Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jimmy Wynn

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

  • willshad
    replied
    very well explained.
    I think Win shares can be valuable for judging a players' whole game. I like the way it balances quality and quantity. Yet, i think you cannot go JUST by win shares. You also have to look at the actual stats, for reasons I have mentioned. It is very possible to have a lot of value in games where your team doesnt get a win..and win shares basically doesnt count these stats at all. i think it is entirely possible for a player to have a lot of production that doesnt lead to wins, but that doesnt mean its all worthless. You can say well probably the added hits and rbi will lead to more wins, but not necessarily so. Over the course of a 162 game season that includes maybe 100 losses, it can easily been seen possible that he could have 20 , 30, or 40 more RBi spread out that only occur in the losses.
    Last edited by willshad; 04-06-2008, 12:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • AG2004
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    Perhaps I am mistaken, but the way I understand 'win shares' is that it distributes the team's wins amongst all players on the team. Thus, no matter how much better Wynn's stats were, his win share total would not change unless the team won more games. If he has 30 win shares hitting 30, 80, .250, then if he hit 50, 120, .320, and his team still won the same amount of games, he could not be awarded more win shares. Well he COULD, but that would mean other players would have to have less, even though their stats have not changed. Either way, doesnt make sense to me.
    In real life, if Wynn's hitting had improved that much, his team would have won more games as a result, and Wynn would have gotten the credit. How many blowouts were there to concentrate those extra hits in? And what is the probability that all of those extra hits would have come in those blowouts?

    Furthermore, in practice, players on good teams win as many win shares as players who are just as good who happen to be on bad teams. The difference, of course, is that the good player on a bad team doesn't have nearly as many good teammates as the good player on a good team.

    Roush and Averill are both borderline hall of fame guys (as is Rice). Wynn may well have been as good as these players , if he was in a more favorable environment. But me presonally, if choosing between 2 guys like that, Id always pick the guy who DID post the good numbers (yes triple crown stats included..batting average , RBI ), rather than the guy who MIGHT HAVE, under different circumstances.
    What I'm saying is that Wynn did post good numbers, and that he was better than those players. Yaz won the AL batting crown in 1968 with a .301 average. The NL's batting average -- for all players -- was .303 in 1930. Did an average batter in the NL in 1930 have better numbers than Yaz in 1968?

    Good numbers depend on context. If I change the circumstances in such a way that helps batters and hurts pitchers, offensive numbers and total runs will increase. However, since the total number of wins doesn't change, it will now take more runs to win a ballgame. Hence, if we express a run in terms of a fraction of a win, the value of a run goes down.


    Saying Wynn MIGHT HAVE dirven in more runs in a better lineup (guess having Joe Morgan lin front of you isnt enough), or he MIGHT HAVE batted for a better average in another stadium, is akin to saying Don Mattingly MIGHT HAVE had 3000 hits if he didnt injure his back, or that Harold Baines MIGHT HAVE played gold glove defense if given the chance during his DH years. is it based on luck? Sure, to an extent. Playing in a 'bad' environment is just bad luck, as is getting injured.
    True. However, according to statistical analysis, RBI numbers can be predicted to a high degree just by looking at (a) a player's other batting statistics and (b) the number of men on base when he comes to the plate. If we already have all the other batting statistics, then the only thing RBIs add to our knowledge is part (b) - how good a player's teammates are.

    I see no real reason to give one guy more credit, and not the other. I realize that is the whole basis of sabermetrics..to even out the playing field, and try to predict what the players would all have done given the same situations.
    No, no, no. Sabermetrics abandoned that approach at the very beginning, since it was impossible to determine what the "same situation" was, and since variations would have been different for each individual player. Instead, the attempt was made to determine the player's actual value in the actual circumstances in which he played. Win shares doesn't tell us what Jimmy Wynn would have done if he had played for the Boston Red Sox in 1978; it tells us the value of what he did for the Houston Astros in 1969. If a player is playing in a low-run environment, each run that player creates is more valuable, in terms of a fraction of a win, than a run in a high-run environment; the win shares system reflects that fact.

    If teams are averaging 3.33 runs per game, then someone who creates 100 runs in this environment is creating as many runs as the average team scored in 30 games. However, if teams are averaging 4.75 runs per game, someone who creates 133 runs in that environment has created only as many runs as the average team scored in 28 games. Who posted the better numbers offensively? This isn't a rhetorical question; it comes down to the heart of our dispute.

    I realize this. yet I still go more by that the player DID do, then what he MIGHT HAVE done. There are of course exceptions, such as players in Coors field, whose stats are obviously inflated. Those guys, and guys like Chuck Klein (Baker Bowl)are probably the only ones Id 'adjust' do a great degree.
    To a large extent, I also go by what the players did accomplish. However, the win shares system gives those accomplishments in terms of wins created by those players, with three win shares corresponding to one win created. When I compare players across eras, I make some schedule length adjustments, but that's a "What If" question, and reflects the fact that shorter schedules provide fewer win shares for players to earn.

    What did Jimmy Wynn actually accomplish in 1969? According to the win shares system, he earned 36 win shares, which means he created 12 wins that year with his offensive and defensive play. What did Jim Rice actually accomplish in 1978? According to the win shares system, he earned 36 win shares, which is equivalent to having created 12 wins that year with his overall play. Since the most important statistic in baseball is the win, it makes sense to express a player's accomplishments in terms of wins; this is simply how win shares indicates what a player did in his own park and era.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    I can agree with someone attempting to argue that a player was deeply disadvantaged by his home park...IF the stats actually show that was the case. There is no evidence in Wynn's stats that show he would have been much better had he played somewhere else. His road stats for his career are about the same as his home stats...neither are hall worthy. he isnt like Mike Piazza, who has consistently put up better road numbers throughout his career. He not only was in the most severe pitcher's parks in baseball, and subpar lineups his whole career, but played by far the most demanding POSITION as well, and still has hall of fame numbers. Had he played in better hitting environments, he would have been even MORE obvious of a hall of famer. To me, THAT is what makes someone an all time great...not saying well he MIGHT HAVE had great numbers had circumstances been different. Especially when the stats don't back up that statement. I think if Wynn was THAT hampered it would also show in his OPS+, which is adjusted for era and park effects. A 128 OPS+ for a very short career isnt hall of fame territory for an outfielder. If you can make a case for Wynn over Dale Murphy Id love to hear it. Murphy is basically Wynn with more longevity, an even better peak, 2 MVPs, and 5 gold gloves.
    To compare Wynn to Piazza is a bit unfair as well. Piazza is an inner-circle no-questions-asked HOFer. Wynn is, at best, a borderline case, requiring explanation for his candidacy.

    Wynn put up five (5) seasons with an Offensive Winning Percentage over .700, plus a sixth season at .690. That's HOF level for a CENTER fielder; the problem was that Wynn was somewhat inconsistent from year to year. He had a terrible 1971 (after being stabbed by his estranged wife), and he had off years in 1966 and 1973.

    I have little doubt that had Wynn be a Cub, he would have reached 400 HRs, along with a BA of around .260. I don't know if that would have put him in the HOF, but it would have made him a more viable candidate than he has proven to be. His splits don't seem to be that great, but part of what needs to be taken into account is the favoritism toward the pitcher of Wynn's era; that factor would tend to cut down on home-road differentials.

    I agree that Wynn falls short as a HOFer. I do think that circumstances COULD have been different to where his candidacy would have been perceived as stronger than it was.

    I should also point out that Wynn, by no means, would be the worst CF in the HOF. Lloyd Waner and Earle Combs have him beat; Wynn was, IMO, more valuable than either of those guys. That's not an argument, but it is an observation.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Roush and Averill are both borderline hall of fame guys (as is Rice). Wynn may well have been as good as these players , if he was in a more favorable environment. But me presonally, if choosing between 2 guys like that, Id always pick the guy who DID post the good numbers (yes triple crown stats included..batting average , RBI ), rather than the guy who MIGHT HAVE, under different circumstances. Saying Wynn MIGHT HAVE dirven in more runs in a better lineup (guess having Joe Morgan lin front of you isnt enough), or he MIGHT HAVE batted for a better average in another stadium, is akin to saying Don Mattingly MIGHT HAVE had 3000 hits if he didnt injure his back, or that Harold Baines MIGHT HAVE played gold glove defense if given the chance during his DH years. is it based on luck? Sure, to an extent. Playing in a 'bad' environment is just bad luck, as is getting injured. I see no real reason to give one guy more credit, and not the other. I realize that is the whole basis of sabermetrics..to even out the playing field, and try to predict what the players would all have done given the same situations. I realize this. yet I still go more by that the player DID do, then what he MIGHT HAVE done. There are of course exceptions, such as players in Coors field, whose stats are obviously inflated. Those guys, and guys like Chuck Klein (Baker Bowl)are probably the only ones Id 'adjust' do a great degree.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by AG2004 View Post
    Wynn's home/away splits can be found on retrosheet. In 1966, his averages on the road are still superior to his home numbers. In 1967, he had higher BAs and OBPs at home, but he slugged .495 at home, and .495 on the road. In 1968, his home BA and OBP exceeded his road BA and OBP, but his away SLG was better than his home SLG. It isn't until 1969 that we see a big home/road discrepancy for the first time. That progression is more indicative of a gradual change in Wynn's style than of 1965 being a fluke.



    Win shares are based on a player's actual statistics. They also take into account baserunning and defensive value, which is more than OPS+ does. According to James' system, a season with 20+ win shares is an "All-Star caliber season." Wynn had eight such seasons; in seven of those years, he earned 27 or more win shares.



    Based on (a) a player's other batting statistics, and (b) the number of men on base when that player came to the plate, one can get a very good estimate of that player's RBI numbers. If we have the other batting statistics, the only new information RBI tells us is how good the player's teammates were. There are times when a player does hit better or worse with people on base, and, where the numbers in those situations are available, win shares adjusts for that. However, without situational data, the RBI totals don't tell us much that's new about the player's actual value.

    I would say that Rice is overrated as a hitter, and that Wynn is underrated. I would also say that there are things that OPS+ fails to reflect, but that win shares does take into account.

    *Playing time. On a season-by-season basis, neither Wynn nor Rice has an advantage here.
    *Baserunning. Rice has 58 SB, but 34 CS. Wynn had 225 SB and 101 CS. Wynn has an advantage here, especially in his best seasons.
    *Defense. Rice played 25% of his games at DH, and gets no defensive credit. He played most of his other games in left field. Wynn played about 65% of his games in CF, and was a DH in just 30 games at the end of his career. Here, Wynn picks up more credit than Rice does.
    *GIDP. Wynn grounded into the double play 117 times. Rice, on the other hand, grounded into 315 double plays. He led the league in this category in four consecutive years, and holds MLB's single-season record record here as well. Rice loses more value than Wynn in this category.

    I prefer to use the win shares system for my lists because I believe that it creates the best available statistics for my purposes. OPS+ doesn't measure enough, TPR creates problems because it sets its zero level at the league average, and, as WARP3's formula remains a secret, nobody has a good idea about what its shortcomings are.

    In terms of overall peak and career value, Wynn is a good match with Edd Roush, who is in the Hall of Fame. Roush may have been better defensively, but Wynn has the advantage on offense, and Wynn also has an extra season with 30+ win shares. Additionally, when one takes timeline into account, Wynn comes out ahead of Earl Averill in both peak and career win shares measures. While Averill had ten seasons with 20+ win shares to Wynn's eight, I'd still give the advantage to Wynn.


    Perhaps I am mistaken, but the way I understand 'win shares' is that it distributes the team's wins amongst all players on the team. Thus, no matter how much better Wynn's stats were, his win share total would not change unless the team won more games. If he has 30 win shares hitting 30, 80, .250, then if he hit 50, 120, .320, and his team still won the same amount of games, he could not be awarded more win shares. Well he COULD, but that would mean other players would have to have less, even though their stats have not changed. Either way, doesnt make sense to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
    Q: Who Makes the Best Argument for Jimmy Wynn?

    A: That kid who used to spend about 8 hours here a day and surreptitiously disappeared forever....

    I miss 538280. Bill and I suspect he has found a young lady to hold his hand.

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Q: Who Makes the Best Argument for Jimmy Wynn?

    A: That kid who used to spend about 8 hours here a day and surreptitiously disappeared forever....

    Leave a comment:


  • AG2004
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    Fair enough, I see what you are saying. I agree Wynn on the road in 1965 was a hall of fame player, and he gradually bettered himself at home. But the fact remains that, while he was getting better at home, he was performing WORSE on the road, otherwise he would have had more seasons with full season's numbers similiar to his 1965 road stats. Perhaps that season on the road was a fluke (as were his splits that year), and it took getting a greater number of sample size to arrive at his 'normal' level of play?
    Wynn's home/away splits can be found on retrosheet. In 1966, his averages on the road are still superior to his home numbers. In 1967, he had higher BAs and OBPs at home, but he slugged .495 at home, and .495 on the road. In 1968, his home BA and OBP exceeded his road BA and OBP, but his away SLG was better than his home SLG. It isn't until 1969 that we see a big home/road discrepancy for the first time. That progression is more indicative of a gradual change in Wynn's style than of 1965 being a fluke.

    Apparently there is a discrepancy as to what is a 'hall of fame 'level'. I dont place much value in win shares, as I feel it doesnt give enough emphasis on the actual stats the player put up. Wynn had about 3 or 4 seasons that can be called 'all star caliber'; he had none that were close to historically great. I know you cant just look at the raw numbers and judge the stats, but even ballpark adjusted OPS+ doesnt rank him as all thet great in any of his seasons.
    Win shares are based on a player's actual statistics. They also take into account baserunning and defensive value, which is more than OPS+ does. According to James' system, a season with 20+ win shares is an "All-Star caliber season." Wynn had eight such seasons; in seven of those years, he earned 27 or more win shares.

    Jim Rice has the same OPS+ for his career, and he played more games, and people all say he is overrated as a hitter. Perhaps if he had 50 less hits, but walked 50 more times a season with 40 less RBI then he would have been better?
    Based on (a) a player's other batting statistics, and (b) the number of men on base when that player came to the plate, one can get a very good estimate of that player's RBI numbers. If we have the other batting statistics, the only new information RBI tells us is how good the player's teammates were. There are times when a player does hit better or worse with people on base, and, where the numbers in those situations are available, win shares adjusts for that. However, without situational data, the RBI totals don't tell us much that's new about the player's actual value.

    I would say that Rice is overrated as a hitter, and that Wynn is underrated. I would also say that there are things that OPS+ fails to reflect, but that win shares does take into account.

    *Playing time. On a season-by-season basis, neither Wynn nor Rice has an advantage here.
    *Baserunning. Rice has 58 SB, but 34 CS. Wynn had 225 SB and 101 CS. Wynn has an advantage here, especially in his best seasons.
    *Defense. Rice played 25% of his games at DH, and gets no defensive credit. He played most of his other games in left field. Wynn played about 65% of his games in CF, and was a DH in just 30 games at the end of his career. Here, Wynn picks up more credit than Rice does.
    *GIDP. Wynn grounded into the double play 117 times. Rice, on the other hand, grounded into 315 double plays. He led the league in this category in four consecutive years, and holds MLB's single-season record record here as well. Rice loses more value than Wynn in this category.

    I prefer to use the win shares system for my lists because I believe that it creates the best available statistics for my purposes. OPS+ doesn't measure enough, TPR creates problems because it sets its zero level at the league average, and, as WARP3's formula remains a secret, nobody has a good idea about what its shortcomings are.

    In terms of overall peak and career value, Wynn is a good match with Edd Roush, who is in the Hall of Fame. Roush may have been better defensively, but Wynn has the advantage on offense, and Wynn also has an extra season with 30+ win shares. Additionally, when one takes timeline into account, Wynn comes out ahead of Earl Averill in both peak and career win shares measures. While Averill had ten seasons with 20+ win shares to Wynn's eight, I'd still give the advantage to Wynn.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Fair enough, I see what you are saying. I agree Wynn on the road in 1965 was a hall of fame player, and he gradually bettered himself at home. But the fact remains that, while he was getting better at home, he was performing WORSE on the road, otherwise he would have had more seasons with full season's numbers similiar to his 1965 road stats. Perhaps that season on the road was a fluke (as were his splits that year), and it took getting a greater number of sample size to arrive at his 'normal' level of play?
    Apparently there is a discrepancy as to what is a 'hall of fame 'level'. I dont place much value in win shares, as I feel it doesnt give enough emphasis on the actual stats the player put up. Wynn had about 3 or 4 seasons that can be called 'all star caliber'; he had none that were close to historically great. I know you cant just look at the raw numbers and judge the stats, but even ballpark adjusted OPS+ doesnt rank him as all thet great in any of his seasons. Jim Rice has the same OPS+ for his career, and he played more games, and people all say he is overrated as a hitter. Perhaps if he had 50 less hits, but walked 50 more times a season with 40 less RBI then he would have been better?

    Leave a comment:


  • AG2004
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    I read it, he tries to actually give Wynn CREDIT for having better home stats than road stats..
    I think you're misunderstanding what I did. To begin with, I didn't go into the project committed to any position on Wynn. I decided to look at the evidence, and reach my own conclusions. I didn't even put Wynn on my ballot for the Baseball Fever Hall of Fame until after I made my Keltner List for him.

    The first question dealt with a player's value in his context. Specifically, I wanted to know that, if player X hits better than expected at home in a pitcher's park, and worse than expected on the road, then do win shares overstate player X's real value to his team? This question does not deal with how player X would have done had he played on a different team or in a different park.

    I concluded that the win shares system does not overstate player X's value in this case. It would understate the actual value of a player, but not by very much. When I made the Keltner List, I didn't make give Wynn any extra credit for having better splits at home than league park factors would indicate.

    saying it shows he can 'adapt' to a tough park, rather than admit that maybe he WASN'T hampered much by playing in the Astro dome. That may have some validity, IF his road stats were actually hall of fame type numbers, which they were NOT.
    Please reread my work. I started out by considering both possibilities: that Wynn just got lucky by playing in the Astrodome, or that Wynn adapted to a tough park. I reasoned that, if Wynn was lucky, his home/road splits would be lopsided each year, beginning in 1965, when Houston moved into the Astrodome. On the other hand, if Wynn adapted to the Astrodome, he should have a normal home/road split for 1965, with his road stats being much better than his home states. Then, as he adapted, the splits should gradually change until the unusual home/road splits were reached.

    In other words, I determined that, by looking at season-by-season home/road splits, I could tell which of these two possibilities was closer to the truth. Then, and only then, did I look at those splits on a year-by-year basis.

    In 1965, Wynn batted .247/.349/.404, with 7 HR, at the Astrodome. However, he batted .305/.394/.540, with 15 HR, on the road. Someone who was .305/.394/.540 that year would have been among the top 10 in the NL in batting average, among the top 5 in slugging, and 2nd in OBP. Someone with 30 HRs would have just missed being in the top ten by one HR. That's a very good year for a 23-year old. Also note that Wynn's home/road splits that year are in line with what one might expect from park factors.

    As time passed, Wynn gradually moved from this split to one where he did much better at home than one might expect based on his overall numbers and park factors. This pattern of gradual change led me to believe that he adapted to the Astrodome.


    To assume he would have put up better numbers playing elsewhere has no basis in reality. He did not play at a hall of fame level in the Astro dome, Dodger Staduim, nor anywhere else, so why would he suddenly start playing at one if his home staduim were in say, Cincinatti?
    Wynn's win share numbers indicate that he was playing at a Hall of Fame level in the Astrodome and in Dodger Stadium (most years, anyway; 1971 was bad due to the stabbing). Furthermore, since Wynn's home/road splits for the first few years of his career are basically what one would expect, given park factors and overall numbers, he didn't get lucky by playing in a park that was suited for him; rather, he adapted his style of play to a difficult stadium. Since he did earn 30+ win shares in 1965 -- before this adaptation to the Astrodome started -- it seems likely that he would have had that level of performance had his home parks been different.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    I read it, he tries to actually give Wynn CREDIT for having better home stats than road stats..saying it shows he can 'adapt' to a tough park, rather than admit that maybe he WASN'T hampered much by playing in the Astro dome. That may have some validity, IF his road stats were actually hall of fame type numbers, which they were NOT. To assume he would have put up better numbers playing elsewhere has no basis in reality. He did not play at a hall of fame level in the Astro dome, Dodger Staduim, nor anywhere else, so why would he suddenly start playing at one if his home staduim were in say, Cincinatti?
    I am still waiting for how Wynn has a better hall of fame case than Murphy
    And how was his 1972 season 'disastrously bad'? That looks like one of his better seasons. If you are talking about 1971 then yes it was bad, but not all that much worse than 1973, 1976, or 1966
    Last edited by willshad; 04-05-2008, 04:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    I can agree with someone attempting to argue that a player was deeply disadvantaged by his home park... IF the stats actually show that was the case. There is no evidence in Wynn's stats that show he would have been much better had he played somewhere else. His road stats for his career are about the same as his home stats.
    A.G. debunks that one in prelude to the Keltner List. Repeating myself,
    >>
    Perhaps A.G. Keltner makes the best argument for Wynn.
    Keltner Lists (see #61-62)
    . . .
    [His] disastrously bad 1972 season and the Astrodome are two important matters covered in Keltner List #61.
    <<

    Does anyone remember how to get the address for one article such as #61 on that page?

    128 OPS+ for a very short career
    8010 plate appearances is #225 among retired players and more than Fred Lynn achieved.
    Maybe it's a reasonable stretch to call it short for a Hall of Fame player who isn't a pitcher or catcher. It isn't very short anywhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    While I agree that Jimmy Wynn is not quite a HOFer, I highlighed the sentence I did because it is extremely unfair to Wynn. Wynn played in the MOST EXTREME PITCHER'S PARK, in the MOST EXTREME PITCHER'S ERA EVER. This cannot be overemphasized. I doubt that Willie Mays would have hit .300 in the Astrodome in 1965, and he wouldn't have hit 52 HRs, either. Wynn's stats have to be taken in light of the parks he played in; he NEVER played in a park favorable to a hitter, except for his BRIEF stint in Atlanta.

    Wynn could draw a walk to the end; despite a .207 BA in 1976 in Atlanta, he had a .377 OBP thanks to 121 walks. He hit 17 HRs that year as well. There are two ways of looking at that age 33 season. One way is to look at it as an unappreciated season, where the focus was on Wynn's low BA and not his OBP, which was 9th in the NL is what was perceived to be a poor season. The other way, however, is to look at that season as a fading season for a player who could no longer put the bat on the ball. This was a sign that his walk totals would decline because pitchers would determine that he could not get a base hit anymore; ergo, there was no reason NOT to throw him strikes. That's pretty much what happened in 1977; Wynn lost all of his power and lost the ability to put the bat on the ball. He still drew 32 walks in 194 ABs, but his Rob Deer-esque .175 BA ended his career at age 34.

    That, to me, is the big argument against Wynn. If he had played longer; if he had been able to hold a regular CF job through age 37 or so, his case may have been stronger. But he was done as a regular at 33, and out of baseball at 34. A sudden fade out at age 34 is NOT a sign of a HOFer.

    The other thing that hurts Wynn is that he never won a Gold Glove. Wynn was a GOOD defensive outfielder, but not really a great one, and I was surprised to learn just how many games away from CF he actually played.

    The more I think about it, the more I can't justify Wynn's elevation to the HOF. He wasn't as good as Fred Lynn, and he really wasn't as good as Vada Pinson (whom I rate behind Lynn). I really can't rate Wynn ahead of Jim Edmonds. Wynn's underrated, and he's somewhat forgotten, but he's not underrated to the point where he ought to be in the HOF.

    I can agree with someone attempting to argue that a player was deeply disadvantaged by his home park...IF the stats actually show that was the case. There is no evidence in Wynn's stats that show he would have been much better had he played somewhere else. His road stats for his career are about the same as his home stats...neither are hall worthy. he isnt like Mike Piazza, who has consistently put up better road numbers throughout his career. He not only was in the most severe pitcher's parks in baseball, and subpar lineups his whole career, but played by far the most demanding POSITION as well, and still has hall of fame numbers. Had he played in better hitting environments, he would have been even MORE obvious of a hall of famer. To me, THAT is what makes someone an all time great...not saying well he MIGHT HAVE had great numbers had circumstances been different. Especially when the stats don't back up that statement. I think if Wynn was THAT hampered it would also show in his OPS+, which is adjusted for era and park effects. A 128 OPS+ for a very short career isnt hall of fame territory for an outfielder. If you can make a case for Wynn over Dale Murphy Id love to hear it. Murphy is basically Wynn with more longevity, an even better peak, 2 MVPs, and 5 gold gloves.
    Last edited by willshad; 04-05-2008, 03:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    Jim Wynn was one of my favorite players, but there really is no case for him as a hall of famer. A guy with a 128 OPS+ in 6653 at bats may be a hall of famer if he was a catcher, or perhaps a good fielding shortstop. But look at it this way: Jim Rice (a borderline candidate at best) has the same OPS+ , in many more at bats...and OPS+ is his WEAK point. That doesnt even mention his dominance in triple crown stats, ink scores, and MVP votes. Yeah, Wynn had an advantage on the bases and positonal advantage, but it cant make up for his lack of longevity and dominance. He was probably beter than Chick hafey, a hall off famer with similiar credentials (but Im assuming Hafey's selection is considered a mistake around these parts). To me, a hall of famer rises above his conditions, and puts up hall numbers regardless. Wynn had maybe one or two seasons that can be considered 'hall worthy'. He was great in 1969, and very very good in 1974, and good in 1970 and 1972. If he had managed to have a very long career with great counting stats he may have been able to make a Dave Winfield-like case for himself.
    While I agree that Jimmy Wynn is not quite a HOFer, I highlighed the sentence I did because it is extremely unfair to Wynn. Wynn played in the MOST EXTREME PITCHER'S PARK, in the MOST EXTREME PITCHER'S ERA EVER. This cannot be overemphasized. I doubt that Willie Mays would have hit .300 in the Astrodome in 1965, and he wouldn't have hit 52 HRs, either. Wynn's stats have to be taken in light of the parks he played in; he NEVER played in a park favorable to a hitter, except for his BRIEF stint in Atlanta.

    Wynn could draw a walk to the end; despite a .207 BA in 1976 in Atlanta, he had a .377 OBP thanks to 121 walks. He hit 17 HRs that year as well. There are two ways of looking at that age 33 season. One way is to look at it as an unappreciated season, where the focus was on Wynn's low BA and not his OBP, which was 9th in the NL is what was perceived to be a poor season. The other way, however, is to look at that season as a fading season for a player who could no longer put the bat on the ball. This was a sign that his walk totals would decline because pitchers would determine that he could not get a base hit anymore; ergo, there was no reason NOT to throw him strikes. That's pretty much what happened in 1977; Wynn lost all of his power and lost the ability to put the bat on the ball. He still drew 32 walks in 194 ABs, but his Rob Deer-esque .175 BA ended his career at age 34.

    That, to me, is the big argument against Wynn. If he had played longer; if he had been able to hold a regular CF job through age 37 or so, his case may have been stronger. But he was done as a regular at 33, and out of baseball at 34. A sudden fade out at age 34 is NOT a sign of a HOFer.

    The other thing that hurts Wynn is that he never won a Gold Glove. Wynn was a GOOD defensive outfielder, but not really a great one, and I was surprised to learn just how many games away from CF he actually played.

    The more I think about it, the more I can't justify Wynn's elevation to the HOF. He wasn't as good as Fred Lynn, and he really wasn't as good as Vada Pinson (whom I rate behind Lynn). I really can't rate Wynn ahead of Jim Edmonds. Wynn's underrated, and he's somewhat forgotten, but he's not underrated to the point where he ought to be in the HOF.
    Last edited by Fuzzy Bear; 04-05-2008, 02:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Perhaps A.G. Keltner makes the best argument for Wynn.
    Keltner Lists (see #61-62)
    (There is a way to get the address for one article, but that is the page.)

    Otherwise, maybe Reggie Smith.

    Re Wynn & Lynn:
    1.
    Wynn missed some time but he did play 90% of team games eight times, Lynn only three times. That "he was always injured" hurts Lynn a lot.
    That is not to say it hurts him in direct comparison with Wynn, which rarely if ever happens. Many people who have an opinion of Lynn (great at times, negative for the HOF) have none of Wynn.

    2.
    Wynn loses 3-4 points on his career OPS+ for the one disastrously bad 1972 season. That and the Astrodome are two important matters covered in Keltner List #61.

    3.
    Wynn is in the Hall of Merit and Fred Lynn's predecessor Reggie Smith is the leading incumbent, one of the favorites to be elected with Rickey Henderson in 2009. Lynn gets little or no support.
    Smith played 40% of his games and 48% of his outfield games at CF.
    Wynn played 60% and 66% at CF.
    Lynn played 80% and 85% at CF.

    Smith played 90% of team games six times, intermediate between Lynn 3 and Wynn 8 (which is not extreme, Lynn is the only extreme here).

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X