Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jimmy Wynn

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

  • willshad
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • yanks0714
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
    The Hall of Fame can place a lot of emphasis on counting statistics, as they rightly or wrongly, stand for some measure achievement. . . . I'm just going on the reality of what is the Hall of Fame, which places an emphasis on counting stats as a measure of achievement. This is why Averill is in and Wynn is not, despite Wynn being arguably the better player.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • hellborn
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark View Post
    --The God Father seems trite and silly? I guess we disagree as much about movies as we do about baseball.
    I think that GF I & II are timeless classics...I just watched them last year, and they were as fresh to me as could be. GF III is the one that is trite and silly, but that was also true when it first came out.

    I'm not a big fan of Wynn for the HOF, but feel that he was a better player than Rice when you look at their peaks and consider their defensive abilities. Rice had a slightly longer career. To compare their numbers straight up is really silly to me...the Dome and Fenway were at opposite ends of ballpark spectrum in the '60s and '70s, and Wynn also played through a very tough time for hitters in general.
    Wynn wasn't able to sustain the high level of play for a very long time, and I don't see him as a strong HOF candidate. The fact that Rice is probably going to make it in shows me that HOF voting and voters are kind of bogus, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --The God Father seems trite and silly? I guess we disagree as much about movies as we do about baseball.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    The Hall of Fame can place a lot of emphasis on counting statistics, as they rightly or wrongly, stand for some measure achievement. Take hits for example - the most basic goal and fundamental skill of the game is to put bat on ball. Everyone, from the little leaguer to the major leaguer, aspires to excel in this skill and rack up hits, so the Hall of Fame places a lot of emphasis on that. In this vein, Wynn's 1665 hits, 291 homeruns, and 964 RBI look rather unimpressive by Hall of Fame standards, and he doesn't have a dominating Koufaxesque peak to make up for the counting numbers shortcoming.

    I'm not saying this is right or wrong, and I've actually warmed up to Jimmy Wynn's case lately (he was my third pick in the SoC project), but I'm just going on the reality of what is the Hall of Fame, which places an emphasis on counting stats as a measure of achievement. This is why Averill is in and Wynn is not, despite Wynn being arguably the better player. I will say though that Wynn is usually higher in player rankings than he is in my deserving of the Hall rankings, as it's really just two kettle of fish, IMO, due to the subjective elements involved in the Hall.

    Wynn also suffers from the fact that it wasn't until recently really that there has been a growing appreciation for what he brought to the table. More specifically, for generations people were stuck in judging a player by his raw stats, impressed by shiny batting averages, and without the more advanced statistics we have now that shed better light on a player's value, take into account park factors and era, and place more emphasis on things like getting on base and making less outs. To establish Wynn's case, you really have to look past the superficial traditional measurements, and that's still hard to do for many. Perhaps that fact in itself, meaning the fact that in order to establish Wynn's case, you really have to dig (even though you might find a treasure when you do dig), is testament enough that he lacks the subjective elements that we typically look for in Hall of Famers. Hall of Famers should resonate, and if you have to dig a lot, which you do in Wynn's case by normal fan standards, perhaps the case is buried too far down?
    Last edited by DoubleX; 04-06-2008, 10:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • AstrosFan
    replied
    As an example, I don't think Earl Averill is roundly considered a mistake, the way George Kelly and Freddie Lindstrom are, for example. But I look at the numbers. Wynn's OPS+ was five points lower, but he had more PA and played in a stronger league. Averill had a good peak, but I believe Wynn's was better. Averill was probably the better fielder, but Wynn makes up for that with his hitting. Baseball Prospectus has them both at a .303 EqA, without league quality adjustments. WARP-1 has Averill as the superior player by the margin of about 1 win. When they do their LQ adjustments, Wynn moves ahead by 9 wins. Bill James, in the New Historical Baseball Abstract, places Wynn 10th, Averill 13th. James's Objective functions rates Wynn as the 78th greatest player of all time, Averill out of the top 100. Kevin Harlow, who calculated the objective function, also found rankings for players based on Win Shares Above Average, Above Replacement, and the average of those two. Neither player made the top 100 in any of the methods, but Wynn and Averill placed 112th and 113th respectively, in the third. This makes them indistinguishable, and it cannot be said that Wynn is better just because that method has him one point ahead. By the third method, Wynn ranks 16th among CF, Averill 17th. At the very least, Wynn is seen as Averill's equal by Win Shares. Of course, those are simply two popular uberstats. But I think if one were to analyze their total hitting stats, Wynn would be considered superior. Averill would close the gap with fielding, but with Wynn's LQ advantage, and with them being about even on the basepaths, I can't imagine Jimmy Wynn not being viewed as a better player than Earl Averill, provided we can get past the batting average. And yet Jimmy Wynn will never get into the Hall, while no seems to have a problem with Earl Averill's selection. Why is that?

    Leave a comment:


  • AstrosFan
    replied
    What Hall of Famer best makes the case for Jimmy Wynn?

    Excerpt from my first post in bold. Neither Reggie Smith nor Fred Lynn are appropriate for this discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Otis Nixon's Bodyguard
    replied
    Who makes the best argument for Jimmy Wynn?

    Probably Jimmy Wynn's mother.

    Sorry for that one guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
    Michael Schell tries to do everything in his power to level the playing field in his book Baseball's Greatest Sluggers. This includes parks (including handedness) and all offensive events.
    I have read the earlier book, Baseball's All-Time Best Hitters: How Statistics Can Level the Playing Field. Did he reuse the subtitle?

    Hitters focuses on base hits and bases on balls, no extra bases.
    What may be worthy here is the longevity adjustment. For everyone with more than 8000 major league atbats, Schell uses only the first 8000 ab. (I don't know why ab rather than pa, maybe because he cares more about hits than walks.)

    Anyway, 8000 ab is a good long career. Wynn and Lynn finished with about 8000 plate appearances. While it has been common for Hall of Fame players to surpass 8000 ab, many have not.
    Yesterday I observed that 225 retired players have 8000 pa. Only 116 have 8000 ab. (There are also 25 and 11 players on the two lists active in 2007.)

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    Roush and Averill
    Wynn may well have been as good as these players , if he was in a more

    Don Mattingly MIGHT HAVE had 3000 hits if he didnt injure his back, or that

    Those guys, and guys like Chuck Klein (Baker Bowl)are probably the only ones Id 'adjust' do a great degree.
    Michael Schell tries to do everything in his power to level the playing field in his book Baseball's Greatest Sluggers. This includes parks (including handedness) and all offensive events. He adjusts all players to see how they'd do playing in a neutral 1976-1992 timeframe.

    Not saying I agree with the determinations or methodology, but this does add to the discussion.

    FWIW, seasonal averages, via Schell, along with where they rank in career value (adjusted for position):

    Wynn: .253/.372/.460 25 HR, 80R, 70RBI, 85 BB, 98 SO, 30 SB

    Wynn ranks 101st in career value before positional adjustements are made, 136th afterwards. He ranks in the top 100 in seasonal averages for walks, runs, and home runs. He's 28th in walks.

    Here are some guys around 136th all time in career value, after adjusting for position- many of these are fence HOF guys who are being discussed.

    Through 2004, HOF players emboldened:

    Goose Goslin: 138th
    George Grantham: 139
    Ralph Kiner: 135
    Ducky Medwick: 134
    John McGraw: 137
    Joe Sewell: 132
    Earl Averill: 130
    "Indian" Bob Johnson: 131
    Albert Belle: 126
    Gary Carter: 119 (238th before positional adjustment)
    Orlando Cepeda: 157
    Will Clark: 122
    Andre Dawson: 153
    Bill Dickey: 146
    Frankie Frisch: 128
    Jason Giambi: 129
    Frank Howard: 120
    Joe Kelley: 149
    Boog Powell: 142
    Willie Randolph: 144
    Pee Wee Reese: 143
    Ken Singleton: 127

    Basically, Wynn played in a very strong, balanced league. Perhaps as strong as the game ever got. He played in a terrible environment for HR hitters, but for whatever reason he wasn't held down by the Astrodome. He did just as well there as elsewhere.

    I wouldn't call him a Hall of Famer, but my standards are higher than most. I'm not a "well, if Joe Kelley and Earl Averill are in, we need to induct Wynn" type of guy.

    However, Wynn is a player who looks significantly better after we try to account and adjust for historical context.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Maybe it was both. He could have found a girl to "hold his hand" on the net. Or something along those lines anyway. I've heard there are other kinds of sites besides baseball where a young lad might get himself into trouble.

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    I miss 538280.
    I miss him too. Really nice kid. Oft we clashed, but that's what happens when two stubborn people regularly disagree on a subject they're incredibly passionate about.

    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    Bill and I suspect he has found a young lady to hold his hand.
    Hopefully! I'm inclined to believe his parents put the kabbosh on surfing the net....

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X