Some people don't give a sh*t about ballpark effect or OPS+, and they view the game based on feel and emotions.
That certainly sounds romantic and all, but certainly not an accurate or objective way to correctly measure a player's true greatness or ability...
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 totally follow what you presented in your arguments. I just have not done too much homework on Hernandez to make a solid evaluation when comparing him to his peers. I obviously lean towards his induction as the OPS+ and his defense are very good arguments along with all the accolades that lay baseball folks like.
Lou Gehrig played in an era where the numbers were inflated, aka "huge offensive era." Also, there were fewer players involved so he shone ever so brightly among his peers. Hernandez had more competition and played in a poor offensive era. We both see eye to eye on this. I think the argument for Hernandez is strong. McGwire, McGriff and Palmeiro hardly overlapped with Hernandez's career so comparing their OPS+ would not work even though we see he is behind them. It really does not reveal how great Hernandez was against his peers doing that comparison. It is safe to say he was better than Cecil Cooper, who was excellent in his own right, and Steve Garvey. John Olerud was an excellent first baseman, but he played in an era where offensive numbers were more inflated. Their OPS+ is a tie at 128, but Hernandez wins out on that because he played in an era where high numbers were difficult to achieve.
How about Mattingly and Hernandez? Their OPS+ is 128-127 with Hernandez the slight edge. Their careers overlapped some, but Mattingly continued to play more into the live ball era. Ironically, Mattingly's numbers slow down during the live ball era. Just based on OPS+, I would give Hernandez the clear edge. However, Mattingly's peak was convincingly more potent than Hernandez. That has to be worth something as well. Their defense is a wash as both were easily in the top 5 all time defense for first baseman.
I wonder what the OPS+ would be if 2 of the worst season for each player were taken out of the equation. Would Mattingly shine even more or would that be a wash too? Hernandez may have not hit many home runs, but because his OPS+ is so high in relative terms, it really does not matter. I suspect HOF voters did not take too kindly to him based on his homer output--which I think is very short sighted.
I think we can put both Hernandez and Mattingly in without diluting the HOF. Guys like Olerud, Cooper and Garvey would always be regarded as excellent and dependable players. I am kind of having trouble with Will Clark since I never expected his OPS+ to be so high. I really don't know where to place him.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Another way to look at it is their best six years, regardless if they are consecutive.
This is where I agree with people in that there is more than one way to look at a player, and cases can be made.
THen you have the career measurement.
There is more than one measurement to look at too(but NOT RBI and such), that may shuffle those guys a little, but they will be relatively close still.
Guerrero has some seasons in there that are not full, so another measurement may be more telling(advanced measurement).
Some players can also put up six year peaks of other years in their careers.
[q ] It doesn't matter how people felt, or what their perceptions were >>
Of course it does. The game of baseball belongs to the fans, not a spreadsheet. You've decided to boil down the game to a bunch of numbers. However, in your boiling process, you've also gotten rid of everything that makes people love baseball. Baseball is America's pastime, not some type of chore that requires weeks of statistical analysis on your laptop. Fans know which players make them love the game and which don't. Singleton and Raines clearly don't. Maybe create a separate "Hall of Statistical Acheivement", put it in the basement of some computer company, and it can be a place where all the baseball spreadsheet jockeys can pay homage to all of their "statistical giants" who the fans don't care about. But to equate the word "fame" with Singleton or Raines is a total joke.
<< <i>[q ] It doesn't matter how people felt, or what their perceptions were >>
Of course it does. The game of baseball belongs to the fans, not a spreadsheet. You've decided to boil down the game to a bunch of numbers. However, in your boiling process, you've also gotten rid of everything that makes people love baseball. Baseball is America's pastime, not some type of chore that requires weeks of statistical analysis on your laptop. Fans know which players make them love the game and which don't. Singleton and Raines clearly don't. Maybe create a separate "Hall of Statistical Acheivement", put it in the basement of some computer company, and it can be a place where all the baseball spreadsheet jockeys can pay homage to all of their "statistical giants" who the fans don't care about. But to equate the word "fame" with Singleton or Raines is a total joke. >>
Baseball is a pasttime, and if you want to decipher who the best players are, perceptions do nothing in that regard.
When deciding who belongs in the Hall of Fame, it is indeed the player's ability, record, and contributions that decide who goes in there(which ARE the Hall of Fame's criteria for election)...NOT the guys who make you feel the best.
Also their character, integrity, and sportsmanship are critereia...though that is a very grey area in determining...unlike the performance measurements which are very valid for baseball measurement.
Fame and popularity are NOT criteria for election.
We are not talking about how each player makes each person feels...that will vary widely depending on all sorts of things...none of which have anything to do with deciding which player is better, or more deserving of everlasting fame DUE TO THEIR ABILITIES.
The poster put it best above...a player does not make the Hall of Fame because they are famous....it is their ability that enshrines them into the hall to ensure their fame.
The only joke is the fact that you think it is a joke to compare two players who are equal or better than another...simply because you do not understand what constitutes a better baseball player.
P.S. Another joke is that Rice is often said(by the uninformed) to be the most dominant player in his prime from his era....yet there is a group of guys listed above who had better peaks(some FAR better)...and NONE of them are in the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>The only joke is the fact that you think it is a joke to compare two players who are equal or better than another...simply because you do not understand what constitutes a better baseball player. >>
I hear ya. I understand the advanced statistics that you use and I understand your viewpoint. Both are valid. And I admire that stat guys like you are really making an extreme attempt to be the most fair to the players invovled. Admirable goal. I'm just trying to make you realize that the game and the players that make it great cannot be determined by your spreadsheet and that popularity, as absurd as it may sound, is not something to be dismissed when evaluating how players impact the game. Try to think bigger picture about why baseball is great and why certain players make it great.
If your son in the 80's liked going to Busch Stadium because Ozzie did the backflips while running onto the field, then Ozzie has contributed, in a real way, to making the game great and making Busch Stadium (total dump) a cool place for your son to spend a Saturday. An intangible like this isn't included in your spreadsheet, yet it is a VERY real contribution that Ozzie made to the game of baseball. Ditto for Ripken's games played streak. Are those included in your formulas anywhere...I doubt it. I think your view of "contribution" to the game could be broadened a bit.
I always felt really good when Jerry Grote was in the lineup..
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>The only joke is the fact that you think it is a joke to compare two players who are equal or better than another...simply because you do not understand what constitutes a better baseball player. >>
I hear ya. I understand the advanced statistics that you use and I understand your viewpoint. Both are valid. And I admire that stat guys like you are really making an extreme attempt to be the most fair to the players invovled. Admirable goal. I'm just trying to make you realize that the game and the players that make it great cannot be determined by your spreadsheet and that popularity, as absurd as it may sound, is not something to be dismissed when evaluating how players impact the game. Try to think bigger picture about why baseball is great and why certain players make it great.
If your son in the 80's liked going to Busch Stadium because Ozzie did the backflips while running onto the field, then Ozzie has contributed, in a real way, to making the game great and making Busch Stadium (total dump) a cool place for your son to spend a Saturday. An intangible like this isn't included in your spreadsheet, yet it is a VERY real contribution that Ozzie made to the game of baseball. Ditto for Ripken's games played streak. Are those included in your formulas anywhere...I doubt it. I think your view of "contribution" to the game could be broadened a bit. >>
Mcadams,
Please understand that with me, it is a been there done that thing in regard to what you are talking about. I enjoy the Ken Burns films as much as the next guy, collecting cards as much as the next guy, and sitting in the bleachers in a meaningless game in September and just kicking back...
I know that game...but I'm into the other game too
But what we need to do is get back to the task on hand...
Of this list of the best six year run players, is there a way to make a strong case for ONE of these guys to be viewed ahead of the rest of the group to become a worthy Hall of Merit recipient. I use merit, because fame is not a crieteria, and this should be based on the true Hall of Fame criteria...NOT popularity, not perception...but real valid performances. Yes, character and such can be part of somebody's case(for or against)....just be fair and apply it to ALL members, not just your guy!
Pedro Guerrero 153 Singleton 150 Reggie SMith 149 Jack Clark 149 Foster 149 Mattingly 147 Staub 147
Murphy 145 Cooper's 143 Parker 142 Hernandez 140 Lynn 139 Dewey 139...seven year peak...just couldn't resist with the bookends from that seven year stretch. Rice 139 Luzinski 139
Jack Clark 138....Yes, another entry as this is an entirely different six year period for him...the six years right before his top six year run above.
I know there are more guys to add to this group from this era, but this was off the top of my head. Feel free to add names to that group. I stuck mostly with guys who get consideration due primarily to their bat so it makes for an easier comparison(hence no grich or simmons on there). The only two on that list that spent time in a demanding defensive position were Lynn and Murphy.
If you got a guy on there...make his case. Use career measurements, peak(three year, or four year, or five year)...whatever you can do that makes him stand out above that crowd...but again, BE FAIR and apply the same method to all guys. And do not use measuements that are faulty like RBI(unless you take into consideration the amount of runners or show that the player hit better with men on), but again, be fair to all guys. DO NOT FORGET BALLPARK FACTORS! Anything that does not include this will make for an invalid case!
Is Rice's three year peak enough to stand out ahead of all the guys on that list? IS Mattingly's four year peak enough? Is Parker's longer career, coupled with his nice peak, coupled with his excellen men on base hitting enough? But do the drugs kill him in the character department? Get the idea?
About people not wanting to see Tim Raines play... I can safely say, that as a regular paying customer to major league games in the 1980's, A LOT of people went to see Tim Raines play. I lived in West Palm Beach where the Expos trained, and Tim Raines always was THE guy that everyone came to see. This was when the Expos had Dawson, Wallach, Carter, etc... He was a notch below Rickey Henderson, but not too far below. Rickey himself would be proud to have Raines' 85-87 seasons in his record. He was arguably one of the handful of most exciting players in the majors in the 80's. Six years in a row of 70+ steals, while never being caught more than 16 times. I think there is plenty of room in Cooperstown for a leadoff hitter with a .385 lifetime on base percentage, over 800 steals and only 146 times caught stealing. A leadoff man's job is to get on base and score runs. Raines did both of those. Basically, Raines got on base the same amount of times as Tony Gwynn and had the same on base percentage. He hit more homers than Gwynn. He stole 2.5 times the bases Gwynn stole, but only was caught stealing a few more times. Gwynn did strike out a lot less than Raines, but he also grounded into twice as many double plays as Raines. I don't think Raines was overall as good as Gwynn. But the mere fact that I can make a nice comparison of the two, and Gwynn got 97.6% of the HOF vote, tells me that Raines should get 75%.
Raines was an amazing player. I enjoyed watching him when he was with the Yankees. He did not play full time, but he fit in well as a part time player and made that platoon very effective. He was past his prime, yet he performed close to his prime by playing less games. He was a very flexible player and added utility to a team. He constantly made the adjustments to remain an effective player.
I see that Mattingly ranks very high when making a bunch of 6-year peak comparisons with the OPS+. Keith Hernandez ranks below Mattingly and I wonder if it has to do with Hernandez playing more in the 70s? The 70s had anemic offensive numbers, but the 80s was a very competitive environment and much more difficult to stand out from the peers. Is it fair to say that Mattingly had a more potent six year stretch than Hernandez?
Singleton and Reggie Smith also shine in that 6-year peak analysis. Now we have to wonder where they fit in.
Mattingly ranks above Jim Rice in that analysis, but again, I wonder if that is due to Rice having more years in the 70s.
I wonder where Olerud, Will Clark, McGriff, and Palmeiro would rank in that 6-year peak since those guys have to compete with Mattingly, more or less, when the HOF voters go back on the ballots.
Mattingly's OPS+ drops in the last 6 years of his career. However, I have seen statistics that when men are on base, Mattingly was still in the top 10 in Batting average. His seasons in 1992 and 1993 were actually very good. I just wonder how his batting average with runners in scoring position were in the last 6 years. It would reveal how valuable he was to the team and as a team mate. Since Mattingly was in the number 3 or number 5 hole, which are RBI positions in the batting order, his batting average with runners in scoring position is an important criteria to use for or even against him.
edit for clarity
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Here are Mattingly's and Heranandez's yearly situational batter runs. THis accounts for what they did in ALL the situations with men on base, and is adjusted for ballpark.
I agree when people say, 'it depends how you look at them'...but that does not pertain to the measurements you use(unless you are using another advanced measurement...but NOT by using RBI).
Mattingly had a four yr consecutive peak of 180 runs above league average.
Hernandez's best was 162, and another one of 140. Neither of those can match Mattingly's brilliance in his consecutive prime. But....
If you took Hernandez's best four years regardless if they are consecutively, they total 189. So it does change depending how you look at it.
Mattingly certainly had a tale of two careers, Pre 1990, and 1990 onward.
I am going to add some Hall of Famers from that era for some context
Kingman best 4yr consecutive.........55 Kingman best 4yr Non consec..........86 Kingman career total.......................110
Don Mattingly best 4yr consecutive ....180 Don Mattingly best 4yr non consec......180 Don Mattingly Career total................228
K. Hernandez best 4 yr consecutive....160 K. Hernandez best 4 yr non consec.....189 K. Hernandez career total...................382
T. Raines best 4yr consecutive...........125 T. Raines best 4yr non consecu.........138 T. Raines career total........................363
J. Clark best 4yr consecutive............163 J. Clark best 4yr non consec.............188 J. Clark career total...........................415
P. Guerrero 4yr consecutive............179 P. Guerrero 4yr non consec.............203 P. Guerrero career total...................320
D. Murphy 4yr consecutive...............156 D. Murphy 4yr non consec................171 D. Murphy career total.....................258
Singleton 4 yr consecutive...............190 Singleton 4yr Not conseuctive..........190 Singleton career total.......................335
Garvey 4yr consecutive.....................148 Garvey 4 yr non consecutve..............175 Garvey career total............................294
Foster 4yr consecutive....................168 Foster 4yr non consecutive.............173 Foster career total...........................267
Luzinski 4yr consecutive..................180 Luzinski 4yr non consecutive...........180 Luzinsk career..................................273
Dawson best 4yr consecutive years....101 Dawson best 4yr non consec years.....101 Dawson career total........................... 254
Jim Rice best 4yr consecutive.............126 Jim Rice best 4yr non consec.............139 Jim Rice career total...........................190...If there were NO ballpark factor adjustment, Rice would be at 285 career total.
D. Winfield best 4yr consecutive........171 D. Winfield best 4 yr non consec.......203 D. Winfield career total.....................452
Eddie Murray best 4yr consecutive.....213 Eddie Murray best 4yr not consec......216 Eddie Murray career total...................510
George Brett best 4yr consecutive....163 George Brett best 4yr not consec.....228 George Brett career total..................498
Mike Schmidt best 4yr consecutive....169 Mike Schmidt best 4hr non consec.....209 Mike Schmidt career total...................560
Remember, these figures take into account how well they hit with men on base(hence Murray's dominance from '82-'85 when he had an unrivaled peak from that era), and why they are different than standard batter runs that don't look at base situation context(OPS+ does not look at base situation context either).
Olerud played in the live ball era, and this measurement, along with almost all measurements in the sabermetric community are not equiped to deal with those types of cross era comparsons(the memebers say the measurements are, but they are not....I have written on that before).
Looking at the above evaluations of the players in question, I come to two conclusions:
1) When looking how Jim Rice stacks up against several players from his own era(players who did NOT get voted into the Hall of Fame); that of all players to pick from that close call group, Jim Rice was among the worst choices. In no way does he stand above those guys in peak measurements, or career performances, and in fact, he is BEHIND many of those other players....yet he got in due to ignorance and misconceptions of a lot of people(which is all outlined throughout this thread).
2) The true Hall of Famers from that era who got voted in right after eligibility, all had something in common with each other, that the close call group did not. They all had consecutive peaks, and non consecutive peak years that were elite and as good or better than all the close call players(and in some cases MUCH better)....and they also added career totals that were noticeably better than the close calls.
It is this combination of peak dominance and career dominance that separates Murray, Brett, Schmidt, Winfield from that group of close calls...and in my opinion is what marks what a Hall of Famer should be, because there are just a scattered few that have been able to do that; while there are many who fall into that close call group...and to choose just one from that close call group makes it unjust to the others sitting there who are on equal footing, and are ignored.
If there were a player that clearly outshone the Murray, Brett, Schmidt group in peak dominance, and just blew them away...but had a short career(and obviously came up short in that regard), then they could say they stood out above everyone else and make a case...but no player did that, nor came close to.
I will add that this is only a measure of hitting ability from corner type players. There are other aspects that can vault a player into that true HOF group...aspects as obvious as defense, defensive positions, and baserunning ability.
Then there are the other HOF criterion, such as character, integrity, and sportsmanship...and sadly, guys like Tim Raines and Dave Parker who chose to do illegal drugs, may have put a possible HOF enshrinment in jeopordy due to a clear and significant violation of the Hall's criteria.
Based upon what we have seen with the McGwire voting, how do you folks feel Palmiero will do in the voting? The same? Maybe a little better or worse? What about Bonds? I'd have to admit, that if I were voting, as much as I think Barry Bonds is a walking piece of crap, I would vote for him. I've heard the argument from some that McGwire was just a slugger like a Frank Howard type before the steroid era and so he would not have gotten in without them. Palmiero has over 3000 hits and 500 home runs. Hard to tell with him. But, I think his 2005 was just SO bad that he probably ruined his chances. Am I wrong?
Palmeiro was helped a lot by the live ball era too, both from the environement of it...and partaking in the PED's himself.
His rate numbers like OPS+ need to be compared to the hitters of the live ball era....when that is done, his candidacy is not as good as one might think. It may be more like Keith Hernandez compared to the elite of his era. Add in that he lied in congress, and took PED's, and lied more, add the reaction of past teammates like Will Clark...he fails miserably in character, integrity, and sportsmanship. Combine that with a borderline candidacy when measured vs his peers, he doesn't deserve it.
Bonds is so far ahead of his peers, it is beyond ridiculous on how much better he was. Only two players are in the realm of his in terms of separation from his peers...Ruth and Williams. So, how one wants to treat his character, integrity, and sportsmanship, it can be reasonable to still elect him....kind of like Cobb's character not being enough to knock his greatness out of Hall of Merit.
McGwire is better than when people think he is just a one dimensional player. He is actually a two dimensional hitter...getting on base, and advancing base runners efficiently....two pretty good dimensions to shine at . The knock on him is if the steroids turned his career path completely around when at what seemed a cross roads. McGwire is a tougher question...but certainly a better candidate than Palmerio on the field. His peak dwarfs Palmeiro's. I give him the edge in off the field too in the character department.
Here are the Situational Batter Runs for McGwire and Palmeiro. Pleae note that these are not totally comparable to guys in other eras....
McGwire best 4 yr consecutive..........255 McGwire best 4yr non consecu.........288 McGwire career................................597
Palmeiro best 4yr consecutive..........180 Palmeiro best 4yr non consecutive....190 Palmeiro career.................................468
Bonds best 4yr consecutive...........447......No, this is not a misrpint. Bonds best 4yr non consecutive....463.......again, not a misprint Bonds career..................................1,350............I estimated his 2005-2007 years as the data is not computed for those years.
The all time single season record for OPS+ is 268 by Bonds The second best all time for OPS+ is 263 by Bonds The third best all time for OPS+ is 259 by BOnds
The fourth best all time(20th century and on) for OPS+ is 255 by Ruth
I don't know what to make of the steroid issue...but being that Bonds and all the other hitters of the time were also on them, and he did that....it is pretty remarkable.
FOr me personally, Bonds would have to be a murderer or child molester, or something else bad and harmful to innocent others, to put enough character issues to overshadow the on field stuff.
I dont think what he actually did is bad enough, IMO.
I am still trying to figure out how to deal with the steroid mess, so it is sort of a work in progress on any answers I give on that.
What you say about Cobb is true.
Though he did things like the so called killing of a man(which I don't know how much is really true)...but stuff in that realm isn't an isolated incident. Also, a lot of people just thought his character was overall bad, and hated him just for that.
If any of that makes sense.
I want to add one more thing for Tim Raines. His stolen bases netted him an extra 90 runs of 'hitting value' on top of his career total.
Also forgot to add Dawson's totals...
Dawson best 4yr consecutive years....101 Dawson best 4yr non consec years.....101 Dawson career total........................... 254
I edited and added Bonds above vs Palmeiro and McGwire.
Well, I think unless he is convicted on something before he comes up for the vote, Bonds will be elected. My logic is this: The writers select the MVP's, Even though Bonds treated media like dirt and was rumoured to be on the juice for most of the 2000's, he still got multiple MVP's. These are the same people that will vote in the HOF election. He will get in. I agree about Palmiero. He was really good, but the character issues are going to sink him. But who knows?
<< <i>We've had the Bradshaw argument before. I'd just say this: Take Terry Bradshaw and Archie Manning. Swap them. Put Bradshaw on the woeful Saints who had no offensive line, no receivers, and no decent backs for most of the 70's. Take Archie and put him with the Steelers. For those of you too young to remember Archie, he was very similar to Steve Young. If Steve Young had stayed in Tampa, he'd have had Archie Manning's career. Do you really believe that the Steelers would not have been as good with a quarterback that had just as strong of an arm, was a better runner, and was more intelligent? Remember, in the 1974 Super Bowl season, Bradshaw was benched for Jefferson Street Joe Gilliam. That's how much confidence Chuck Noll had in Bradshaw. How would Bradshaw have fared in New Orleans? Let's just say it would not have resulted in him making the Hall of Fame. >>
I broke it down in another post somewhere on this board but, other than one year, Bradshaw's backups actually outperformed him on the field and had a better record than he did.
Mattingly and Singleton are way ahead of Dawson and Rice in situational batter runs adjusted for ballpark. Rice edges Mattingly on the OPS+, but Singleton is above all.
Two advanced measurements here, yet Dawson fails and Rice does not convince. Whatever loss Mattingly has to Rice in OPS+ he far makes up for it with his superior situational batter runs.
You can't put in Dawson and Rice and ignore Singleton and Mattingly, and especially Pedro Guerrero.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
The baseball HOF always invokes interesting conversation.
Despite any calculations, opinions, spreadsheets, understanding of Total bases, love for MVP awards, or a number of statistical gyrations, there are some "marginal" or borderline players in the Hall. It may hurt a bit, when computations, permutations, and LH pitching in day games after the 6th inning, with a 4 run or better margin, can absolutely positively "PROVE" so and so is more qualified than such and such. Nevertheless, the HOF still contains truly outstanding players, and despite the shortcomings , real or merely perceived, for Chick Hafey, Harry Hooper, Jim Rice, and Andre Dawson, they are, forever more, official members of the HOF, and they shall remain, whether Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Mark McGwire, or Tim Raines ever gets in or not.
It always surprises me, those who claim some innate knowledge of THE only proper way to evaluate players for HOf consideration, have short memory spans, and can only pontificate on fairly recent players. A fine, somewhat recent measure, WAR, wins above replacement, calculates many offensive stats, base running and defense as well, and compares players to those of their time era.
Via WAR calculations, shortstop Bill Dahlen is the 42 nd best player in the entire history of MLB. Dahlen is the computed to be the 4th best MLB SS ever. His total WAR of 75.9 ranks him above, Reggie Jackson, Brooks Robinson and Eddie Murray among many other current HOFers. He is above Arky Vaughn, Barry Larkin, Luke Appling, PeeWee Reese, Louie Aparicio, Lou Boudreau, Phil Rizzuto, Ozzie Smith, and Ernie Banks, among many other SS.
Bill Dahlen is not known by very many "experts" who are more familiar with guys they saw on TV, or recently played in NYC.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>It may hurt a bit, when computations, permutations, and LH pitching in day games after the 6th inning, with a 4 run or better margin, can absolutely positively "PROVE" so and so is more qualified than such and such. ; >>
Jaxxr, if that is a criteria you wish to use to measure HOF players, more power to you...though it isn't going to measure anything accurate. You are probably better off to sticking to the valid measurements.
Everybody recognizes that there are candidates already enshrined into the Hall of Fame, while superior players from the same era are outside looking in...that isn't the point.
Nobody said there is only one way to measure HOF candidates...there are however HOF criteria in their guidelines, and this thread is about providing consistent and ACCURATE measurements to those official guidelines to all players...not just the players that were 'popular' for whatever reason(popularity is NOT a criterion).
As shown above, whether one looks at a peak, a small peak, large peak, or career total, one can make a case for various angles...but those must be applied to all players in question, not just a select few, and then ignore the others who did it better(but went unrecognized due to ignorance).
Some players who have been recently elected stick out like a sore thumb when compared to superior players who were among their peers(who are not in). With the amount of information from that era to see this, it is fairly easy to detect from this era, as opposed to 100 years ago.
Plus, most people know that many 'performances' in the early 1900's, when compared to more contemporary players, can be taken with a grain of salt.
<< <i>We've had the Bradshaw argument before. I'd just say this: Take Terry Bradshaw and Archie Manning. Swap them. Put Bradshaw on the woeful Saints who had no offensive line, no receivers, and no decent backs for most of the 70's. Take Archie and put him with the Steelers. For those of you too young to remember Archie, he was very similar to Steve Young. If Steve Young had stayed in Tampa, he'd have had Archie Manning's career. Do you really believe that the Steelers would not have been as good with a quarterback that had just as strong of an arm, was a better runner, and was more intelligent? Remember, in the 1974 Super Bowl season, Bradshaw was benched for Jefferson Street Joe Gilliam. That's how much confidence Chuck Noll had in Bradshaw. How would Bradshaw have fared in New Orleans? Let's just say it would not have resulted in him making the Hall of Fame. >>
I broke it down in another post somewhere on this board but, other than one year, Bradshaw's backups actually outperformed him on the field and had a better record than he did.
Looking at your sig line, it is pretty obvious you have a romanticism for the early 1900's...nobody is stopping you from promoting the virtues of those players....have at it.
We are talking more about the current guys because they are a little more relevant for Hall of Fame candidacy in the upcoming vote, and future votes.
No need to rehash the entire thread, but thats what it is.
Bradshaw was injured in 1976. True. But he was not injured in 1974 when Joe Gilliam started 6 games and Terry Hanratty started one for the Steelers. Take a look at the boxscores of the games from that season. Bradshaw was HORRIBLE!!! Not mediocre. Not bad. Horrible!!! And this wasn't his rookie season. He was a five year veteran. In 1973, he only started 9 games. It wasn't until after he had his robust 382 yard output in the 1974 playoffs that he secured the job (that's for 3 games, not one game). Look at the numbers Bradshaw won games with in 1974. The Steelers didn't win because of him, they won despite him!
That blacklabelsociety is a complete zealot. He will never recognize the FACT of what Bradshaw's teammates did for him, or the fact that his replacement Qb's did just as well in the W/L department, and the individual statistical department.
He will never recognize what Bradshaw's receivers did for his yard per completion percentage either...and this wasn't an improvement from a second year QB. We saw a vast improvement from a five year veteran starting QB...and the improvement was because of his teammates, not him.
They always point to the Super Bowls. Funny, I remember the Super Bowls of receivers making acrobatic catches, or running out ahead of the defenders....and the offensive line holding long enough for all this to happen. Yet Bradshaw gets ALL the credit. LOL!
And they only get to the Super Bowls because of the most important facet of their team...their defense.
Take away bradshaw, we saw his replacements do just as good.
Take away the defense and o-line, and keep Bradshaw...they dont' even get to a single super bowl...and we wouldn't have to hear all this nonsense garbage about rings and all this credit going solely to Bradshaw. How do I know this?? We saw what Bradshaw did with his teams that didn't have all that...they NEVER got to the Super Bowl.
The National Baseball Hall of "FAME", similar to a football, a rock and roll, or a wrestling hall of fame, is not a hall of merely statistical achievement or rank. Despite some foolish perceptions, popularity is obviously a large part of anyone's fame.
For whatever reason or cause, the very largest accumulator of base hits or maybe home runs will not automatically gain induction, however, the pantheon of players, managers, umpires, executives, and pioneers who have been enshrined in the Hall, will endure forever.
Among the stated purposes of the Hall, is to connect generations, and although some feel old-timers need to be taken with a grain of salt, that narrow mindset is not indicative of many actual official voters, and their realization that the game was played more than 100 years ago, still remains.
While some may actually have a "romantic" perception of many great old timers, is is not too difficult to realize Albert Pujols, has already out performed Jimmy Foxx, and likely may pass Lou Gehrig as the greatest firstbaseman of all time.
While not perfect, the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and Museum, is a wonderful place to visit, and a great discussion starter. Baseball's annual elections to it, are are likely intended to provoke commentary, discussions, and also even some complaints, as the concept of "fame" is not absolute, and varies considerably among us.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I don't believe the discussion here centers around the concept of the HOF per se, but where, by using advanced statistical analysis, certain players rank in terms of career performance after stripping away the subjectivity that personal perception affords. For better or worse (and by most advanced statistical analysis, it's worse), Jim Rice is in the HOF. Nothing anyone says will ever change that, but as baseball fans, we can certainly question or debate just how great Rice was (or wasn't). Such discussion and debate may even ultimately change the perception of the very voters who vote players in (or out) of the Hall, as the support Bert Blyleven has gained in recent years clearly seems to indicate.
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.
Jaxxr, you are incorrect, fame is not a criterion for election.
The poster Weinhold said it best..."Fame is not a criterion for Hall Of Fame entry. It is called a "Hall Of Fame" because inclusion helps ensure "fame" for the inductee."
That is probably the best clarification ever stated on these boards...of any topic. Props to Weinhold.
Weinhold isn't just guessing or assuming, because the Hall of Fame's own criteria is...
"Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
Edited to add: Another nice explanation by Grote above. If I could only learn the conciseness of the Weinhold and Grote posts, maybe I could make some headway.
Not the word "player's", and the apostrophe. That means his. It doesn't mean his teammates contribution, it doesn't mean his stadium's contribution, and it doesn't mean the contribution of the fan's faulty perceptions!
Whenver a fan gets mad when an advanced measurement shows the superiority of one player over another, they always pull out the popularity argument and such, yet that is not a criteria.
In fact, the 'player's record', 'playing ability', and 'contribution to the teams' are precisely what the advanced valid measurements are deciphering, and that is basically what the Hall of Fame is based on.
Integrity, Sportsmanship, and character are things that have not gotten a player into the Hall solely on those criteria...and lets face it, those criteria are a joke and have been treated by such based on the players who have been voted in and failed miserably in those categories. Plus, those things are almost impossible to truly assess, as it is just guess work, because there is no way one can truly know that about somebody whom they don't live daily with, i.e. the Puckett debacle.
It says right there....."player's contributions," not his TEAMMATES contributions. This is why RBI should not be the thing that should get guys into the Hall of Fame(like Jim Rice got in), because when you look at RIce's portion of those RBI contribution, it isn't as great as the raw total says, because his teammates and stadium were of great contribution to those totals. Unless one can show a player who had a marked level of improvement of hitting with men on base to get a greater number of RBI than others, then you can make a case. But one cannot look at the typical stuff fans look at if they want to figure out who should be in the Hall based on their criteria.
There is no formula, nor milestone number, nor complex calculation, which automatically allows HOF entrance. If one wishes to pretend popularity has no bearing whatsoever on the voters, that is a personal opinion. It is unfortunate, some may feel they are all-knowing and have the perfect, irrefutable method for measuring a professional baseball player's amount of fame, and may positively, with complete accuracy, compare it, in relation to others.
Chick Hafey, Harry Hooper, Andre Dawson, and message board favorite, Jim Rice, are all HOF outfielders, all worthy of discussion.
Rather than cry and moan about any perceived shortcomings therein, it might be nice and possibly refreshing to appreciate their accomplishments and contributions, despite their possible imperfect careers.
HOF conversation, whether positive or negative, does keep baseball popular in the minds of many fans, and with the ever increasing acceptance of alternate sports for America's interest, that conversation does help promote and maintain interest.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Popularity is NOT a criteria...and if a writer uses that as one, then they are not following the criterion.
The Hall of Fame's rules are not my opinion, it is their rules. Fame is NOT a criterion for election.
We all know that writers HAVE used popularity as a criterion...hence the induction of Jim Rice when there are vastly superior players from his own era who did not get voted in. This is part of the point in this thread. I don't know if you read all of it...I certainly am not going to re-write what is written above.
Not only have the writers used popularity, they have used ignorance as a criterion too...no need to go over that again.
You talk about not crying and moaning because lesser players have been voted in over superior ones, and respecting players accomplishments like Rice. No, I am not going to give any more credit to Rice, as he already got too much credit than what his play merited.
I am giving the credit to the guys who are getting NONE, and who were BETTER...guys very much deserving of equal or more praise than Rice. If you are so bent on making sure guys like Rice are getting credit, then take your own advice and stop taking offense when others ARE TRYING TO GET DESERVING PLAYERS CREDIT!
If your goal is bias, then I understrand where you are coming from. If your goal is fairness and truth seeking, then you are waaay off my friend.
It is about giving credit where credit is due!
And it isn't "possible" Rice had an imperfect career...he DID have an imperfect career...and there WERE players from his own era who were certainly better(that are not in).
The writers need to educate themselves more, plain and simple(as was talked about earlier in the thread).
" I am giving the credit to the guys who are getting NONE, and who were BETTER..."
Of course that is wrong,
anyone placed on the official HOF ballot for consideration has gotten SOME credit, by that fact in itself, and they often have support from a fan base who can recall seeing them play, unlike some old timers who have true verifiable WAR calculations, which greatly enhance their HOF worth, yet are missing the popularity or familiarity, of recent players.
The personal view or opinion, shown above, as to who was surely "BETTER", is another fine example of a perfect all-inclusive, 100% correct measurement of the precise amount of "fame"' required for HOF admission.
Your unhealthy obsession with Jim Rice being a properly elected HOF player, is kind of sad, nary a comment from you about other mentioned OFers, Chick Hafey or Harry Hooper, and very little about Andre Dawson, and their statistical contributions to MLB.
Might I respectfully suggest you spend a little time pondering the HOF merit of some other fine ballplayers, such as Waite Hoyt, Jesse Haines, Rick Ferrell, and certainly several others, rather than only speculating, adjusting, recalculating, and minimizing the performance of merely Jim Rice.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>Popularity is NOT a criteria...and if a writer uses that as one, then they are not following the criterion.
The Hall of Fame's rules are not my opinion, it is their rules. Fame is NOT a criterion for election. >>
Skin,
You keep saying this over and over but that doesn't mean it's fact.
From the criteria you posted:
<< <i>integrity, sportsmanship, character >>
While it does not explicitly say "fame" or "popularity", one could easily say they fall within the so-called rules. That's what happens when words can be broadly defined.
If a player was eligible only based upon statitics, then parameters can be clearly defined. Since they aren't, the voters are doing the correct thing based upon their interpretation of the rules.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
That is plausable, but is a bit of a stretch to say fame falls under integrity, sportsmanship, or character. You could probably stretch ANYTHING then to fall under that...but the more you do that, the more ridiculous and trivial the Hall becomes.
Jaxxr,
In the recent past, I focused much attention on Kirby Puckett being given unfair treatment over Fred Lynn.
I have spent plenty of time focusing on the myth of Jack Morris, promoting the likes of Dave Stieb.
In this thread, a whole bunch of players are presented, including Dawson...it just so happens that among all those presented that ARE in the Hall of Fame, that Rice is the worst one(and the one with the most NON Hall of famer that are superior to him).
So Jaxxr, once again you are incorrect in your assessments.
It is you who have only come to the threads where Jim Rice's name is mentioned, and then continue to post on and on as if he were your husband or something.
I don't think it is a stretch at all to consider "fame" as defined by sportsmanship, integrity and character. Those three words, to me, absolutely speak to the non-numerical criteria of induction to the HOF. Those that vote for the HOF do so while remembering whether that player was a gracious winner or a sore loser. They will remember if the player was thought to cork his bat or scuff the ball. They will remember if the player was a good citizen and did things to help the communities they played in or came from. These are not all necessary in order to be inducted into the HOF but they are certainly considered and should be.
I fail to understand why this is even being debated. Players whose sportsmanship, integrity, or character have been found to be so far lacking have been excluded from the HOF even though their statistical body of work should have made them mortal locks for induction. One need only look at Pete Rose for exhibit A and Shoeless Joe Jackson for exhibit B.
Please direct me to the official rules on CU message board post volume,
while I have no where near the quantity of your posts, nor the long winded stamina, I truly dont wish to be tiresome, and do assume you are not the only person, regardless of which username you currently choose to identify yourself as, who reads any of these comments, although, somewhat foolishly, you always must attempt to rebut most statements I offer.
While I am not completely sure of your exact personal opinion, I believe you are promoting the view, that Jim Rice is the single very most undeserving member of Baseball's HOF, if so, your method of fame calculation, is obviously, very poorly done.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I agree, if a player has all those positive attributes, great...but a guy like Rice isn't a guy known for possessing any of those in any manner above and beyond other players, and actually has been thought of as a kind of 'mean' or unkind guy. A case could be made to downgrade him based on those criteria.
Please direct me to the official rules on CU message board post volume,
while I have no where near the quantity of your posts, nor the long winded stamina, I truly dont wish to be tiresome, and do assume you are not the only person, regardless of which username you currently choose to identify yourself as, who reads any of these comments, although, somewhat foolishly, you always must attempt to rebut most statements I offer.
While I am not completely sure of your exact personal opinion, I believe you are promoting the view, that Jim Rice is the single very most undeserving member of Baseball's HOF, if so, your method of fame calculation, is obviously, very poorly done.
>>
Jaxxr, there are no rules as such on the CU board...I pointed out an error in your assessment that Jim Rice is my only 'target', but you just ignored that as usual. Is he your husband, that you must always come into debates that only involve him?
No, you are not sure of my view on who the worst HOFer is.
RIce is being debated about guys form his era, hence no use of previous era's. The evidence takes care of ANY idea on the worst HOFers from Rice's era...and the guys from his era who are better, and not in.
You take care of the foolishness yourself...kind of like your famous Kingman/Wagner method of evaluation that puts Kingman on par with Wagner. I will give you some credit that you didn't post those ridiculous Rice lists in this thread though.
So next time you use the phrase, "somewhat foolishly" go back and read your past methods
I'll just say this about Rice's "popularity" and what he was known for: the case could be made (and has been made, e.g. Shut Out: A Story of Race and Baseball in Boston ) that there was a great deal of racism in Boston during Rice's career and that very much crafted the public perception you mentioned.
Some of the writers may have hated him, but the guy was a hero. How many other players can say they actually saved someone's life during a major league baseball game? I'm not adding this comment as support for his induction, but merely as the flip side to the "mean and unkind" perception of him.
<< <i> I fail to understand why this is even being debated. Players whose sportsmanship, integrity, or character have been found to be so far lacking have been excluded from the HOF even though their statistical body of work should have made them mortal locks for induction. One need only look at Pete Rose for exhibit A and Shoeless Joe Jackson for exhibit B. >>
Well-said. Both were VERY popular players in their time, so this stretch to include all non-statistical measures under the "integrity, character, etc" umbrella doesn't hold water. Clearly those words were chosen SPECIFICALLY to keep "cheaters and low-lifes" (my hyperbolic term) out of the hall regardless of stats.
---------------------- Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989 ----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
By all accounts, Ty Cobb was most certainly a cheater and a low life (as well as a vile racist and in all probability a murderer, too), yet because he wasn't banned from the game at the time he became eligible for induction he is in the HOF...Similarly, if Rose and Jackson were eligible to be inducted, they'd be in the HOF, as well.
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.
"Kingman/Wagner method of evaluation that puts Kingman on par with Wagner "
I believe most everyone is aware YOU personally started that thread, and it can be dug up from the archives to prove it.
Your username at the time was Skinpitch, Skinpinch, Hoopster, or some other Sybil-like personality moniker, and it was easily seen you did not grasp the concept of comparing players from a similar time era and who may have played comparable positions on the defensive difficulty spectrum.
Nevertheless, I am sure you feel your evaluation methodology of "fame", is far superior to any others herein, and your personal opinions deserve much more acceptance than others as well.
I am am going to speculate that Jim Rice is far more interested, and appreciative of, in the views of his fans, his teammates, his peers, and the HOF voters, rather than the personal opinions of Hoopster, Skinpitch, Saberman, or whatever is the preferred name of the day.
Have a happy and safe new year's, and perhaps try a positive promotion, of say Bill Dahlen for the HOF, rather than continuous demeaning of existing members, regardless of their perceived inadequate amount of "FAME".
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>By all accounts, Ty Cobb was most certainly a cheater and a low life (as well as a vile racist and in all probability a murderer, too), yet because he wasn't banned from the game at the time he became eligible for induction he is in the HOF...Similarly, if Rose and Jackson were eligible to be inducted, they'd be in the HOF, as well. >>
I hate to be non-PC about this, but Cobb was a racist during a time in our country's history when being a racist was common and acceptable. Baseball itself was still an all-white sport.
And "if" Rose and Jackson were eligible to be inducted that would mean that they hadn't cheated in the game and I wouldn't have used them as examples. As I said in my post, as mere ball players they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Their off-the-field actions made them ineligible. Therefore, what you do as a person absolutely can have an effect on whether you get inducted into the Hall of Fame.
By all accounts, Ty Cobb was most certainly a cheater and a low life (as well as a vile racist and in all probability a murderer, too), yet because he wasn't banned from the game at the time he became eligible for induction he is in the HOF...Similarly, if Rose and Jackson were eligible to be inducted, they'd be in the HOF, as well. >>
I hate to be non-PC about this, but Cobb was a racist during a time in our country's history when being a racist was common and acceptable. Baseball itself was still an all-white sport.
And "if" Rose and Jackson were eligible to be inducted that would mean that they hadn't cheated in the game and I wouldn't have used them as examples. As I said in my post, as mere ball players they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Their off-the-field actions made them ineligible. Therefore, what you do as a person absolutely can have an effect on whether you get inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Racism in this country may have been common and acceptable as you stated, but there is no question that Cobb's behavior was far more vile and vicious than what was considered acceptable in general society during that time and no other player was as despised by even his own teammates as Cobb was.
Edit: I used the Jackson and Rose examples because those are the two players you mentioned before editing your post. To add another name to the mix: how about Barry Bonds? He most certainly cheated by using PEDs, yet he will be at least eligible for induction when his time comes barring any action by the commissioner to ban him in the interim. And by all accounts, if Rose had owned up to betting on baseball instead of denying it all those years, he'd most certainly be in the HOF today. So even the criteria by which a player is "banned" from the game or decreed ineligible for HOF induction is a very subjective one indeed, and as such should not to be taken at face value.
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>Racism in this country may have been common and acceptable as you stated, but there is no question that Cobb's behavior was far more vile and vicious than what was considered acceptable in general society during that time and no other player was as despised by even his own teammates as Cobb was. >>
In other words, Cobb was back then what A-Rod is today?
YOUR method of selective choice(and ignoring huge important factors) when comparing Rice to Murray, when transferred....made Kingman/Wagner comparable using your same method. Do you STILL not understand that whole thing? Really?
I don't care what Jim Rice is interested in. He has had enough luck go his way, and enough misguided accolades go his way, that he needs not another positive thing said about him.
It is the guys who were better than him, from his own era, that are NOT in the Hall, that deserve more praise.
You need to defend another player, rather than just Jim Rice.
P.S. There is no need to add another Pre War player into the Hall of Fame....I pass on trying to add another in Dahlen. For a change, why don't YOU do a study to make his case? Start a thread on it, and present it.
Comments
<< <i>.
That certainly sounds romantic and all, but certainly not an accurate or objective way to correctly measure a player's true greatness or ability...
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 totally follow what you presented in your arguments. I just have not done too much homework on Hernandez to make a solid evaluation when comparing him to his peers. I obviously lean towards his induction as the OPS+ and his defense are very good arguments along with all the accolades that lay baseball folks like.
Lou Gehrig played in an era where the numbers were inflated, aka "huge offensive era." Also, there were fewer players involved so he shone ever so brightly among his peers. Hernandez had more competition and played in a poor offensive era. We both see eye to eye on this. I think the argument for Hernandez is strong. McGwire, McGriff and Palmeiro hardly overlapped with Hernandez's career so comparing their OPS+ would not work even though we see he is behind them. It really does not reveal how great Hernandez was against his peers doing that comparison. It is safe to say he was better than Cecil Cooper, who was excellent in his own right, and Steve Garvey. John Olerud was an excellent first baseman, but he played in an era where offensive numbers were more inflated. Their OPS+ is a tie at 128, but Hernandez wins out on that because he played in an era where high numbers were difficult to achieve.
How about Mattingly and Hernandez? Their OPS+ is 128-127 with Hernandez the slight edge. Their careers overlapped some, but Mattingly continued to play more into the live ball era. Ironically, Mattingly's numbers slow down during the live ball era. Just based on OPS+, I would give Hernandez the clear edge. However, Mattingly's peak was convincingly more potent than Hernandez. That has to be worth something as well. Their defense is a wash as both were easily in the top 5 all time defense for first baseman.
I wonder what the OPS+ would be if 2 of the worst season for each player were taken out of the equation. Would Mattingly shine even more or would that be a wash too? Hernandez may have not hit many home runs, but because his OPS+ is so high in relative terms, it really does not matter. I suspect HOF voters did not take too kindly to him based on his homer output--which I think is very short sighted.
I think we can put both Hernandez and Mattingly in without diluting the HOF. Guys like Olerud, Cooper and Garvey would always be regarded as excellent and dependable players. I am kind of having trouble with Will Clark since I never expected his OPS+ to be so high. I really don't know where to place him.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I believe that a high peak does give a player more credence, especially if it is a six year stretch(which is a considerable peak).
Here are the best six consecutive years for the following gus in OPS+.
Pedro Guerrero 153
Singleton 150
Reggie SMith 149
Mattingly 147
Staub 147
Murphy 145
Cooper's 143
Parker 142
Hernandez 140
Lynn 139
Rice 139
Garvey 130
Another way to look at it is their best six years, regardless if they are consecutive.
This is where I agree with people in that there is more than one way to look at a player, and cases can be made.
THen you have the career measurement.
There is more than one measurement to look at too(but NOT RBI and such), that may shuffle those guys a little, but they will be relatively close still.
Guerrero has some seasons in there that are not full, so another measurement may be more telling(advanced measurement).
Some players can also put up six year peaks of other years in their careers.
Of course it does. The game of baseball belongs to the fans, not a spreadsheet. You've decided to boil down the game to a bunch of numbers. However, in your boiling process, you've also gotten rid of everything that makes people love baseball. Baseball is America's pastime, not some type of chore that requires weeks of statistical analysis on your laptop. Fans know which players make them love the game and which don't. Singleton and Raines clearly don't. Maybe create a separate "Hall of Statistical Acheivement", put it in the basement of some computer company, and it can be a place where all the baseball spreadsheet jockeys can pay homage to all of their "statistical giants" who the fans don't care about. But to equate the word "fame" with Singleton or Raines is a total joke.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>[q ] It doesn't matter how people felt, or what their perceptions were >>
Of course it does. The game of baseball belongs to the fans, not a spreadsheet. You've decided to boil down the game to a bunch of numbers. However, in your boiling process, you've also gotten rid of everything that makes people love baseball. Baseball is America's pastime, not some type of chore that requires weeks of statistical analysis on your laptop. Fans know which players make them love the game and which don't. Singleton and Raines clearly don't. Maybe create a separate "Hall of Statistical Acheivement", put it in the basement of some computer company, and it can be a place where all the baseball spreadsheet jockeys can pay homage to all of their "statistical giants" who the fans don't care about. But to equate the word "fame" with Singleton or Raines is a total joke. >>
Baseball is a pasttime, and if you want to decipher who the best players are, perceptions do nothing in that regard.
When deciding who belongs in the Hall of Fame, it is indeed the player's ability, record, and contributions that decide who goes in there(which ARE the Hall of Fame's criteria for election)...NOT the guys who make you feel the best.
Also their character, integrity, and sportsmanship are critereia...though that is a very grey area in determining...unlike the performance measurements which are very valid for baseball measurement.
Fame and popularity are NOT criteria for election.
We are not talking about how each player makes each person feels...that will vary widely depending on all sorts of things...none of which have anything to do with deciding which player is better, or more deserving of everlasting fame DUE TO THEIR ABILITIES.
The poster put it best above...a player does not make the Hall of Fame because they are famous....it is their ability that enshrines them into the hall to ensure their fame.
The only joke is the fact that you think it is a joke to compare two players who are equal or better than another...simply because you do not understand what constitutes a better baseball player.
P.S. Another joke is that Rice is often said(by the uninformed) to be the most dominant player in his prime from his era....yet there is a group of guys listed above who had better peaks(some FAR better)...and NONE of them are in the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>The only joke is the fact that you think it is a joke to compare two players who are equal or better than another...simply because you do not understand what constitutes a better baseball player. >>
I hear ya. I understand the advanced statistics that you use and I understand your viewpoint. Both are valid. And I admire that stat guys like you are really making an extreme attempt to be the most fair to the players invovled. Admirable goal. I'm just trying to make you realize that the game and the players that make it great cannot be determined by your spreadsheet and that popularity, as absurd as it may sound, is not something to be dismissed when evaluating how players impact the game. Try to think bigger picture about why baseball is great and why certain players make it great.
If your son in the 80's liked going to Busch Stadium because Ozzie did the backflips while running onto the field, then Ozzie has contributed, in a real way, to making the game great and making Busch Stadium (total dump) a cool place for your son to spend a Saturday. An intangible like this isn't included in your spreadsheet, yet it is a VERY real contribution that Ozzie made to the game of baseball. Ditto for Ripken's games played streak. Are those included in your formulas anywhere...I doubt it. I think your view of "contribution" to the game could be broadened a bit.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM 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>The only joke is the fact that you think it is a joke to compare two players who are equal or better than another...simply because you do not understand what constitutes a better baseball player. >>
I hear ya. I understand the advanced statistics that you use and I understand your viewpoint. Both are valid. And I admire that stat guys like you are really making an extreme attempt to be the most fair to the players invovled. Admirable goal. I'm just trying to make you realize that the game and the players that make it great cannot be determined by your spreadsheet and that popularity, as absurd as it may sound, is not something to be dismissed when evaluating how players impact the game. Try to think bigger picture about why baseball is great and why certain players make it great.
If your son in the 80's liked going to Busch Stadium because Ozzie did the backflips while running onto the field, then Ozzie has contributed, in a real way, to making the game great and making Busch Stadium (total dump) a cool place for your son to spend a Saturday. An intangible like this isn't included in your spreadsheet, yet it is a VERY real contribution that Ozzie made to the game of baseball. Ditto for Ripken's games played streak. Are those included in your formulas anywhere...I doubt it. I think your view of "contribution" to the game could be broadened a bit. >>
Mcadams,
Please understand that with me, it is a been there done that thing in regard to what you are talking about. I enjoy the Ken Burns films as much as the next guy, collecting cards as much as the next guy, and sitting in the bleachers in a meaningless game in September and just kicking back...
I know that game...but I'm into the other game too
But what we need to do is get back to the task on hand...
Of this list of the best six year run players, is there a way to make a strong case for ONE of these guys to be viewed ahead of the rest of the group to become a worthy Hall of Merit recipient. I use merit, because fame is not a crieteria, and this should be based on the true Hall of Fame criteria...NOT popularity, not perception...but real valid performances. Yes, character and such can be part of somebody's case(for or against)....just be fair and apply it to ALL members, not just your guy!
Pedro Guerrero 153
Singleton 150
Reggie SMith 149
Jack Clark 149
Foster 149
Mattingly 147
Staub 147
Murphy 145
Cooper's 143
Parker 142
Hernandez 140
Lynn 139
Dewey 139...seven year peak...just couldn't resist with the bookends from that seven year stretch.
Rice 139
Luzinski 139
Jack Clark 138....Yes, another entry as this is an entirely different six year period for him...the six years right before his top six year run above.
Hrbek 134
Horner 132
Cey 131
Downing 131
Ogilvie 131
Garvey 130
Darrell Evans 128
I know there are more guys to add to this group from this era, but this was off the top of my head. Feel free to add names to that group. I stuck mostly with guys who get consideration due primarily to their bat so it makes for an easier comparison(hence no grich or simmons on there). The only two on that list that spent time in a demanding defensive position were Lynn and Murphy.
If you got a guy on there...make his case. Use career measurements, peak(three year, or four year, or five year)...whatever you can do that makes him stand out above that crowd...but again, BE FAIR and apply the same method to all guys. And do not use measuements that are faulty like RBI(unless you take into consideration the amount of runners or show that the player hit better with men on), but again, be fair to all guys. DO NOT FORGET BALLPARK FACTORS! Anything that does not include this will make for an invalid case!
Is Rice's three year peak enough to stand out ahead of all the guys on that list? IS Mattingly's four year peak enough? Is Parker's longer career, coupled with his nice peak, coupled with his excellen men on base hitting enough? But do the drugs kill him in the character department? Get the idea?
I see that Mattingly ranks very high when making a bunch of 6-year peak comparisons with the OPS+. Keith Hernandez ranks below Mattingly and I wonder if it has to do with Hernandez playing more in the 70s? The 70s had anemic offensive numbers, but the 80s was a very competitive environment and much more difficult to stand out from the peers.
Is it fair to say that Mattingly had a more potent six year stretch than Hernandez?
Singleton and Reggie Smith also shine in that 6-year peak analysis. Now we have to wonder where they fit in.
Mattingly ranks above Jim Rice in that analysis, but again, I wonder if that is due to Rice having more years in the 70s.
I wonder where Olerud, Will Clark, McGriff, and Palmeiro would rank in that 6-year peak since those guys have to compete with Mattingly, more or less, when the HOF voters go back on the ballots.
Mattingly's OPS+ drops in the last 6 years of his career. However, I have seen statistics that when men are on base, Mattingly was still in the top 10 in Batting average. His seasons in 1992 and 1993 were actually very good. I just wonder how his batting average with runners in scoring position were in the last 6 years. It would reveal how valuable he was to the team and as a team mate. Since Mattingly was in the number 3 or number 5 hole, which are RBI positions in the batting order, his batting average with runners in scoring position is an important criteria to use for or even against him.
edit for clarity
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
1983...-3
43
57
44
36
17
1989....33
-9
-7
13
20
9
1995.....-20
Total 228.4
Note that those -20 and other negatives are not negatives, but rather are runs below league average player. League average is set at zero.
Hernandez
1975... -1.7 partial year
11
34
12
59
44
22
37
1983...-2.7
20
18
45
32
41
22
17
-0
1989.... -10
Total 382
I agree when people say, 'it depends how you look at them'...but that does not pertain to the measurements you use(unless you are using another advanced measurement...but NOT by using RBI).
Mattingly had a four yr consecutive peak of 180 runs above league average.
Hernandez's best was 162, and another one of 140. Neither of those can match Mattingly's brilliance in his consecutive prime. But....
If you took Hernandez's best four years regardless if they are consecutively, they total 189. So it does change depending how you look at it.
Mattingly certainly had a tale of two careers, Pre 1990, and 1990 onward.
I am going to add some Hall of Famers from that era for some context
Kingman best 4yr consecutive.........55
Kingman best 4yr Non consec..........86
Kingman career total.......................110
Don Mattingly best 4yr consecutive ....180
Don Mattingly best 4yr non consec......180
Don Mattingly Career total................228
K. Hernandez best 4 yr consecutive....160
K. Hernandez best 4 yr non consec.....189
K. Hernandez career total...................382
T. Raines best 4yr consecutive...........125
T. Raines best 4yr non consecu.........138
T. Raines career total........................363
J. Clark best 4yr consecutive............163
J. Clark best 4yr non consec.............188
J. Clark career total...........................415
P. Guerrero 4yr consecutive............179
P. Guerrero 4yr non consec.............203
P. Guerrero career total...................320
D. Murphy 4yr consecutive...............156
D. Murphy 4yr non consec................171
D. Murphy career total.....................258
Singleton 4 yr consecutive...............190
Singleton 4yr Not conseuctive..........190
Singleton career total.......................335
Garvey 4yr consecutive.....................148
Garvey 4 yr non consecutve..............175
Garvey career total............................294
Foster 4yr consecutive....................168
Foster 4yr non consecutive.............173
Foster career total...........................267
Luzinski 4yr consecutive..................180
Luzinski 4yr non consecutive...........180
Luzinsk career..................................273
Dawson best 4yr consecutive years....101
Dawson best 4yr non consec years.....101
Dawson career total........................... 254
Jim Rice best 4yr consecutive.............126
Jim Rice best 4yr non consec.............139
Jim Rice career total...........................190...If there were NO ballpark factor adjustment, Rice would be at 285 career total.
D. Winfield best 4yr consecutive........171
D. Winfield best 4 yr non consec.......203
D. Winfield career total.....................452
Eddie Murray best 4yr consecutive.....213
Eddie Murray best 4yr not consec......216
Eddie Murray career total...................510
George Brett best 4yr consecutive....163
George Brett best 4yr not consec.....228
George Brett career total..................498
Mike Schmidt best 4yr consecutive....169
Mike Schmidt best 4hr non consec.....209
Mike Schmidt career total...................560
Remember, these figures take into account how well they hit with men on base(hence Murray's dominance from '82-'85 when he had an unrivaled peak from that era), and why they are different than standard batter runs that don't look at base situation context(OPS+ does not look at base situation context either).
Olerud played in the live ball era, and this measurement, along with almost all measurements in the sabermetric community are not equiped to deal with those types of cross era comparsons(the memebers say the measurements are, but they are not....I have written on that before).
1) When looking how Jim Rice stacks up against several players from his own era(players who did NOT get voted into the Hall of Fame); that of all players to pick from that close call group, Jim Rice was among the worst choices. In no way does he stand above those guys in peak measurements, or career performances, and in fact, he is BEHIND many of those other players....yet he got in due to ignorance and misconceptions of a lot of people(which is all outlined throughout this thread).
2) The true Hall of Famers from that era who got voted in right after eligibility, all had something in common with each other, that the close call group did not. They all had consecutive peaks, and non consecutive peak years that were elite and as good or better than all the close call players(and in some cases MUCH better)....and they also added career totals that were noticeably better than the close calls.
It is this combination of peak dominance and career dominance that separates Murray, Brett, Schmidt, Winfield from that group of close calls...and in my opinion is what marks what a Hall of Famer should be, because there are just a scattered few that have been able to do that; while there are many who fall into that close call group...and to choose just one from that close call group makes it unjust to the others sitting there who are on equal footing, and are ignored.
If there were a player that clearly outshone the Murray, Brett, Schmidt group in peak dominance, and just blew them away...but had a short career(and obviously came up short in that regard), then they could say they stood out above everyone else and make a case...but no player did that, nor came close to.
I will add that this is only a measure of hitting ability from corner type players. There are other aspects that can vault a player into that true HOF group...aspects as obvious as defense, defensive positions, and baserunning ability.
Then there are the other HOF criterion, such as character, integrity, and sportsmanship...and sadly, guys like Tim Raines and Dave Parker who chose to do illegal drugs, may have put a possible HOF enshrinment in jeopordy due to a clear and significant violation of the Hall's criteria.
His rate numbers like OPS+ need to be compared to the hitters of the live ball era....when that is done, his candidacy is not as good as one might think. It may be more like Keith Hernandez compared to the elite of his era. Add in that he lied in congress, and took PED's, and lied more, add the reaction of past teammates like Will Clark...he fails miserably in character, integrity, and sportsmanship. Combine that with a borderline candidacy when measured vs his peers, he doesn't deserve it.
Bonds is so far ahead of his peers, it is beyond ridiculous on how much better he was. Only two players are in the realm of his in terms of separation from his peers...Ruth and Williams. So, how one wants to treat his character, integrity, and sportsmanship, it can be reasonable to still elect him....kind of like Cobb's character not being enough to knock his greatness out of Hall of Merit.
McGwire is better than when people think he is just a one dimensional player. He is actually a two dimensional hitter...getting on base, and advancing base runners efficiently....two pretty good dimensions to shine at
Here are the Situational Batter Runs for McGwire and Palmeiro. Pleae note that these are not totally comparable to guys in other eras....
McGwire best 4 yr consecutive..........255
McGwire best 4yr non consecu.........288
McGwire career................................597
Palmeiro best 4yr consecutive..........180
Palmeiro best 4yr non consecutive....190
Palmeiro career.................................468
Bonds best 4yr consecutive...........447......No, this is not a misrpint.
Bonds best 4yr non consecutive....463.......again, not a misprint
Bonds career..................................1,350............I estimated his 2005-2007 years as the data is not computed for those years.
The all time single season record for OPS+ is 268 by Bonds
The second best all time for OPS+ is 263 by Bonds
The third best all time for OPS+ is 259 by BOnds
The fourth best all time(20th century and on) for OPS+ is 255 by Ruth
I don't know what to make of the steroid issue...but being that Bonds and all the other hitters of the time were also on them, and he did that....it is pretty remarkable.
FOr me personally, Bonds would have to be a murderer or child molester, or something else bad and harmful to innocent others, to put enough character issues to overshadow the on field stuff.
I dont think what he actually did is bad enough, IMO.
<< <i>.kind of like Cobb's character not being enough to knock his greatness out of Hall of Merit >>
Hi Skip
I find it funny you (of all people) would make that statement.
Shouldn't the era in which these two were eligible be considered?
The norms, mores, values, traditions, and beliefs of the electorate and country
as a whole were a lot different in the 30's than they are today.
lol, or was it inferred in your post?
Hope you have a Happy Holiday and New Year.
Steve
I am still trying to figure out how to deal with the steroid mess, so it is sort of a work in progress on any answers I give on that.
What you say about Cobb is true.
Though he did things like the so called killing of a man(which I don't know how much is really true)...but stuff in that realm isn't an isolated incident. Also, a lot of people just thought his character was overall bad, and hated him just for that.
If any of that makes sense.
I want to add one more thing for Tim Raines. His stolen bases netted him an extra 90 runs of 'hitting value' on top of his career total.
Also forgot to add Dawson's totals...
Dawson best 4yr consecutive years....101
Dawson best 4yr non consec years.....101
Dawson career total........................... 254
I edited and added Bonds above vs Palmeiro and McGwire.
<< <i>We've had the Bradshaw argument before. I'd just say this: Take Terry Bradshaw and Archie Manning. Swap them. Put Bradshaw on the woeful Saints who had no offensive line, no receivers, and no decent backs for most of the 70's. Take Archie and put him with the Steelers. For those of you too young to remember Archie, he was very similar to Steve Young. If Steve Young had stayed in Tampa, he'd have had Archie Manning's career. Do you really believe that the Steelers would not have been as good with a quarterback that had just as strong of an arm, was a better runner, and was more intelligent? Remember, in the 1974 Super Bowl season, Bradshaw was benched for Jefferson Street Joe Gilliam. That's how much confidence Chuck Noll had in Bradshaw. How would Bradshaw have fared in New Orleans? Let's just say it would not have resulted in him making the Hall of Fame. >>
I broke it down in another post somewhere on this board but, other than one year, Bradshaw's backups actually outperformed him on the field and had a better record than he did.
Tabe
Singleton OPS +132
Rice OPS+ 128
Mattingly OPS+ 127
Dawson OPS+ 119
Mattingly and Singleton are way ahead of Dawson and Rice in situational batter runs adjusted for ballpark.
Rice edges Mattingly on the OPS+, but Singleton is above all.
Two advanced measurements here, yet Dawson fails and Rice does not convince. Whatever loss Mattingly has to Rice in OPS+ he far makes up for it with his superior situational batter runs.
You can't put in Dawson and Rice and ignore Singleton and Mattingly, and especially Pedro Guerrero.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Despite any calculations, opinions, spreadsheets, understanding of Total bases, love for MVP awards, or a number of statistical gyrations, there are some "marginal" or borderline players in the Hall.
It may hurt a bit, when computations, permutations, and LH pitching in day games after the 6th inning, with a 4 run or better margin, can absolutely positively "PROVE" so and so is more qualified than such and such.
Nevertheless, the HOF still contains truly outstanding players, and despite the shortcomings , real or merely perceived, for Chick Hafey, Harry Hooper, Jim Rice, and Andre Dawson, they are, forever more, official members of the HOF,
and they shall remain, whether Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Mark McGwire, or Tim Raines ever gets in or not.
It always surprises me, those who claim some innate knowledge of THE only proper way to evaluate players for HOf consideration, have short memory spans, and can only pontificate on fairly recent players.
A fine, somewhat recent measure, WAR, wins above replacement, calculates many offensive stats, base running and defense as well, and compares players to those of their time era.
Via WAR calculations, shortstop Bill Dahlen is the 42 nd best player in the entire history of MLB.
Dahlen is the computed to be the 4th best MLB SS ever.
His total WAR of 75.9 ranks him above, Reggie Jackson, Brooks Robinson and Eddie Murray among many other current HOFers.
He is above Arky Vaughn, Barry Larkin, Luke Appling, PeeWee Reese, Louie Aparicio, Lou Boudreau, Phil Rizzuto, Ozzie Smith, and Ernie Banks, among many other SS.
Bill Dahlen is not known by very many "experts" who are more familiar with guys they saw on TV, or recently played in NYC.
<< <i>It may hurt a bit, when computations, permutations, and LH pitching in day games after the 6th inning, with a 4 run or better margin, can absolutely positively "PROVE" so and so is more qualified than such and such.
; >>
Jaxxr, if that is a criteria you wish to use to measure HOF players, more power to you...though it isn't going to measure anything accurate. You are probably better off to sticking to the valid measurements.
Everybody recognizes that there are candidates already enshrined into the Hall of Fame, while superior players from the same era are outside looking in...that isn't the point.
Nobody said there is only one way to measure HOF candidates...there are however HOF criteria in their guidelines, and this thread is about providing consistent and ACCURATE measurements to those official guidelines to all players...not just the players that were 'popular' for whatever reason(popularity is NOT a criterion).
As shown above, whether one looks at a peak, a small peak, large peak, or career total, one can make a case for various angles...but those must be applied to all players in question, not just a select few, and then ignore the others who did it better(but went unrecognized due to ignorance).
Some players who have been recently elected stick out like a sore thumb when compared to superior players who were among their peers(who are not in). With the amount of information from that era to see this, it is fairly easy to detect from this era, as opposed to 100 years ago.
Plus, most people know that many 'performances' in the early 1900's, when compared to more contemporary players, can be taken with a grain of salt.
<< <i>
<< <i>We've had the Bradshaw argument before. I'd just say this: Take Terry Bradshaw and Archie Manning. Swap them. Put Bradshaw on the woeful Saints who had no offensive line, no receivers, and no decent backs for most of the 70's. Take Archie and put him with the Steelers. For those of you too young to remember Archie, he was very similar to Steve Young. If Steve Young had stayed in Tampa, he'd have had Archie Manning's career. Do you really believe that the Steelers would not have been as good with a quarterback that had just as strong of an arm, was a better runner, and was more intelligent? Remember, in the 1974 Super Bowl season, Bradshaw was benched for Jefferson Street Joe Gilliam. That's how much confidence Chuck Noll had in Bradshaw. How would Bradshaw have fared in New Orleans? Let's just say it would not have resulted in him making the Hall of Fame. >>
I broke it down in another post somewhere on this board but, other than one year, Bradshaw's backups actually outperformed him on the field and had a better record than he did.
Tabe >>
So?
He was injured.
Also,
Looking at your sig line, it is pretty obvious you have a romanticism for the early 1900's...nobody is stopping you from promoting the virtues of those players....have at it.
We are talking more about the current guys because they are a little more relevant for Hall of Fame candidacy in the upcoming vote, and future votes.
No need to rehash the entire thread, but thats what it is.
That blacklabelsociety is a complete zealot. He will never recognize the FACT of what Bradshaw's teammates did for him, or the fact that his replacement Qb's did just as well in the W/L department, and the individual statistical department.
He will never recognize what Bradshaw's receivers did for his yard per completion percentage either...and this wasn't an improvement from a second year QB. We saw a vast improvement from a five year veteran starting QB...and the improvement was because of his teammates, not him.
They always point to the Super Bowls. Funny, I remember the Super Bowls of receivers making acrobatic catches, or running out ahead of the defenders....and the offensive line holding long enough for all this to happen. Yet Bradshaw gets ALL the credit. LOL!
And they only get to the Super Bowls because of the most important facet of their team...their defense.
Take away bradshaw, we saw his replacements do just as good.
Take away the defense and o-line, and keep Bradshaw...they dont' even get to a single super bowl...and we wouldn't have to hear all this nonsense garbage about rings and all this credit going solely to Bradshaw. How do I know this?? We saw what Bradshaw did with his teams that didn't have all that...they NEVER got to the Super Bowl.
<< <i>So?
He was injured. >>
So the team performs better when Bradshaw is injured? Kinda makes my case for me, don't it?
Tabe
similar to a football, a rock and roll, or a wrestling hall of fame, is not a hall of merely statistical achievement or rank.
Despite some foolish perceptions, popularity is obviously a large part of anyone's fame.
For whatever reason or cause, the very largest accumulator of base hits or maybe home runs will not automatically gain induction,
however, the pantheon of players, managers, umpires, executives, and pioneers who have been enshrined in the Hall, will endure forever.
Among the stated purposes of the Hall, is to connect generations, and although some feel old-timers need to be taken with a grain of salt, that narrow mindset is not indicative of many actual official voters, and their realization that the game was played more than 100 years ago, still remains.
While some may actually have a "romantic" perception of many great old timers, is is not too difficult to realize Albert Pujols, has already out performed Jimmy Foxx, and likely may pass Lou Gehrig as the greatest firstbaseman of all time.
While not perfect, the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and Museum, is a wonderful place to visit, and a great discussion starter.
Baseball's annual elections to it, are are likely intended to provoke commentary, discussions, and also even some complaints, as the concept of "fame" is not absolute, and varies considerably among us.
I don't believe the discussion here centers around the concept of the HOF per se, but where, by using advanced statistical analysis, certain players rank in terms of career performance after stripping away the subjectivity that personal perception affords. For better or worse (and by most advanced statistical analysis, it's worse), Jim Rice is in the HOF. Nothing anyone says will ever change that, but as baseball fans, we can certainly question or debate just how great Rice was (or wasn't). Such discussion and debate may even ultimately change the perception of the very voters who vote players in (or out) of the Hall, as the support Bert Blyleven has gained in recent years clearly seems to indicate.
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 poster Weinhold said it best..."Fame is not a criterion for Hall Of Fame entry. It is called a "Hall Of Fame" because inclusion helps ensure "fame" for the inductee."
That is probably the best clarification ever stated on these boards...of any topic. Props to Weinhold.
Weinhold isn't just guessing or assuming, because the Hall of Fame's own criteria is...
"Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
Edited to add: Another nice explanation by Grote above. If I could only learn the conciseness of the Weinhold and Grote posts, maybe I could make some headway.
Not the word "player's", and the apostrophe. That means his. It doesn't mean his teammates contribution, it doesn't mean his stadium's contribution, and it doesn't mean the contribution of the fan's faulty perceptions!
Whenver a fan gets mad when an advanced measurement shows the superiority of one player over another, they always pull out the popularity argument and such, yet that is not a criteria.
In fact, the 'player's record', 'playing ability', and 'contribution to the teams' are precisely what the advanced valid measurements are deciphering, and that is basically what the Hall of Fame is based on.
Integrity, Sportsmanship, and character are things that have not gotten a player into the Hall solely on those criteria...and lets face it, those criteria are a joke and have been treated by such based on the players who have been voted in and failed miserably in those categories. Plus, those things are almost impossible to truly assess, as it is just guess work, because there is no way one can truly know that about somebody whom they don't live daily with, i.e. the Puckett debacle.
It says right there....."player's contributions," not his TEAMMATES contributions. This is why RBI should not be the thing that should get guys into the Hall of Fame(like Jim Rice got in), because when you look at RIce's portion of those RBI contribution, it isn't as great as the raw total says, because his teammates and stadium were of great contribution to those totals. Unless one can show a player who had a marked level of improvement of hitting with men on base to get a greater number of RBI than others, then you can make a case. But one cannot look at the typical stuff fans look at if they want to figure out who should be in the Hall based on their criteria.
If one wishes to pretend popularity has no bearing whatsoever on the voters, that is a personal opinion.
It is unfortunate, some may feel they are all-knowing and have the perfect, irrefutable method for measuring a professional baseball player's amount of fame, and may positively, with complete accuracy, compare it, in relation to others.
Chick Hafey, Harry Hooper, Andre Dawson, and message board favorite, Jim Rice, are all HOF outfielders, all worthy of discussion.
Rather than cry and moan about any perceived shortcomings therein, it might be nice and possibly refreshing to appreciate their accomplishments and contributions, despite their possible imperfect careers.
HOF conversation, whether positive or negative, does keep baseball popular in the minds of many fans, and with the ever increasing acceptance of alternate sports for America's interest, that conversation does help promote and maintain interest.
Popularity is NOT a criteria...and if a writer uses that as one, then they are not following the criterion.
The Hall of Fame's rules are not my opinion, it is their rules. Fame is NOT a criterion for election.
We all know that writers HAVE used popularity as a criterion...hence the induction of Jim Rice when there are vastly superior players from his own era who did not get voted in. This is part of the point in this thread. I don't know if you read all of it...I certainly am not going to re-write what is written above.
Not only have the writers used popularity, they have used ignorance as a criterion too...no need to go over that again.
You talk about not crying and moaning because lesser players have been voted in over superior ones, and respecting players accomplishments like Rice. No, I am not going to give any more credit to Rice, as he already got too much credit than what his play merited.
I am giving the credit to the guys who are getting NONE, and who were BETTER...guys very much deserving of equal or more praise than Rice. If you are so bent on making sure guys like Rice are getting credit, then take your own advice and stop taking offense when others ARE TRYING TO GET DESERVING PLAYERS CREDIT!
If your goal is bias, then I understrand where you are coming from. If your goal is fairness and truth seeking, then you are waaay off my friend.
It is about giving credit where credit is due!
And it isn't "possible" Rice had an imperfect career...he DID have an imperfect career...and there WERE players from his own era who were certainly better(that are not in).
The writers need to educate themselves more, plain and simple(as was talked about earlier in the thread).
Of course that is wrong,
anyone placed on the official HOF ballot for consideration has gotten SOME credit, by that fact in itself,
and they often have support from a fan base who can recall seeing them play, unlike some old timers who have true verifiable WAR calculations, which greatly enhance their HOF worth, yet are missing the popularity or familiarity, of recent players.
The personal view or opinion, shown above, as to who was surely "BETTER", is another fine example of a perfect all-inclusive, 100% correct measurement of the precise amount of "fame"' required for HOF admission.
Your unhealthy obsession with Jim Rice being a properly elected HOF player, is kind of sad, nary a comment from you about other mentioned OFers, Chick Hafey or Harry Hooper, and very little about Andre Dawson, and their statistical contributions to MLB.
Might I respectfully suggest you spend a little time pondering the HOF merit of some other fine ballplayers, such as Waite Hoyt, Jesse Haines, Rick Ferrell, and certainly several others, rather than only speculating, adjusting, recalculating, and minimizing the performance of merely Jim Rice.
<< <i>Popularity is NOT a criteria...and if a writer uses that as one, then they are not following the criterion.
The Hall of Fame's rules are not my opinion, it is their rules. Fame is NOT a criterion for election. >>
Skin,
You keep saying this over and over but that doesn't mean it's fact.
From the criteria you posted:
<< <i>integrity, sportsmanship, character >>
While it does not explicitly say "fame" or "popularity", one could easily say they fall within the so-called rules. That's what happens when words can be broadly defined.
If a player was eligible only based upon statitics, then parameters can be clearly defined. Since they aren't, the voters are doing the correct thing based upon their interpretation of the rules.
That is plausable, but is a bit of a stretch to say fame falls under integrity, sportsmanship, or character. You could probably stretch ANYTHING then to fall under that...but the more you do that, the more ridiculous and trivial the Hall becomes.
Jaxxr,
In the recent past, I focused much attention on Kirby Puckett being given unfair treatment over Fred Lynn.
I have spent plenty of time focusing on the myth of Jack Morris, promoting the likes of Dave Stieb.
In this thread, a whole bunch of players are presented, including Dawson...it just so happens that among all those presented that ARE in the Hall of Fame, that Rice is the worst one(and the one with the most NON Hall of famer that are superior to him).
So Jaxxr, once again you are incorrect in your assessments.
It is you who have only come to the threads where Jim Rice's name is mentioned, and then continue to post on and on as if he were your husband or something.
I fail to understand why this is even being debated. Players whose sportsmanship, integrity, or character have been found to be so far lacking have been excluded from the HOF even though their statistical body of work should have made them mortal locks for induction. One need only look at Pete Rose for exhibit A and Shoeless Joe Jackson for exhibit B.
Please direct me to the official rules on CU message board post volume,
while I have no where near the quantity of your posts, nor the long winded stamina, I truly dont wish to be tiresome,
and do assume you are not the only person, regardless of which username you currently choose to identify yourself as, who reads any of these comments, although, somewhat foolishly, you always must attempt to rebut most statements I offer.
While I am not completely sure of your exact personal opinion, I believe you are promoting the view, that Jim Rice is the single very most undeserving member of Baseball's HOF, if so, your method of fame calculation, is obviously, very poorly done.
I agree, if a player has all those positive attributes, great...but a guy like Rice isn't a guy known for possessing any of those in any manner above and beyond other players, and actually has been thought of as a kind of 'mean' or unkind guy. A case could be made to downgrade him based on those criteria.
<< <i>"and then continue to post on and on."
Please direct me to the official rules on CU message board post volume,
while I have no where near the quantity of your posts, nor the long winded stamina, I truly dont wish to be tiresome,
and do assume you are not the only person, regardless of which username you currently choose to identify yourself as, who reads any of these comments, although, somewhat foolishly, you always must attempt to rebut most statements I offer.
While I am not completely sure of your exact personal opinion, I believe you are promoting the view, that Jim Rice is the single very most undeserving member of Baseball's HOF, if so, your method of fame calculation, is obviously, very poorly done.
Jaxxr, there are no rules as such on the CU board...I pointed out an error in your assessment that Jim Rice is my only 'target', but you just ignored that as usual. Is he your husband, that you must always come into debates that only involve him?
No, you are not sure of my view on who the worst HOFer is.
RIce is being debated about guys form his era, hence no use of previous era's. The evidence takes care of ANY idea on the worst HOFers from Rice's era...and the guys from his era who are better, and not in.
You take care of the foolishness yourself...kind of like your famous Kingman/Wagner method of evaluation that puts Kingman on par with Wagner. I will give you some credit that you didn't post those ridiculous Rice lists in this thread though.
So next time you use the phrase, "somewhat foolishly" go back and read your past methods
Some of the writers may have hated him, but the guy was a hero. How many other players can say they actually saved someone's life during a major league baseball game? I'm not adding this comment as support for his induction, but merely as the flip side to the "mean and unkind" perception of him.
<< <i>
I fail to understand why this is even being debated. Players whose sportsmanship, integrity, or character have been found to be so far lacking have been excluded from the HOF even though their statistical body of work should have made them mortal locks for induction. One need only look at Pete Rose for exhibit A and Shoeless Joe Jackson for exhibit B. >>
Well-said. Both were VERY popular players in their time, so this stretch to include all non-statistical measures under the "integrity, character, etc" umbrella doesn't hold water. Clearly those words were chosen SPECIFICALLY to keep "cheaters and low-lifes" (my hyperbolic term) out of the hall regardless of stats.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
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 believe most everyone is aware YOU personally started that thread, and it can be dug up from the archives to prove it.
Your username at the time was Skinpitch, Skinpinch, Hoopster, or some other Sybil-like personality moniker,
and it was easily seen you did not grasp the concept of comparing players from a similar time era and who may have played comparable positions on the defensive difficulty spectrum.
Nevertheless, I am sure you feel your evaluation methodology of "fame", is far superior to any others herein, and your personal opinions deserve much more acceptance than others as well.
I am am going to speculate that Jim Rice is far more interested, and appreciative of, in the views of his fans, his teammates, his peers, and the HOF voters, rather than the personal opinions of Hoopster, Skinpitch, Saberman, or whatever is the preferred name of the day.
Have a happy and safe new year's, and perhaps try a positive promotion, of say Bill Dahlen for the HOF, rather than continuous demeaning of existing members, regardless of their perceived inadequate amount of "FAME".
<< <i>By all accounts, Ty Cobb was most certainly a cheater and a low life (as well as a vile racist and in all probability a murderer, too), yet because he wasn't banned from the game at the time he became eligible for induction he is in the HOF...Similarly, if Rose and Jackson were eligible to be inducted, they'd be in the HOF, as well. >>
I hate to be non-PC about this, but Cobb was a racist during a time in our country's history when being a racist was common and acceptable. Baseball itself was still an all-white sport.
And "if" Rose and Jackson were eligible to be inducted that would mean that they hadn't cheated in the game and I wouldn't have used them as examples. As I said in my post, as mere ball players they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Their off-the-field actions made them ineligible. Therefore, what you do as a person absolutely can have an effect on whether you get inducted into the Hall of Fame.
I hate to be non-PC about this, but Cobb was a racist during a time in our country's history when being a racist was common and acceptable. Baseball itself was still an all-white sport.
And "if" Rose and Jackson were eligible to be inducted that would mean that they hadn't cheated in the game and I wouldn't have used them as examples. As I said in my post, as mere ball players they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Their off-the-field actions made them ineligible. Therefore, what you do as a person absolutely can have an effect on whether you get inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Racism in this country may have been common and acceptable as you stated, but there is no question that Cobb's behavior was far more vile and vicious than what was considered acceptable in general society during that time and no other player was as despised by even his own teammates as Cobb was.
Edit: I used the Jackson and Rose examples because those are the two players you mentioned before editing your post. To add another name to the mix: how about Barry Bonds? He most certainly cheated by using PEDs, yet he will be at least eligible for induction when his time comes barring any action by the commissioner to ban him in the interim. And by all accounts, if Rose had owned up to betting on baseball instead of denying it all those years, he'd most certainly be in the HOF today. So even the criteria by which a player is "banned" from the game or decreed ineligible for HOF induction is a very subjective one indeed, and as such should not to be taken at face value.
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>Racism in this country may have been common and acceptable as you stated, but there is no question that Cobb's behavior was far more vile and vicious than what was considered acceptable in general society during that time and no other player was as despised by even his own teammates as Cobb was. >>
In other words, Cobb was back then what A-Rod is today?
YOUR method of selective choice(and ignoring huge important factors) when comparing Rice to Murray, when transferred....made Kingman/Wagner comparable using your same method. Do you STILL not understand that whole thing? Really?
I don't care what Jim Rice is interested in. He has had enough luck go his way, and enough misguided accolades go his way, that he needs not another positive thing said about him.
It is the guys who were better than him, from his own era, that are NOT in the Hall, that deserve more praise.
You need to defend another player, rather than just Jim Rice.
P.S. There is no need to add another Pre War player into the Hall of Fame....I pass on trying to add another in Dahlen. For a change, why don't YOU do a study to make his case? Start a thread on it, and present it.