Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

How many players received 45% of the Writers' vote but never got in?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
    The discussion would be far more fruitful if you actually paid attention to what I wrote. I never even suggested that there should be a uniform method by which everyone should determine HOF worthiness.

    I also never indicated subjectivity had no place in HOF selections. Everyone is judging the worthiness of candidates—and the process of judging implies a measure of subjectivity when there’s no consenus on clear standards. Even if you rely on statistics to do your judging, there’s subjectivity in what statistics are chosen and how they’re weighted.

    One subjective decision I’ve made is that I don’t give Oliva any credit for the career he would have had if he had avoided tearing up his knee. My reasoning is that there’s too many cases of guys who would have become HOFers if they could have avoided injury. Heck, you could fill a whole wing of a Hall of Fame with pitchers who would be worthy if they hadn’t hurt their arms.
    I also didn’t say inducting Oliva would mean that the Hall should take several hundred more candidates who are as good or better. The real number would probably be 20-40 players, but subjectively that’s too many for me. What I did say that if we judged each and every case individually, without reference to any meaningful standards or reference to other players who are in or out, we’d wind up in a situation where we’d be inducting guys who are inferior to hundreds of guys who are being excluded.

    Can’t we agree that the Hall should be limited to the best players in the history of the game? If not, no discussion is possible since we’re not anywhere near being on the same page. But if we can agree on that basic point, doesn’t talking about “the best” imply that candidates should be compared to one another?
    You seem to say, in this and other posts that we can’t compare perspective HOFers to the “unworthy” members, but we must compare them to the icons of the hall. We can’t have it both ways. Chick Hafey is in. So are Ross Youngs and Chuck Klien. Either we compare, or we don’t. I’m a big hall guy and I feel that there are 20, 40, 50 players who should be in and aren’t. And IMO, that would enhance the hall, not diminish it.

    ALSO, if Dizzy Dean, Sandy Koufax, and Kirby Puckett are in, a precedent is set for career shortened by injury. And these cases should be looked at on an individual basis. In my opinion Oliva did enough, Herb Score did not.


    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
    You also go to great lengths to attack the use of statistics. But unless we’re going to go with a severely smaller Hall than we’ve currently got, you’ve got to use some statistics, whether they the traditional triple crown ones, those that can be found in the original MacMillan Encyclopedias, or more modern metrics. If you don’t use any statistics, about all you have is awards, and I think it’s safe to say the consensus is that some other data in the form of statistics is needed to complete the picture.
    This is my first post on this thread about Oliva. I used statistics, league rankings, and awards:

    Tony Oliva should be in the HOF and it's ridiculous that he isn't. He had a devastating knee injury in 1972, and played 4 more seasons that soured his career stats. Before the injury, he was simply sensational.

    From 1964-71 ("before the injury" ed) he was .313/.361/.507 OPS+ 141 8 straight all-star games , 2X MVP runnerup, 2 more top 6 finishes, ROY (should have been 64 MVP), GG, 3X batting leader, 5X hits leader, 4X doubles leader, 71 slugging leader, and 64 TB leader.

    I grew up watching this guy on TV, he just ripped.



    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
    Now if you believe Oliva belongs among the very best in the history of the game, you’re hardly alone. One can certainly make a plausible argument to that effect. I don’t happen to find it persuasive, but just about as many people do as don’t. I’ve explained my rationale and you’ve explained yours, and there’s no requirement we come to the same conclusion. But if your position is that you don’t believe Oliva belongs among the very best in the history of the game but belongs in the Hall despite that conclusion, your position is plainly destructive to the Hall and thus unacceptable.
    Of course I feel that the very best should only be in. The mistake that you make, is that if if I feel that more players are worthy than you do, then you feel that I devalue the hall. That’s not how I look at it. I feel that players like Oliva, Steve Garvey, Jack Morris, and Dale Murphy WERE among the best in baseball history and the hall is would be enhanced, not devalued by their induction.
    Last edited by JR Hart; 11-17-2012, 10:03 AM.
    This week's Giant

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

    Comment


    • #32
      JR Hart said:
      You seem to say, in this and other posts that we can’t compare perspective HOFers to the “unworthy” members, but we must compare them to the icons of the hall. We can’t have it both ways. Chick Hafey is in. So are Ross Youngs and Chuck Klien. Either we compare, or we don’t. I’m a big hall guy and I feel that there are 20, 40, 50 players who should be in and aren’t. And IMO, that would enhance the hall, not diminish it.

      ALSO, if Dizzy Dean, Sandy Koufax, and Kirby Puckett are in, a precedent is set for career shortened by injury. And these cases should be looked at on an individual basis. In my opinion Oliva did enough, Herb Score did not.
      This is quite different than saying we shouldn't compare at all. It is true that we've got to be careful comparing the Hall to its worst choices, because we'd load it up with similarly unworthy players. Clear mistakes should not be the basis for making further mistakes. Now, if we're talking about the guys that there's a close argument about, with some points on both sides, they're a real point of comparison because they help define where the line should be. Also, we shouldn't limit our comparisons to guys who are in the Hall, but also those who are not. If the bulk of the comparables aren't in the Hall, that's a heck of an argument that a guy does not belong. If the bulk of them are in, that's a heck of an argument the guy belongs. If you want another 50 or so guys in the Hall, I can see that Oliva probably would belong. I wouldn't go that far, but that's one of those subjective things I don't expect to see resolved any time soon.

      I see from another thread you put Oliva in your top 10 outside the Hall to put in. I don't agree with the stance on Oliva, but if 75% of a large group of voters agreed with you rather than me, I'll accept the verdict and move on. At least you're talking about someone you regard as the best. One thing you're apparently not too familiar about in my writings on the Hall is I don't beef much about the guys the BBWAA voted in, even if I don't agree. It's the guys who got in by 75% of a small group in some guise of a committee who have made the most indefensible selections--and the ones I least want to see replicated, because those mistakes are much harder to present as representative of a consensus.

      One last point: you complain that I express my opinion some of the picks you would make in an expanded hall devalue the Hall itself. That's true, but it's an outgrowth of our disagreement of how big the Hall itself should be. You obviously feel I'm too exclusionary, which again is a natural outgrowth of that disagreement. It's inherent in that fundamental clash of opinions, nothing more and nothing less. Neither of us are going to be free of such feelings about the other's choices so long as we differ on how large the Hall is.
      Last edited by jalbright; 11-17-2012, 10:32 AM.
      Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
      Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
      A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by jalbright View Post
        One last point: you complain that I express my opinion some of the picks you would make in an expanded hall devalue the Hall itself. That's true, but it's an outgrowth of our disagreement of how big the Hall itself should be. You obviously feel I'm too exclusionary, which again is a natural outgrowth of that disagreement. It's inherent in that fundamental clash of opinions, nothing more and nothing less. Neither of us are going to be free of such feelings about the other's choices so long as we differ on how large the Hall is.
        Obviously

        And there is nothing wrong with having that disagreement. I'm not for putting in Mike Gallego or anything like that. But I think players who were obvious stars when they played like Oliva, Garvey, and Murphy were among the greatest players ever. Conversely, I can't see how players that nobody thought were hall worthy when they played are suddenly given hall consideration years after they played. I just don't buy the case of Gene Tenace, Bobby Grich, and Darell Evans. Nobody thought they were a HOFer when they played. If, in 1982, someone would have suggested Tenace was a HOFer, they would have been laughed off the planet. How can he rate now?

        In Oliva's, case more than anything (again read my initial post on this thread), I feel that he did enough before his injury to be given special consideration.
        Last edited by JR Hart; 11-17-2012, 11:43 AM.
        This week's Giant

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

        Comment


        • #34
          In this recent fan poll, Oliva was named the 30th best candidate for the HOF.

          In The Ultimate Quest for Candidates project, Oliva did not fare too well against other Hall candidates from the 1950's and 60's.

          When we did the Hall of Fame Purgatory project three years ago, Oliva was not among the top 80 candidates for the HOF.

          Yes, Oliva did get 47% support from the BBWAA voters one year, but that was on a very weak ballot, far and away his best support year. In his 15 years on the ballot his median support was 34.6%, less than half of what it takes to be elected.

          Oliva was a classic hacker, putting a lot of balls in play. Hence, all the high totals in hits and doubles. But what about making offense, creating runs for his team? There he is very lacking, falling short of the dominance needed to make a short-career player like him a hall of famer. Despite batting in the heart of a good lineup he never led the league in RBI (only three years in the top 5); he led the league in runs once (2 other years in the top 5). He led in Runs Created once (2 other years in the top 5). When you adjust for park effects he looks even worse. He was never his league's best offensive player, only twice one of the top 5.

          All of this was in an era when the AL was much the weaker of the two leagues. I believe that if Oliva switches leagues with Vada Pinson that it would be Vada with the batting titles and the drumbeat for HOF election.

          Position players with most years of 6+ WAR who debuted 1958-69:
          Code:
          Rk                    Yrs From   To   Age
          1           Ron Santo   6 1963 1968 23-28 H
          2           Rod Carew   5 1973 1977 27-31 H
          3          Joe Morgan   5 1972 1976 28-32 H
          4        Johnny Bench   5 1969 1975 21-27 H
          5           Pete Rose   4 1969 1976 28-35
          6      Reggie Jackson   4 1969 1975 23-29 H
          7          Dick Allen   4 1964 1972 22-30
          8    Carl Yastrzemski   4 1963 1970 23-30 H
          9      Billy Williams   4 1963 1972 25-34 H
          10     Willie McCovey   4 1963 1970 25-32 H
          11        Bobby Bonds   3 1969 1973 23-27
          12          Sal Bando   3 1969 1973 25-29
          13           Jim Wynn   3 1965 1974 23-32
          14         Tony Oliva   3 1964 1970 25-31
          15        Vada Pinson   3 1959 1963 20-24
          I think Oliva is the last player on this list who I'd put in the Hall.
          Last edited by Freakshow; 11-18-2012, 12:37 AM.
          Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

          Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
            But I think players who were obvious stars when they played like Oliva, Garvey, and Murphy were among the greatest players ever. Conversely, I can't see how players that nobody thought were hall worthy when they played are suddenly given hall consideration years after they played. I just don't buy the case of Gene Tenace, Bobby Grich, and Darell Evans. Nobody thought they were a HOFer when they played. If, in 1982, someone would have suggested Tenace was a HOFer, they would have been laughed off the planet. How can he rate now?
            It's certainly legitimate to ask about how guys were regarded in their own time. That said, sometimes the people of the time missed something. Now I don't think highly of Tenace and Darrell Evans isn't a hot candidate for me, but I do have high regard for Grich. Also, all three were underrated in their day becasue few folks paid attention to the value of getting on base and thereby not using up the team's precious supply of outs. Sometimes, we have to allow new information to inform our judgments. OTOH, there's little doubt that some devotees of modern metrics go overboard.
            Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
            Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
            A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by jalbright View Post
              There are two that have exhausted their BBWAA eligibility that I see from that source: Hodges and Oliva. There are four I see who are still on the BBWAA ballot: Raines, Lee Smith, Bagwell and Jack Morris.
              I believe all of these guys except Oliva and Smith will get in someday, somehow. The sad think is that Olive was the greatest of that group, with the exception of Bagwell.
              "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
                Originally posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
                The Hall of Fame is not kind to corner outfielders with short careers, probably because there are so many already in with long careers. If Tony got in, he'd be comparable to Chick Hafey and Ross Youngs.

                If he got in, well, it would be about time that he caught a break. He didn't get going until he was 25 and turned into Sean Casey at 32, and it seemed like all the way along he was met with frustrations and disappointment, which he bore stoically. (See his SABR biography.) But for those eight years he was something.
                Oliva is a clear peak-value HOF. He was clearly better than Hafey, who was an after-the-fact HOFer Hafey was not regarded as a superstar in his time, whereas Olive was so regarded for a time. Oliva was comparable to Youngs, but Youngs is a guy who, IMO, is unfairly maligned, due to his selection as a "Frankie Frisch" candidate. Youngs was regarded as a star while active, and was, arguably, the best position player for the Giants on four (4) consecutive pennant-winning teams. His career .668 OWP is acceptable for a HOF right fielder, and it would have been higher had it not been for Bright's Disease, which began to affect him in 1925. The Giants dropped off when he got sick, so Youngs was a player that helped the Giants win.
                "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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Freakshow View Post
                  In this recent fan poll, Oliva was named the 30th best candidate for the HOF.
                  In The Ultimate Quest for Candidates project, Oliva did not fare too well against other Hall candidates from the 1950's and 60's.
                  When we did the Hall of Fame Purgatory project three years ago, Oliva was not among the top 80 candidates for the HOF.
                  And this means what? That posters here don’t rate Oliva? So! Most likely there were scrubs like Da Evans and Tenace rated over him, with the sabermetric tilt that is on this board.

                  Originally posted by Freakshow View Post
                  Yes, Oliva did get 47% support from the BBWAA voters one year, but that was on a very weak ballot, far and away his best support year. In his 15 years on the ballot his median support was 34.6%, less than half of what it takes to be elected.
                  Again So what! He received strong HOF consideration compared to most players. If writers knew what they were doing, we wouldn’t have this thread.

                  Originally posted by Freakshow View Post

                  Oliva was a classic hacker, putting a lot of balls in play. Hence, all the high totals in hits and doubles. But what about making offense, creating runs for his team? There he is very lacking, falling short of the dominance needed to make a short-career player like him a hall of famer. Despite batting in the heart of a good lineup he never led the league in RBI (only three years in the top 5); he led the league in runs once (2 other years in the top 5). He led in Runs Created once (2 other years in the top 5). When you adjust for park effects he looks even worse. He was never his league's best offensive player, only twice one of the top 5.
                  .
                  This is some really poor analysis. Because he hit so well and led the league in batting, hits, and doubles so often ; he was something less because he should have taken more walks and scored more imaginary runs? It looks like he scored and batted in a lot of runs, especially for his era. And IMO he was the league’s best hitter in 1964. His rookie season is one of the best in history. 374 total bases has to rank really high among rookies. Oh that’s right, he should have walked more and not totaled up so many bases. He was MVP runner twice and should have been 1964 MVP when he finished a ridiculous 4th.

                  Originally posted by Freakshow View Post

                  All of this was in an era when the AL was much the weaker of the two leagues. I believe that if Oliva switches leagues with Vada Pinson that it would be Vada with the batting titles and the drumbeat for HOF election.
                  There is no way to prove this. Oliva never had a bad year before his injury. Pinson wasn’t the hitter or slugger that Oliva was. However, I don’t feel that comparing Oliva to Pinson downgrades Oliva. Vada was a heck of a player. If Oliva hadn’t gotten hurt, his decline would not have been as significant as Pinson’s.

                  Originally posted by Freakshow View Post

                  Position players with most years of 6+ WAR who debuted 1958-69:
                  Code:
                  Rk                    Yrs From   To   Age
                  1           Ron Santo   6 1963 1968 23-28 H
                  2           Rod Carew   5 1973 1977 27-31 H
                  3          Joe Morgan   5 1972 1976 28-32 H
                  4        Johnny Bench   5 1969 1975 21-27 H
                  5           Pete Rose   4 1969 1976 28-35
                  6      Reggie Jackson   4 1969 1975 23-29 H
                  7          Dick Allen   4 1964 1972 22-30
                  8    Carl Yastrzemski   4 1963 1970 23-30 H
                  9      Billy Williams   4 1963 1972 25-34 H
                  10     Willie McCovey   4 1963 1970 25-32 H
                  11        Bobby Bonds   3 1969 1973 23-27
                  12          Sal Bando   3 1969 1973 25-29
                  13           Jim Wynn   3 1965 1974 23-32
                  14         Tony Oliva   3 1964 1970 25-31
                  15        Vada Pinson   3 1959 1963 20-24
                  I think Oliva is the last player on this list who I'd put in the Hall.
                  I expressed in another thread, in detail ,my dislike for WAR. IMO, Oliva easily rates over B Bonds, Carew, Bando (LOL), Wynn, Pinson, and he’s not much worse than Billy Williams or Santo.
                  This week's Giant

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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
                    Oliva is a clear peak-value HOF. He was clearly better than Hafey, who was an after-the-fact HOFer Hafey was not regarded as a superstar in his time, whereas Olive was so regarded for a time. Oliva was comparable to Youngs, but Youngs is a guy who, IMO, is unfairly maligned, due to his selection as a "Frankie Frisch" candidate. Youngs was regarded as a star while active, and was, arguably, the best position player for the Giants on four (4) consecutive pennant-winning teams. His career .668 OWP is acceptable for a HOF right fielder, and it would have been higher had it not been for Bright's Disease, which began to affect him in 1925. The Giants dropped off when he got sick, so Youngs was a player that helped the Giants win.
                    I actually think a lot of Youngs, too, and if we look at peak value only, I think a better HOF comp is Klein. Corner outfielders that are similar in having a run of about 40 WAR with a 140+ OPS+ and not much else are Strawberry, Belle, and Ken Williams. Maris, out, and Wilson, in, are also similar, but not as close. Spread out, without the peak, Ken Singleton is similar.

                    I remember before Klein and Wilson were selected, my sense of the feeling about them was not "Why were they overlooked?" but "if only they had played at that level a little longer . . ," about the same feeling that many have for Tony. So maybe his vet committee prospects are also good.
                    Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                      And this means what?
                      That there is a consensus of fans interested in the topic who rate Oliva nowhere near the top of the candidates pile.
                      Again So what
                      While we agree on the generally lackluster quality of the BBWAA electorate, in Oliva's case they got it right. Two-thirds of the scribes who saw him play don't think he belongs in the Hall.
                      This is some...analysis
                      Which you entirely fail to refute.
                      my dislike for WAR
                      Let's use one of your favorites, total bases. Same set of players as previous list, most years 290+ TB:
                      Code:
                      Rk                    Yrs From   To   Age
                      1      Billy Williams  10 1963 1972 25-34 H
                      2           Pete Rose   7 1965 1976 24-35
                      3         Vada Pinson   7 1959 1967 20-28
                      4      Orlando Cepeda   7 1958 1970 20-32 H
                      5        Steve Garvey   6 1974 1980 25-31
                      6         Bobby Bonds   5 1969 1977 23-31
                      7           Ron Santo   5 1963 1967 23-27 H
                      8      Willie McCovey   5 1963 1970 25-32 H
                      9           Al Oliver   4 1973 1982 26-35
                      10            Lee May   4 1969 1972 26-29
                      11         Tony Perez   4 1967 1973 25-31 H
                      12          Joe Torre   4 1964 1971 23-30
                      13         Tony Oliva   4 1964 1970 25-31
                      14         Dick Allen   4 1964 1972 22-30
                      15   Carl Yastrzemski   4 1962 1970 22-30 H
                      16    Johnny Callison   4 1962 1965 23-26
                      Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

                      Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        JR Hart, since you shout so stubbornly "OLIVA belongs!!!", who else do you think belongs, using that same criteria?
                        "I am not too serious about anything. I believe you have to enjoy yourself to get the most out of your ability."-
                        George Brett

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I made a program that included the following: ASG appearances (public perception in their time), HOF Monitor and Standards as well as Black and Gray Ink (Bill James's creations that can be related to HOF level, old-school sabermetrics) and WAR, WAR7 and JAWS (really liked this data collected by Jay Jaffe). Made a correlation to HOF Level and came up with this list of players most deserving of HOF enshrinement, that are not in the HOF thus being eligible:

                          1. Pete Rose
                          2. Jeff Bagwell
                          3. Larry Walker
                          4. Tony Oliva
                          5. Mark McGwire
                          6. Joe Torre
                          7. Alan Trammell
                          8. Joe Jackson
                          9. Harry Stovey
                          10. Dale Murphy

                          Pretty neat. And going to use it for all players, included HOF to see a new ranking. But the thing is, that Tony Oliva is up there in the discussion.
                          "I am not too serious about anything. I believe you have to enjoy yourself to get the most out of your ability."-
                          George Brett

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by yankillaz View Post
                            I made a program that included the following: ASG appearances (public perception in their time), HOF Monitor and Standards as well as Black and Gray Ink (Bill James's creations that can be related to HOF level, old-school sabermetrics) and WAR, WAR7 and JAWS (really liked this data collected by Jay Jaffe). Made a correlation to HOF Level and came up with this list of players most deserving of HOF enshrinement, that are not in the HOF thus being eligible:

                            1. Pete Rose
                            2. Jeff Bagwell
                            3. Larry Walker
                            4. Tony Oliva
                            5. Mark McGwire
                            6. Joe Torre
                            7. Alan Trammell
                            8. Joe Jackson
                            9. Harry Stovey
                            10. Dale Murphy

                            Pretty neat. And going to use it for all players, included HOF to see a new ranking. But the thing is, that Tony Oliva is up there in the discussion.
                            nice list although I'm not that hip on Joe Torre as a player being in the hall.
                            This week's Giant

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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by yankillaz View Post
                              JR Hart, since you shout so stubbornly "OLIVA belongs!!!", who else do you think belongs, using that same criteria?
                              I'm not sure what my criteria is. I think that Oliva was dominant enough before his injury to get special consideration along with the other career shortened inductees.

                              I think that Steve Garvey is hugely overlooked. He was seen as a dominant player when he played.
                              This week's Giant

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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X