Options
OK, so who is a lock to make the HOF?
mvs7
Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Current players. I'll start with two obvious choices:
Kershaw - even with some trouble in playoff starts (esp. against St. Louis), he'd get in because his career ERA and WHIP are the lowest among starters in the live-ball era. Also 3 Cy Youngs and and an NL MVP.
Pujols - 10-time All-Star, 3-time NL MVP, and a whole lot of hitting awards over the years.
1
Comments
Miggie is a mortal lock
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Verlander if he keeps Kate around.
Probably Ichiro too now that he's over 3,000 hits in MLB.
Trout is well on his way to being a first ballot HOFer.
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.
Max Scherzer. He's got the resume people THINK Verlander has.
Max with his now 3 CY is well headed to the hall.
Altuve is starting a decent resume.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I would like to ask a better question --- When the voters select someone for the MLB HOF on a unanimous vote??
Maybe Mike Trout.
Problem is there are voters who always pass players on their first attempt just to make sure no one gets in unanimously.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
sadly, it will probably take the deaths of some old time sportswriters to get a unanimous vote.
I"m not sure what this means; their HOF credentials are about the same, and they're each very comparable to Roy Halladay, Mike Mussina and Dave Stieb. Kershaw is clearly head and shoulders better than all of them, and he'll sail in on the first ballot. I have given up trying to figure out what HOF voters look for beyond the obvious picks like Kershaw, and if they were to pluck Scherzer, for example, at random out of this group and put him in the HOF while excluding the others it would make no sense at all. Much of what they do makes no sense at all.
I agree, by the way, with all of the other locks mentioned in the thread. I think Molina is also a lock.
What it means is Verlander is hyped as a top 2 or 3 pitcher but Max is the one with 3 Cy Young awards. Max is the one with 5 straight top 5 CYA finishes. Max is the one who hasn't had multiple terrible half (or full) seasons after becoming elite.
Molina is a lock.
As for Scherzer he's won 141 games and lost 75. Verlander 188-114. Velander has 2400 k's as to Max's 2100+. Max has a much better K rate. Their ERA's are close with Scherzer A tad lower. I worry about Max's longevity. If he pitches another 5 years he is in great shape. Verlander is probably good for another 60-75 wins. That and 3000 K puts him in.
Verlander, Halladay and Mussina have similiar stats at this point in Justin's career. Greinke as well.
The last 6 years or so Scherzer has been the most dominate right hander in baseball.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Just curious
Why do u think Molina is a lock?
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Molina is a lock? Is there another Molina we don't know about?
Molina lifetime OPS+ is 98. He throws out 41% of baserunners. Nothing there speaks hall of fame. I guess he is your Bill Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith of catchers...which means the guy with the most holds should also be in the HOF, the best pinch runner, and the best pinch hitter. Why not add the best left handed specialist.
Who is to say he is even best at throwing runners out? Campanella threw out 57% of runners compared to league average of 42%.
Molina throws out 41% of runners compared to league average of 28%.
Please note that I let Ichiro pass without comment other than to agree that he is a lock. As Clint Eastwood so memorably said "deseve has nothing to do with it". Which is to say that based on what I hear and read, Molina is a lock, same as Ichiro. Neither one deserves it.
All that said, I do put Molina in the group of players whose possible induction doesn't really bother me. Part of it is the Mazeroski element, part of it is the deserved fame he has for his lengthy highlight reel of plays, and part of it is the "face of the team" respect he has earned. As a Cardinal fan, I'll cheer when he makes it; as a stat geek, I'll shrug my shoulders - not a great pick, but a whole lot more deserving than Jim Rice or Bruce Sutter, and this is just the kind of thing that happens when you lower the bar that far.
And to be fair, skin, pointing out that Molina beat league average by 46% while Campy beat league average by 36% is a point for Molina, not Campy. Is Molina the greatest catcher ever? I don't know; nobody knows. But he is indisputably great, and without a doubt the greatest of his time. But it's not the caught stealing that made him a lock, it's the pickoffs. I won't argue, because it would be a lie, that they mean much of anything because they happen so infrequently, but Molina does pick off baserunners far more often than anyone else (maybe ever) and every time he does it makes Sports Center and there's a video on Facebook. He's famous for being great at something. That "something" isn't the most impressive thing, but it is something. That's why he's a lock, and that's why it doesn't bother me, despite his rather anemic hitting.
@dallasactuary With regard to Ichiro, I think he has a few things going for him other than his longevity getting him to 3,000 hits. By way of background, I am a lifelong Dodger fan who grew up in LA, but since 2000 I have lived in Seattle, so was able to see the impact he had on the Mariners from the time he arrived in 2001. Back in the late oughts, say 2008, Seattle fans started talking about the chances Ichiro had of getting to the Hall. He was approaching 3,000 hits (roughly half in MLB and half in Japan previously). Most people looking at it objectively said "no," you cannot consider non-MLB stats when deciding if he should be in the Hall. He needed to do more just in MLB. At the time, the most impressive stat for me was the consistency of ten straight 200 hit seasons, including 262 hits in 2004, the MLB record for hits in a season. I didn't think that was enough to get in though, but if he got closer to 3,000 MLB-only hits, he might have a chance. I've always thought of Ichiro as a great four-tool player. Can't hit for power, but average, fielding, throwing, and speed were all there. He led the Mariners in outfield assists most of his years there. He had more infield singles than anyone in MLB and stole a lot of bases in those early years.
So, throw out the Japan stuff (7x batting champ, 7x All Star, Hall of Fame). As of now in MLB, he's over 3,000 hits and over 500 stolen bases, has the record for most consecutive seasons with 200 hits (10) and the record for most hits in a season (262), 10x All Star, 1x MVP, 10x gold gloves, 2x AL batting champ. So, yeah, he's a lock. Why do you think he doesn't "deserve" admittance to the Hall?
Ichiro has been a below average player since 2010. I don't believe stats in Japan should even be relevant to his MLB HOF resume.
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.
Yeah, but look at his stats from 2001-2010 in MLB. The whole peak years thing.
He's a lock.......singles hitter and all
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
10 straight years of 200+ hits. Over 3,000 hits in MLB plus the other accomplishments mentioned. Sounds like a solid first ballot HOFer to me.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
He exceeded OPS+ of 120 4 times in his career, peak and all and his best OPS+ total was 130 during that time. Yes, he has all the singles, and people are seduced by all the hits (the majority of which were singles, and many of those infield hits, for that matter), but his career OBP% of .350 is not very good for a hitter who had almost no power, especially for a corner outfielder.
Compare his stats with Tim Raines, who had to wait his turn to get into the HOF despite having a career OBP% 30 points higher than Ichiro's (even with all of Ichiro's hits) and a total of 11 season with an OPS+ better than 120, not to mention much better SLG% and power numbers, and steals, too. for that matter.
Anyone who think Ichiro is a slam dunk HOFer should have felt that Tim Raines was even more so, as he was a much better hitter, even though Raines had to wait until his final year of eligibility to get in.
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.
Japan counts for nothing; ditto for Little League.
As a pro, from 2011 on, Ichiro hasn't been bad, he has been putrid. His presence has cost every team he has been on victories. If you ignore those years completely, then he has a 10 year career which doesn't approach the awesome level a 10-year player needs to be a HOFer. If you don't ignore those years, then whatever value he had from 2001 to 2010 gets chipped away, and rapidly.
So what was his value from 2010 to 2010? Well, he was an outfielder, and a good one; but he was an outfielder, mostly a right fielder, and playing the outfield just doesn't add that much. Think of some players that you think of as "borderline" HOFers who played the outfield. Better, how about some outfielders who aren't HOFers. Guys like Tony Oliva, Rocky Colavito or Cesar Cedeno.
Ichiro - 10 year career, OPS+ of 117 (107 if you count his whole career; trust me, you don't want to go there)
Oliva - 15 year career, OPS+ of 131
Colavito - 14 year career, OPS+ of 132
Cedeno - 17 year career, OPS+ of 123
And of those three non-HOFers I'm betting everyone looks at Cedeno and says he's the worst by a long shot. Maybe he is, but he was also a better outfielder than Ichiro, every bit as good a baserunner, played productively longer and was a better hitter. Cesar Cedeno was better than Ichiro. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. If you don't agree, look at their statistics. If you look at his statistics and still don't agree, give me a call and I will try to teach you how to read.
Outfielders who have a "peak" with an OPS+ of 117 are so common I'd run out of pixels if I tried to list them all. But here's a few because it's fun:
Chili Davis - 126
Dave Kingman - 120
Hal McRae - 130
Del Ennis - 120
Hank Sauer - 125
Leon Wagner - 121
Rick Monday - 127
Andy Pafko - 125
Amos Otis - 123
Felipe Alou - 123
Richie Zisk - 129
and so on and so on and so on.
What all of these players have in common is that they were good. Some of them were even very good. None of them were great. And they all hit better than Ichiro. Ichiro wasn't a great hitter, even at his peak; what he did was come to bat a LOT and run fast enough to beat out what were essentially long bunts that didn't advance any runners.
Yes, he's a lock. No, he doesn't deserve it. Of all the names I've mentioned, Cedeno is by far the closest.
I get it. I actually can read. Your argument makes sense, if only power hitters deserved to be enshrined. Clearly, of the five tools, Ichiro had only the other four + very little power; hence using OPS+ as the primary metric in your argument is going to suck for Ichiro no matter who you choose to compare. I really just wanted to understand your distinction between "lock to be in" and "deserves to be in." Because I would argue that if player X achieves a career of 3,000 hits, 500 stolen bases, and 0.300+ career BA, he deserves to be enshrined, even without the power. There have been only three other players to reach that combination of milestones, and they are all in the Hall (Ty Cobb, Paul Molitor, & Eddie Collins).
You mention Cedeno--who I really respected when he was playing for Houston against the Dodgers in the late 70s--as being the closest to "deserving it":
Cedeno (17 years): 2,087 hits, 550 SB, 0.285 BA
Ichiro (17 years): 3,080 hits, 509 SB, 0.312 BA
The problem with your comparison is that your cherrypicking raw stats that cast Ichiro in the best possible light. But looking at batting average in a vacuum is very misleading~OBP%, SLG%, OPS, OPS+~all of these metrics are MUCH better qualified to evaluate how good a hitter is/was, yet you ignore those. The point of hitting is to get on base and to create runs. Ichiro's OBP% is rather pedestrian for a player with all those hits, and dismissing the fact that he had little to no power for a corner outfielder is a serious detriment that cannot be overlooked or discounted no matter how you try to do it. Ichiro amassed a lot of hits from 2001-2010, but he is also quite possibly the most overrated hitter in the modern era. The fact that most of his hits were singles, and many of those infield hits, makes his case for HOF enshrinement worse, not better.
Tim Raines was not considered a power hitter, was a MUCH better hitter (and baserunner) than Ichiro, yet he had to wait until his last year of eligibility before being enshrined. If you feel Ichiro is that good, where would you rank Raines, another outfielder whose career immediately preceded Ichiro's, by comparison?
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.
When you are arguing for or against a particular player, I thought you were supposed to cherry pick stats that made your guy look the best
. Living here in Seattle, the general argument here goes that Ichiro transcends stats (I know what a cop out that is, by the way... and argue against it with my Mariner-homer friends; don't get me started on their arguments for Edgar Martinez) because of the whole first good Japanese position player thing and because he had the kind of moments that stand out and are remembered by voters, such as when he threw out an A's runner going from 1st to 3rd his rookie year when no one in the stadium (I was at that game, actually) thought he had any shot of doing so, or when he hit (still the only) inside-the-park HR in an All Star Game. Clearly he hasn't had any of those moments since he left the Mariners, and his decline has been rapid since 2010... kinda reminds me a bit of Pete Rose and how he didn't retire when he should've to chase the hits record while putting together some really putrid seasons there at the end. As for his OBP, it's a well-known fact that pure contact hitters will have pretty weak OBPs because they never/rarely take walks. Also, positional adjustments will kill Ichiro's numbers because outfielders are expected to have more power; maybe he should've played second base instead.
I liked Raines and enjoyed watching him as a player. He had 2500+ hits, IIRC in the top 6-8 all time in steals, not lock numbers, but definitely worthy of consideration, and it was nice to see him get in. I remember that he started with something like 25% of ballots at his first attempt and steadily climbed until he finally got in. He was also caught up in that coke scandal in the mid 1980s, and that probably turned some Hall voters off initially to his candidacy and probably delayed him getting in a few ballots. I don't believe, also, but correct me if I'm wrong, that Raines was a particularly good fielding outfielder.
I think Raines ultimately was hurt because he didn't stand out enough from the pack to encourage voters to name him on early ballots. That's where all the "transcends stats" crap is actually going to help Ichiro's candidacy, getting him in on an earlier ballot that he otherwise might. Though, as I think we've agreed, the 3,000 hits and 500 steals milestones are almost guaranteed to get him elected irrespective of anything else.
Pete Rose was way better than both.
As for the base stealing, it is close enough, considering all the variables that go into it, that one can't really make such a definitive statement and use it as prime evidence to put a sub par candidate into the Hall of Fame such as Molina...especially considering that the throwing out of baserunners is already incorporated into his overall value, which is lacking.
Mazeroski wasn't even as good a fielder as Ryne Sandberg...so to say he was the best ever is wrong. Mazeroski was as good defensively as his replacements on his team, and was a product of simply having more easy balls hit his way than most anyone else, which translated into a high amount of assists that were more a reflection of that, as opposed to his skill. However, his inability to field balls cleanly at the same rate as Ryne Sandberg, does show something that is in his control...can he pick up the ball or not.
Your rationale for Molina being the best at 'something' is the same rationale that means the best pinch runner, best pinch hitter, best middle reliever, best MPH fastball, best curveball...should all be in the Hall of Fame too. If you start championing Cliff Johnson for the Hall, then I will agree with you about Mazeroski and Molina, because then your rationale will at least be consistent.
Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn DESERVE to be in, and they weren't power hitters. Dave Kingman does NOT deserve to be in and he was a far greater power hitter than Ichiro. It isn't about being discriminated against because of lack of power, it is because of lack of value with Ichiro's bat. Yes, Ichiro was the greatest at one dimension of baseball(hitting more soft singles than anyone else), but that dimension simply does not add the same value as others...but Dallasactuary, based on your philosophy you use with Mazeroski and Molina, then Ichiro DOES deserve enshrinement too
Ichiro is certainly a unique player. Nowhere near as good as some claim, but his accomplishments certainly merit being in the HOF.
Too bad he didn't come to MLB sooner, numbers might be staggering.
I don't really disagree with this, except for the word "accomplishments". He has 3,000 hits; he's from Japan; he's led his league in stuff a bunch of times and he has an MVP. As a result, he's extraordinarily famous and is an absolute lock for the HOF. What bothers me is when people don't make this argument, but instead argue that he deserves to be in the HOF because he was a great player.
He got 3,000 hits by hanging around as a putrid player for the better part of a decade.
Being from Japan is not an accomplishment, it's just interesting to people.
He led the league in stuff mostly because he was on a great team in a hitter's park and got to come to the plate 5 times a game.
He didn't deserve the MVP he won.
What Ichiro has accomplished - what he has earned through his own talent - is plenty. He was a very good player for a decade or so, and was even great for a season or two. But what he accomplished wasn't close to the level that he "deserves" to be in the HOF; he'll get there for being famous, not for being great.
I wonder if a slap hitter with nothing else is HOF worthy, because Ichiro was all of that and a bag of chips. he did only one thing and he did it very well, but is that enough to get in when multi-dimensional players who contributed in many ways are left out.
I haven't looked, but what kind of stats did Suzuki have regarding RBI and runs scored when compared against other 3,000 hit players??
I think the big problem here is that baseball is not played on a computer. Stats are great and I love all the sabremetrician expertise but it's all a bit over done at the present moment - by teams and fans alike. The simple fact is that statistics tell a part of the story of a game or series or season that has been played and now people act like its the only measure of a baseball player - his stats. As if it creates a level playing field ( it doesn't), takes the emotion out of it (it doesn't) or allows us to compare apples to apples (it doesn't). Any intelligent person - and in this thread there are several - can take statistics and twist them, cherry pick them and present them well to make an argument.
My wife's grandfather passed away almost seven years ago. Brooklyn boy born in 1920s. Huge Yankee fan and basically saw it all - he watched every game and wouldn't move down south in 2002 until YES was installed - literally causing significant and costly delays. He was a teenager for Gehrig and Ruth, remembers the kid from San Francisco (how his neighborhood buddies referred to Joe DiMaggio) and told me 'Mickey Mantle was the best player to ever take the field, and if he didn't take the drink, he'd have every record - hits, homers, runs, RBIs, MVPs - everything...'. Anyway, I knew him for his last 12 years and I used to park next to him at every family party for at least an hour; family first, then Yankees. Old school Italian. Miss him dearly.
Anyway, once I brought up how it was so wrong that Ted Williams won a Triple Crown and lost the MVP to Phil Rizzuto and was really scolded by him for it. He said 'Everyone always says that the sports writers robbed the MVP from Williams because they didn't like him but that was bullshit (only one of two times I ever heard him curse). He said Rizzuto won the MVP because he won almost every game that year for the Yankees single handedly with either his bat or his glove. Mickey wasn't ready, Joe was finished and Yogi had an off year. Mize was solid, too, but Rizzuto made all the plays. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise. Williams did get robbed of a few but not in 1950. Trust me, I saw it. I was there.'
I'm not hating on anyone's opinion; I just happen to think there are way too many babies being dumped with the bath water lately. Stats are one tool in the evaluation arsenal - once underused and now overused. I mean, OBP is great but ask Reds fans if they'd like Joey Votto to swing the bat just a little more often with runners on once in a while! Trevor Hoffman has incredible career stats as a closer but would you want him trying to get three outs in October for YOUR team? If 'Wins, as a stat, are overrated' then why do we use W-L record to evaluate pitchers seasons, careers and HOF credentials and why is every team willing to pay 30 million for guys who can pitch deep into games (which happens to be how you win more games....shhhh)? No saber manager, the new trend in hiring, is ever put Kirk Gibson up to the plate and no chain saw cord gets pulled around second. How, exactly, do you quantify the Jeter flip that beat the A's? Heck, I just watched a great postseason where my beloved Yankees turn their series around on an Aaron Judge catch against Cleveland (which is recorded, statistically, as 'Flyout, RF') and then lose to a guy who every sabremetrician said was 'probably done' until he went to the Astros and stopped giving up runs when he pitched. Perhaps we need to give greater statistical attention to uniforms now.
By the way, did anyone bring up the fact that no one in the HISTORY of baseball ever had more hits in a single season than Ichiro Suzuki? And please consider that if you are going to be downplaying the significance of this accomplishment that the basis of your argument is going to be that hits aren't that important in the game of baseball...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I did. 262 hits in 2004. I remember the citywide excitement here in Seattle as he got closer to that record in September. I think that the consistency of 200+ hits for ten consecutive years is just as impressive. Yes, I know he batted 5 times a game a lot, still a remarkable achievement.
Great post @1951WheatiesPremium, you really do a good job encapsulating what it is to be a true fan of the game.
There's two other things worth mentioning.
Ichiro Suzuki was arguably the best offensive player on the team that won the most games in regular season history. Perhaps you think Bret Boone should get the nod - a truly sensational STATISTICAL season - but it speaks volumes that Ichiro won the MVP on the same team with a second baseman who batted .330, hit 37 HR and drove in 142.
Then there's this hypothetical. Would you rather have a double to lead off the game or a base hit that squeaks through the left side and then have that guy steal second before the second batter's at bat is over? The former has a higher percentage chance of a run created (however slightly) in the inning but which one adds more 'stress' to the pitcher?
Baseball is still a game. Played by people. Stats are not people.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Nice posts 1951! Ichiro was far from the perfect player, he played a few years too long (LOTS of players did).
I wonder how many people thought he had a chance of getting 3000 hits coming into the league at the age of 27? Anyone predicting it would have been ridiculed. Give him 5 years of 200-230 hits if he starts his career at 22 and he's in Pete Rose territory.
Great arm and speed in the outfield, there's guys in the HOF simply because they were great fielders and Ichiro won 10 Gold Gloves. He stole 509 bases and caught only 117, he didn't have power and he didn't walk much.
He didn't get hits because he got at bats, he got hits by striking the ball into a space where it could not be caught. I get a kick out of guys who call some players "accumulators" and give other players credit for "making the team" at the end of their careers.
I personally never cared for Ichiro, I like the sluggers, but Ichiro was certainly a Hall of Fame caliber player in my mind.
I hear this argument against using advanced statistics all the time, usually with the explanation that stats don't tell the complete story, when in fact, they do exactly that. Literally. If you have a tool measuring how productive or effective a player was during his career, in every conceivable game situation and occurrence by each at bat during said career, in relation to his peers and the park in which he played, why wouldn't you embrace that?
The other problem is that unlike personal opinions or biased recollections, statistics are inherently objective. Yes, you can cherrypick them, as Ichiro's advocates do by simply using gross hit totals and batting average to try and cast him in a more positive light as a hitter, but they are still infinitely more reliable (and accurate) than using opinion which contrary to statistics is inherently subjective.
Yes, Ichiro was very good for about a decade at accumulating base hits, most of which were singles. Yes, he holds the single season record for hits, too, but Ted Williams never reached even 200 hits in a single season, which pretty much tells you all you need to know about the drawbacks of simply using total hits to define how good a hitter is without looking at the larger picture.
Ichiro has also been not only not great, but not even average for the past 7 seasons. He's been less than average, in fact, over that span of time. The stats clearly illustrate that, and that's another reason why we need to look at those in favor of personal opinion, where 7 years is instead reduced to "a few."
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 hear this argument against using advanced statistics all the time, usually with the explanation that stats don't tell the complete story, when in fact, they do exactly that. Literally. If you have a tool measuring how productive or effective a player was during his career, in every conceivable game situation and occurrence by each at bat during said career, in relation to his peers and the park in which he played, why wouldn't you embrace that?'
Do you mean WAR? Which changes - sometimes significantly - depending on which person or which company is calculating it?
Simple fact is that I DO embrace statistics. They're just not the be all and end all for me.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And I have great respect for your opinion, @grote15
I do. Here's one of the major flaws that I have with OBP. It is based on a very flawed premise that a walk is as good as a hit. That is simply not the case; it is something that Little League coaches tell little kids as they are learning to develop a batter's eye. Particularly when that batter is up against another kid who is presently unable to throw a strike or (sadly) when the batter stinks, as a way to discourage swinging. It has been repeated to us so many times that we take as a fact on the surface. We base statistics on it in attempt to say 'This is how you measure a ball player.' Yet, I don't think anyone ever yelled 'A walk is as good as a hit!' when striding to the batters box was one George Herman Ruth. And I don't ever recall a two run base on balls (at least not one that didn't involve significant pitcher and/or catcher error) to win a baseball game but have seen too many walk off two run singles to count. What sabermetrics HAS done is it has created a glut of extreme pull hitters who hit 25 homers and bat .250 with a 'great OBP'. That's the saddest part; we have created a generation of players now who believe this nonsense - that there's only one way to hit a baseball or that you can't swing at pitches outside the zone. Really? Vlad Guerrero and Yogi Berra might disagree, the latter from Cooperstown but you may not hear him buried under all those MVPs, World Series rings and records. The former I once saw turn a ball that bounced before home plate into a double. A DOUBLE!
Think about how many times you sit and watch a baseball game and you're just hoping and praying a guy will lay down a bunt or just go with the pitch away against the shift. I'll call it 50% of Major Leaguers WILL NOT change their approach in that scenario - lay down the bunt or choke up - preferring instead to take their chances hitting into the shift. This should be appalling to the three true outcome sabremetrician and yet most endorse this stupidity. The greatest team I ever saw - the 1998 Yankees - singled teams to death some nights. Not every night, mind you, but plenty. You need to be able to play multiple styles to win 125 baseball games in a baseball season and that's what made that team great - versatility.
You hear this referenced from time to time: players who 'could hit more home runs if they chose' and many eliminate it as conjecture or more bluntly nonsense. Ty Cobb, Ichiro and a few other elite hitters over the years who were said to have sacrificed power for average since it was better suited to their skills. There's a great anecdote (or myth, depending on your opinion of events we weren't alive for) about Ty Cobb deciding to hit home runs for a few days to show it wasn't hard to do and I have been told the power Ichiro displayed in BP when goaded by teammates on a few occasions was otherworldly, though I never witnessed it firsthand. As I have gotten older and understood the game better, I recognize that this is probably more true than I ever gave it credit for as a younger man - that players have the skills to do many things but play the way that helps the team most in their eyes. Players DO make little adjustments depending on the at bat to 'just get it in the air to the outfield' or 'just hit it to the right side and move the runner over.' Therefore, it stands to reason that greatest hitters of all time would also be better at this, too. And speaking of the greatest hitter of all time (arguably, and not my specific choice), even the mighty Ted Williams changed his approach with two strikes.
I quite obviously like to write but I could best sum it up thusly:
Statistics, in all walks of life, should always be used to inform decision making, not to make the decision itself.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I have always said ichiro is overrated, and that is because people call him one of the greatest hitters of all time(as in top 50 type), when in reality he is somewhere around the 1,200th greatest hitter of all time. All the people waxing about how they feel a guy contributed may be a great story, but it is just that, a story. It has no basis. Baseball is conducive to advanced measurements to tell the value of a player to a very high degree(more so in regard to hitting as opposed to fielding).
Some measurements are better than others, and there are still some facets within those measurements that need more explaining. For example, Ken Phelps has a higher OPS+ than Dave Winfield, 132 vs 130....but that doesn't mean he is a better hitter than Winfield, nor even better than Ichiro who sits at 107.
These great statistical measurements in baseball do solve a lot of the bar arguments, and now are helping some GM's make better decisions, but it isn't taking away from the stories of how someone felt watching their favorite player every day when they were a kid, nor does it take away from the nostalgia of Buddy Biancalana being on David Letterman after the World Series while the most instrumental and BEST player in that teams' success sat home(George Brett).
There used to be a guy on here who would post on Jim Rice, and would tell stories of being at many games where Rice was robbed of many home runs with high line drives off the green monster. He even described exact scenarios where Rice had such hits, and even gave the year it happened. The funny thing is, going through the play by play data, the guy was wrong. His memory was wrong. He seemed convinced, but yet was wrong. No such scenario even came close to matching his description. I can go on and on about this, but i think most people get the point.
I have had some of the very best debates on here with Dallasacturay, and a poster named Baseball, and all three of us are knee deep in the advanced measurements, yet we still have great debates...so there is still plenty of room for that. There is still mystery. It is simply more accurate than the nonsense of someone saying that Ozzie Smith saved two runs a game with his glove, or the nonsense that Phil RIzzuto won almost every single game for the Yankees in 1950. First off, baseball is a type of sport where one player only has limited impact on the teams outcome, and second, if his level of contribution was responsible for 90 wins(which was almost every win), then when his level of contribution dropped off considerably the next year, then the Yankees should have only won like 30 games since Rizzuto was responsible for winning almost every game, and no other Yankee did anything more remarkable than they did the year prior...yet the Yanks still won only two less games.
PS to my post above, in regard to the guy saying his relative saying, "He said Rizzuto won the MVP because he won almost every game that year for the Yankees single handedly with either his bat or his glove. Mickey wasn't ready, Joe was finished and Yogi had an off year".
I already pointed out the ridiculousness of that statement, but wanted to point out that Dimaggio was .301 AV/.391OB%/.585 league leading SLG%. 32HR 122RBI 114Runs scored.
Yogi batted .322/.383/.533. 28HR 124RBI....which was one of his five best seasons, and his second most RBI in a season.
So the guy said that Dimaggio was washed up and Yogi had an off year..and the guy was wrong on both counts. Just flat out wrong. So obiviously either his memory was tainted, or his knowledge of baseball and what constitutes washed up, or 'off year' are out of whack, either of which renders his recollection and statements as nothing more than fairy tale.
Just the notion that anyone could believe that one baseball player could singlehandedly win that many baseball games, makes his entire statement meaningless...not even accounting for the factual wrongs. Rizzuto was the team's fourth best hitter that season, yet he single handidly won almost every game with his bat or glove??
Also, the same poster who is writing all this stuff is wondering why we don't judge pitchers by W/L records because those tell the value of the pitcher. Whitey Ford was 9-1 that season. So which is it? Is Rizzuto responsible for almost every win, or are W/L records meaningful to a pitchers contiribution?? Raschi 'won' 21 games. So did HE win those 21 games or was Rizzuto responsible single handedly for 90 wins??? Both can't be true.
Ichiro is amazing and I am not a Mariner's fan or even an Ichiro fan perse. Look at some of his stats. 40 steals at age 37!? That's a freak! How is that possible!? 3,000 hits is 3,000 hits... unless you are a cheater which, obviously, no indications of that. Lock first ballot. He has had an amazing career.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. And I am certain you will find a great deal of support for it among like minded people. A 90 year man saying Phil Rizzuto had a hand in every Yankee win should not be taken in a literal sense; please don't be that guy who is going to jump on every sentence checking for precision of meaning. His point was that the MVP could have gone to a lot of players with 'better stats' not just Ted Williams who stated on several occasions that Rizzuto deserves that MVP and that if the Red Sox had him at short, they hang the banners in the 49s and 50s. There are lots of 'mistakes' in the MVP and Cy Young history if we use only stats and apply today's standards to yesterday's games.
To use an analogy that is often used in sports, you can calculate the cost of 'war' in many ways, too; casualties, financial, use of resources, opportunity cost, etc. and by researching the data and reading reports and making calculations and in the end you you would have a thorough and well informed understanding of everything that happened. However, you're understanding becomes more informed when you also consider the accounts of the survivors - civilian and military; when you've seen the pictures, witnesses the destruction first hand, visited the memorials, heard from multiple perspectives. Emotion counts and the people playing the game count. Taking the human element out of human activity and using only statistics seems to lead people to this confidence that they somehow know better; the idea that I'm more intelligent because I base things on statistics, and exclude emotion or feel. Emotion still counts in sports, is very hard to quantify and has both positive and negative effect - on games, on teams, on series and on seasons.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Man can you type Wheaties! I'm beginning to side with you solely based on that that. Impressive
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Ichiro is not my cup of tea but he has all the stats. awards and intangibles that voters love. He is a slam dunk and I won't lose any sleep over him getting in first ballot
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Rizzuto did deserve the MVP in 1950, FWIW. It was a relatively weak year in the AL with Williams hurt. DiMaggio also missed 16 games, and probably would have deserved MVP had he played every game. As it was both he and Doby hit a little better than Rizzuto, but once you include fielding Rizzuto was, to my mind, the clear winner. And I mean statistically; if you look at the right statistics, and all of them, there's no need to consider the "human element". If the human element contributes to winning games, it will show up in the statistics. If you want to define "valuable" any other way than "winning games", then you're just guessing.
I agree he is a slam dunk for first ballot. Voters often over and underestimate players. Raines was better than Ichiro and had to wait till his final year of eligibility.
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.
Like Dallas said, the emotion is already manifested in the statistical result. Hitting a double, whether it is hit when being sad or excited, is still a double. Its value is the same. If you want to conclude that hitting a double with excitement somehow makes the next batter better due to that excitement, then signing such a player should make everyone better...but it doesn't.
If you want to say hitting a double in a tied game in the ninth is more valuable than hitting one down by ten runs in the ninth, then you are correct...and the play by play information recognizes that too.
The military analogy has zero merit in this. Zero. The variables in that analogy are exponentially much more out of control than that of the variable of trying to isolate the value of hitting statistics in baseball. There is zero comparison. It is quite easy to get to 95% of the truth in hitting stats in baseball.
Baseball offense is pretty linear and its closest analogy is probably to that of a running race, not war. If I run a 4.7 40 yd dash, and you run a 4.1...and I walked around saying I was faster than you, and my time counts for more because you aren't taking into account the human element I added to my time.....then you probalby wouldn't like it. If it meant I got paid more money than you because of it, then I'm sure you would cry foul like anyone would.
Now, if you said you ran yours on a slight incline and with wind blowing in your face, and I ran mine with wind at my back on a flat surface...then you are in the world of sabermetrics, because that is all that is.
.
PS You talked about on base percentage and its pitfalls and then parlayed that into something meant to destroy the value of the good measurements. There is not a good measurement that treats a walk as good as a hit. If anyone uses on base percentage as the defining factor of value, then you would be correct, because not only does OB% treat a walk as good as a hit, it treats a home run as good as a single. The best measurements give the precise value of each hitting even and in each base/out state. OPS+ has on base percentage in it, but when adding it to slugging percentage it no longer treats a walk as good as hit.
THe answer to your question is that a walk is appx 2/3 the value of a single on average. When there is nobody on base they are of equal value. When there are men on base, there are varied values based on which bases, etc... Play by play data has all that info...it matters none what a 90 year old man, you, me, or some cincinnati reds fans, feels it is worth.
PS You talked about on base percentage and its pitfalls and then parlayed that into something meant to destroy the value of the good measurements. There is not a good measurement that treats a walk as good as a hit. If anyone uses on base percentage as the defining factor of value, then you would be correct, because not only does OB% treat a walk as good as a hit, it treats a home run as good as a single. The best measurements give the precise value of each hitting even and in each base/out state. OPS+ has on base percentage in it, but when adding it to slugging percentage it no longer treats a walk as good as hit.
THe answer to your question is that a walk is appx 2/3 the value of a single on average. When there is nobody on base they are of equal value. When there are men on base, there are varied values based on which bases, etc... Play by play data has all that info...it matters none what a 90 year old man, you, me, or some cincinnati reds fans, feels it is worth.
If a superior hitter is walked intentionally to set up a force at multiple bases or the pitcher would prefer to pitch to the next guy in the lineup, that is not as good as a single. That is unless the sabermetrics prove me wrong.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph