to start collecting PSA high grade cards was a 1961 Topps PSA 9 Gil Hodges. Not that I was particularly looking for that specific card to start, but I was looking for, and still do, high grade, well centered 50's and 60's Topps cards, at a price I want to pay, and this card happened to come up in an auction that I won at the price I wanted to pay. At the time I wanted to buy cards of players whom I liked, and Hodges was one of them.
That being said, I don't feel that Gil Hodges was good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. To me, and I think to most people, the word "great" trumps the word "excellent", but I'm not gonna argue that (LOL)...however that being said for clarity, there is no doubt that Hodges was an excellent ballplayer, but sorry, not a great ballplayer in my opinion.
Comments
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Nobody compared Hebner to Hodges. You just simply brushed away the objective facts about Hodges clutch hitting, and the objective analysis on his hitting ability. Instead, you insist on using your feelings, or perception of him. Those feelings are worthless in determining how good he was, and people may have those some feelings about Hebner...neither of which will make them as good as your feelings think they are, nor will invalidate what the objective analysis tells you about them.
You made some attempt at recognizing the RBI chances, you said:
"I do not diagree that Hodges had RBI chances- but that is part of the game- Power hitters get those opportunities- as did Mays, Musial, Kiner, Mize and others."
Yeah, power hitters get them, BUT SOME GET MORE!!
If you don't understand the difference in getting more, we should have a free throw contest to see who can make the most free throws. You get 18 free throws to see how many you can make, and I get 30. You will be whistling a different tune if those circumstances are applied directly to you.
Problem is, the players who get the extra RBI because of their teammates ability to get on base and run well, are often given the credit. THey are often thought of as 'clutch' even though their clutch is resulting from their teammates, not them.
THen there are guys who really did do a good job of getting the extra RBI because THEY hit well with men on base. Dave Parker is one of those guys. Here is his hitting with nobody on, Runners in Scoring Position, and Men on Base.
SItuation..........BA......OB%.....SLG%
Nobody on ......270....316.......476
RISP.................292....364.......489
Men on Base....312....364.......511
Keep in mind that Dave Parker was a full time player until age 40, so his percentages drop through the old man years, and can give a skewed perception if compared against the percentages of a player who only played til age 35 and then was no longer good enough to hold down a MLB job.
But what we are looking at here is how Parker got a lot of RBI because along with being an excellent hitter, he did his best hitting with men on base and Runners in Scoring position, as opposed to when nobody was on base.
So a little extra credit going to Parker is not out of line. To Hodges? No.
RBI lovers for the HOF, where is the love for Dave Parker? He had 1,493.....200+ more than Hodges.
Steve
<< <i>
But what we are looking at here is how Parker got a lot of RBI because along with being an excellent hitter, he did his best hitting with men on base and Runners in Scoring position, as opposed to when nobody was on base.
So a little extra credit going to Parker is not out of line. To Hodges? No.
RBI lovers for the HOF, where is the love for Dave Parker? He had 1,493.....200+ more than Hodges. >>
The same reason he got robbed of the 85 MVP. He was a drug user so the voters say no he shouldnt be in. Even though he has HOF numbers.
<< <i>Oh no not the free throw analogy again.................
Steve >>
What, no 10K bet offer along with it? LOL
<< <i>Nobody compared Hebner to Hodges. You just simply brushed away the objective facts about Hodges clutch hitting, and the objective analysis on his hitting ability. Instead, you insist on using your feelings, or perception of him. Those feelings are worthless in determining how good he was, and people may have those some feelings about Hebner...neither of which will make them as good as your feelings think they are, nor will invalidate what the objective analysis tells you about them. >>
You made some attempt at recognizing the RBI chances, you said:
"I do not diagree that Hodges had RBI chances- but that is part of the game- Power hitters get those opportunities- as did Mays, Musial, Kiner, Mize and others."
Yeah, power hitters get them, BUT SOME GET MORE!!
If you don't understand the difference in getting more, we should have a free throw contest to see who can make the most free throws. You get 18 free throws to see how many you can make, and I get 30. You will be whistling a different tune if those circumstances are applied directly to you.
Let's start with the brush offs-
Earlier in this thread, I attempted to expand the scope of the discussion to include taking it in a fundamentally different direction- Considering how many players qualify for the HOF, and based on that total number, what would be a reasonable number of players to have in the HOF? Even though the common thought on this thread seems to be that players such as Hodges water down the talent in the HOF, there has been no discussion of what percentage of those that played the game had an impact in terms of either setting a standards or records in their day, playing far better than their contemporaries or connecting with their team to the point that contributions are those that are unable to be measured? Is it reasonable for 5 to even 7% of the total number of players in MLB history that qualify for the HOF be inducted? Then, if that is reasonable, what would the number be as well as the criteria for consideration for induction into the HOF?
If you are that concerned with statistics and numbers in terms of who is in or out of the HOL and I remain persuaded that accurate data has not been captured for reasons previously delineated (which was brushed off), then such a question is not only reasonable, but shakes the very foundation for which the numbers used and relied upon in any analysis of the players worthy of consideration-
As for getting more opportunities- the free throw argument just does not pass the straight face test- In a perfect world, having the same opportunity is fair and appropriate. I am for what is fair. Sports is alittle different- and while competition should be fair, and it really is fair in terms of rules, etc., the strategy involved for the ultimate goal of winning the game makes the process by which we measure and compare player performances is often not fair. There is a huge difference between you and me having a free throw contest and a 162 game MLB season. Further, there is a big difference between teams, line ups and players, pitching, the rotation of pitching staffs, what pitchers batters faced in the clutch situations and the quality of that pitching from the days of Gil Hodges to that of Dave Parker to determine much of anything... (no slide to Parker, he was a great player as well...).
Players really need to be compared to their contemporaries and those that played before them. Hodges can not and should not be dismissed for the HOF because Parker is not in. Parker has good numbers and is worthy of consideration- he has been considered and his case for induction is compelling.
I understand getting more- and less- Unfortunately, the statistical analysis provided and as compelling as you seem to think it is, is not persuasive to me to rely soley on numbers as to who is in or out of the HOF. Baseball is not just about numbers, it is about the legacy a player leaves and what fans remember. It is about the thrill, athletic ability and sportsmanship a player brings to his team and what his peers, teammates and opponents think and remember. It is about the lasting contributions a player makes to the game- setting a higher standard as well as targets for those that follow. Those targes are not mere numbers but include much more.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
LOL...the free throw analogy is to the point.
Coinkat, like I said, different cases can be made for the HOF...my post was in relation to the clutch comment and the RBI's.
The only debate I really care to engage in with the HOF is the 'who is better' debate. With the vague guidelines of the HOF, and the unfair subjective perceptions used to justify a case for a player over a SUPERIOR player is something not even worth discussing.
Examples like"he transcended that generation," "he was feared," "he was the face of the championship team," all that stuff used to make players look better than they really were, is basically nonsense, and all that junk could be applied to different players in any way shape or form.
EDITED TO ADD:
Well said by Grote below. Actually, no sport is as reliant on numbers, or lends itself so well to be objectively evaluated by precise statistical measurements, as baseball is. The stories and memories are great too...but do nothing to tell you how good a player was.
With all due respect, this statement is ridiculous. On what criteria shall we base worthiness for the HOF then? Perception? Memories of fans who "watched these guys play and believed they were all time greats"? That sounds rather subjective to me. To the contrary, numbers and stats are inherently objective...you may not share an opinion regarding a player's worth, but the numbers do not lie. As Bill Parcells once famously stated, "You are what you record says you are." To eschew numbers and stats for some other basis of evaluation when it comes to whether a player belongs in the HOF or not, is really rather foolish. You can try to cloak this foolishness in intellectual verbiage, but as you stated, "it doesn't pass the straight face test."
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I don't wanna speak for coincat but he did state basically not to rely solely on numbers - he didn't say don't rely at all on numbers. No baseball fan even in the first grade would say that stats and numbers aren't important...of course they are important...but they absolutely should NOT be the sole criteria for election into the Hall of Fame.
I have no desire to make this a long post so I'll keep it short...I believe in greatness more than the "accumulation of numbers" for entry into the Hall. I'll take a short Koufax like career, that meets the Hall's requirements for entry, for my Hall of Fame selection over some Jim Kaat career anyday. There's even been some talk on this board about the possibility of Jamie Moyer being elected to the Hall. Are you kidding me? That would be almost as ridiculous as Bill Mazeroski getting in.
Frankly, I feel for the most part that Saberman's ideas are wrong...I'll take a sports fan or sports writer's viewpoint who saw a lot of games of a particular player actually playing, than microscopically analyzing a bunch of stats to determine greatness. I've said this before - if ya need stats to determine a player's greatness for entry into the Hall...then in my opinion that player shouldn't get in - That's "My" Hall of Fame...I don't want my Hall of Fame watered down but sadly in reality, it is watered down to some extent.
That just underscores my point with regard to stats, because if you compare Koufax to either Kaat or Moyer, you will quickly realize that the most important stats (ERA, WHIP, ERA+, CG, SO, K:BB) illustrate the obvious. In any case, wins is probably the most misleading of any baseball stat, if we're going to discuss stats that is, more so than RBIs and batting average which are equally misleading in many cases. The key to understanding the meaning behind the numbers is to know which stats are the most meaningful, and those that are rarely reward a player for simply hanging around..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The same sportswriters who awarded the AL MVP to Joe Gordon over Ted Williams in 1942, the same writers who awarded Rafael Pamiero the Gold Glove when he played about 28 games at 1B in 1999, the same writers who voted in Bill Mazeroski, the same fans who claim that Jack Morris deserves to be in the HOF because he was always a "clutch" and "big game" pitcher like clockwork in the postseason, the same fans who swore that A-Rod could never hit in the clutch till the 2009 World Series? Sorry, but I'll stick with stats, thank you very much, LOL...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>..I'll take a sports fan or sports writer's viewpoint
The same sportswriters who awarded the AL MVP to Joe Gordon over Ted Williams in 1942, the same writers who awarded Rafael Pamiero the Gold Glove when he played about 28 games at 1B in 1999, the same writers who voted in Bill Mazeroski, the same fans who claim that Jack Morris deserves to be in the HOF because he was always a "clutch" and "big game" pitcher like clockwork in the postseason, the same fans who swore that A-Rod could never hit in the clutch till the 2009 World Series? Sorry, but I'll stick with stats, thank you very much, LOL... >>
ARod is a bad example - Did he get some clutch hits in that Series?...yes he did, but the Yankees would have won that World Series without ARod, so there was no extreme pressure on ARod to perform. The Yankees were playing hot and were not going to be denied that season. ARod is still a talented choke artist in my opinion.
Sure mistakes can be made, but frankly, in "My" Hall of Fame, a player should be eligible for induction right after retirement and gets voted in within 3 years after retirement or he doesn't get in. Naturally if he becomes a manager, he could get voted in for that at a later time when he retires from managing. Why a player should "improve" in the voting from year to year when he is retired is beyond me.
When I become commissioner of MLB, I plan to implement these changes, and throw out of the Hall of Fame all those players who I feel don't deserve to be in there.
In "your" HOF, Ryan Howard would already have his bust bronzed, LOL...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Doesn't matter, as I wasn't just referring to the World Series, but the entire postseason, debunking once and for all the concept of a "clutch" or "choke" player. Give a player enough opportunities and he will revert to his norm, either turning him into a guy who couldn't perform that suddenly could, or vice versa. In that sense, it was a very good example, actually..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>ARod is a bad example - Did he get some clutch hits in that Series?...yes he did, but the Yankees would have won that World Series without ARod,
Doesn't matter, as I wasn't just referring to the World Series, but the entire postseason, debunking once and for all the concept of a "clutch" or "choke" player. Give a player enough opportunities and he will revert to his norm, either turning him into a guy who couldn't perform that suddenly could, or vice versa. In that sense, it was a very good example, actually.. >>
<<< debunking once and for all the concept of a "clutch" or "choke" player. >>>
You couldn't be more wrong about that. As much as I hate to say it, Mike Schmidt was one of the worst choke artists I ever saw considering his talent. People wonder why Philly fans used to boo him, and that's exactly why. ARod is a choke artist as well, albeit like Schmidt a very talented choke artist...and a decent performance by ARod under not much pressure last season doesn't change that in my viewpoint.
Here is an excellent example, actually, of how a fan's perception (in this case, SteveK), is entirely inaccurate when it comes to reality.
Arod's career postseason BA is .302, his OBP is .409, slugging% is .568 and OPS .977.
Are those the numbers of a choke artist? Most players would gladly take those numbers, I'm quite sure..
More accurately, they are the numbers of a player who has certainly had his share of struggles in the postseason, but who absolutely carried his team or was on fire in other playoff series that the "fan" conveniently overlooks or glosses over when "remembering" a particular player's performance.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i> but frankly, in "My" Hall of Fame
In "your" HOF, Ryan Howard would already have his bust bronzed, LOL... >>
Ryan isn't a Hall of Famer yet, but he is on the way...we'll see...he's got a long way to go. I'm not gonna water down my Hall of Fame, even with players I like. My Hall of Fame isn't a popularity contest, it's about greatness and at the end of his career if Howard wasn't great, then he doesn't get in.
<< <i>ARod is still a talented choke artist in my opinion.
Here is an excellent example, actually, of how a fan's perception (in this case, SteveK), is entirely inaccurate when it comes to reality.
Arod's career postseason BA is .302, his OBP is .409, slugging% is .568 and OPS .977.
Are those the numbers of a choke artist? Most players would gladly take those numbers, I'm quite sure..
More accurately, they are the numbers of a player who has certainly had his share of struggles in the postseason, but who absolutely carried his team or was on fire in other playoff series that the "fan" conveniently overlooks or glosses over when "remembering" a particular player's performance. >>
In Arod's 17 year career, he's only led his team to get into one, count 'em, 1 World Series, despite being on teams with the highest payrolls in MLB. And as mentioned, there is no doubt that Yankees team would have won that WS without Arod there. That tells ya all ya really need to know about whether ARod is clutch or not. Case closed.
Wrong again. Would the Yankees have even reached the World Series if Arod hadn't had the postseason he did last season? I'd say that it is very debatable at least (though you conveniently gloss over that fact with this "team of destiny" horsecrap). And like I said, you are the perfect reason why fans can't be counted on for objective or realistic analysis, as the "choke artist" in question has batted over .300, had an OBP of over .400, and an OPS of about 1.000 in his postseason career. Maybe Arod should have taken the mound a few times and pitched a couple shutouts, too, LOL...
Edit: I am not even an A-Rod fan, really, but the stats speak for themselves, if you are openminded enough to really look at them and set aside your preconceptions and prejuduces...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>In Arod's 17 year career, he's only led his team to get into one, count 'em, 1 World Series, despite being on teams with the highest payrolls in MLB. And as mentioned, there is no doubt that Yankees team would have won that WS without Arod there. That tells ya all ya really need to know about whether ARod is clutch or not. Case closed.
Wrong again. Would the Yankees have even reached the World Series if Arod hadn't had the postseason he did last season? I'd say that it is very debatable at least (though you conveniently gloss over that fact with this "team of destiny" horsecrap). And like I said, you are the perfect reason why fans can't be counted on for objective or realistic analysis, as the "choke artist" in question has batted over .300, had an OBP of over .400, and an OPS of about 1.000 in his postseason career. Maybe Arod should have taken the mound a few times and pitched a couple shutouts, too, LOL...
Edit: I am not even an A-Rod fan, really, but the stats speak for themselves, if you are openminded enough to really look at them and set aside your preconceptions and prejuduces... >>
I never stated ARod wouldn't be in the HOF because obviously he will. I've watched perhaps 100 - 200 games in which he has played over the years, a fair random sampling in my opinion, and you'd have to be blind not to clearly see that often in key important situations, late in the game when a clutch hit is needed, he looks like a deer staring at oncoming headlights, and he usually does not come through in the clutch....same personna as Mike Schmidt.
And of course your comrade (in this thread) Saberman, will probably say my comments are just the rantings of an ignorant fan who only remembers the bad things ARod did, but that would be false because it gets to the point of "expecting" him to fail in these clutch situations and he has many times over the years. I am of course not the only one with that viewpoint, and all the stats in the world won't set that different.
The aberration is that ARod got some "clutch" hits in the last post season, but again that team was so good, and so hot, and it was so obvious...that ARod wasn't even needed for the Yankees to win - the Yankees would have still won if Charley Smith was playing third base...and all that probably helped ARod relax a bit and so he performed better. Give ARod a truly clutch situation whereby he is definitively needed and he will fold up again like a cheap suit. That's not perception - that's reality.
Certain MLB players regardless of their talent, play better in tough situations and some don't - that's not even debatable. ARod don't. Case was reopened and reviewed, vedict is the same...ARod is a talented choke artist - case closed.
Some people see it as a black and white issue.
Other people see it in a more gray light.
Skip makes compelling arguments BUT they are not the sole answer.
Coin Kat too made a compelling case, again NOT the sole answer.
Somewhere in between is the answer.............Possibly.
I've read that around 10k or 11k people have played the game.
So IMO between 4 and 5% seems a little high.
I think we have around 300 in the hall? If so, that means that 3% of the men
who have ever played are in. Which is about right. The argument will always be
which 3%.
Steve
A very good short answer... and being brief has never been my virtue.
There are no right answers- I would rather see the HOF consider the total picture. As we all know and appreciate, baseball is a team sport and using just numbers and statstics really fails because there are just too many variables that are part of the game that truly prevent numbers as being the only measurement and the SOLE consideration for induction.
Grote 15:
My sincere apologies that you found my statement in such low standing... However, if HOF induction should be predicated SOLELY on numbers and just numbers as the only determining factor- Please... post the NUMBER requirements by position, and let's eliminate the current selection process in its entirety and take the human factor out completely.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>There are no right answers- I would rather see the HOF consider the total picture. As we all know and appreciate, baseball is a team sport and using just numbers and statstics really fails because there are just too many variables that are part of the game that truly prevent numbers as being the only measurement and the SOLE consideration for induction. >>
That basically sums up my feelings too.
Steve
BTW, I changed my mind - I agree with Grote15 and Saberman that stats should be the major factor in Hall of Fame selection...and let me please be the first, it's my honor, to nominate Mr. Eddie Gaedel for entry into the Hall of Fame because of his remarkable career perfect 1.000 on base percentage. You'd be hard pressed to find any other Hall of Famer with an OBP even close to this.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
SteveK, based on some of your assumptions and perceptions, that recommendation is actually not that surprising, LOL!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I never stated ARod wouldn't be in the HOF because obviously he will. I've watched perhaps 100 - 200 games in which he has played over the years, a fair random sampling in my opinion, and you'd have to be blind not to clearly see that often in key important situations, late in the game when a clutch hit is needed, he looks like a deer staring at oncoming headlights, and he usually does not come through in the clutch....same personna as Mike Schmidt. >>
Lessee...
- has hit over .300 in 6 of the 11 full postseason series in which he played
- career .288 BA in innings 7-9, when nearly everyone's BA drops
- career .298 BA in tie games
- career .301 BA with RISP
- career .308 BA with men on base
- career 87 tOPS+ RISP, 2 outs
- career 91 tOPS+ late & close
The first 5 stats show him to be a decent clutch performer - granted he did have 2 atrocious postseasons in 2005 & 2006 with the Yankees - and the last two question that #. My conclusion? While A-Rod may not be the greatest clutch hitter around, he's certainly far from a flop.
Tabe
I agree with you.
It was more perception than anything. It's just that when you are the guy and you don't come through
all the time that is what people remember.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>I never stated ARod wouldn't be in the HOF because obviously he will. I've watched perhaps 100 - 200 games in which he has played over the years, a fair random sampling in my opinion, and you'd have to be blind not to clearly see that often in key important situations, late in the game when a clutch hit is needed, he looks like a deer staring at oncoming headlights, and he usually does not come through in the clutch....same personna as Mike Schmidt. >>
Lessee...
- has hit over .300 in 6 of the 11 full postseason series in which he played
- career .288 BA in innings 7-9, when nearly everyone's BA drops
- career .298 BA in tie games
- career .301 BA with RISP
- career .308 BA with men on base
- career 87 tOPS+ RISP, 2 outs
- career 91 tOPS+ late & close
The first 5 stats show him to be a decent clutch performer - granted he did have 2 atrocious postseasons in 2005 & 2006 with the Yankees - and the last two question that #. My conclusion? While A-Rod may not be the greatest clutch hitter around, he's certainly far from a flop.
Tabe >>
Lemme give you an average example...ARod goes 2 for 4 then comes up in the ninth in a key situation, his team down by 1, runners on second and third, he wiffs and his team loses...appears as though he had a nice game, and this type of game every game would result in a Hall of Fame career...but his team lost the game. I see this happen a lot with ARod, and there's a lot of fans out there who also see the same thing. It's not perception, it's reality. He's a talented choke artist.
Flop is a strong word but if I had to make a choice, flop or no flop as a clutch hitter, again considering his talent, I would have to go with flop.
<< <i>Lemme give you an average example...ARod goes 2 for 4 then comes up in the ninth in a key situation, his team down by 1, runners on second and third, he wiffs and his team loses. >>
I don't recall him whiffing, I do remember the pop ups though.
Steve
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Lemme give you an average example...ARod goes 2 for 4 then comes up in the ninth in a key situation, his team down by 1, runners on second and third, he wiffs and his team loses. >>
I don't recall him whiffing, I do remember the pop ups though.
Steve >>
Yes, popups as well. LOL
How many Yankee games do you watch a year? 10, 20, 30? It can't be too many because if you did watch them on a regular basis, you'd see that Arod has had a TON of big hits late in games, especially over the past two seasons...just the other night he had a gamewinning HR in the 8th inning...I guess your "perception" or "memory" is a bit faulty, SteveK...maybe you ought to lay off the Sam Adams while watching the game..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Don't confuse SteveK with facts or hard evidence. His "memory" of what he saw and "his" HOF is all you need to know when evaluating how good a player is..
You can laugh if you want, but you know or should know, before last season, ask most Yankees fans if ARod was a talented choke artist and they would have agreed with me.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i> I see this happen a lot with ARod,
How many Yankee games do you watch a year? 10, 20, 30? It can't be too many because if you did watch them on a regular basis, you'd see that Arod has had a TON of big hits late in games, especially over the past two seasons...just the other night he had a gamewinning HR in the 8th inning...I guess your "perception" or "memory" is a bit faulty, SteveK...maybe you ought to lay off the Sam Adams while watching the game.. >>
And wasn't it you who emphatically stated that Marv Throneberry should be in the Hall of Fame?
That was the Mets Hall of Fame...even I would have to admit that Marvelous Marv might come up just short of Cooperstown..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>And wasn't it you who emphatically stated that Marv Throneberry should be in the Hall of Fame?
That was the Mets Hall of Fame...even I would have to admit that Marvelous Marv might come up just short of Cooperstown..
To me it's all Sports Talk, just having fun, and to me it's fun to have brazen opinions and viewpoints.....
.....but I sincerely mean it whenever I say the New York Mint sucks.
That was the Mets Hall of Fame...even I would have to admit that Marvelous Marv might come up just short of Cooperstown.. >>
To me it's all Sports Talk, just having fun, and to me it's fun to have brazen opinions and viewpoints.....
.....but I sincerely mean it whenever I say the New York Mint sucks.
The freedom to express dissenting opinions is one of the reasons we should all raise a glass and toast the birth of this great nation...
And I like a lively debate as much as anyone...
However, I'm still waiting to see a PCGS graded New York Mint coin up for sale on ebay...unless of course you're referring to the West Point Mint that is..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Lemme give you an average example...ARod goes 2 for 4 then comes up in the ninth in a key situation, his team down by 1, runners on second and third, he wiffs and his team loses...appears as though he had a nice game, and this type of game every game would result in a Hall of Fame career...but his team lost the game. I see this happen a lot with ARod, and there's a lot of fans out there who also see the same thing. It's not perception, it's reality. He's a talented choke artist. >>
Well, the numbers say different.
And, in case you'd forgotten, runs scored in the 1st count just as much as those scored in the 9th
Tabe
A run in the 9th in a close game is far more critical than any run in the first 8. Yes they all count 1.
In a close game a batter's mission may not be to get a hit. He may just advance a runner into scoring position.
Bat control...going inside-out to hit behind a runner...TEAM HITTING.
Yankees do not do this very well at all. Teaching of fundamentals is lacking in the Yankee organization.
Arod can'r do it all all. Yesterdays game is a good example. tight game...9th inning...man in scoring position...arod strikes out looking very bad.
He did that at least 2x.
Last year I/m not sure the Yankees make the playoffs w/o Arod's hitting. Expectations are much higher for Arod and his salary than just about any other major leager.
Not all outs in the 9th inning are equal. More often than not Arod just strikes out...no advancing of runners....just an ole fashioned K.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>As a lifelong Yankees fan I can say Arod definately is a choke artst in critical situations.
A run in the 9th in a close game is far more critical than any run in the first 8. Yes they all count 1.
In a close game a batter's mission may not be to get a hit. He may just advance a runner into scoring position.
Bat control...going inside-out to hit behind a runner...TEAM HITTING.
Yankees do not do this very well at all. Teaching of fundamentals is lacking in the Yankee organization.
Arod can'r do it all all. Yesterdays game is a good example. tight game...9th inning...man in scoring position...arod strikes out looking very bad.
He did that at least 2x.
Last year I/m not sure the Yankees make the playoffs w/o Arod's hitting. Expectations are much higher for Arod and his salary than just about any other major leager.
Not all outs in the 9th inning are equal. More often than not Arod just strikes out...no advancing of runners....just an ole fashioned K. >>
Yep, and you pointed out some good reasons why. Another reason Phillies fans used to boo Schmidt was the appearance that he didn't care - After striking out, Schmidt would seemingly nonchalant walk back to the dugout. Schmidt later said that wasn't true, that even though he wanted to keep his cool, inside the non-performance was eating him up inside...and I believe him. Especially because Schmidt one day suddenly retired in the middle of the season, even though he wasn't playing all that bad, but he wasn't playing at an All Star level, and he couldn't take that with himself.
Some players, I dunno why, just have a personality type to relax in key situations, and focus better than others, and control those adrenaline rush emotions. Schmidt couldn't and ARod can't...it's just the way it is...and some players, even lesser talented players excel at pinch hitting because managers understand that these type of players relish those tense situations and do respond accordingly, often even better than when there is no pressure at all.
Grote15 will understand this eventually as he's a new fan to the game. I remember in a post awhile ago, I had to explain to him why runners run to first base first, and not to third base first.
THe thread about clutch has already put that nonsense to bed. No need to elaborate, just reference that thread for your answers
I agree that there is no set point about HOF cut off lines and such, and that will always be debatable, but it isn't nearly as debatable on determining the better hitter, or a better player.
So you want to put Hodges in, or Rice. Fine, but what do you tell all the other players who were better, but who are on the outside looking in? It is B.S. to those guys, because the other guys are being put in for wild fancy perceptions, which usually resulted from being in a beneficial situation, like being lucky enough to be on a team filled with great players, or a big city where lots of people got to see them and pine how good they were.
SteveK, your Eddie Gaedel example is a reason why stats are important. He had a 1.000 OB%, but no slugging percentage. He also had ZERO batter runs. Why would a stat guy put in a player with zero batter runs?
Actually, Gaedel belongs in the HOF according to the guys in your camp, who view the HOF as a place for players who 'impacted' fans, or the great stories. The Gaedel story is pretty famous, no? THat is right up your alley....put guys in because of a perception or biased viewpoint. Biased viewpoints for players is the root cause for the enshrinement!
<< <i>SteveK,
THe thread about clutch has already put that nonsense to bed. No need to elaborate, just reference that thread for your answers
I agree that there is no set point about HOF cut off lines and such, and that will always be debatable, but it isn't nearly as debatable on determining the better hitter, or a better player.
So you want to put Hodges in, or Rice. Fine, but what do you tell all the other players who were better, but who are on the outside looking in? It is B.S. to those guys, because the other guys are being put in for wild fancy perceptions, which usually resulted from being in a beneficial situation, like being lucky enough to be on a team filled with great players, or a big city where lots of people got to see them and pine how good they were.
SteveK, your Eddie Gaedel example is a reason why stats are important. He had a 1.000 OB%, but no slugging percentage. He also had ZERO batter runs. Why would a stat guy put in a player with zero batter runs?
Actually, Gaedel belongs in the HOF according to the guys in your camp, who view the HOF as a place for players who 'impacted' fans, or the great stories. The Gaedel story is pretty famous, no? THat is right up your alley....put guys in because of a perception or biased viewpoint. Biased viewpoints for players is the root cause for the enshrinement! >>
I've explained "clutch" in a few recent posts - it's easy to understand and smart managers understand it as well, and use it to try to win ballgames. Some players are clutch and some aren't - that is reality, not perception. Are there variances, exceptions, in almost everything? Yes, there can be but ARod is not a clutch player and I mentioned Schmidt, one of my favorite players, to show there is not prejudice on my part in my viewpoint. It is what it is.
I'll sum up my viewpint on the HOF - I believe that GREAT players only should be in the HOF, not very good players, not excellent players, not players with only great stories, and not Roger Maris, another one of my favorite players who "impacted fans" back in 1961, and it shouldn't be about the accumulation of stats...it's about being great while meeting the minimum requirements for HOF induction. Koufax was great, Mantle was great, despite being choke artists Schmidt was great and so is ARod - Bill Mazeroski was not great, and he wasn't even an excellent overall player in my opinion. Just being an excellent, even outstanding, defensive second baseman is like being the tallest midget in the circus, with apologies in my comment to Eddie Gaedel.
<< <i><<I'll sum up my viewpint on the HOF - I believe that GREAT players only should be in the HOF, not very good players, not excellent players, not players with only great stories, and not Roger Maris, another one of my favorite players who "impacted fans" back in 1961, and it shouldn't be about the accumulation of stats...it's about being great while meeting the minimum requirements for HOF induction. Koufax was great, Mantle was great, despite being choke artists Schmidt was great and so is ARod - Bill Mazeroski was not great, and he wasn't even an excellent overall player in my opinion. Just being an excellent, even outstanding, defensive second baseman is like being the tallest midget in the circus, with apologies in my comment to Eddie Gaedel.>>
stevek,
I hate being pedantic but "excellent" is almost always considered a higher superlative than "great". But we all get what you're trying to say.
However, you're example is rather a simple one. I can see how Koufax was great, though some may make counterarguments. He has carved out a significant lore in baseball history and actually DID perform at a very high level for many years. As for Mantle, Schmidt or ARod (sans steroids), those are VERY obvious examples of HOF players, clutch or not. And Maz is a PERFECT example of a player that is NOT Hall of Fame worthy in my opinion. Hodges was much better than Maz as far as I'm concerned but not near HOF levels. So what is your opinion on Hodges?
Also, I would agree that ARod has clearly had some "clutch" problems in VERY key situations prior to 2009. >>
I'll tell you my opinion on Gil Hodges, and you can use search to confirm this because I've stated this before...one of the first high grade cards I ever bought on ebay back when I decided to start collecting PSA high grade cards was a 1961 Topps PSA 9 Gil Hodges. Not that I was particularly looking for that specific card to start, but I was looking for, and still do, high grade, well centered 50's and 60's Topps cards, at a price I want to pay, and this card happened to come up in an auction that I won at the price I wanted to pay. At the time I wanted to buy cards of players whom I liked, and Hodges was one of them.
That being said, I don't feel that Gil Hodges was good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. To me, and I think to most people, the word "great" trumps the word "excellent", but I'm not gonna argue that (LOL)...however that being said for clarity, there is no doubt that Hodges was an excellent ballplayer, but sorry, not a great ballplayer in my opinion.
If you take the whole package he had a shot.
he came up short, the voters spoke end of discussion.
Steve