HOF
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
What arguments will there be this year? Will Blyleven finally make it? Will Raines pick-up support? The answer to both questions should be a resounding yes, but who knows?
0
Comments
These 5 will likely be the subject of much debate over the next few months:
Jeff Bagwell (4 time AS, 1994 NL MVP, .297/.408/.540, 2314 hits, 449 HR, 1529 RBI)
John Franco (1245.2 ip, 424 saves, 2.89 era)
Juan Gonzalez (2 time MVP, 434 HR, 1404 RBI, .295/.343/.561)
Rafael Palmeiro (585 HR, 3020 hits, .288/.371/.515, tested positive for PED)
Larry Walker (1997 NL MVP, 2160 hits, 383 HR, 1311 RBI, .313/.400/.565, tested positive for Coors Field)
These guys will probably get less than 5% of the vote and fall off the ballot.
Wilson Alvarez
Carlos Baerga
Bret Boone
Kevin Brown
Cal Eldred
Marquis Grissom
Bobby Higginson
Charles Johnson
Al Leiter
Tino Martinez
Raul Mondesi
Hideo Nomo
Jose Offerman
John Olerud
Paul Quantrill
Steve Reed
Kirk Reuter
Rey Sanchez
Benito Santiago
BJ Surhoff
Ugueth Urbina
Ismael Valdez
Dan Wilson
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
I agree that Blyleven should get the nod.
Wasn't Bagwell good with most of the media and writers in his career...that always helps.
Bert Blyleven (74.2%, 14, +56.6%)
Roberto Alomar (73.7%, 2)
Jack Morris (52.3%, 12, +30.1%)
Barry Larkin (51.6%, 2)
Lee Smith (47.3%, 9, +5%)
Edgar Martinez (36.2%, 2)
Tim Raines (30.4%, 4, +5.8%)
Mark McGwire (23.7%, 5, +0.2%)
Alan Trammell (22.4%, 10, +6.7% )
Fred McGriff (21.5%, 2)
Don Mattingly (16.1%, 11, -12.1%)
Dave Parker (15.2%, 15, -2.4%)
Dale Murphy (11.7%, 13, -7.6% )
Harold Baines (6.1%, 5, +0.8%)
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Murphy is moving in the wrong direction. He's actually losing support with each year.
I agree that Bly and Alomar will rightfully get in. Would like to see Raines make it in also, but I can't see that happening.
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.
Guys like Murphy and Lynn also have that 'fame' part nailed down even better than RIce. Parker may have too. I don't typically argue nonsense terms like 'fame' as it is meaningless when it comes to creating runs and winning games, but it is on the minds of voters.
There are more guys like the above who are all in the same group who are outside looking in. That isn't even counting the guys like Ted Simmons or Grich who get more of their value from their position/defense....and that is from only the same era as Rice and Dawson! There are other era's with guys of the same caliber too who are outside lookinging.
CrimsonTider, based on that above, your guy has a great case. It really is unjust what the writers have done.
And sorry Puckett fans...centerfielders Lynn and Murphy are both better than Kirby Puckett as overall players. Puckett gets this love because his career ended at age 35 due to his eyes. How do you factor in the yearly injuries that Lynn had then because of his style of play?
Lynn had 7,923 plate appearances and an OPS+ of 129
Puckett had 7,831 plate apperances and an OPS+ of 124
Lynn did better in the same amount of plate appearances, while playing the same position.
SO one gets sympathy for the shortened plate appearances because of medical reasons, and the other doesn't?
Yeah, the writers are fools. They are good at constructing sentences, and 'creating' stories out of basically nothing. They are NOT good at deciphering baseball performances!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as Bagwell, I actually refer to the steroids era as the Jeff Bagwell era. Was he ever caught? No. Did he play every year of his career post 1990 and pre 2005? Yes. He will be the single most interesting case of this era. If he was never on PED's he's an easy HOFer. He was clearly a Top 4 player in the NL during the 90's. I'm just curious if the voters go by their assumptions about players who were never actually caught.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
There is too much of a dark cloud looming on some of the new candidates. Bagwell, Palmeiro, and Gonzalez will garner a lot of discussion.
I will be interested to see if John Olerud will get 5%. Perhaps not a HOF, but certainly worth 5%. I feel the same way for Kevin Brown. He was a David Cone/Dwight Gooden type pitcher and deserves that 5% (unless there was PED involvement).
I want to see Mattingly's stock rise. Steve Garvey and Keith Hernandez are no longer on the ballot. That leaves Mattingly with McGriff and McGwire as first baseman. They were not the same type of players so its hard to say who was better.
Edgar Martinez and Tim Raines will have solid support for a very long time.
Jack Morris is an interesting case. A solid candidate, but cannot get over that hump.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>I feel the same way for Kevin Brown. He was a David Cone/Dwight Gooden type pitcher and deserves that 5% (unless there was PED involvement). >>
Kevin Brown was named in the Mitchell Report as being a customer of Kirk Radomski.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
You can throw what ever stats you want about ops+ and GPS, MPH, STP, NRA, FBI, CIA and USA + and I would take Kirby Puckett all day long compared to Murphy and Lynn. Puckett was a clutch superstar and 2 time W.S. Champion. Sometimes certain stats can be deceiving.
Lynn did make some amazing plays very early on....but he got old after 6 years in the bigs. When Murphy started to fall he fell off the face of the earth quickly. Didn't Puckett get like 100 RBI's in about 110 games in his 2nd to last last year then suffered a horrific facial injury with a pitched ball. He then developed severe glaucoma. This wasn't exactly a player who was losing his skills-he was losing his life.
Mickey71
<< <i> Puckett was a clutch superstar and 2 time W.S. Champion. Sometimes certain stats can be deceiving.
Mickey71 >>
And that is the THE MOST deceivng stat you just used to measure an individual player! If you are going to dissmiss a valid statistical measurements as deceiving, and then throw one of the most deceiving stats out there, "2 time W.S. Champion," then you may as well judge ballplayers based on looks...it will be about as effective as the stat you just used. Of course 'homerism' is most likely the culprit for your position.
If you prefer personal 'judgement' or speculation instead of objective evidence, then how about speculating on why Puckett all of a sudden started hitting home runs after only hitting FOUR in his first 1,200 at bats, when he hit 59 in his next 1,200+, hmmm...
Puckett got injured, Lynn got injured...regardless of the injuries, they both missed time because of them. You can guess what Puckett would have done from age 36 and on, and you can guess what Lynn would have done given all those games missed during his prime years. Giving one player 'extra credit' for that, and ignoring the other is nonsense. They both could have done more.
What we have on the ledger:
Defensively, they were about equal for their career in runs saved.
Offensively, Lynn was better.
They are at worst equal, and most likely Lynn the superior player. Electing one, and basically completely ignoring the other, is again, nonsense.
<< <i>Lynn was a great ballplayer hampered by injuries and i dont think anyone here but you would even consider him hall of fame worthy. >>
He is MORE worthy than Jim Rice, and at least as worthy as Kirby Puckett. THat is the point.
-b
Is a longer career that's constantly hampered by injuries equal to that of a shorter career that's ended catastrophically (death/disease/etc) if career PA's is equal?
Lynn accumulated his 7923 plate appearances over the span of 17 seasons. Puckett got his 7831 over 12 seasons.
Puckett had 11 (out of 12) seasons with 502+ PA, Lynn had 8 (out of 17).
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
It seems Mickey71 and the HOF voters are choosing which injury they want to give sympathy for. I ask you, would they be giving Puckett this symphathy if the reason why he left was because of full blown AIDS??
But more on your question. Since we are trying to ascertain who the better player was, ask yourself this? How much did the injury circumstances prevent the player from increasing his lifetime production/value as a player?
We know that when Puckett left, he was 36. Common baseball logic says maybe another season or two like his previous two would be possible, but it is certainly all downhill from what his career 124 OPS said up to that point.
But look at the case of Lynn. Check out his first nine years OPS+
161....1975 first full year
132
99......1977 missed first six weeks of seasn with ankle injury, never bounced back. Injury clearly prevented him from performing to his established surrounding superb years. The result are his percentages dragged down.
133
176
130
85....1981 injury plagued year, played 76 games of the strike shortned 111. Had .219 batting average, .322 OB%, and .316 SLG%. Hampered by injuries anyone???
143
129
Please note as a side note, Lynn's prime years were waaaay better than Puckett's. Lynn had two years as THE BEST PLAYER IN the league. Did injuries prevent him from having more???
But lets look at that 99 and 85 snuck into the middle of his prime. That 1980 season he missed his first six weeks with an ankle injury...one that would continue to nag him for the rest of the year, and look how out of line that year is with the surrounding years. I would say it is a good hypothesis to say that the injury not only prevented him from playing all the games, it also hurt his ability to perform up to his true level of play. So it hurt his cumulative totals as well as has rate totals.
1981, same thing...abysmal totals in an injury plagued year...and the strike too. That was waaaay out of line with his norm, and there are reasons for it!!
There is no 'what if' for Puckett, we saw his true level of ability. We saw his prime, and we saw what he was capable of. Sure, from age 36 on, it may have still been ok, but clearly he would be on the downhill side(unless somethign artificial entered the mix).
In Lynn's case, we don't know how much injuries hampered him from playing to his true ability, an ability that he did show in some seasons that were other worldly. He had two seasons, 1975, and 1979 where had OPS+ of 161 and 176 respectively...all while playing Centerfield!!
As Mickey71 said, Lynn got old fast...and that is a point for my side of the argument. He got old fast because he got banged up! This, at times, prevented him from performing to his true level during his prime, and most likely knocked his totals down during the rest of his career too.
So to answer your question, in this case, Lynn already showed to be a superior hitter than Puckett. Knowing that injuries prevented Lynn from doing even more during his PRIME...the extra injury credit went to the WRONG PLAYER!
1. World Series - whether you think Lynn's career was less or more, the fact that Kirby Puckett played for two WS Champions and had the huge home run in the 1991 Series DOES give him more legitimacy with the sportswriters. Does it necessarily make him greater? No. But, do things like that help get you votes? Ask Bill Mazeroski.
2. Dealing with sportswriters - These are the voters. Lynn was/is a moody guy. He can be charming. He can be a PITA. Compare this with Kirby. He was like Ernie Banks. Mr Smiles. A bubbly friendly guy that sportswriters adored. This stuff helps.
3. Charity work - Puckett was the Roberto Clemente Award Winner and did all sorts of stuff in the community. Maybe Fred Lynn did too. But it wasn't as visible as what Puckett did.
4. Face of a franchise - Puckett was the face of the Minnesota Twins. When you think Puckett, you automatically think Twins. Name the greatest Twins players of all-time. Kirby Puckett will be one of the first players you name. He might even be the first. Fred Lynn? Well, he played a few years with the Sox, then the Angels, then the Orioles, the Tigers, the Padres...
Who was the better player? I have no idea. There were things about both that were appealing. But I believe the four things above got Kirby in and Fred not in. I'll apply some of the same argument to Dave Parker. If Parker had stayed with the Pirates and had the same numbers, he would be in. Not sure why he isn't in actually...
<< <i>six of one, half dozen of the other. >>
Ok, lets use different measures:
How many games did Lynn miss during his career, vs how many did Puckett loose?
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
The writers very limited credibility when it comes to assessing the merits of a baseball player. The writers are good at constructing sentences and creating stories...but they really have no business being judge and jury on these guys when you see the folly of their ways. When you dig(like above with Puckett and Lynn), it really does trivialize the Hall of Fame.
Digicat, that is a hard question, and only speculative. How many games did the injuries make Lynn miss during his career...but also how much were they responsible for making him loose it and retire early than a healthy Lynn would have?
How long would Puckett have continued to play before he lost it and was no longer able to hold a job? Don't know.
I do know that Lynn was good enough to make the Majors at a younger age than Puckett, and that when he was healthy and at his top, he was MUCH better than Puckett. Given those two reasons, I would speculate that a healthy Lynn would easily have a longer career than a healthy Puckett.
Why give one of those players credit, and then completely ignore the other? The writers did it. Mickey71 did it. Like I asked above, would people give Puckett the benefit of the doubt if he retired early because he had full blown AIDS???
Also, we already know that Puckett actually failed the character test, as opposed to what the writers 'thought' his character was...again, another reason why that stuff is nonsense. Had that been known before the vote, he isn't in the Hall.
We do know what they did though...and Lynn did it better. Lynn had a better total career(or even call it a coin flip), but he also had a better prime(he was the best in the league for two of his years, Puckett never at the top).
<< <i>Saberman = I'll apply some of the same argument to Dave Parker. If Parker had stayed with the Pirates and had the same numbers, he would be in. Not sure why he isn't in actually... >>
The same reason he got robbed of the 85 MVP. His well-known past coke problem.
<< <i>Like I asked above, would people give Puckett the benefit of the doubt if he retired early because he had full blown AIDS??? >>
Magic Johnson continued to be revered in the NBA after he retired due to AIDS. Puckett had the media in his back pocket due to his personality, so his HoF induction would have still been secured.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Puckett got in because of the fame. The stats were really good, the defense too, but he was the face of the Twins, who won two titles. Also, when you think of the 1980s, Puckett is one the players that easily comes to mind.
The case of Lynn just proves how subjective we are. Lynn was the better player in terms of career stats that actually measure a player's worth (such as OPS+) and his prime years were better than Puckett's prime years. Numbers do not lie. Puckett was just so popular and good with the media, Lynn was not as gregarious. Should that have affected the way writers voted? No, but that is how humans operate.
A big problem with stats is everyone is familiar with Batting AVG, HRs and RBIs, but those are not stats that account for ball parks and eras played. Sandy Koufax had a short career and his many ERA titles tell that story. In reality, his ERA+ tells a different story. He was #1 once in that category. Dodger's Stadium was simply a pitcher's park.
Let's bring up Don Mattingly who had similar stats to Puckett in some aspects, like career totals. However, Mattingly led MLB in OPS+ twice, Puckett none. Mattingly did not have a career ending injury, but that degenerative spine condition would hamper him for the latter half of his career (that and carpal tunnel syndrome).
Let us compare some career average OPS+
Lynn 129
Mattingly 127
Puckert 124
There were a lot of baseball writers who admitted comparing Mattingly to Puckett and determined that Mattingly had a steeper drop off in later years and Puckett was more consistent across the board in their short respective careers.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
NAME, CAREER OPS+, SEASONS LED MLB IN OPS+
Lou Gehrig 178, 3
Mark McGwire 162, 4
Frank Thomas 156, 3
Jeff Bagwell 149, 1
Will Clark 137
Fred McGriff 134, 1
Rafael Palmeiro 132
Eddie Murray 129, ?
Keith Hernandez 128
John Olerud 128, 1
Don Mattingly 127, 2
Cecil Cooper 121
Cecil Fielder 118
Wally Joyner 117
Steve Garvey 116
Tino Martinez 112
JT Snow 105
As you can see, Mattingly is one of the very few first baseman that had led MLB at least twice in OPS+. Only McGwire and Thomas are the peers ahead of him. Mattingly also has 9 Gold Gloves to his credit which separates him further apart from a lot of first baseman.
While OPS+ is a very good start, other factors must be evaluated too.
I was surprised to see Fred McGriff up there so high. He is going to be discussed a lot. He does not seem likely to be enshrined soon, but he will get a lot of support. Will Clark's totals show that he was a top player for his career, but did not dominate like Thomas or McGwire.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>
<< <i>Like I asked above, would people give Puckett the benefit of the doubt if he retired early because he had full blown AIDS??? >>
Magic Johnson continued to be revered in the NBA after he retired due to AIDS. Puckett had the media in his back pocket due to his personality, so his HoF induction would have still been secured. >>
Magic had HIV, not AIDS.
The media was fooled by Puckett's character.
Why does Puckett get extra credit for missing time due to his injury, but not Lynn(who not only missed time, but had his performance during his prime weakened from it)??
Bottom of the 9th game 7 of the World Series ..2 outs in a tie game and bases loaded. Both players had the day off which is crazy and are sitting ready to pinch hit--they are both ready. Regardless of the pitcher. You're the manager////Who do you send in.
KIRBY "grab a bat." Fred get ready to pop the champagne.
<< <i>Magic had HIV, not AIDS. >>
You get to both through the same types of irresponsible behavior.
<< <i>The media was fooled by Puckett's character. >>
No one's arguing with you about that. Puckett was a scumbag with a brilliant markinting genious for a wife who had everyone fooled. He was already in the HoF when all that became public.
<< <i>Why does Puckett get extra credit for missing time due to his injury, but not Lynn(who not only missed time, but had his performance during his prime weakened from it)?? >>
Puckett was healthy and consistant for the bulk of his career. He didn't miss much, if any, time to injuries until his career was abruptly ended by one. He's not getting credit for any missed time. The writers aparently decided that the whole of Puckett's career was more worthy of the HoF than Lynn's, who's career was rittled with inuries. Puckett was a constant for 12 years, Lynn was not.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Batting Average:
Puckett .318
Lynn .283
<< <i>Can anyone argue this stat.
Batting Average:
Puckett .318
Lynn .283 >>
Yes, it is already measured in the OPS+.
Digicat, Lynn played 17 seasons. He came to the plate about as many times as Puckett. He was better than Puckett.
I understand that the writers put Puckett in for reasons other than his ability(reasons which are arbitrary and not meaningful in judging the kind of player he was). That is one of my points on the folly of electing guys that are so darn close like Puckett, Rice, Dawson...when there are a lot of players who are just as good, OR BETTER that get completely ignored.
Either way, the writers are inaccurate. If they did indeed decide that the whole of career was better than Lynn's(without extra credit being given), they are wrong on that count.
If they didn't think that, and they gave Puckett extra credit for missing time, then they are inconsistent with that.
<< <i>Digicat, Lynn played 17 seasons. He came to the plate about as many times as Puckett. He was better than Puckett. >>
Obviously the writers didn't like the fact that it took Lynn 17 seasons to get the same number of PA's that a healthy player could reach in 12.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
First off...I liked Fred Lynn; but lets not get ridiculous. You are basing the entire universe on OPS. I just looked up McGwires OPS- it was .982 and I looked up Hank aaron's OPS- it was .928.
Are you going to say that McGwire was a better player than Aaron based completely on OPS?
This is getting crazy.
<< <i>I'm going to make this easy....
Bottom of the 9th game 7 of the World Series ..2 outs in a tie game and bases loaded. Both players had the day off which is crazy and are sitting ready to pinch hit--they are both ready. Regardless of the pitcher. You're the manager////Who do you send in.
KIRBY "grab a bat." Fred get ready to pop the champagne. >>
<< <i>Saberman,
First off...I liked Fred Lynn; but lets not get ridiculous. You are basing the entire universe on OPS. I just looked up McGwires OPS- it was .982 and I looked up Hank aaron's OPS- it was .928.
Are you going to say that McGwire was a better player than Aaron based completely on OPS?
This is getting crazy. >>
No, OPS+ is only really any good if the players had the same career plate apperances(see the Eddie Murray vs Jim Rice debates to get what I mean by that), and played in the same era. McGwire's standard OPS is 'inflated' due to his era and shorter career length. Aaron's is depressed due to the era and extremely long career length. Although McGwire was outstanding as a hitter(sure it was artificially enhance at the end).
Since Lynn and Puckett had almost the same plate appearances it works well in that regard. They played in a similar era too...although Puckett had a few years in the live ball era that helped him a bit more.
A better stat than OPS+ is the situational batter runs which accounts for each plate apperance and its context of runners on base, outs, etc... Zero represents league average. Here is how they were in that more comprehenisve and telling measurement...
Lynn 250
Puckett 239
This too can be inflated due to the era too...but it would be in Lynn's favor, not Puckett's.
Mickey71, your question of the bottom of the ninth is just meaningless and worthless... and randomness would play the biggest role, regardless if your hero is Puckett. That is like saying who would you rather have to pitch one game, Len Barker or Tom Seaver, and then say, "since Barker threw a perfect game one time, I would take him because you can't beat that, and Tom Seaver never did." Your question is something that is tackled by second grade.
I completely understand the OPS+, but SBR is something I have to investigate. I think using both would paint the best picture, though. There is good empirical evidence that Lynn was better than Puckett in terms of an offensive threat.
Saberman, you do not have to beat a dead horse. As a scientist, I already see you made your point. Also, as you very well know, many decisions in human society are made from something other than rationality or logic. Take the QWERTY key board for instance. It is widely used, but its not the best keyboard. That title belongs to DVORAK. The latter is more faster and efficient for typing, but people got so use to QWERTY, they cannot deal with the change. QWERTY's layout was designed during the mechanical type writer era. The keys were laid out so someone typing would not jam the keys. The keys were not spread out for the convenience of human use, but for the mechanism not to jam. Well, all that is a mute point with computer keyboards that don't have mechanical mechanisms that can jam. Therefore, DVORAK, would allow one to type better and faster than someone of the same ability using QWERTY.
There are tons more examples I can come up with where human subjectivity trumps logic. A guy can do a Masters thesis or Doctoral dissertation on HOF voting as an example of human subjectivity. That would really be a nice project. I wonder if its taken already.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Maybe I'm missing something here:
200 hit seasons: Puckett 5 Lynn 0
300 + total bases: Puckett 4 Lynn 1
90 + RBI's Puckett 6 Lynn 2
100 Runs Puckett 3 Lynn 2
30 HR's Puckett 1 Lynn 1
.300 AVG Puckett 8 Lynn 4
.500 Slug % Puckett 5 Lynn 3
35 + Doubles Puckett 7 Lynn 3
Gold Gloves Puckett 6 Lynn 4
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
You are missing a lot there.
You are entirely missing key offensive events. You are double or triple counting events...and you are assigning arbitrary seasonal milestones.
When adding all the stuff you are looking at, adding the stuff you are not, you come to the only milestones that count
Lynn OPS+ 129
Puckett OPS+ 124
Again, OPS+ only relevant to guys with similar career lenghts, as is the case here.
Lynn Situation Batter Runs 250
Puckett Situational Batter runs 239
THose final above elements include all the stuff you listed above, and more.
Digicat, Lynn was worth appx 250 runs above league average to his teams offensively, Puckett 239. Defensively they were about the same, but that is a little harder to put an exact number on.
Mickey71, again with the injury or now you are calling it an illness. It makes no difference what they had, they both missed time because of it. Lynn actually had his prime years performance affected by it too...therefore, if you are to give any extra credit for injuries derailing the true showing of a player...it goes to Lynn!
Lifetime Stats:
Lynn Puckett
.360 On Base Pct. .360
.484 Slugging Pct. .477
306 Home Runs 207
1111 RBI's 1085
857/1116 Walk/Strikeout 450/965
Obviously, I just picked stats that favored Lynn (or at least make a solid comparison to Puckett). This was just to counter the stats that favored Puckett earlier. I am not 100% that either player was better than the other. I think that the best and worst seasons probably both belong to Fred Lynn. His 1975 and 1979 seasons are far better than anything Puckett ever did. But Puckett was at his peak more consistently than Fred Lynn. Although Lynn has the ironic stat of having EXACTLY 23 Home Runs four consecutive years. Apparently the Hall of Fame has determined that they were more impressed with Kirby Puckett's resume than Fred Lynn's. In reality, there probably isn't too much difference between the two of them.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>One thing about the nature of Puckett's career that also needs to come into play is that most athletes naturally drop in value over time. So, if Puckett's OPS+ lifetime is 124, can we reasonably expect that it would have remained that high had he continued a natural career progression? Lynn's 129 OPS+ was achieved with him playing until he was 38. Puckett was out at 35. That may not seem like a big deal, but I can assure you that MANY great players are not the same players at 38 that they were at 35. And we are talking about Kirby Puckett here, who was not exactly a fitness addict. Lynn's 1988-1990 seasons were much weaker than the bulk of his career, which brought his numbers down. If we just look at traditional numbers, I see these:
Lifetime Stats:
Lynn Puckett
.360 On Base Pct. .360
.484 Slugging Pct. .477
306 Home Runs 207
1111 RBI's 1085
857/1116 Walk/Strikeout 450/965
Obviously, I just picked stats that favored Lynn (or at least make a solid comparison to Puckett). This was just to counter the stats that favored Puckett earlier. I am not 100% that either player was better than the other. I think that the best and worst seasons probably both belong to Fred Lynn. His 1975 and 1979 seasons are far better than anything Puckett ever did. But Puckett was at his peak more consistently than Fred Lynn. Although Lynn has the ironic stat of having EXACTLY 23 Home Runs four consecutive years. Apparently the Hall of Fame has determined that they were more impressed with Kirby Puckett's resume than Fred Lynn's. In reality, there probably isn't too much difference between the two of them. >>
That is a very sold post PowderedH20, I have to give props...especially to the first part of recognizing the 'benefit' of not playing past age 35 and what it typically does to 'save' your rate stats(like OPS+).
Even if one uses archaic caveman stats, they are extremely close...just as they are with the more advanced stats. The only thing that really separates them is that Lynn had a stronger peak...like Powderedh20 alluded to.
<< <i>Who was more valuable to the success of their team? Lynn or Puckett? >>
Puckett hands down. Lynn was a good player but Rice was better.
<< <i>Bags for '11!
Bags has the stats, but playing in the steroid era will probably hurt his chances unfortunatly.
What else makes it easy is that they both played in home ballparks that really helped them out. Though again, Lynn only had that for part of his career(In fenway, where he was the Red Sox best player for his tenure), while Puckett had it for all his career in the dome.
Usually I would have to explain ballpark effects, because without such, they would murk the numbers up a bit. Some have said that Lynn was a product of Fenway, and no doubt it helped. THe OPS+ and the Situational batter runs already reflect the factor. But sometimes ballpark adjustments aren't always accurate.
Look at Puckett's lifetime road stats...
Batting Average .291
OB% .331
SLG% .430
That is with no old man phase bringing down his years
I wonder if some believe that he is a product of the dome and its artificial turf(which we know enhanced doubles and triples a bunch).
Just another factor to show how similar they are. It is quite possible that neither of them belong in the Hall of Fame.
P.S. Digicat, a correction earlier, Magic Johnson was not revered when he got HIV. When he tried to come back there were players who did not want to play with him. That isn't revered.
<< <i>P.S. Digicat, a correction earlier, Magic Johnson was not revered when he got HIV. When he tried to come back there were players who did not want to play with him. That isn't revered. >>
He was revered by players, coaches, the media, and the fans. He still is.
The reason why there were players who didn't want to play with him was because people didn't know if it was safe to play with him in a sport that involved potential blood and physical contact. This wasn't a critical judgement against Magic for the decisions and actions that lead to him contracting HIV, and it wasn't about his character, it was fear of catching his mysterious and potentially deadly condition.
Your original suggestion was that had Puckett's career ended with a much less "acceptable" condition, like AIDS, that he would have not had the same support that he did in reality. Since there's no way to know what would have happened if what really happened didn't happen and something else happened instead, the best I can offer is the case of Magic Johnson, where a popular athlete's career ends with an unpopular condition.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25