If (blank) is in......

[[email protected]]

I was just bored and i thought we could start a thread stating a player in the Hall and a eligible player NOT in the hall that should be in compared to the 1st player.
Example: If Catfish Hunter is in, then so should Bert Blyleven.
Hunter Blyleven
224-166 287-250
104 ERA+ 118 ERA+
2012 SO 3701 SO
20 Black Ink 16 Black Ink
151 Gray Ink 239 Gray Ink
Hunter had the better W-L thx to his run support, Blyleven has the better adusted ERA and SO totals. The Black ink is realtively close and blyleven has a huge lead in gray ink.

[538280]

This could be a terrible way to evaluate HOF caliber players, if we use obvious mistake selections like George Kelly, Travis Jackson, and other players like that. So, for the sake of this thread, please use only players who are generally considered to be good HOF selections.

I'm pushing the rules a bit here, but I'm going to use Ken Griffey Jr. (a player everyone assumes will be in the HOF probably in the first ballot), and Jimmy Wynn:

Career Win Shares
Griffey-339
Wynn-305

Top 3 Win Share Seasons
Griffey-36, 31, 30
Wynn-36, 32, 32

Sum of Top 5 Consecutive Seasons
Griffey-148
Wynn-141

Win Shares Per 162 Games
Griffey-27.50
Wynn-25.73

Based on those raw Win Shares, Griffey comes out slightly ahead. But, when you consider that Griffey is generally regarded to be a first ballot guy, Wynn's numbers that are basically even show you he is almost as deserving of a first ballot selection.

Anyway, based on those numbers with adjustments I'd put Wynn ahead of Griffey. When you consider that Wynn was playing in a stronger league, in the Astrodome (Win Shares are park adjusted, but aren't well suited for extreme cases like the Astrodome). Also, Griffey will probably pull about even with Wynn in WS/162 games, assuming he has a normal decline period. If Griffey can put together two more years like 2005, then he'll probably have pulled ahead of Wynn, but as of now, and as the prospects look for the future, Wynn will always remain ahead of Griffey in my book.

[The Commissioner]

This could be a terrible way to evaluate HOF caliber players, if we use obvious mistake selections like George Kelly, Travis Jackson, and other players like that. So, for the sake of this thread, please use only players who are generally considered to be good HOF selections.

I'm pushing the rules a bit here, but I'm going to use Ken Griffey Jr. (a player everyone assumes will be in the HOF probably in the first ballot), and Jimmy Wynn:

Career Win Shares
Griffey-339
Wynn-305

Top 3 Win Share Seasons
Griffey-36, 31, 30
Wynn-36, 32, 32

Sum of Top 5 Consecutive Seasons
Griffey-148
Wynn-141

Win Shares Per 162 Games
Griffey-27.50
Wynn-25.73

Based on those raw Win Shares, Griffey comes out slightly ahead. But, when you consider that Griffey is generally regarded to be a first ballot guy, Wynn's numbers that are basically even show you he is almost as deserving of a first ballot selection.

Anyway, based on those numbers with adjustments I'd put Wynn ahead of Griffey. When you consider that Wynn was playing in a stronger league, in the Astrodome (Win Shares are park adjusted, but aren't well suited for extreme cases like the Astrodome). Also, Griffey will probably pull about even with Wynn in WS/162 games, assuming he has a normal decline period. If Griffey can put together two more years like 2005, then he'll probably have pulled ahead of Wynn, but as of now, and as the prospects look for the future, Wynn will always remain ahead of Griffey in my book.

I can't tell whether you wrote this post tongue in cheek as a brilliant bit of Jonathan Swift-like satire or if you are being serious?

Honestly, I have never seen such a great example of why Win Shares is a ridiculous stat. I agree that Jimmy Wynn is completely underrated as a player. I may also buy that he deserves Hall of Fame consideration. However, when you can find a stat that proves that he is more deserving of the Hall of Fame than Ken Griffey Jr., that speaks more to the flawed nature of the statistic than to the relative greatness of Wynn.

[538280]

I can't tell whether you wrote this post tongue in cheek as a brilliant bit of Jonathan Swift-like satire or if you are being serious?

Honestly, I have never seen such a great example of why Win Shares is a ridiculous stat. I agree that Jimmy Wynn is completely underrated as a player. I may also buy that he deserves Hall of Fame consideration. However, when you can find a stat that proves that he is more deserving of the Hall of Fame than Ken Griffey Jr., that speaks more to the flawed nature of the statistic than to the relative greatness of Wynn.

I am being completely serious. Wynn is one of the most underrated players of all time. He has worse contact hitting than Griffey, but heaps more plate discipline. The two main reasons for Wynn being underrated are as follows:

A)His main skills are usually underrappreciated by the general public. Batting average is always overrated, and secondary average is underrated. Well, Wynn in his career had a .250 BA, but a .404 SA.

B)He played almost all of his career in really tough pitchers parks and in a pitcher's era. The Astrodome in the 1960s is almost deadball-type surroundings.

Griffey, on the other hand, is a player who will always be severely overrated because he is far more superficially valuable than he is really valuable. When I make my rankings, I try to remove the superfical element and focus on the player's actual contributions to his team.

Another point: What offensive Win Shares is based on is basically just RC/27 outs with era and park adjustments. Do you have a main criticism with RC/27? That's the only criticism you could possibly have with Offensive Win Shares, because it's based on RC/27.

Defensive Win Shares show Griffey being an A- CFer, and Wynn being a B- CFer. Is there anything wrong with that assesment? You tell me but I don't think so. That sounds about right for each. As you can see, Griffey gets more defensive Win Shares that Wynn, but yet is behind enough in the offensive department to make up for the difference. Jimmy Wynn was truly a great offensive player, and certainly better than Griffey.

[The Commissioner]

Another point: What offensive Win Shares is based on is basically just RC/27 outs with era and park adjustments. Do you have a main criticism with RC/27? That's the only criticism you could possibly have with Offensive Win Shares, because it's based on RC/27.

I have several criticisms with win shares. While I also believe that the specific adjustments used for era and ballparks are flawed, I mainly find a problem with attempting to quantify a specific amount that a player supposedly contributed to his team's winning.

[Chabone]

That stuff makes my brain melt. I like real stats, personally.

[digglahhh]

I have several criticisms with win shares. While I also believe that the specific adjustments used for era and ballparks are flawed, I mainly find a problem with attempting to quantify a specific amount that a player supposedly contributed to his team's winning.

I agree, it is not so much the math, but the underlying premise that is tremendously flawed.

Mr. October,

I respect your research and opinions but you have been singing this Wynn/Griffey song for a long time. Inexplicably, when nobody listens you decide to sing louder as opposed to re-evaluate its brilliance.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Jimmy Wynn was in decline at 33, lost his ability to make contact at agd 34, and was toast at age 35.

His peak was high, and he was underrated, but he was not able to play productively past his prime.

If Dale Murphy isn't in, Jimmy Wynn shoudn't be in.

[Chadwick]

If Dale Murphy isn't in, Jimmy Wynn shoudn't be in.

I'm a big fan of high peaks. I think that speaks to "greatness" more than longevity does. I think both Murphy and Wynn belong in Cooperstown.

[Erik Bedard]

I agree, but when you can't sustain that peak for more than one year, or be good enough to hang around past your obvious prime, you probably aren't a HoFer. I voted for Wynn in the mock BBWAA elections, but there is no way that he's in any way better than Griffey.

[538280]

I agree, but when you can't sustain that peak for more than one year, or be good enough to hang around past your obvious prime, you probably aren't a HoFer. I voted for Wynn in the mock BBWAA elections, but there is no way that he's in any way better than Griffey.

I don't think he is better than Griffey anymore either. But I do absolutely think he's still a HOFer. Fuzzy, Wynn was done after his age 34 season (which, despite hitting .207, actually wasn't a bad year, it wasn't a great one it was solid, he still had a .377 OBP in a low run environment and a 107 OPS+ and was an above average fielder). But Wynn, despite burning out early, still has enough career value to be a HOFer. Wynn is 160th all time with 305 Win Shares, that's including not just position players but pitchers as well. There are about 220 players in the HOF, that's well within the range. And his peak as you say certainly is.

I disagree about Murphy too, I think Wynn is a better player than Murphy. When I look at Murphy I see a player who is just a little below Wynn as a hitter. Murphy's OPS+ is 121 and Wynn's 128. The main difference is that Murphy didn't have a particularly good OBP, Murphy's rel.SLG is a little higher but they're almost the same, 118 to 115. The big difference in their value was that Murphy had an OBP that was barely above average (103 rel. OBP, .346 compared to .336 average), and Wynn had a well above average one (113 rel.l OBP, .366 compared to .323 average). The way I see it, any value based statistic you look at Wynn has a solid edge as an offense player-and they're virtually the same on defense. I know Murphy won a few MVPs in his prime-my answer is that I really don't care. Wynn was just underrated when he was playing, he was playing for an expansion team that wasn't winning many games (when he finally went to a winning team, the Dodgers, he did get some MVP support, finishing 5th in the voting. Murphy led the league twice in RBI and that is really all it takes in many cases for the writers to give you an MVP award. If his OBP was a little better and he made a few less outs and got on base instead his team might have scored a few more runs despite him not getting as many RBI and he might not have won the MVPs but he would have been a better player IMO.

[J W]

Um, I thought this was an "if player X is in" thread... Griffey's not in yet, and anything can happen between now and then (exhibit A: Mark McGwire).

I would put it this way... if the BBWAA voted Player X in, then Player Y should be in. If we included all the VC electees we might need a 500-player HOF.

Hunter was a BBWAA selection, so...

If Catfish Hunter is in, so should be Luis Tiant.

Tiant and Hunter are each other's most similar pitchers (942)... and six other pitchers are in the top ten for both:

- Vida Blue
- Kevin Brown
- Don Drysdale (HOF)
- Orel Hershiser
- Jim Perry
- Billy Pierce

If I remember correctly, similarity scores use a limited amount of sabermetrics and mainly go off rate stats.

This list only includes one HOFer, but every single pitcher listed has been in the HOF discussion. Jim Bunning (HOF) also makes Tiant's top 10 list. One could argue however, that without the BBWAA election of Hunter, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Anyways:

Hunter : Tiant
IP) 3449.3 : 3486.3
W-L) 224-166 : 229-172
W%) .574 : .571
ERA) 3.26 : 3.30
ERA+) 104 : 114
WHIP) 1.134 : 1.199
K-BB) 2012-954 : 2416-1104

Black Ink) 20 : 13
Gray Ink) 151 : 115
CYA) 1974 (4 top 5's) : none (2 top 5's)
ASG) 8 : 3

Look at the rate stats and it's hard to differentiate between them. Tiant's best years were more spread out than Hunter's defined peak... but both pitchers ended up winning by keeping walks down, striking out batters and giving up a lot of solo HRs.

Hunter's CYA and awards finishes however gives him a big boost in Ink scores. It looks to me like a standard case of Hunter being on the better team. Meanwhile, the ballpark gives Tiant a +10 in ERA+, seeing as he had to pitch in Fenway Park. Tiant's teams weren't slouches but it looks like he may have fought a tad harder for his win %.

I'm not sure if either would be in my HOF (probably not); nonetheless, if Catfish Hunter is in, Luis Tiant should be as well.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Yeah I'd say Wynn's a Hall of Famer....but there are a few guys who I think should most definately be in based on others that are in.



If Spahn/Neikro/Perry/ is in the HoF then Bert Blyleven should be too


I know the Spahn will get a lot of people upset...but look at this


Years with ERA+ 125 or higher

Spahn: 2
Blyleven: 10

Their ERA+ is identical, and the WHIP is as close to the same thing as you get.


Also here's Blyleven in some career rankings.


4th in SHO (Liveball)
5th in Ks (TOTAL)
8th in IP (TOTAL)



This man should be in the Hall





I know that this is premature, but if any non Gehrig/Foxx 1Bman is in the hall so should Bagwell...I'm sorry I don't think the writers are smart enough to get him in on the first try.

[StanTheMan]

That stuff makes my brain melt. I like real stats, personally.

Here Here!!!!!

If you would like a stat proving that the sky is purple and the sun will rise in the West tomorrow morning, some sabermatrician somewhere can cook that right up for you.

[Erik Bedard]

Yeah I'd say Wynn's a Hall of Famer....but there are a few guys who I think should most definately be in based on others that are in.



If Spahn/Neikro/Perry/ is in the HoF then Bert Blyleven should be too


I know the Spahn will get a lot of people upset...but look at this


Years with ERA+ 125 or higher

Spahn: 2
Blyleven: 10

Their ERA+ is identical, and the WHIP is as close to the same thing as you get.


Also here's Blyleven in some career rankings.


4th in SHO (Liveball)
5th in Ks (TOTAL)
8th in IP (TOTAL)



This man should be in the Hall





I know that this is premature, but if any non Gehrig/Foxx 1Bman is in the hall so should Bagwell...I'm sorry I don't think the writers are smart enough to get him in on the first try.

Agreed on Blyleven. I really don't rank Spahn all that highly (IIRC, he doesn't crack my top 15). Sutton is another one who should be mentioned in this debate.

Agreed on Bagwell again. IMO, he's one of the best "clean" players of his generation.