Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jumping Ahead: Next Year's VC

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

  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by kramer_47
    Hi DoubleX
    I understand what you're saying, if you had a Dick Stuart or Dick Allen you'd try to hide them at 1st base, it is the lesser of a bad situation. I want the best of both worlds, someone who can hit but also field, remember you need good fielding to go along with good pitching. You don't want every game to be a 9-8 slugfest, good hitters are very important but good pitching and fielding stops the good hitters. All winning teams have good pitching and fielding, its no coincident that the Dodgers and Yankees won so many pennants from the late 40"s to the 60's, and of course some decent hitters. Maybe thats why Dick Allens teams never won anything, they thought more about how many he could drive in(he only drove in 100 runs 3 times) then how many he'd give up in the field with his iron hands. You know DoubleX you need a well rounded team to win, nothing like a well pitched well fielded game, and of course you need a little luck.
    Well I'd hope that I'd make up for fielding at the other positions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freakshow
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX
    and I'd add Bobby Grich to that list as well if he is eligible for the next VC.
    See my post #4 above. I wrote:

    add Staub and Oliver.

    No other players retiring in 1984-85 seem ballot worthy (not not all of the above are either. ) This group includes Greg Luzinski, Tug McGraw, Amos Otis, Lou Piniella, Ken Singleton and Mike Torrez from 1984, and Larry Bowa, Mike Hargrove and Jerry Koosman from 1985.


    Grich retired in 1986, is eligible for the VC in 2009.

    Leave a comment:


  • kramer_47
    replied
    Jumping Ahead: Next Year's VC

    Hi DoubleX
    I understand what you're saying, if you had a Dick Stuart or Dick Allen you'd try to hide them at 1st base, it is the lesser of a bad situation. I want the best of both worlds, someone who can hit but also field, remember you need good fielding to go along with good pitching. You don't want every game to be a 9-8 slugfest, good hitters are very important but good pitching and fielding stops the good hitters. All winning teams have good pitching and fielding, its no coincident that the Dodgers and Yankees won so many pennants from the late 40"s to the 60's, and of course some decent hitters. Maybe thats why Dick Allens teams never won anything, they thought more about how many he could drive in(he only drove in 100 runs 3 times) then how many he'd give up in the field with his iron hands. You know DoubleX you need a well rounded team to win, nothing like a well pitched well fielded game, and of course you need a little luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by kramer_47
    I agree with you that Dick Allen was a horrible 3rd baseman, but disagree that you can put anyone at 1st base. A good 1st baseman like Olerud, Hernandez, Hodges or Vic Power saves alot of runs by scooping bad throws from short and third. They also know how to position themselves to cut the ball off or let it go through, 2 good examples of bad 1st baseman are Piazza and Jay Gibbons who didn't know what to do and cost there teams many runs. The idea a good 1st baseman isn't needed or you can put anyone there is really lame thinking, 15 errors at first is as bad as 15 errors at third, why not just play with 8 fielders if a 1st baseman is so unnecessary. The most putouts on the field is normally at 1st base if it isn't a big strikeout game, if your 1st baseman has range the 2nd baseman can cheat towards 2nd base, also if they are good they can cheat off the base on a close play. You need good fielders at every position, I coached fast pitch softball for 20 years, just as many games are lost at 1st as at 2nd or 3rd base if you have weak fielders at any of those positions.
    Kramer,

    I didn't meant to imply that you can put anyone at 1B, I more meant to say that you can get away better with an average fielder at 1B than an average fielder at any other position. For example, I'd love to see how the Red Sox get by with David Ortiz out there for a full season. If given the choice and all other things being relatively equal, I'd rather have a good defensive 1B than a poor one. However, if the poor fielding one hits like Dick Allen and the good fielding one hits like JT Snow, or even Gil Hodges (who is a huge step up from Snow but also a huge step behind Allen), I'm going to take Dick Allen in a heartbeat because defense, at least to me, is not all that important at 1B and I'd rather have the guy that is great offensively there.

    Leave a comment:


  • stan opdyke
    replied
    Allen was not a third baseman in the minors. He played in the outfield and by all accounts he did not play well out there. He was not a good outfielder in the major leagues. When Allen played third he needed a good defensive first baseman. Unfortunately, the Phillies did not have Keith Hernandez at the time.

    I don't know why a below average defensive third baseman would have more defensive value to a team than a good defensive first baseman. I remember Steve Garvey playing third for the Dodgers. He was moved to first base and he was ok there, at third he was terrible. I don't think his defensive contribution to the Dodgers diminished when he switched positions, quite the contrary in fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • kramer_47
    replied
    Jumping Ahead: Next Year's VC

    I agree with you that Dick Allen was a horrible 3rd baseman, but disagree that you can put anyone at 1st base. A good 1st baseman like Olerud, Hernandez, Hodges or Vic Power saves alot of runs by scooping bad throws from short and third. They also know how to position themselves to cut the ball off or let it go through, 2 good examples of bad 1st baseman are Piazza and Jay Gibbons who didn't know what to do and cost there teams many runs. The idea a good 1st baseman isn't needed or you can put anyone there is really lame thinking, 15 errors at first is as bad as 15 errors at third, why not just play with 8 fielders if a 1st baseman is so unnecessary. The most putouts on the field is normally at 1st base if it isn't a big strikeout game, if your 1st baseman has range the 2nd baseman can cheat towards 2nd base, also if they are good they can cheat off the base on a close play. You need good fielders at every position, I coached fast pitch softball for 20 years, just as many games are lost at 1st as at 2nd or 3rd base if you have weak fielders at any of those positions.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    BP shows Allen being 15 runs below average over four years at 3B. That's not a great 3B by any stretch, but a slightly below average 3B is still better than a good 1B.
    I disagree entirely. Below average means he's not very good, he's in the bottom half of the league at his position, and it means he's likely hurting his team more than helping with his defense. It means that there is more than a 50% chance that the team could find someone better to play 3B who will not hurt the team as much defensively. So I'd rather take a 1B, who is helping a team defensively (albeit limitedly because he is a 1B) than a player at any other position that is hurting the team out there, unless that other player hits like Allen or Piazza or Hornsby. But in that case, I'd rather move that player to 1B (as was done with Allen), so I can maximize the strengths of my team by putting someone better defensively at 3B, while keeping Allen's bat in the lineup but at a position where he can do minimal damage defensively. Plus, I'd rather have a 1B that contribute positively defensively to the team than a 3Bman that contributes negatively defensively because 3B is a more vital position. The guy has more chances to make plays, so I want to make sure I have someone out there that can make the players, and not someone that is going to make a lot of errors.
    Last edited by DoubleX; 01-30-2006, 09:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX
    I'm sure it's no coincidence, that he moved from 3B to 1B in mid-career. If he was such a good defensive 3Bman, or even adequate, the move would not have been made. .
    In the Wright quote it mentions how Allen was moved to first in his career becuase of hand injury, not because he couldn't handle the position.

    And range is always the far more important defensive skill than fielding percentage (at the major league level. this is different in youth and high school). Look at Gold Glover Ron Santo. Allen was making about 15 more errors a season than him. 15 plays a year is definitely something, but the differences in range between Allen and other 3Bs is probably more than that.

    BP shows Allen being 15 runs below average over four years at 3B. That's not a great 3B by any stretch, but a slightly below average 3B is still better than a good 1B.
    Last edited by 538280; 01-30-2006, 06:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    First, even a not so good defensive 3B has more defensive value than a very good defensive 1B. It's just the way things are. Third basemen play a much more important position and play a bigger part in the team's defense. That was especially true pre 1935, was still true in Hodges' era and Allen's era, and is still true today.

    Second, Dick Allen was not a horrible defensive 3B. He made lots of errors and thus got a bad rep because of that (his fielding percentages were low), but he did have good range. He always made lots of plays in the field. Craig Wright once wrote this about Allen's fielding:

    .
    You're not helping your argument about Allen being "not a horrible defensive 3B" when you immediately follow that comment with "He made lots of errors and thus got a bad rep because of that (his fielding percentages were low)." Sounds to me that if he's making lots of errors, he is a bad defensive 3Bman. Having range is nice and all, but what good is range when you can't make the play anyway? His .927 fielding percentage at 3B is pretty attrocious and suggests that he was hurting his team there. I'm sure it's no coincidence, that he moved from 3B to 1B in mid-career. If he was such a good defensive 3Bman, or even adequate, the move would not have been made. Moreover, look who he was moved in favor of. Tony Taylor. We're not talking about a world-beater here, we're talking about Tony Taylor, who wasn't even a natural 3Bman; he was an aging 2Bman. Meaning the Phillies preferred to use an aging player with a different natural position than use Allen at 3B. Seems to me that the fact is that he could not hack it at 3B, so the team stuck him someplace else where he would do far less damage in the field.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by stan opdyke
    A few things. As I memtioned, I did not see Hodges in his prime, but I saw plenty of Allen. I grew up outside of Philadelphia. To say that Allen had more defensive value than Hodges because Allen played third base ignores the way Allen played third base. And left field and first base too.
    First, even a not so good defensive 3B has more defensive value than a very good defensive 1B. It's just the way things are. Third basemen play a much more important position and play a bigger part in the team's defense. That was especially true pre 1935, was still true in Hodges' era and Allen's era, and is still true today. Also, less offense is expected from third and thus Allen's numbers posted there were more valuable because he was creating more runs than the average 3B than he was over the average 1B.

    Second, Dick Allen was not a horrible defensive 3B. He made lots of errors and thus got a bad rep because of that (his fielding percentages were low), but he did have good range. He always made lots of plays in the field. Craig Wright once wrote this about Allen's fielding:

    From 1964 to 1967, Allen had more assists and started more double plays at third
    base than any NL third baseman except Gold Glover Ron Santo. And that was true
    even though a dislocated throwing shoulder kept Allen from playing 3rd base for
    nearly half the 1966 season.

    Chances Fielded Cleanly Per Game
    1964-67 NL 3B (400 games, min.)

    1) 3.40 Ron Santo
    2) 2.84 Dick Allen
    3) 2.81 Ken Boyer

    That's two pretty good gloves to be sandwiched between, and that stat deserves to
    be mentioned at least as much as Allen's poor .932 fielding percentage -- which,
    incidentally, is better than Santo's fielding percentages over his first four seasons as
    a professional third baseman. Allen may never have developed into a good third
    baseman -- he never did throw as well after the injury to his shoulder -- but there
    was no thought of moving him off third base until the 1967 hand injury that
    damaged the nerves in his throwing hand, making it difficult for him to grip and
    throw the ball accurately. That is why he ended up being moved to first base
    .

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001
    You really, REALLY should add Dahlen. He's on of the top few greatest players not already in the BBHOF.

    http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36518
    If given the chance to put in all the players I feel should be in that are not in, I probably would put Dahlen in. However, if I was only allowed to put in one or a small handful, I'd pick at least the 6 players I named above before Dahlen, and I'd add Bobby Grich to that list as well if he is eligible for the next VC.

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX
    Based on who was eligible for the last election (I don't know what new players might come along this time), I'd vote for:

    Ron Santo
    Joe Torre
    Ken Boyer
    Joe Gordon
    Minnie Minoso
    Dick Allen

    I'd also consider adding Bob Johnson, Sherry Magee and Bill Dahlen to that list.
    You really, REALLY should add Dahlen. He's on of the top few greatest players not already in the BBHOF.

    http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36518

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by stan opdyke
    The best defensive first baseman I have ever seen, and I have seen Vic Power, Wes Parker, John Olerud, JT Snow and some others I probably should remember. Good hitter too. I don't think he had as much power as Gil. HOF? I think I would say yes, despite the drug scandal. I would put in Gil before Keith Hernandez. Raffy I would say no after the steroid suspension. What is your opinion?
    I'd put Hernandez in before Hodges because so many people attest to him being the greatest defensive 1Bman ever. Plus he could him pretty well too (129 OPS+). I'm glad you mentioned Olerud, his career is pretty similar to Hernandez's. Olerud is pretty underrated, but not quite a Hall of Famer, IMO.

    I'm undecided on Raffy at this point. I really need to think about the steroids stuff more.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --I'd take Hernandez ahead of every other eligible 1B, with the possible exception of Dick Allen. I'd take Palmerio aead of Hodges no question and probably ahead of Hernandez. The steroid hit probably cost him a shot at first ballot status, but it will be hard to keep 500 HR and 3,000 hits outside of Cooperstown.

    Leave a comment:


  • stan opdyke
    replied
    Keith

    Originally posted by DoubleX
    How do you feel about Keith Hernandez?
    The best defensive first baseman I have ever seen, and I have seen Vic Power, Wes Parker, John Olerud, JT Snow and some others I probably should remember. Good hitter too. I don't think he had as much power as Gil. HOF? I think I would say yes, despite the drug scandal. I would put in Gil before Keith Hernandez. Raffy I would say no after the steroid suspension. What is your opinion?

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X