Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jimmy Wynn

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    Earl Averill? He seems to me a good example, although only one of many, to show that the Hall of Fame electors have overlooked short counting statistics again and again. As Vada Pinson shows that they have overlooked long counting statistics.
    You're right in that Averill achieved only relatively modest benchmarks, but he did get over 2000 hits and 1000 RBI, and both look a lot better to Hall of Fame voters than Wynn's 1600 hits and 900 RBI. He also has the very shiny .318 average, compared to just .250 for Wynn (but of course we're on opposite era extremes here). Plus, Averill had a relatively short career, not getting a start until age 27, so taking that into account, he amassed pretty respectable counting numbers in a fairly short amount of time, making it easy for one to go, "imagine what he would have done if he started at age 22."

    Again, I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, just explaining why Averill is probably seen as more typically fitting for the Hall.

    Ironically, Pinson might actually suffer from his longer career, in that after a brilliant start, he hung around for years as an average to mediocre player, kind of white-washing the accomplishments of his earlier career. If Averill hung on for 5 more years as a mediocre player, I have a feeling he too might be on the outside, as those extra years would dilute the perception and memory of the rest of his career. Unfortunately, I think Tim Raines is a guy who is currently suffering from this - a guy who was absolutely brilliant for a decade, then hung around for another decade as a serviceable but mostly forgettable player, and the elapsed time has diluted the earlier perception of his career. Again, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just trying to explain why some make it in and some don't (though in the case or Raines, it is most decidely wrong, IMO).
    Last edited by DoubleX; 04-07-2008, 08:36 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by willshad View Post
      I agree about the hall of fame. I think if you have to 'dig' , adjust stats, and make complex formulas in order to make a guy look remotely like a hall of famer, then his case is very weak. Part of the hall of fame is to honor those who were lauded and praised in their OWN TIME, whether the standards of measurement were 'right' or not. Some may argue that is simply honoring the mistakes made by people in the past, who used the 'incorrect' ways of evaluating players. I couldnt disagree more. Look at movies for instance...movies like Ben Hur, casablanca, and The Godfather seem trite and silly by today's standards...yet they still make lists of all time great films. Why? Because they were lauded in their own time. Im sure we can look back and find many better films made during the same time, but we dont go back andtake away the Acadamy Awards, just because standards have changed. While Wynn may have been technically more 'valuable' given his context, than Jim Rice, I in no way would ever say he belongs in the hall of fame before Rice does. Perhaps he would have put up better numbers than Rice if he played in fenway, but that is his tough luck...he DIDNT have better numbers. Like it or not, some players have an advantage and some have a disadvantage..a hall of famer is somebody who takes advantage of whatever he is given and makes the most of it. Other guys played during the same time as Wynn, and still had hall of fame numbers. The fact is that he simply wasnt good enough (no matter what 'win shares ' says) for long enough to be a legit hall off ame candidate.
      In keeping with the movies analogy, I think Win shares fails, simply because it judges players based on the RESULTS of their actions, not on the actions themselves. This is akin to judging what movies are best just based on how much money they make at the box office, and not even watching the actual movie. Sure the goal of a player is to contribute to the team winning..but that doesnt mean all he does in the losses had no value. The goal of a movie is to make money..but that doesnt mean the ones that didnt make money are bad.
      I just flat disagree with your synopsis above. Jimmy Wynn was an excellent player. He hit for power, took walks, fielded his postion very well, had a good arm, had speed, could steal a base or two.
      He played his home games of his prime in the Astrodome where hitters went to die. The 'dome was death to hitters. It was even more of a pitchers park than Dodger Stadium.
      Plus, Wynn played in the most depressed offensive era since the deadball days. Plus, he played for the Houston Astros.
      This is the scene Jimmy Wynn amssed his counting numbers at for half his games. That has to be taken into account

      Now, Jim Rice was a good hitter. He seldom walked and hit into a ton of DPs because of it. He had virtually no speed whatsoever. He was not a good defensive player although he did learn the Green Monster failrly well. He didn't have a particularly good arm either.
      Jim Rice is a product of Fenway Park. His Home/Road splits are drastic. He was great at Fenway....while basically a decent hitter away from Fenway. The era he played in was clearly more conducive to hitters than the era Jimmy Wynn played in as well.
      Rice played for the Boston Red Sox one of baseball's most gloried teams

      FWIW, I hope Jim Rice does not get in the HOF. Put him in the Red Sox HOF but not Cooperstown.
      Jimmy Wynn deserves better. Does he belong in the HOF, I really don't think so but I wouldn't campaign against him.
      Jimmy Wynn was a better ball player than Jim Rice taking all aspects of the above into account. And ya know what? It ain't particularly close.

      Yankees Fan Since 1957

      Comment


      • #33
        The way I see it, Rice's road stats are still better than Wynn's road stats, and he played in the 1970s and early 80s, which was still a very bad offensive era. In fact his career ended just as the offensive explosion of 1987 took place. Considering he played longer, and put up vastly better home stats than Wynn, i think he has a better case. If Wynn had Rice-in-Fenway type stats on the road then id see your point..but he just doesnt. .245 .355 and .429(Wynn's road rates) in a short career arent hall of fame numbers in ANY era..and his counting stats are even worse than his rate stats. If he was historically great in the field or stole 1000 bases he may have a borderline case.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by willshad View Post
          The way I see it, Rice's road stats are still better than Wynn's road stats, and he played in the 1970s and early 80s, which was still a very bad offensive era. In fact his career ended just as the offensive explosion of 1987 took place. Considering he played longer, and put up vastly better home stats than Wynn, i think he has a better case. If Wynn had Rice-in-Fenway type stats on the road then id see your point..but he just doesnt. .245 .355 and .429(Wynn's road rates) in a short career arent hall of fame numbers in ANY era..and his counting stats are even worse than his rate stats. If he was historically great in the field or stole 1000 bases he may have a borderline case.
          1987 might have been a bad offenisve year. However, Jimmy Wynn played the brunt of his prime career in the worst offensive era since the deadball era....in the worst ballpark for hitters!
          Wynn also had a very poor end of career which dragged his numbers down considerably.

          Yankees Fan Since 1957

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by yanks0714 View Post
            1987 might have been a bad offenisve year. However, Jimmy Wynn played the brunt of his prime career in the worst offensive era since the deadball era....in the worst ballpark for hitters!
            Wynn also had a very poor end of career which dragged his numbers down considerably.
            I realize this, those are his ROAD rate stats I mentioned. Those stas aren't close to what the top hitters in the league were putting up at the time, so you cant really blame the stadium OR the era. I can see him maybe having a case if he was a catcher or shortstop, or all time great in the field, or maybe if he had a really long career with great career counting stats. But none of these are the case, so i dont feel he is close at all to being a hall of famer.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by willshad View Post
              I realize this, those are his ROAD rate stats I mentioned. Those stas aren't close to what the top hitters in the league were putting up at the time, so you cant really blame the stadium OR the era. I can see him maybe having a case if he was a catcher or shortstop, or all time great in the field, or maybe if he had a really long career with great career counting stats. But none of these are the case, so i dont feel he is close at all to being a hall of famer.
              Wynn leads Rice in Offensive Winning Percentage .651 to .627.

              Neither of these marks constitutes a no-questions-asked HOFer, even for a career center fielder. But Wynn WAS the greater offensive player, albeit not by much.
              "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

              NL President Ford Frick, 1947

              Comment


              • #37
                Jim Wynn

                I've heard Jim Wynn mentioned as a possible HOFer. I just don't buy it. .250/.366/.436 291 hrs 964 rbi

                Somebody convince me
                This week's Giant

                #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                Comment


                • #38
                  Really good for his time, but not for "all time".
                  Your Second Base Coach
                  Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. That’s equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Playing all those home games in the Astrodome didn't help him any. For example, while that was his home park he hit 93 HR there and 121 on the road.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      This might interest you:

                      http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...for-Jimmy-Wynn

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        WOW what a fabulous site! thanks for all the gereat anaysis on Wynn. you guys rock
                        This week's Giant

                        #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Wynn's best argument is that he is the best eligible MLB center fielder not in the Hall, although he will probably be passed by Kenny Lofton in the next election. But as things currently stand, he is the best. I have no doubt of that.
                          "Any pitcher who throws at a batter and deliberately tries to hit him is a communist."

                          - Alvin Dark

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I completely agree with Noted_Sage F. B'ar. Wynn is Reggie Smith or Bobby Allison level, nothing more. A power hitting OF from 40 yrs back needed to do more than be Ron Gant Sr(yes I know Toy Cannon is better. Relax) to get in. He was hurt by his environment but so were Cedeno, Lee May and Bob Watson. Pretty walk totals aside, he just doesnt stand out, and like it or not, that is a must for him to be considered.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by TomBodet View Post
                              I completely agree with Noted_Sage F. B'ar. Wynn is Reggie Smith or Bobby Allison level, nothing more. A power hitting OF from 40 yrs back needed to do more than be Ron Gant Sr(yes I know Toy Cannon is better. Relax) to get in. He was hurt by his environment but so were Cedeno, Lee May and Bob Watson. Pretty walk totals aside, he just doesnt stand out, and like it or not, that is a must for him to be considered.
                              Bah! I still have my 100 count of the Ron Gant 1988 Fleer rookie cards because I just knew was going to be a superstar!
                              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by AstrosFan View Post
                                Wynn's best argument is that he is the best eligible MLB center fielder not in the Hall, although he will probably be passed by Kenny Lofton in the next election. But as things currently stand, he is the best. I have no doubt of that.
                                Is Bernie Williams eligible yet?

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X