Yeah, I geuss all those years didn't teach you much . I put plenty of time in myself watching AND PLAYING, extensively(and coaching). But I also put plenty of time researching and analyzing. According to your method of ranking Yount and failing to use proper analysis, you would basically eliminate almost every shortstop and second baseman(and catcher) from the Hall of Fame. So appearantly you don't understand the value of a SS. Good for you that you worked for Kevin Towers, maybe that explains why he needs to buy some clues too. I seriously doubt it was in any baseball decision making capacity, more like picking up groceries or something.
According to your method of putting guys in the Hall of Fame, then you have to take out Johnny Bench, Fisk, Carter, Campanella, Sandberg, Fox, Morgan, O. Smith, Ripken, and Aparcio. None of them have high all-time career rankings, especially in the important categories. The only catchers ,2B, or ss that would make it are the inflated stats of the pre war era, and the clowns from now.
Also, all that I was justifying(succeeded by the way) was your ignorant claim that Yount was killing his team in his first three years and his last four. IT was such an ignorant statement and I showed it in a simple way on how wrong you were. You claimed he was just hanging on for seven years just to achieve 3,000 hits, and being of no use to his team in the process. If being an above average player where he would make 3/5 of the teams in MLB better is hanging on, then you are correct. Any intelligent person would realize that if he is above average then he is CLEARLY not doing his team a disservice, and he CLEARLY not just collecting hits that are of no value to his team.
Heck, I even used your flawed method of Batting Average to show that he wasn't a hanger on. EVERY YEAR doesn't have to be Hall of Fame caliber.
Using your flawed methodlogy, I just went through Yaz's career and I count FOUR out of his first SIX seasons as of being nowhere near Hall of Fame Caliber. 1971, '72, '74, '75, '78, '80, '81, '82, '83 also being of nowhere near Hall of Fame type seasons. So that is 13 out of 23 seasons by Yaz where he played nowhere near remotely as a Hall of Famer. So when you take those hit totals away from Yaz as you do from Yount, because Yaz was merely average(or below in many of those cases), how many hits does that leave Yaz with???? In fact, using your flawed HR/RBi/AVG to determine value, then Yaz had a grand total of THREE Hall of Fame season, THREE!!
Manyour methods are terrible. There is no factual basis, or any valid evidence to back up what you say. THere is no logic, or intelligence in them either. I want you to explain to my how a SS can be a better player than a 1B because I don't think you have grasped that concept.
THen go to Cooperstown and take Yaz's plaque off the wall, because 13 out of his 23 seasons because he resembled Al Oliver a heckuva lot more than Ted Williams.
Jim Rice's average to below average years that added to his stats.
1974 - 24 games - 1 HR -- 13 RBI -- .269 (not enough games to show for a year but either way a crappy year)
1980 He hurt the team too much by missing 30+ games. All of his #'s were down from previous years. Well that makes sence because he missed 30 games. But his Avg was down 30 points, Onbase down 45, Slg down 95 points. All of his regular #'s were down more than the percentage of games he missed. (He hurt the team this year - just like Yount did)
1981 108 Games (full season STRIKE) Avg down 10 more points (40 pts from '79) OBP down 3 more points and SLG down a massive 45 pts (down 155 points from '79) And again his regular stats (hits, HR, R) we down significantly on a per game basis. Again in 1981 Rice hurt the Sox by not playing to his potential.
1982 He missed 18 games His avg finally came back and his walks improved (must have got new contacts). But He was not in the top 10 in any major category but Avg, well except he lead the majors into grounding into double plays. He again did not play up to his potential that he did in the late 70's. He hurt the team again by padding his stats (Just like Yount must have done)
1985 Had overall good #'s but did not finish in the top 10 in any category. Oh wait, he did lead the league into grounding into double plays. He was an Avg OF this year (hmmm just like Yount I guess)
1986 - AMAZING YEAR (Kinda like Yount in 1989)
1987 - 1988 - 1989 -- Well he stayed too long (just like Yount according to you) He played in almost 200 games out of 486. All of his stats went in the crapper because of his injuries and eye sight.
So if you are going to pick out Younts stats and say he stayed to long or just padded his stats. You should look at what your idol did when he missed 125 games from 1975 to 1986. If you include 1987 and 1988 he missed another 81 games. He missed an entire season and would have the numbers to get in if he would have stayed healthy. Yount on the other hand missed 189 games from 1975 to 1991 and he still put up his #'s during that time.
If Yount was padding his stats he would have left after 1992 when he got #3000.
So if you can't handle that Rice won't make it in don't blame a player that already made it in that deserved it. Blame it on Rice who missed too many games and when he did play he only played well half of the time.
One last point.
Rice played DH. A LOT!!!!!!
A mere 530 games or a mere ONE QUARTER of his career. So, don't go there with Molitor either. Your guy couldn't put up when he had to play the field. When he was at his best in the late 70's he was playing 50 games a year at DH. HOF material because he couldn't play ever day in the field??? I think not.
Jack Morris was a good pitcher but I would not consider him a great pitcher. He did have three or so 20 win seasons but he was always given a great deal of run support. His career ERA was always in line with the league average(3.9 4.10). He was not a dominating pitcher. He was better than Jim Kaat and Bert B. but he should be on the outside looking in.
Well thanks for the closing argument and to everyone who participated. Skinpinch, I'm sorry you couldn't do as I asked and convince me, on the merits of his career, that Robin Yount is a HOFer, and instead opted to use your closing argument to further attack my obvious stupidity with sarcasm and tangential, irrelevant arguments, which is exactly what I asked you not to do, since I honestly would've liked to see a convincing argument for Yount.
But regardless, this was fun. A nice break from the typical card talk.
One last thing, as I'm glad you brought up Yaz...
If I could go to Cooperstown and take Yaz's plaque down, I would. As any knowledgable person would tell you (and especially those in Boston), Yaz is one of the most overrated players of all time, not to mention a colossal arrogant jerk. True, 67 was one of the greatest seasons ever witnessed, from the pure stats to the way he did it (carrying the team to the pennant night after night), and he had a handful of other stellar seasons, but was never truly great. Spanning his career, I'd say he was consistently good, rarely great, and the numbers piled up since he played so long. Not to mention, he was lazy and loafed around a lot, to the point where Dick Williams actually benched him at the end of (I think) the 69 season. Not that any other manager would try that again with Captain Carl.
So I'm glad we can end this at least agreeing on that one thing.
So what were we talking about? Oh yeah, Jim Rice had bad eyes and Mike Greenwell went to Japan.
dgbaseball, don't forget to take all those other plaques down too.
My goal isn't really to convince you as Yount's merit on the hall, as the Hall is Vague with what should go in. My goal was to show how faulty your state methodoly was, ESPECIALLY the ignorant claim of Yount's first three, and last four seaons. Also your claim as just using HR/RBI/AVG as the determing factors, which is downright goofy. I believe any intelligent man would agree that what i stated on those was correct. Also your failure to recognize the difference of the offensive numbers of SS compared to LF or 1B.
I still haven't heard from you on why a SS can be a better player than a 1B or LF despite having inferior numbers....Your insistence on not recognizing this is the stumbling block to you seeing that Yount and other SS, 2B, or C of his caliber are of more value to winning games than somebody like Rice.
If I had a vote, Yount is a HOF'er. Rice looks and smells suspiciously like Albert Belle. Although I love Jim Rice--one of most heavily collected players--I can't help but to leave him out. Dale Murphy and Jim Rice simply vanished one day...perhaps the same could be said of Andre Dawson--another one of my favorites. I understand what dgbaseball is getting at with yount. Yaz was the same way. Lots of years that were "soft". That in no way diminishes the special years they DID have and the impact they had on the market they played in. Robin Yount was more than a good baseball player. He was the perfect mix of youth early in his career and the veteran leadership later. In between, he was the centerpiece of the most feared line-up in baseball. Peter Gammons summed up Yount perfectly in his HOF speech: "The fastest time Yount was ever clocked to first base was 3.9 seconds--the slowest was 4.0". Shortstops are unique talents in general. Like catchers and centerfielders, their game cannot be summed up in mere numbers. Quantifying defense is always clumsy at best. I have yet to see a statistic that truly captures a player's value defensively. In most cases, a player's ability to defend is in the eye of the beholder. I personally think that Mike Schmidt and George Brett were nothing special at 3B. Both were exceptional athletes that made some really nice plays. Both could get jammed on a one-hopper and get caught on their heels with the worst of 'em as well. Neither was anywhere near the 3B Graig Nettles was. Nettles hit a boatload of bombs and played seemingly every fall and he's not getting in. It's just the nature of the beast. I think we use numbers a little more than we should. Like Yogi Berra said "You can learn a lot by watching." If you watched Yount, he's a HOF'er. I could say the same for Andre Dawson and Dale Murphy. Rice is just shy of that standard for me, although a fantastic hitter.
FavreFan1971, are you kidding me? I know you're baiting me, and I wish I could take it, but unfortunately I finally have to go. I won't bother quoting numbers or refuting your comments, since you've obviously got the numbers right in front of you. I'll leave it to you or anyone else to look at Rice's numbers from any of those years you mention. They are all solid seasons and the numbers speak for themselves.
Not baiting you at all dgb. Just stating the facts that the stats don't lie that you keep referring too. Rice won't make it in until the senior committee votes him in.
Downgoesfrazier, baseball batting stats get you the correct value of a batter 95% of the way there. It is so well researched and shown over and over again. Defense is certainly more murky as you say, though some are not bad. Though perception is far more murky. You can quantify how many times Schmidt would get caught on one-hoppers, but your mind tends to remember what you want, and forget what you don't want.
Baseball batting stats are soo strong it is almost perfect. You need them to make objective analysis, for if perception is relied upon it will go haywire. Nearly every possible contribution a batter can make can be readily identified in one form of stat or another, and it can account for 99% of the runs that are produced. Baseball is unique in this aspect, as the other sports have too many strong unaccounted variables that murk it up.
There is no way a person can go to a game, without knowing any of the players, and say this guy is a .300 hitter, and that guy is a .260 hitter. If I took my son to see a game and KEvin Maas and Mike Piazza were playing against each other, Maas can easily be confused for the better hitter just by 'watching' as opposed to quantifying.
dgsbaseball is typical of the average fan in his analysis, and that isn't an insult. They don't care to go much deeper, and that is fine. But to simply refute the analysis that are valid and go much deeper is simply wrong. The average fan should open their mind a little as it does aide in understanding the players value a little better.
I wish I could type all the stuff on a message board, but a lot of it has been written already.
Anyway, I'm done writing on the topic, I think I'm going to take the next few weeks off from posting. See you guys in a month.
P.S. I like Rice. He is one of the best players that is not currently in the Hall. If Dawson got on base more often(HIS OB% IS NINE POINTS BELOW AVERAGE, and NOT A SINGLE SLUGGING HALL OF FAMER IS THAT LOW), then he may closer than Rice.
See you guys next mont! Thanks for the excitement!
Thanks Frank. The excuses coming from Raffy's friends on ESPN and the media are making me sick. The "blame it on the supplement" angle fell apart when it comes out he tested for a well-known steriod, not an andro type substance.
I'm surprised you aren't lobbying for Willie McGee, Tommy Herr, and Jack Clark.
Just make it more interesting.....here is the 2006 first time HOF ballot guys:
Rick Aguilera, Tim Belcher, Will Clark, Alex Fernandez, Gary Gaetti, Dwight Gooden, Ozzie Guillen, Juan Guzman, Orel Hershiser, Gregg Jefferies, Lance Johnson, Doug Jones, Roberto Kelly, Mickey Morandini, Hal Morris, Jaime Navarro, Luis Polonia, Mike Stanley, Walt Weiss, John Wetteland, Mark Whiten
GREGG JEFFERIES! Maybe my 500-ct lot of 1988 Fleer Rookies will finally pay off. I thought that Orel was the best candidate, but now I might think Will Clark. He might be another member of the Jim Rice club, 36 and done.
<< <i>Just when I though I was out, they pull me back in....
ajw, yes, I did see your post. I am familiar with OPS and personally think it's a bunch of sabermetrics BS. To me, there's no better gauge than BA/HR/RBI. You can cut up stats, adjust for ballparks (ridiculous idea), or do whatever, but if you look at the history of baseball, look at the greatest hitters throughout the different eras, you'll find that BA/HR/RBI is as good a gauge as anything. Remember, Bill James invents statistics to sell books... People have been following and rating ballplayers based on BA/HR/RBI as far back as you can go, and not because we're any more mathematically skilled at assessing player value and can come up with "more accurate" statistics. It's because Bill James wants to sell books. Which is not to dismiss it as meaningless, but is to reject the idea that BA/HR/RBI is in somewhat insufficient in judging value.
Anyways, you mentioned
Yount was a league average player for the final four years of his career and for two of his first four
with regards to OPS. So what you're telling me is that for about a 1/3 of his career, he performed as well as the average player in his league? And he is not the poster boy for the longevity award? >>
Comments
<< <i>A guy who lead his league in doubles twice, and hits once, and nothing else. >>
Wrong once again!
Slugging %
1982-.578-1
OPS
1982-.957-1
Hits
1982-210-1
Total Bases
1982-367-1
Doubles
1980-49-1
1982-46-1
Triples
1983-10-1
1988-11-1
Adjusted OPS+
1982-166-1
Runs Created
1982-141-1
1989-120-1
Extra-Base Hits
1980-82-1
1982-87-1
Power/Speed Number
1980-21.4-1
According to your method of putting guys in the Hall of Fame, then you have to take out Johnny Bench, Fisk, Carter, Campanella, Sandberg, Fox, Morgan, O. Smith, Ripken, and Aparcio. None of them have high all-time career rankings, especially in the important categories. The only catchers ,2B, or ss that would make it are the inflated stats of the pre war era, and the clowns from now.
Also, all that I was justifying(succeeded by the way) was your ignorant claim that Yount was killing his team in his first three years and his last four. IT was such an ignorant statement and I showed it in a simple way on how wrong you were. You claimed he was just hanging on for seven years just to achieve 3,000 hits, and being of no use to his team in the process. If being an above average player where he would make 3/5 of the teams in MLB better is hanging on, then you are correct. Any intelligent person would realize that if he is above average then he is CLEARLY not doing his team a disservice, and he CLEARLY not just collecting hits that are of no value to his team.
Heck, I even used your flawed method of Batting Average to show that he wasn't a hanger on. EVERY YEAR doesn't have to be Hall of Fame caliber.
Using your flawed methodlogy, I just went through Yaz's career and I count FOUR out of his first SIX seasons as of being nowhere near Hall of Fame Caliber. 1971, '72, '74, '75, '78, '80, '81, '82, '83 also being of nowhere near Hall of Fame type seasons. So that is 13 out of 23 seasons by Yaz where he played nowhere near remotely as a Hall of Famer. So when you take those hit totals away from Yaz as you do from Yount, because Yaz was merely average(or below in many of those cases), how many hits does that leave Yaz with???? In fact, using your flawed HR/RBi/AVG to determine value, then Yaz had a grand total of THREE Hall of Fame season, THREE!!
Manyour methods are terrible. There is no factual basis, or any valid evidence to back up what you say. THere is no logic, or intelligence in them either. I want you to explain to my how a SS can be a better player than a 1B because I don't think you have grasped that concept.
THen go to Cooperstown and take Yaz's plaque off the wall, because 13 out of his 23 seasons because he resembled Al Oliver a heckuva lot more than Ted Williams.
1974 - 24 games - 1 HR -- 13 RBI -- .269 (not enough games to show for a year but either way a crappy year)
1980 He hurt the team too much by missing 30+ games. All of his #'s were down from previous years. Well that makes sence because he missed 30 games. But his Avg was down 30 points, Onbase down 45, Slg down 95 points. All of his regular #'s were down more than the percentage of games he missed. (He hurt the team this year - just like Yount did)
1981 108 Games (full season STRIKE) Avg down 10 more points (40 pts from '79) OBP down 3 more points and SLG down a massive 45 pts (down 155 points from '79) And again his regular stats (hits, HR, R) we down significantly on a per game basis. Again in 1981 Rice hurt the Sox by not playing to his potential.
1982 He missed 18 games His avg finally came back and his walks improved (must have got new contacts). But He was not in the top 10 in any major category but Avg, well except he lead the majors into grounding into double plays. He again did not play up to his potential that he did in the late 70's. He hurt the team again by padding his stats (Just like Yount must have done)
1985 Had overall good #'s but did not finish in the top 10 in any category. Oh wait, he did lead the league into grounding into double plays. He was an Avg OF this year (hmmm just like Yount I guess)
1986 - AMAZING YEAR (Kinda like Yount in 1989)
1987 - 1988 - 1989 -- Well he stayed too long (just like Yount according to you) He played in almost 200 games out of 486. All of his stats went in the crapper because of his injuries and eye sight.
So if you are going to pick out Younts stats and say he stayed to long or just padded his stats. You should look at what your idol did when he missed 125 games from 1975 to 1986. If you include 1987 and 1988 he missed another 81 games. He missed an entire season and would have the numbers to get in if he would have stayed healthy. Yount on the other hand missed 189 games from 1975 to 1991 and he still put up his #'s during that time.
If Yount was padding his stats he would have left after 1992 when he got #3000.
So if you can't handle that Rice won't make it in don't blame a player that already made it in that deserved it. Blame it on Rice who missed too many games and when he did play he only played well half of the time.
One last point.
Rice played DH. A LOT!!!!!!
A mere 530 games or a mere ONE QUARTER of his career. So, don't go there with Molitor either. Your guy couldn't put up when he had to play the field. When he was at his best in the late 70's he was playing 50 games a year at DH. HOF material because he couldn't play ever day in the field??? I think not.
Rant away. This is a great thread.
But regardless, this was fun. A nice break from the typical card talk.
One last thing, as I'm glad you brought up Yaz...
If I could go to Cooperstown and take Yaz's plaque down, I would. As any knowledgable person would tell you (and especially those in Boston), Yaz is one of the most overrated players of all time, not to mention a colossal arrogant jerk. True, 67 was one of the greatest seasons ever witnessed, from the pure stats to the way he did it (carrying the team to the pennant night after night), and he had a handful of other stellar seasons, but was never truly great. Spanning his career, I'd say he was consistently good, rarely great, and the numbers piled up since he played so long. Not to mention, he was lazy and loafed around a lot, to the point where Dick Williams actually benched him at the end of (I think) the 69 season. Not that any other manager would try that again with Captain Carl.
So I'm glad we can end this at least agreeing on that one thing.
So what were we talking about? Oh yeah, Jim Rice had bad eyes and Mike Greenwell went to Japan.
My goal isn't really to convince you as Yount's merit on the hall, as the Hall is Vague with what should go in. My goal was to show how faulty your state methodoly was, ESPECIALLY the ignorant claim of Yount's first three, and last four seaons. Also your claim as just using HR/RBI/AVG as the determing factors, which is downright goofy. I believe any intelligent man would agree that what i stated on those was correct. Also your failure to recognize the difference of the offensive numbers of SS compared to LF or 1B.
I still haven't heard from you on why a SS can be a better player than a 1B or LF despite having inferior numbers....Your insistence on not recognizing this is the stumbling block to you seeing that Yount and other SS, 2B, or C of his caliber are of more value to winning games than somebody like Rice.
I understand what dgbaseball is getting at with yount. Yaz was the same way. Lots of years that were "soft". That in no way diminishes the special years they DID have and the impact they had on the market they played in. Robin Yount was more than a good baseball player. He was the perfect mix of youth early in his career and the veteran leadership later. In between, he was the centerpiece of the most feared line-up in baseball. Peter Gammons summed up Yount perfectly in his HOF speech: "The fastest time Yount was ever clocked to first base was 3.9 seconds--the slowest was 4.0".
Shortstops are unique talents in general. Like catchers and centerfielders, their game cannot be summed up in mere numbers. Quantifying defense is always clumsy at best. I have yet to see a statistic that truly captures a player's value defensively. In most cases, a player's ability to defend is in the eye of the beholder. I personally think that Mike Schmidt and George Brett were nothing special at 3B. Both were exceptional athletes that made some really nice plays. Both could get jammed on a one-hopper and get caught on their heels with the worst of 'em as well. Neither was anywhere near the 3B Graig Nettles was. Nettles hit a boatload of bombs and played seemingly every fall and he's not getting in. It's just the nature of the beast.
I think we use numbers a little more than we should. Like Yogi Berra said "You can learn a lot by watching." If you watched Yount, he's a HOF'er. I could say the same for Andre Dawson and Dale Murphy. Rice is just shy of that standard for me, although a fantastic hitter.
dgf
Baseball batting stats are soo strong it is almost perfect. You need them to make objective analysis, for if perception is relied upon it will go haywire. Nearly every possible contribution a batter can make can be readily identified in one form of stat or another, and it can account for 99% of the runs that are produced. Baseball is unique in this aspect, as the other sports have too many strong unaccounted variables that murk it up.
There is no way a person can go to a game, without knowing any of the players, and say this guy is a .300 hitter, and that guy is a .260 hitter. If I took my son to see a game and KEvin Maas and Mike Piazza were playing against each other, Maas can easily be confused for the better hitter just by 'watching' as opposed to quantifying.
dgsbaseball is typical of the average fan in his analysis, and that isn't an insult. They don't care to go much deeper, and that is fine. But to simply refute the analysis that are valid and go much deeper is simply wrong. The average fan should open their mind a little as it does aide in understanding the players value a little better.
I wish I could type all the stuff on a message board, but a lot of it has been written already.
Anyway, I'm done writing on the topic, I think I'm going to take the next few weeks off from posting. See you guys in a month.
P.S. I like Rice. He is one of the best players that is not currently in the Hall. If Dawson got on base more often(HIS OB% IS NINE POINTS BELOW AVERAGE, and NOT A SINGLE SLUGGING HALL OF FAMER IS THAT LOW), then he may closer than Rice.
See you guys next mont! Thanks for the excitement!
"Palm-roido"
Shane
I'm surprised you aren't lobbying for Willie McGee, Tommy Herr, and Jack Clark.
Rick Aguilera, Tim Belcher, Will Clark, Alex Fernandez, Gary Gaetti, Dwight Gooden, Ozzie Guillen, Juan Guzman, Orel Hershiser, Gregg Jefferies, Lance Johnson, Doug Jones, Roberto Kelly, Mickey Morandini, Hal Morris, Jaime Navarro, Luis Polonia, Mike Stanley, Walt Weiss, John Wetteland, Mark Whiten
GREGG JEFFERIES! Maybe my 500-ct lot of 1988 Fleer Rookies will finally pay off. I thought that Orel was the best candidate, but now I might think Will Clark. He might be another member of the Jim Rice club, 36 and done.
<< <i>Just when I though I was out, they pull me back in....
ajw, yes, I did see your post. I am familiar with OPS and personally think it's a bunch of sabermetrics BS. To me, there's no better gauge than BA/HR/RBI. You can cut up stats, adjust for ballparks (ridiculous idea), or do whatever, but if you look at the history of baseball, look at the greatest hitters throughout the different eras, you'll find that BA/HR/RBI is as good a gauge as anything. Remember, Bill James invents statistics to sell books... People have been following and rating ballplayers based on BA/HR/RBI as far back as you can go, and not because we're any more mathematically skilled at assessing player value and can come up with "more accurate" statistics. It's because Bill James wants to sell books. Which is not to dismiss it as meaningless, but is to reject the idea that BA/HR/RBI is in somewhat insufficient in judging value.
Anyways, you mentioned
Yount was a league average player for the final four years of his career and for two of his first four
with regards to OPS. So what you're telling me is that for about a 1/3 of his career, he performed as well as the average player in his league? And he is not the poster boy for the longevity award? >>
Rarely have a post here left me speechless.
He retired.
Steve
Sorry, I do have a little bit of sense. I'm not that much of a "Homer."
Shane