Page 35 of 91 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 700 of 1806

Thread: Baseball Fever Hall of Fame

  1. #681
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Lima, Ohio
    Posts
    6,324
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    So you're going to pick numbers that people don't think support a case for the HOF to make the case? And your stated reason is that he was a) a better baserunner than people believe and b) he was more clutch than folks believe? An analysis of Kingman's baserunning, even if not as bad as most people think, is like analyzing why fish don't ride bicycles--it's irrelevant to what he was. Guys who are well regarded for their baserunning don't add a tremendous amount to their team, at least since the home run became a staple part of the game. Lou Brock and Rickey Henderson might get a lot of support for their running, but that's about it--and Kingman isn't within a continent of that kind of baserunning. Frankly, I tend to think even the running contributions of those two are overrated. If Kingman hit and defended well enough to be a HOFer, I doubt his base running would disqualify him. See Ernie Lombardi, for example.
    You completely misunderstood my intentions. I was simply pointing out how his stats are misleading in those areas. This was a bit issue from the debate 10 years ago. While his counting stats in those two stats are less that what are normally considered acceptable for HOF consideration his actual production in those area are indeed HOF worthy. Kingman gets a stigma for his baserunning but by all acounts that I've read Kingman was actually a very good (if not particularly fleet of foot) baserunner. At least for the first half of his career.



    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    Other than the irrelevancy of Kingman's base running, as discussed above, there are some huge problems with this approach to the issue of baserunning. Nobody cares how slowly or rapidly Kingman rounded the bases in his home run trot, but those runs count in this approach. That's a sizeable bias in his favor, as 49.1% of his runs scored came on homers. On the other hand, nobody cares how fast he returned to the dugout after making an out, either, and that is a bias against him. If you insist on talking about this, try it again, and tell us how well he scored when not hitting a home run or making an out. Please include his walks.
    Sadly there seems to be a bias against the home run. Again I think it is a matter of PC as other aspects of the game are deemed to be more thoughtful. I still support the power aspect of the game and am not ashamed to admit it. The home run brings an incredible amount to the game. There is no single accievement that a batter can accomplish in any given plate appearance than a home run. Not only do you drive in every runner on base at the time you also drive yourself in which takes all responsibility off your teammates behind you in the lineup. It reduces the chances of your being stranded on base to 0%


    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    RBI from his homers certainly tend to bias this evaluation in his favor. However, if you want to prove somebody was clutch (at best, well done analyses indicate it is awfully hard to demonstrate anyone was consistently clutch (or not) ), at a minimum you've got to show his RBI count was abnormally high for a) someone with his hitting profile b) receiving similar numbers of opportunities. The research I've seen indicates RBI are essentially a function of those two factors, and "clutch" has little or nothing to do with it. Furthermore, if Kingman was so "clutch" as to merit the HOF based in large measure on this quality, we should have a much more accurate assessment of the impact of said quality. I've outlined what I feel would be sufficient proof in that regard. While I doubt Kingman was very "clutch" at all, I am willing to state I would be flabbergasted if anyone could make an argument I see as persuasive that he was so "clutch" that he merits the Hall despite the weaknesses of his case in other respects.
    I believe I've already demonstrated with the fact that his RBI/PA was better than other sluggers of his era. What better way to show his clutch skills than by getting runners home. The fact that his ratio is better than other power hitters takes away the RBI via HR argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    Kingman had a .236 lifetime average and a lifetime .302 OBP in a comparatively low (by HOF standards) 7429 PA. The lowest avg I could find by a HOF 1B/DH/OF was Killebrew's .256. This is a) 20 points better than Kingman's career mark, b) in over 2200 more PA, and c) Killebrew walked a lot while Kingman didn't, so Killebrew holds a 74 point edge in OBP. Kingman only had three seasons of over 280 PA in which he managed an average over .265. His OBP is 39 points below the next lowest 1B/DH/OF I found, Tony Perez. Tony's career OBP of .341 was higher than all but one of Kingman's seasons (Kong's best was .343), and came in over 3200 more plate appearances. It's clear to me that including Kong would set dramatically lower standards for the Hall, and, as such, I am utterly opposed to his inclusion..
    No question the Killebrew was a notch above Kingman. I wouldn't begin the suggest Dave Kingman was better than Harmon Killebrew. However there are a number of other players in the HOF that Kingman is better than. It's only gives less credit to the actual HOF that a player the caliber of Dave Kingman isn't in the HOF.
    My dream ballpark dimensions
    LF: 388 Feet...Height 37 Feet...LCF: 455 Feet...CF: 542 Feet...Height 35 Feet
    RCF: 471 Feet...RF: 400 Feet...Height 60 Feet
    Location....San Diego

  2. #682
    Quote Originally Posted by leecemark View Post
    (Jim Albright from ballot thread) I have supported Pearce as a contributor. However, this election, to my understanding, has always been limited to the playing contributions of the individual--that's why we had (and will again in November) contributor elections. That being the case, I am unconvinced of Pearce's contributions, as he was generally fourth or fifth best on his own team in offensive contribution. See this post for details: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...0&postcount=96 Anyway, I will ask you to reconsider your vote in light of that understanding. If you feel he's good enough as a player, by all means support him. If not, I must ask you not do so in the player ballot.

    Jim, Dickey Pearce was regarded by many as the best player of the 1860s. What that is worth I'm really not sure, as the game was pretty much a club sport at that time. He did remain a good player, with most of his value coming on defense, into the 1870s. So while he did make some contributions that merit recognition I see him as a player first and a contributor second - even though he does need some of the "contributors credit" to make my ballot.
    Furthermore, www.baseballlibrary.com reproduces the following quote from the St. Louis Times of June 30, 1868:

    "Pearce has been noted as a superior shortstop for ten years and to-day has no equal in the base ball field. He bats with great judgment and safety..." As leecemark points out, Pearce was also known as a defensive player. I came close to saying "glove man," but there weren't gloves in those days. So we have to combine offensive value with defensive value. Since Pearce was an above-average defensive player in the 1870s - when he was in his late thirties - it is likely that he was a great fielder in his prime.

    Pearce was born on February 29, 1836, and players generally start to decline around the age of 30.

    Pearce was the top player on his club in the first half of the 1860s, and then started to decline in the mid-1860s. Had Pearce been born in 1841, this decline would have taken place when he entered his peak years, and would have been a serious mark against him, indicating that he benefitted from low levels of competition in his early twenties. But his offensive decline starts about the time that we would expect it to start, so nothing is resolved there.

    Al Reach was considered a good player in the 1860s - not necessarily the best in baseball, but still very good. However, he was done as a regular at the age of 31, and was only a half-time player at 32. This indicates that Reach didn't have all that far to decline, and probably wasn't great. If Pearce had been done by 1868, that would also have been a serious mark against him. But Pearce was still a regular at the age of 39 - with an OPS+ of 98, whatever that meant in the 1875 NA. That indicates Pearce took a lengthy time to decline, which in turn hints that he had a long way to decline from his peak, which in turn indicates that he was probably great at his best.

    It would be nice if we had defensive statistics from the first NA. We don't. But looking at the evidence we do have, I came to the conclusion that the Hall of Merit reached: Pearce is worthy of induction as a player.

  3. #683
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,798
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye View Post
    You completely misunderstood my intentions. I was simply pointing out how his stats are misleading in those areas. This was a bit issue from the debate 10 years ago. While his counting stats in those two stats are less that what are normally considered acceptable for HOF consideration his actual production in those area are indeed HOF worthy. Kingman gets a stigma for his baserunning but by all acounts that I've read Kingman was actually a very good (if not particularly fleet of foot) baserunner. At least for the first half of his career.......
    I still support the power aspect of the game and am not ashamed to admit it. The home run brings an incredible amount to the game. There is no single accievement that a batter can accomplish in any given plate appearance than a home run. Not only do you drive in every runner on base at the time you also drive yourself in which takes all responsibility off your teammates behind you in the lineup. It reduces the chances of your being stranded on base to 0%
    The part after the ellipsis (.....) is an interesting polemic on behalf of the home run, but since you presented this study as proof Kingman was at least a decent baserunner, it is entirely irrelevant. If you want to discuss Kingman's baserunning, home runs that aren't in the park jobs are irrelevant. If the old lady across the street hit it over the fence, they'd give her the time to shuffle along and to touch all four bases. That doesn't prove she can run. She merely was able to touch all four in proper sequence after knocking the ball out of the park between the foul poles. You horribly polluted your "study" of the topic of Kingman's baserunning by including his home runs, to the point of making it useless.


    I believe I've already demonstrated with the fact that his RBI/PA was better than other sluggers of his era. What better way to show his clutch skills than by getting runners home. The fact that his ratio is better than other power hitters takes away the RBI via HR argument.
    No it doesn't--because you haven't shown the number of opportunities other sluggers had. Without such data, you haven't addressed at least one of the two legs of RBI counts, which, I repeat, are: 1) the hitter's talent, and 2) his opportunities to knock them in.

    And if what you've presented is not your case for why Kingman belongs in the Hall, please try actually making that case, as that is what you were requested to do and you indicated you would do.

    Jim Albright
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  4. #684
    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye View Post
    Correct each of those player have a definite longevity edge on Kingman. In terms of driving in runs which was the issue here Kingman was definitely the better run producer of the bunch. One of the best RBI men of all time in fact.
    Have you made an adjustment for the opportunities various players had to hit RBI? Since Kingman was such a terrible player on defense, I'm guessing that he had a lot of pinch-hitting opportunities, and fewer opportunities to hit when there was nobody on base (since he's not valuable in the field), than other players.

    No don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Kingman was a better player than Jackson, Schmidt, or Palmeiro. Each of those players I consider to be a notch or two above Kingman. Still was still a great RBI man whose counting stats make him HOF worthy.
    Which counting stats? Kingman is in the top ten only in career home runs (34th) and career strikeouts (10th). He isn't even in the top 100 in career RBI.


    I look at defense as a plus that can take a boarderline player over the top if they are great with the glove. I don't use defense as a negative to prevent a boarderline player from getting in. Kingman is a little better than a boarderline player IMO so it is really a mute point.
    In other words, you look at offense first, and only rarely consider defensive. As a general rule, 1B have more offensive value than SS do, but SS have more defensive value than 1B - and, when you add the two, the average 1B and average SS tend to have similar values. This approach biases your evaluations toward 1B and corner OF, and away from C, 2B, and SS.

    Well for starters his [Kingman's] HR/AB ratio is 1/15.11 which is 14th all time. With every player ahead of him either still active or in the BBF HOF. 442 career home runs 34th all time. Only 10 players in history have more home runs and a better HR/AB ratio.
    The retired players ahead of him on the list are McGwire, Ruth, Kiner, Killebrew, and Ted Williams. The three retired players just behind him on the list are Mantle, Foxx, and Schmidt. With the exception of Kiner (1011 BB in 10 seasons), all of them have at least 1300 lifetime walks. Kingman had only 608 BB. Kingman is going to drop a few places once you consider HR/PA ratio.

    Furthermore, all of the eight players on the list could do more than simply hit home runs. All Kingman was able to do was hit home runs. What is there, other than home run ratios, to make Kingman the equal of any of those eight players?



    So let me get this straight...you are saying that these 3 players [Kelly, McCarthy, and L. Waner] each of which have inferior counting stats and inferior production, while playing in a far more offensive friendly eras are superior players to Kingman? That is like saying that Don Mattingly is better than Lou Gehrig. It is simply false and there no no facts to support that conclusion.
    Kelly is tied with Kingman in runs created, while Lloyd Waner beats Kingman. McCarthy and Waner both beat Kingman in runs scored. All of them have vastly higher batting averages and OBPs than Kingman. Also, you have given the three players no credit for defense, even though Lloyd Waner was one of the top defensive center fielders of his era.

    In career win shares, we have:

    Waner 245
    Kelly 193
    Kingman 193
    McCarthy 170
    (McCarthy suffers from shorter seasons in the 1800s.)

    In best five consecutive seasons, we have

    Kelly 112
    Waner 110
    McCarthy 110
    Kingman 82

    In win shares per 162 games, we have

    McCarthy 21.60
    Waner 19.91
    Kelly 19.28
    Kingman 16.10

    McCarthy, Waner, and Kelly all seem to have been more productive than Kingman.

    I start by looking at the players offensive numbers as a whole taking into account career totals as well as production. Look at other aspects of their game such as speed and baserunning. Then if the player is boarderline I look at the players defense as a whole. (range, position, arm, hustle). A great defensive player with boarderline offensive numbers will likely get the nod. An average/poor defensive player will likely remain boarderline IMO and may or may not receive support from me. I don't penalize for defense.
    Relegating defense to a tiebreaker is a giant problem with your approach. First basemen are no more likely than shortstops or second basemen to have a higher overall value (offense plus defense). But first basemen are more likely to get past your first hurdle than second basemen.

    You aren't penalizing for defense, but you are basically ignoring it. An above-average 1B has less value than a great SS, but the 1B is more likely to have more offensive value than the SS. This is a severe flaw in your approach - it favors 1B, LF, and RF, and penalizes 2B, SS, and C, even if their overall value is equal.


    OPS+ is a nice stat but it's not the only thing that should be looked at to determine a players production. Longevity for me is more about counting stats than plate apperances. Whitaker is an interesting case and certainly boarderline. I don't see that many seasons that I would consider HOF caliber from him. 3 or 4 out of his 19 seasons. Which means he was not what I would consider a HOF caliber player about 80% of the time.
    I looked at counting stats. Whitaker beats Kingman in runs scored, hits, doubles, triples, stolen bases, walks, total bases, and runs created. Whitaker also beats Kingman in batting average, OBP, and OPS+.

    The only counting stats where Kingman beats Whitaker are HR and RBI. If you have Kingman ahead on counting stats, then that implies that HR and RBI are the only counting stats that matter. That's a very strange argument to make.

    Kingman had two seasons with 20 or more win shares. I count ten such seasons for Whitaker, and three more with 19 (which would have been 20 in a league without the DH taking away offensive win shares from other players.) In any case, Whitaker was playing at All-Star caliber in over half his seasons. Kingman missed the mark over 80% of the time.


    Best available at each position? Lou Whitaker, Joe Sewell, Lance Parrish in that order.
    I don't see the case that Lance Parrish is the best catcher available.

    More to the point, I don't see why you consider Lou Whitaker borderline. If Whitaker had a higher OPS+ than Dave Kingman in a longer career, and he had higher counting totals than Kingman in eight of the ten categories you listed, and he had more defensive value than Kingman, then why is it Kingman who's on your ballot and Whitaker who's merely borderline?

  5. #685
    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye View Post
    No question the Killebrew was a notch above Kingman. I wouldn't begin the suggest Dave Kingman was better than Harmon Killebrew. However there are a number of other players in the HOF that Kingman is better than. It's only gives less credit to the actual HOF that a player the caliber of Dave Kingman isn't in the HOF.
    You mentioned George Kelly, Lloyd Waner, and Tommy McCarthy above. However, we are voting for the BBF HOF, and not the HOF in Cooperstown. The last time I checked, Kelly, L. Waner, and McCarthy were not in the BBFHOF, nor were they drawing any votes in this election.

    Would you care to list the players in the BBFHOF whom you feel are better than Kingman?

  6. #686
    Quote Originally Posted by AG2004 View Post
    Have you made an adjustment for the opportunities various players had to hit RBI? Since Kingman was such a terrible player on defense, I'm guessing that he had a lot of pinch-hitting opportunities, and fewer opportunities to hit when there was nobody on base (since he's not valuable in the field), than other players.
    This is something I've wondered quite a bit since following this discussion. Looking at the number of plate appearances per game for the top 50 hitters in career home runs, Kingman's 3.83 PA/G ratio gives him the fourth lowest total among anyone with 384 or more home runs. To me that says he must've had a pretty fair number of pinch hitting appearances throughout his career. So I looked it up. Interestingly enough he did not. Kingman entered a game to pinch hit 162 times during his career - or in 8.3% of his total games. In fact, during his final National League season, in 1983 for the Mets, approximately half of Kingman's 100 games were pinch hitting appearances.

    Not quite sure how the following stack up against other power hitters - and I'm checking on that right now - but 26.9% of Kingman's career plate appearances came as a designated or pinch hitter, meaning that for at least a quarter of his career, his team didn't deem his contribution with the bat significant enough to risk his play in the field.

    Another stat I unearthed and am looking for comps for is that 61.9% of his career RBI came from his home runs. Here are some more Kingman statistics I uncovered:

    Kingman went to the plate 4,959 times with at least one runner on base. His 1,210 RBI represents a driving in of just 24.4% of the potential runs he might have.

    More context forthcoming.
    Last edited by Chadwick; 07-11-2007 at 03:01 PM.
    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
    "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
    "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
    "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

  7. #687
    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye View Post
    10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

    That is one of the problems with this list. It is very subjective. In my book Canseco is clearly the best eligible rightfielder not in the HOF.
    One can come up with objective or numerical ways to answer the questions on the list, including this one. You could come up with a way of rating players, and then use the method to answer this question.

    Besides, if you answer this question "yes" for a player, you have to come up with reasons why the player deserves the yes answer. Why do you believe Canseco is better than the other RFs outside the BBFHOF?

    I don't use win shares as I've found there to be a number of flaws with that system. It can't even accurately determine a player best season how can it be used to determine the player's career value.
    Is there a better system or mix of methods that you can recommend? I know the win shares system has limitations, and I do my best to keep those limitations in line.

    Best three seasons in win shares, RF: Paul Waner 102, Dave Parker 101, Bobby Murcer 101, Ken Singleton 101, Elmer Flick 100, Harry Heilmann 97, Pedro Guerrero 97, CANSECO 96, Enos Slaughter 95, Bobby Bonds 94, Rocky Colavito 94, Jack Clark 94, Roberto Clemente 94, Al Kaline 92, Dave WInfield 92, Roger Maris 92, Gavy Cravath 92, Tony Oliva 91, Rusty Staub 90.

    So by this measurement Jack Clark had the better peak than Roberto Clemente, Kaline, Winfield, & Maris? Umm didn't Maris win back to back MVP awards? Yes, that is a system everyone should have confidence in the accurately determine the better peak.
    In this category, the seasons do not have to be consecutive. In Clark's case, his best three seasons are 1978, 1987, and 1989.

    When you measure the five best consecutive seasons, Clark comes out at 118 win shares. Clemente is at 146; Kaline, 130; Winfield, 132; and Maris, 135.

    Best five consecutive seasons in win shares, RF: Pedro Guerrero 134, Tony Oliva 134, Rocky Colavito 133, Dixie Walker 133, Darryl Strawberry 133, Dave Winfield 132, Ross Youngs 132, Andre Dawson 132, Babe Herman 131, Bill Nicholson 131, Al Kaline 130, Reggie Smith 129, CANSECO 126, Tommy Holmes 125, Roy Cullenbine 125, Dwight Evans 122, Tommy Henrich 122.

    Pedro Guerrero had the better peak than Winfield or Kaline? Sure he did.
    It's close. However, Guerrero didn't have as many good seasons as Winfield and Kaline did. While Winfield and Kaline both earned over 400 win shares in their careers, Guerrero finished with just 246 in his. Guerrero wasn't able to play at the level Winfield and Kaline did for as long as they did.

    There are three members of the BBFHOF in the group above - but all of them had many more career win shares than Canseco's 272. Canseco isn't similar to Kaline, Winfield, or Dawson.

    Also, by combining the three win shares measures I use, we can get a better sense of how similar a player is to other players. Traditional similarity scores don't take into account a player's era or defensive contributions. In terms of value, these three measures indicate that Canseco is similar to Rocky Colavito, Dixie Walker, and Pedro Guerrero - and none of them is in the BBFHOF.

    The problem with this is that Black and Gray Ink both favor the older players. Back when there were fewer teams/players it was easier to rank in the top 10 or lead the league in catagories. Half the players makes it twice as easy. Every player in the top 10 in black ink retired in 1963 or earlier with the exception of Hank Aaron who is 9th. As great a player as Barry Bonds is he only ranks 12th. Just on the numbers alone nobody in their right mind would ever suggest that Mike Schmidt or Dan Brouthers had a better career with the bat than Barry Bonds. It's even worse when you look at Gray Ink. Barry Bonds ranks 14th behind Sam Crawford who is 9th and Cap Anson who is 5th.
    I agree that the Ink tests favor earlier players, which is why it comes into play mainly in borderline cases. However, since Canseco isn't close to belonging in the BBFHOF according to everything I place more weight on, the fact that he's marginal in the ink and HOF Standards tests can't help him.

    Nobody is suggesting the rate stats be used in isolation. They must be taken into context and considered as just one of the factors used to determine a player's career. Jose Canseco did miss a lot of games exspecially during the later part of his career but still his counting stats are quite impressive and worthy in itself of HOF induction.
    Could you tell us what level of counting stats you find worthy of HOF induction? The only counting stat Canseco is in the top 25 in is career strikeouts.

    Quote Originally Posted by AG2004
    Furthermore, Canseco only had two seasons with 30+ win shares. That's not a poor sign for Canseco, but it's not a great sign, either.
    I prefer a different method. I look at the number of HOF caliber seasons a player had. To do that I take the numbers that player put up during that season and times it by the number of seasons that player played during his career (as if that was the players average season) If the numbers are HOF worthy then it is a HOF caliber season. If over 50% of the players individual seasons are HOF worthy than that player deserves serious HOF consideration. A player with a 20 year career season numbers wouldn't have to be as great as a player who only played 14 seasons due to the longevity factor. But yet a player with a 20 year career would have to have 10 HOF caliber seasons comparred to only 7 for a player with the 14 year career. In Jose Canseco's case 10 of his 17 seasons (59%) were HOF caliber (86-88, 90-91, 94-96, 98-99)
    In your opinion, what exactly is a HOF caliber season?

    I find that a season with 30+ win shares works very well with this question. It doesn't matter how a player gathers the 30 win shares; he could be an outstanding DH or an exceptional defensive SS with solid offense. He could be very strong in one or two aspects of the game, or very good in all facets of baseball without standing out in any one of them. It doesn't favor position players who bat in hitter's eras, or penalize those who play in pitcher's eras. Can we say the same thing about your standard?

    Quote Originally Posted by AG2004
    I only counted five All-Star-type seasons for Canseco. By this, I mean seasons with 20+ win shares (or, in 1994, the equivalent of 20 or more win shares per 162 games). That's low for a Hall of Fame position player; eight is the border area.
    Canseco had 6 seasons with a OPS+ of 134 or higher while playing in 100+ games, 1 season with a 144 OPS+ in 96 games) and 3 other seasons where he put up 31+ homers and 107+ RBI with an OPS+ ranging from 110-115. All of those I would consider HOF caliber much less All-star type seasons.
    Again, it doesn't seem that you consider either durability or defense when you define an All-Star-type season; I don't know what you consider such a season to be.

    In 1998, Canseco had 46 HR and 107 RBI. However, he played DH half the time. When he played LF or RF, he was terrible in the field. In his 50 games in left, for example, his fielding percentage was .955, while the league FP was .985. His defensive value was next to nothing. Canseco's BA was .237, while the park-adjusted league average was .272. His OBP was .318, compared to the park-adjusted league OBP of .340. Most of Canseco's value in 1998 consisted in hitting home runs; very little of it came from his ability to get on base. Canseco finished with 15 win shares, and that is not an All-Star-type season.

    On the other hand, consider Frank Thomas in 1997. He was a poor 1B in two-thirds of his games, and a DH in the remainder. But he was first in batting average, first in OBP, second in slugging average, seventh in runs scored, seventh in HR, fifth in RBI, fourth in BB, and second in runs created. All this was despite the fact that the new Comiskey Park was the worst field in the American League for hitters. Thomas was also first in OPS+, at 181. Thomas earned 39 win shares in the 1997 season. It is possible to produce an MVP-type-season with one's bat alone. But Canseco didn't produce that many such seasons, and Kingman didn't come anywhere close to having an MVP-type season (and only recorded two All-Star-type seasons).

    Quote Originally Posted by AG2004
    Stargell, Snider, and McCovey all appear on the similarity score list. However, all of them had lifetime OPS+ marks at least nine points above Canseco's 131, and they all had more PAs than Canseco. Canseco was clearly worse than those three players. The other seven players in the list aren't in Cooperstown.
    But only 6 of the 10 players are eligible and Stargell, Snider, and McCovey are among the upper tier of HOF.
    I grant that only 6 of the 10 are eligible, so we can't use the four who are not eligible for guidance. I grant that Stargell, Snider, and McCovey are deserving Hall of Famers. However, Canseco was clearly worse than those three players, so the fact that they are in Cooperstown doesn't help Canseco's case that much.

    Even with the steroid issue Jose Canseco is still more than HOF worthy.
    I have to disagree; even without the steroid issue, Jose Canseco is not worthy of the BBFHOF.
    Last edited by AG2004; 07-11-2007 at 03:26 PM. Reason: Changed one "QUOTE" to "/QUOTE"

  8. #688
    It looks like we have some idea of what Sockeye considers a "Hall of Fame season."

    Earlier we have:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye
    In Jose Canseco's case 10 of his 17 seasons (59%) were HOF caliber (86-88, 90-91, 94-96, 98-99)
    . . . .
    Canseco had 6 seasons with a OPS+ of 134 or higher while playing in 100+ games, 1 season with a 144 OPS+ in 96 games) and 3 other seasons where he put up 31+ homers and 107+ RBI with an OPS+ ranging from 110-115. All of those I would consider HOF caliber much less All-star type seasons.
    Sockeye also states:

    Whitaker is an interesting case and certainly boarderline. I don't see that many seasons that I would consider HOF caliber from him. 3 or 4 out of his 19 seasons. Which means he was not what I would consider a HOF caliber player about 80% of the time.
    If a season with an OPS+ of 133 or higher while playing in 100+ games is a "Hall of Fame" season, then Whitaker would have five HOF seasons. Whitaker had an OPS+ of exactly 133 in three of those seasons.

    Therefore, according to Sockeye, a season where a player appears in 100+ games and has an OPS+ of 134 or greater is automatically a "Hall of Fame" season. However, if a player has an OPS of 133, it would not be a "Hall of Fame" season, and the player must do more to qualify for the honor.

    Sockeye, you are claiming that, when Whitaker falls one single OPS+ point short of a Hall of Fame season, his defense at second base is not enough to make up the gap, but when Jose Canseco bats .237 and falls 21 points short of your OPS+ cutoff of 134, he can make up that gap and with enough HRs and RBIs and have a Hall of Fame season anyway, even though his defense is atrocious.

    Do you realize how ridiculous that claim sounds? Is there any way you can defend that statement, or do you want to change your standards so that they make more sense?

    -----

    Dave Kingman has exactly one season with 100+ games and an OPS+ of at least 134 (1979). He had another season with 31+ HRs and 107+ RBIs with an OPS+ above 110 (1984). That's a grand total of two Hall of Fame seasons for Kingman, at least by Sockeye's standards. Sockeye also claims that Whitaker had three or four "Hall of Fame seasons." That's more than Kingman has.

    So, Sockeye, why exactly do you have Kingman ahead of Lou Whitaker?
    Last edited by AG2004; 07-11-2007 at 07:54 PM.

  9. #689
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tiger fan living in Reds country
    Posts
    1,749
    You miss a day here, you miss a lot!

    For the record, Dickey Pearce makes my ballot as the best shortstop, and sometimes the best player, of his time. Unfortunately there are no statistics to back that up, only anecdotal evidence, which is also in short supply. Everything I've read pretty much said the same thing: he had a long (22-yr.) career and was a dominant player for much of it.

    The other stuff in my post in the voting thread is to recognize his other accomplishments or contributions. But the vote is for him a SS.

    Jim, I understand your reluctance to vote for a guy with the offensive numbers you posted. Most of the best middle infielders are a hard sell because they usually don't fare well at the plate. But for Pearce to be called "dominant" over a ten-year span, and with an offense that rates as fair to poor, it makes me think of an early version of Ozzie Smith. He must be getting credit for field leadership and outstanding defense.

    I also feel that we should recognize all eras in our Hall, and this is as early as I feel comfortable going.

  10. #690
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,798
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by 2Chance View Post
    You miss a day here, you miss a lot!

    For the record, Dickey Pearce makes my ballot as the best shortstop, and sometimes the best player, of his time. Unfortunately there are no statistics to back that up, only anecdotal evidence, which is also in short supply. Everything I've read pretty much said the same thing: he had a long (22-yr.) career and was a dominant player for much of it.

    The other stuff in my post in the voting thread is to recognize his other accomplishments or contributions. But the vote is for him a SS.

    Jim, I understand your reluctance to vote for a guy with the offensive numbers you posted. Most of the best middle infielders are a hard sell because they usually don't fare well at the plate. But for Pearce to be called "dominant" over a ten-year span, and with an offense that rates as fair to poor, it makes me think of an early version of Ozzie Smith. He must be getting credit for field leadership and outstanding defense.

    I also feel that we should recognize all eras in our Hall, and this is as early as I feel comfortable going.
    That's fine. The only issue I had was that I wondered if you were saying he needed stuff beyond his play (i.e. "contributor" stuff) to make the cut. In that instance, I think the precedent is clear: such a person does not belong on the player ballot, but is quite appropriate for the contributor ballot.

    There is unquestionable logic to your position, and if baseball in Pearce's day weren't such a disorganized mess (the Negro Leagues look orderly by comparison, for Pete's sake), I might follow it as well. As it is, I think there is logic to support both sides, and I'd prefer to err on the "out" side rather than the "in"--after all, once they're in, they're in, whether it's a mistake or not. When they're out, the mistake can always be undone.

    Jim Albright
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  11. #691
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,798
    Blog Entries
    34
    Sockeye,

    In the discussion of whether or not Kingman was "clutch", we've differed over your analysis. I don't expect to persuade you with this, but if there are any spectators who are wavering, I hope to persuade them. In any event, I will clarify my position.

    I've said that RBI are essentially a function of RBI opportunities and the player's own batting talents. Cyril Morong published such a formula in Baseball Research Journal #31, at pp 98-101. The coefficients he came up with are based on 1987-2001 data, and exclude RBI via sac flies and bases loaded walks. I can account for the RBI by sac flies by simply deducting the number of sac flies from his RBI count, and AG2004 is kind enough to supply the RBI by walk in the post below (7). If there are significant differences in the coefficients for 1971-1986 (Kingman's time) versus 1987-2001, I am unable to deal with that. Finally, if you have how often Kingman came up with men on first, men on second, and men on third, I can use another formula from the same article which Morong indicates is more accurate.

    Morong indicates he can predict the number of RBI per AB by the following formula:

    (.125 * opportunities/AB )+ (.194 * avg) + (.514 * isolated power) -.20 where opportunities are the number of players on base plus the batter himself.

    Let's do that for Kingman.
    Code:
    opportunities	equals AB + men on base		
    opp	AB	MOB	
    11636	6677	4959	
    
    opportunity factor	equals .125 * opp/AB		
    result	factor	opp	AB
    0.218	0.125	11636	6677
    
    average factor	equals .194 * avg		
    result	factor	avg	
    0.046	0.194	0.236	
    			
    isolated power	equals slg-avg		
    result	slg	avg	
    0.242	0.478	0.236	
    				
    isolated power factor	equals .514 * isolated power			
    result	factor	iso power		
    0.124	0.514	0.242		
    
    final result 	equals opp factor plus avg factor plus iso power factor minus .2			
    0.188
    Let's compare that to the number of actual RBI less SF and RBI by walk for Kingman:

    (1210 RBI - 75 SF - 7 RBI by walk)/6677= .169

    Certainly, these results, although subject to the caveats made above, do not suggest Kingman was particularly clutch. I am comfortable saying the over 10% difference isn't likely accounted for totally by the difference in time. I'd like to redo it with the information on where the men were on base, if someone has the data.

    Jim Albright
    Last edited by jalbright; 07-12-2007 at 05:50 PM.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  12. #692
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    I've said that RBI are essentially a function of RBI opportunities and the player's own batting talents. Cyril Morong published such a formula in Baseball Research Journal #31, at pp 98-101. The coefficients he came up with are based on 1987-2001 data, and exclude RBI via sac flies and bases loaded walks. I can account for the RBI by sac flies by simply deducting the number of sac flies from his RBI count, but I am unable to come up with a fix for the bases loaded walks. If there are significant differences in the coefficients for 1971-1986 (Kingman's time) versus 1987-2001, I am similarly unable to deal with that. Finally, if you have how often Kingman came up with men on first, men on second, and men on third, I can use another formula from the same article which Morong indicates is more accurate.
    Retrosheet provides various splits for Kingman, including his performance with nobody on base, with men on base, with runners in scoring position, and with the bases loaded. According to that source, Kingman had 7 bases loaded walks over the course of his career.

    One can compute how often Kingman came up to bat with people on various bases by using the play-by-play information retrosheet has, but I do not feel like going through the records of 1,941 individual games. Perhaps Sockeye may feel that the count is worth doing.

  13. #693
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,798
    Blog Entries
    34
    AG2004,

    Thanks for the RBI by walk data for Kingman, which has been used to update my post.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  14. #694
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Lima, Ohio
    Posts
    6,324
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    And if what you've presented is not your case for why Kingman belongs in the Hall, please try actually making that case, as that is what you were requested to do and you indicated you would do.

    Jim Albright
    My case for why Dave Kingman belongs in the HOF in a nutshell is this.

    Career

    901 runs
    1575 hits
    240 doubles
    25 triples
    442 home runs
    1210 rbi
    85 stolen bases
    608 bases on balls
    3191 total bases
    961 runs created
    .236 AVG
    .302 OBP
    .478 SLG
    115 OPS+
    4.82 RC/27
    95 AIR
    .276 EQA
    368 BRAR

    162 Game averages

    75 runs
    131 hits
    20 doubles
    2 triples
    37 home runs
    101 rbi
    7 stolen bases
    51 bases on balls
    266 total bases
    80 runs created
    .236 AVG
    .302 OBP
    .478 SLG
    115 OPS+
    4.82 RC/27
    95 AIR
    .276 EQA

    I believe on paper his career totals as a whole are HOF worthy. He was an excellent run producer. Scoring and driving in runs at a much higher pace than the average player during his era. His numbers would be even better if not for poor teams he played on and the low offensive era in which he played.

    The negatives are 1. his low averages which didn't prevent him from being a well above average offensive player. 2. his games missed which didn't prevent him from putting up HOF numbers and 3. his defensive skills which I doesn't offset his offensive contributions. Bottom line for me Dave Kingman is a HOFer!
    My dream ballpark dimensions
    LF: 388 Feet...Height 37 Feet...LCF: 455 Feet...CF: 542 Feet...Height 35 Feet
    RCF: 471 Feet...RF: 400 Feet...Height 60 Feet
    Location....San Diego

  15. #695
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Lima, Ohio
    Posts
    6,324
    Quote Originally Posted by AG2004 View Post
    It looks like we have some idea of what Sockeye considers a "Hall of Fame season."

    Earlier we have:



    Sockeye also states:



    If a season with an OPS+ of 133 or higher while playing in 100+ games is a "Hall of Fame" season, then Whitaker would have five HOF seasons. Whitaker had an OPS+ of exactly 133 in three of those seasons.

    Therefore, according to Sockeye, a season where a player appears in 100+ games and has an OPS+ of 134 or greater is automatically a "Hall of Fame" season. However, if a player has an OPS of 133, it would not be a "Hall of Fame" season, and the player must do more to qualify for the honor.

    Sockeye, you are claiming that, when Whitaker falls one single OPS+ point short of a Hall of Fame season, his defense at second base is not enough to make up the gap, but when Jose Canseco bats .237 and falls 21 points short of your OPS+ cutoff of 134, he can make up that gap and with enough HRs and RBIs and have a Hall of Fame season anyway, even though his defense is atrocious.

    Do you realize how ridiculous that claim sounds? Is there any way you can defend that statement, or do you want to change your standards so that they make more sense?

    -----

    Dave Kingman has exactly one season with 100+ games and an OPS+ of at least 134 (1979). He had another season with 31+ HRs and 107+ RBIs with an OPS+ above 110 (1984). That's a grand total of two Hall of Fame seasons for Kingman, at least by Sockeye's standards. Sockeye also claims that Whitaker had three or four "Hall of Fame seasons." That's more than Kingman has.

    So, Sockeye, why exactly do you have Kingman ahead of Lou Whitaker?
    Let me clarify. OPS+ is not that important to the HOF caliber season. That is just one number just as HR is one number, rbi is one number, runs are one number, etc. Look at the season as a whole. In your opinion which season would you rather have from Whitaker. 1987 or 1988? As far as I'm concerned 1987 is one of Lou Whitaker's best seasons. His OPS+ that year was only 106 but yet he played in 149 games, scored 110 runs, 38 doubles and did more to help his team that year than he did in 1988 when he only played in 110 games and had an OPS+ of 127.

    Here is how I determine HOF season or not.

    Take Jose Canseco's 1987 season for instance.

    81 runs
    162 hits
    35 doubles
    3 triples
    31 home runs
    113 rbi
    15 stolen bases
    50 walks
    296 total bases
    92 runs created
    .257 AVG
    .310 OBP
    .470 SLG
    110 OPS+

    Jose Canseco played 17 seasons. Take each of those totals times 17
    That would give him

    1377 runs
    2754 hits
    595 doubles
    51 triples
    527 home runs
    1921 rbi
    255 stolen bases
    850 walks
    5032 total bases
    1564 runs created
    .257 AVG
    .310 OBP
    .470 SLG
    110 OPS+

    Now is that a HOF career? The OPS+ number of 110 is a little low but that is just one number. His 527 home runs, 1921 rbi, 2754 hits, 5032 total bases, 1564 runs created more than make up for that OPS+ number. Thus his 1987 season was HOF caliber. So that is how a seasons with a 110 OPS+ can still be HOF caliber. It's all about looking at the numbers as a whole and not just at one number.
    My dream ballpark dimensions
    LF: 388 Feet...Height 37 Feet...LCF: 455 Feet...CF: 542 Feet...Height 35 Feet
    RCF: 471 Feet...RF: 400 Feet...Height 60 Feet
    Location....San Diego

  16. #696
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Lima, Ohio
    Posts
    6,324
    Quote Originally Posted by AG2004 View Post
    Retrosheet provides various splits for Kingman, including his performance with nobody on base, with men on base, with runners in scoring position, and with the bases loaded. According to that source, Kingman had 7 bases loaded walks over the course of his career.

    One can compute how often Kingman came up to bat with people on various bases by using the play-by-play information retrosheet has, but I do not feel like going through the records of 1,941 individual games. Perhaps Sockeye may feel that the count is worth doing.
    Of Dave Kingman's 7429 plate appearances he came to bat 3822 times with the bases empty or 51.44703% of the time. He had 228 RBI in those PA's obviously all via the HR. His batting average was .228 with nobody on base, 8 points lower than his career average. He walked 311 times or 8.1371% of the time.

    Dave Kingman came to bat 1541 times with a runner on first base only or 20.74303% of the time. He had 211 RBI in those PA's. 94 HR's which means he drove the runner home from first 117 times or 7.59247% of the time. He batted .252 with a runner on 1st base, 16 points above his career average. He walked 102 times or 6.61907% of the time.

    Dave Kingman came to bat 625 times with a runner on second base only or 8.41297% of the time. He had 118 RBI in those PA's. 26 HR's which means he drove the runner home from second 92 times or 14.72% of the time. He batted .212 with a runner on 2nd base, 24 points below his career average. He walked 82 times (45 intentional) or 13.12% of the time.

    Dave Kingman came to bat 256 times with a runner on third base only or 3.44595% of the time. He had 94 RBI's in those PA's. 17 HR's which means he drove the runner home from third 77 times or 30.07812% of the time. He batted .262 with a runner on 3rd base, 26 points above his career average. He walked 28 times or 10.9375% of the time.

    Dave Kingman came to bat 480 times with runners on first and second base or 6.46116% of the time. He had 170 RBI in those PA's. 31 HR's which means he drove 139 runners home or 14.47916% of the time (adjusted for two runners on base). He batted .227 with runners on first and second base, 9 points below his career average. He walked 30 times or 6.25% of the time.

    Dave Kingman came to bat 320 times with runners on first and third base or 4.30744% of the time. He had 162 RBI in those PA's. 23 HR's which means he drove 139 runners home or 25.3125% of the time (adjusted for two runners on base). He batted .279 with runners on first and third base, 43 points above his career average. He walked 15 times or 4.6875% of the time.

    Dave Kingman came to bat 158 times with runners on second and third or 2.1268% of the time. He had 84 RBI in those PA's. 7 HR's which means he drove 77 runners home or 24.36708% of the time (adjusted for two runners on base). He batted .252 with runners on second and third base, 16 points above his career average. He walked 33 times (22 intentional) or 20.88607% of the time.

    Dave Kingman came to bat 163 times with the bases loaded or 2.1941% of the time. He had 143 RBI in those PA's. 16 grand slams which means drove 127 runners home or 25.97137% of the time (adjusted for three runners on base). He batted .270 with the bases loaded, 34 points above his career average. He walked 7 times or 4.29447% of the time.

    A couple things interesting to note here. Not only do we see a significant increase in Kingman's batting average with runners on base compared to the bases empty. His walks percentage decreases with runners on base and even more so with runners in scoring position. Exceptions being with a runner on 2nd or on 2nd & 3rd when his intentional walks increased his total. Unlike Ted Williams or Barry Bonds who it has been said would rather take a walk to protect their average than to drive home runners. Dave Kingman knew his job was to get the runners home and he did that very well.
    Last edited by Sockeye; 07-13-2007 at 09:35 AM.
    My dream ballpark dimensions
    LF: 388 Feet...Height 37 Feet...LCF: 455 Feet...CF: 542 Feet...Height 35 Feet
    RCF: 471 Feet...RF: 400 Feet...Height 60 Feet
    Location....San Diego

  17. #697
    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye View Post
    My case for why Dave Kingman belongs in the HOF in a nutshell is this.

    Career

    901 runs
    1575 hits
    240 doubles
    25 triples
    442 home runs
    1210 rbi
    85 stolen bases
    608 bases on balls
    3191 total bases
    961 runs created
    .236 AVG
    .302 OBP
    .478 SLG
    115 OPS+
    4.82 RC/27
    95 AIR
    .276 EQA
    368 BRAR
    Let's compare them to Lou Whitaker.

    Career
    1386 runs (over 150% of Kingman's career total)
    2369 hits (over 150% of Kingman's career total)
    420 doubles (over 150% of Kingman's career total)
    65 triples (over 200% of Kingman's career total)
    244 home runs (Kingman has more)
    1084 RBI (Kingman has more)
    143 stolen bases (over 150% of Kingman's career total)
    1197 bases on balls (over 195% of Kingman's career total)
    3651 total bases (more than Kingman)
    1337 runs created (over 135% of Kingman's career total)
    .276 AVG (40 points higher than Kingman)
    .363 OBP (61 points higher than Kingman)
    .426 SLG (Kingman is higher)
    117 OPS+ (Higher than Kingman)
    5.47 RC/27 (over 110% of Kingman's rate)
    .292 EQA (Higher than Kingman)
    665 BRAR (over 175% of Kingman's career total)

    Of the seventeen numbers listed above, Lou Whitaker - whom you say is borderline - beats Kingman in fourteen of them, and often by large margins. Kingman is ahead in just three of them. And that's just considering offense; Whitaker's advantage is bigger than that when we add defense into the mix.

    Furthermore, in your Keltner list for Canseco, you said that Canseco was similar to three Hall of Famers, and several other people who belong in the Hall of Fame. None of Kingman's most similar players are in the Hall of Fame; none of them are in the BBFHOF. If none of the players similar to Kingman have numbers worthy of the HOF, then what makes Kingman's numbers worthy?

    I believe on paper his career totals as a whole are HOF worthy. He was an excellent run producer. Scoring and driving in runs at a much higher pace than the average player during his era. His numbers would be even better if not for poor teams he played on and the low offensive era in which he played.
    Kingman also used up outs at a higher pace than the average hitter during his era.

    In addition, to find a player's value, we want to combine runs produced on offense with runs saved on defense. When we combine these two numbers, how does Kingman compare to the average player during his era? You have not answered this question yet .

    The negatives are 1. his low averages which didn't prevent him from being a well above average offensive player. 2. his games missed which didn't prevent him from putting up HOF numbers and 3. his defensive skills which I doesn't offset his offensive contributions. Bottom line for me Dave Kingman is a HOFer!
    The low averages are a big problem; if you can't get on base, you can't score runs. He missed a lot of games, and you don't have any value when sitting on the bench.

    You keep saying that Kingman's defensive problems are not enough to offset his offensive contributions, but you haven't given us any reasons to believe this. As you agreed earlier,

    Total value equals Offensive Value plus Defensive Value .

    The Hall of Fame is supposed to honor players for their total value, and not merely their offensive value.

    Tell me - how does Kingman's defensive value compare to the average player's defensive value? When you add Kingman's defensive value to his offensive value, is his resulting total value still well above the average player's total value? Can you give reasons to support your position?
    Last edited by AG2004; 07-13-2007 at 01:24 PM. Reason: Changed "/QUOTE" to "QUOTE"

  18. #698
    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye View Post
    I believe on paper his career totals as a whole are HOF worthy. He was an excellent run producer. Scoring and driving in runs at a much higher pace than the average player during his era. His numbers would be even better if not for poor teams he played on and the low offensive era in which he played.
    Aren't Kingman's RC numbers merely about average?
    Maybe someone can back this up.

  19. #699
    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye View Post
    Let me clarify. OPS+ is not that important to the HOF caliber season. That is just one number just as HR is one number, rbi is one number, runs are one number, etc.
    Sockeye, you were the one who said that a season where a player appears in 100+ games and has an OPS+ of 134 is a HOF season. You were the one who said that Lou Whitaker had only three or four HOF seasons. I was taking what you said, and showed how it applied to different situations. If you don't like the implications of what you said in the first place, then you have to admit that there is something wrong with what you originally said.

    Furthermore, OPS+ already takes HR into account. Why should we give HR double consideration when it comes to evaluating a HOF caliber season, especially when you are giving defensive play no consideration whatsoever in your definition?

    Look at the season as a whole. In your opinion which season would you rather have from Whitaker. 1987 or 1988? As far as I'm concerned 1987 is one of Lou Whitaker's best seasons. His OPS+ that year was only 106 but yet he played in 149 games, scored 110 runs, 38 doubles and did more to help his team that year than he did in 1988 when he only played in 110 games and had an OPS+ of 127.
    Whitaker had 20 win shares in both 1987 and 1988, so I'm not sure which one I'd choose. However, from what you are arguing, a player's durability does contribute to his overall value. Since Canseco had just 17 win shares in 1987, I'd take either of those two Whitaker seasons over Canseco's 1987 year.


    Here is how I determine HOF season or not.

    Take Jose Canseco's 1987 season for instance.

    . . . .

    Jose Canseco played 17 seasons. Take each of those totals times 17

    . . . .

    So that is how a seasons with a 110 OPS+ can still be HOF caliber. It's all about looking at the numbers as a whole and not just at one number.
    Sockeye, you aren't looking at the numbers as a whole; you are ignoring defense entirely when presenting the numbers.

    But let's take your methodology and apply it to somebody else. The following is an actual season recorded by an actual major leaguer - I am not making these numbers up.

    Player X:
    80 runs
    109 hits
    9 doubles
    1 triple
    37 home runs
    99 RBI
    4 stolen bases
    59 walks
    231 total bases
    65 runs created
    .204 AVG
    .285 OBP
    .432 SLG
    99 OPS+

    Player X was in the major leagues for 16 years. So we take each figure and multiply by 16.

    1280 runs
    1744 hits
    144 doubles
    16 triples
    592 home runs
    1584 RBI
    64 stolen bases
    944 walks
    3696 total bases
    1040 runs created
    .204 AVG
    .285 OBP
    .432 SLG
    99 OPS+

    1584 RBI would place one in a tie for 32nd place on the all-time list. 592 home runs would be good for sixth on the all-time career list. Is this a HOF career? If so, does that mean one can be a deserving Hall of Famer even with an OPS+ that's less than 100?

    I'm curious.
    Last edited by AG2004; 07-13-2007 at 01:26 PM.

  20. #700
    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye View Post
    Of the 200 players in the BBFHOF There has been 16 catchers, 15 second baseman, & 17 shortstops. Throughout the history of the game I believe that C, 2B, & SS are generally the weaker positions. I don't feel that 48 of the games top 200 players in the history of the game have been C, 2B, SS. Now that is starting to change in recent years we are seeing more great SS and 2B's come along. Catcher is still somewhat lacking in talent. Or at least the ability to maintain a high level of play for a long period of time. I realize that is due in large part to the nature of the position but there are examples in history that have been able to last at that position so I'm not willing to lower my HOF standards to make up for the overall lack of talent at catcher.
    Sockeye, you claim that there have been many more great 1B and OF than C, 2B, and SS.

    Therefore, improving a team should have been very simple. You just get some of those 1B and OF and move them to C, 2B, and SS. Then you would have a great team.

    Sockeye, why do you think this hasn't been tried in the past? Do you think doing that would be a good idea?

Page 35 of 91 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •