Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Published ballots for 2006

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chisox
    replied
    Originally posted by tominct
    I don't want to go into these little obscure stats like "win shares" that only Bill James and the Reggie guy care about, Rice was a better player than Belle, period. I think it is clear that when comparing Rice to any number of HOFers his numbers, for the period of time he played, compare favorably.
    Without factoring in ballpark and concentrating on offense.

    Give the GIDP argument a rest please. There are so many variables to that that it it silly to bring it up. Someone who is actually around the game, and not some silly stat-nerd knows this. The primary requirement for a GIDP is making consistent hard contact with the ball, which Rice did until the very end of his career, without juice I might add.
    GIDP don't make a big difference. However, they are still outs and there are many variables that go into getting a hit, as well.

    Its a shame Rice did not make it, but please don't insult those of us who watched him for 12 seasons night in and night out, by saying that people like Dave Parker or Albert Belle:noidea are more deserving of HOF induction than Rice.
    Code:
    baseball-reference
    	Seas	AB	PA	BA	OBP	Slug	OPS+	RBI	R	RC	RC/27	Bases	Outs	Bases/Out
    Belle	12	5853	6673	0.295	0.369	0.564	143	1239	974	1231	7.48	4126	4443	0.929
    Parker	19	9358	10184	0.290	0.339	0.471	121	1493	1272	1502	5.75	5298	7055	0.751
    Rice	16	8225	9058	0.298	0.352	0.502	128	1451	1249	1459	6.33	4921	6221	0.791
    Splits
    Code:
    retrosheet
    Belle
    Type     G    AB    R    H  2B  3B  HR  RBI   BB IBB   SO HBP  SH  SF  XI ROE GDP   SB  CS   AVG   OBP   SLG
    Home   768  2852  488  861 193  13 191  643  335  43  456  26   2  44   0  26 102   40  21  .302  .375  .580
    Away   771  3001  486  865 196   8 190  596  348  48  505  29   2  34   3  37  91   48  20  .288  .364  .549
    
    Parker
    Home  1209  4500  651 1362 270  47 170  785  334  76  691  17   0  45   0  55 103   70  59  .303  .350  .497
    Away  1257  4858  621 1350 256  28 169  708  349  93  846  39   1  41   0  64 107   84  54  .278  .329  .446
    
    Rice
    Home  1048  4075  681 1304 207  44 208  802  348  50  691  34   2  48   0  49 156   32  17  .320  .374  .546
    Away  1041  4150  568 1148 166  35 174  649  322  27  732  30   3  46   0  65 159   26  17  .277  .330  .459
    I will admit to being a die hard Sox fan, but I must tell you, Fisk is in(as he should be), and in his best day HE wasn't a pimple on Rice's butt!

    tominct
    Only if you're going on offense.
    Last edited by Chisox; 01-11-2006, 09:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tominct
    replied
    Rice below Albert Belle!? Gimme a little of what you're smoking!

    I don't want to go into these little obscure stats like "win shares" that only Bill James and the Reggie guy care about, Rice was a better player than Belle, period. I think it is clear that when comparing Rice to any number of HOFers his numbers, for the period of time he played, compare favorably.

    Give the GIDP argument a rest please. There are so many variables to that that it it silly to bring it up. Someone who is actually around the game, and not some silly stat-nerd knows this. The primary requirement for a GIDP is making consistent hard contact with the ball, which Rice did until the very end of his career, without juice I might add.

    Its a shame Rice did not make it, but please don't insult those of us who watched him for 12 seasons night in and night out, by saying that people like Dave Parker or Albert Belle:noidea are more deserving of HOF induction than Rice.

    I will admit to being a die hard Sox fan, but I must tell you, Fisk is in(as he should be), and in his best day HE wasn't a pimple on Rice's butt! Of course that pimple just hung around a lot longer, and it is longevity that has been the most overrated criteria for the hall, I mean come on, Don Sutton:noidea

    Did someone on this board say Tommy John!? PUUULLLLEEEAAASSSE!

    tominct

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by Barnstormer
    I agree with you about Parker, he really had two peaks, one with Pit (75-79) and one with the Reds (84-85), if he could have just had a few more of those years in between he'd be a shoo-in.

    Just out of curiosity, how do Albert Belle's best WS years compare to these two? (sorry I don't have the BJ Abstract!)
    Albert Belle's three best WS years are 37, 31, and 30. His five best are 37, 31, 31, 27, 24, and 24. Here's how that compares to Dawson/Parker/Rice:

    Belle-37, 31, 27, 24, 24
    Parker-37, 33, 31, 29, 25
    Dawson-29, 28, 26, 26, 25
    Rice-36, 28, 28, 26, 24, 21

    And I would definitely recceommend the Bill James Abstract to you. It is the book any serious baseball fan should truly have.

    I'll give my opinion on Belle and Rice since I haven't yet.

    They basically have the same HOF argument, in that they both may have been the best hitters in the game for a short period of time.

    But, I favor Belle and not Rice, because of two factors:

    1.Rice was helped tremendously by Fenway Park
    2.Rice was a GIDP machine, to understate things.

    Let me explain:

    1.This is self explanatory. Rice's line at home was .320/.374/.546, and on the road he was .277/.330/.459. His OPS at home was about 15% better than his OPS on the road. Players do tend to do better at home as a general rule, so I'm willing to give him a bit of a break, but reducing his numbers by 10% (a huge cut) is not unfair.

    2.Rice grounded into 315 double plays in his career, or one per 26 at bats, the 7th highest ratio of all time. Belle also grounded into a lot of DPs (30 per AB), but not as much. Rice led his league in GIDP four years in a row in his peak, which is enough in my mind to greatly knock that peak down in terms of value.

    Those two things, IMO, are enough to put Rice below Belle.
    Last edited by 538280; 01-11-2006, 06:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • runningshoes
    replied
    Originally posted by KCGHOST
    Baseball Primer has been tracking this and with 92 writers accounted for no one has 75%. Gossage has 72%.
    Tough to draw any conclusions with that sample. These aren't political elections, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a shut out this year.

    Leave a comment:


  • KCGHOST
    replied
    Baseball Primer has been tracking this and with 92 writers accounted for no one has 75%. Gossage has 72%.

    http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...tand/newsblog/

    Leave a comment:


  • runningshoes
    replied
    Bob Elliot of the Toronto Sun went with Belle, Blyleven, Dawson, Gossage, Morris, Smith, Sutter and Trammell.

    Morris was a Blue Jay fan favourite so that selection does shock me but it does bother me somewhat.

    The only two guys I'm for here are Blyleven and Gossage.

    In the article he says "we" voted for....hmmm.

    Here it is.

    http://torontosun.canoe.ca/Sports/Co...87226-sun.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Barnstormer
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Parker's peak years weren't just better-they were worlds better. Dawson didn't even really have a peak. The Win Shares system says he didn't even have one MVP candidate type season. Their top three WS seasons:

    Parker-37, 33, 31
    Dawson-29, 28, 26
    I agree with you about Parker, he really had two peaks, one with Pit (75-79) and one with the Reds (84-85), if he could have just had a few more of those years in between he'd be a shoo-in.

    Just out of curiosity, how do Albert Belle's best WS years compare to these two? (sorry I don't have the BJ Abstract!)

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Jim Salisbury of the Philly Inquirer put his ballot with his reasons here:

    http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/13573423.htm

    I don't know how long the column will be generally available, so here's the cliff notes version. He names eight guys Albert Belle, Bert Blyleven, Andre Dawson, Goose Gossage, Jack Morris, Jim Rice, Lee Smith and Bruce Sutter. The fact he named only eight means one must question whether he'll ever support candidates like Will Clark, Dave Concepcion, Steve Garvey, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, or Alan Trammell. Please note that the final eight are only chosen because they're candidates I've seen serious discussion of on these boards.

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by J W
    I'll buy that argument about Parker's peak years being better. Suffice to say, both of them would make my theoretical ballot.
    Parker's peak years weren't just better-they were worlds better. Dawson didn't even really have a peak. The Win Shares system says he didn't even have one MVP candidate type season. Their top three WS seasons:

    Parker-37, 33, 31
    Dawson-29, 28, 26

    Not even remotely close. Dawson's best year was about equal to Parker's 4th best. Considering they have similar career value (327 career WS for Dave, 340 for Andre), I don't see this as being close.

    Parker was one of the best players on the great Pirates of the late 1970s, and probably the best player on the 1979 squad. Andre spent most of his career with bad teams in Montreal and Chicago

    Parker did way in leading the league. He had 26 Black Ink to Dawson's paltry total of 11.

    It does seem like the two are tied together... and Parker's image, or lack of sustained greatness, or whatever that has kept him from Cooperstown is probably a big anchor on Dawson.
    The real thing that's keeping Parker out of the Hall is his part in the cocaine scandal. I guess that may be a legit complaint for Hall standards, since the HOF does talk about integrity of its members. But, if Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby and Heinie Manush can be in, then I don't see how Parker can be left out because he wasn't the nicest man. He was easily one of the best in baseball in the late 1970s.

    Leave a comment:


  • J W
    replied
    I'll buy that argument about Parker's peak years being better. Suffice to say, both of them would make my theoretical ballot.

    They both obviously had arms, perhaps among the top dozen of all time. Dawson gets my extra points by playing a more-than-capable center field in Montreal for seven seasons. I must admit that I'm too young to vividly remember those years (I certainly remember his Chicago years)... and defense is hard to quantify... but what I see is enough to push Dawson ahead in my book.

    It should also be noted that I don't count peak years quite as much as some others, though I certainly don't ignore them.

    It does seem like the two are tied together... and Parker's image, or lack of sustained greatness, or whatever that has kept him from Cooperstown is probably a big anchor on Dawson.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by J W
    Well Dawson would be my first choice among them, but I agree with you #s about Parker (who hit much like Dawson) and particularly Bonds, who I'm high on for his ability to do everything but hit for average. Unfortunately they just don't get much attention--Parker with the BBWAA, Bonds with the Vets.
    Parker and Dawson were similar hitters (sluggers without much plate discipline), but Parker was better. His career OPS+ is two points higher, and his peak OPS+ are way better-Parker had 5 years of OPS+ over 140 while Dawson had only two. And Dawson's best OPS+ year (1981) came in limited time due to a strike. Remember, it's easier to post high quality if you have a lack of quantity. Look at their top 10 OPS+ seasons:

    Dawson-157, 141, 137, 136, 136, 132, 129, 124, 115, 115,
    Parker-166, 149, 148, 144, 141, 132, 118, 117, 116, 113

    Parker's way better at the beginning and still better in the middle, though he does drop off towards the end. But, Parker still has just as good longevity and good seasons.

    Bill James defines a season of 30 or more Win Shares to be an MVP candidate type season. Parker had 3 such seasons while Dawson never even had one. How can a corner OFer be a HOFer if he never even had one MVP candidate type season? I know Dawson did win the MVP in 1987, but that was probably the worst MVP selection ever. He only had 20 Win Shares and played for a last place club.

    Parker was also a way better contact hitter (109 rel. BA to 105-4 points of rel. BA is a big deal).

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Here's a link to Scott Miller's ballot and explanations and cbs.sportsline.com.

    The sampling is very small, but so far, I'm very glad to see Bert Blyleven showing up on most ballots I've seen. I doubt he'll get in this year, but I'm hoping he continues his forward momentum and gets in the 55-60% range. I think that could be enough to make election inevitable one day.

    Leave a comment:


  • yanks0714
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Wow, I'm unpleasantly surprised that none of the sportswriters' whose ballots have been given include Dave Parker. I'd think his two batting titles along with great power would impress the voters. Perhaps that dicey press relationship is too much too overcome. Doesn't seem to hurt Rice though. He's gotten far more support than he should be getting.

    I sincerely hope Dave Parker can get in. His peak is truly fabulous and career value isn't so bad either. Him and Bobby Bonds are two RFers who don't get the respect they deserve. The writers are too busy giving that support to guys like Rice and Dawson h
    I would think The Cobra deserves it more than either Rice, Dawson, or Murphy.
    I think Parker's press relationship is kind of like what Rice had in Boston. But Rice never had the coke scandal on him like Parker did. I think the coke thing hurt Keith Hernandez too.
    Funny, it was okay to be drunk and/or an alcoholic during Prohibition and still get elected but drugs are a no-no. I guess it ws because almost everyone opposed Prohibition.

    Leave a comment:


  • J W
    replied
    Well Dawson would be my first choice among them, but I agree with you #s about Parker (who hit much like Dawson) and particularly Bonds, who I'm high on for his ability to do everything but hit for average. Unfortunately they just don't get much attention--Parker with the BBWAA, Bonds with the Vets.


    Rice was primarily a LFer and somewhat of a different story... but with all the corner outfielders already in the Hall I can see quite a few I'd take Rice or any of these others over.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Wow, I'm unpleasantly surprised that none of the sportswriters' whose ballots have been given include Dave Parker. I'd think his two batting titles along with great power would impress the voters. Perhaps that dicey press relationship is too much too overcome. Doesn't seem to hurt Rice though. He's gotten far more support than he should be getting.

    I sincerely hope Dave Parker can get in. His peak is truly fabulous and career value isn't so bad either. Him and Bobby Bonds are two RFers who don't get the respect they deserve. The writers are too busy giving that support to guys like Rice and Dawson h

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X