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

My top 100 players (including pitchers)

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by AlecBoy006
    Actually, I changed my mind. Here are my ten greatest players

    1) Koufax
    2) Hodges
    3) Snider
    4) Campanella
    5) Babe Herman
    6) Jackie Robinson
    7) Pee Wee Reese
    8) Clem labine
    9) Jim Gilliam
    10) Adrian Beltre
    I can't believe you'd leave off Drysdale, Furillo, Dazzy, and Willie Davis.
    "Any pitcher who throws at a batter and deliberately tries to hit him is a communist."

    - Alvin Dark

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by AlecBoy006
      Tell me how Gehrig was faster. Just because he had more triples. Campaneris still had more stolen bases (and a lot I might add) Advantage: Campaneris. Campaneris played at SS. Gehrig at first base. All you have to to do at first stand there. Guard the man if there is on. Catch balls. SS: you have to make insane dives. You have to leap in the air to prevent bloopers, If there is a ground ball away from you, you have to run over and make a throw to first. Campaneris did play a harder position. He stole more bases. 649 is alot. And stole plenty more than Gehrig. And even if he was hit by a pitch 19 more times than Gehrig, that still set him up for bases stolen. True, Campaneris didn't have a great batting average. But he was a good singles hitter.
      I wasn't talking about that specifically about Gehrig's vs. Campaneris's speed. I'm talking about your overall comparisons of players. You STILL haven't come up with a detailed argument for why Foxx was greater than Gehrig. Are you capable of doing that, or are you going to just run away again?

      Comment


      • #93
        Foxx is arguably one of the best fielding first baseman ever. Gehrig had a higher fielding percentage, but committed more errors. Even if it was on oppourtunities. Even if homeruns is a triple crown stat, Foxx had alot more. Foxx was a slightly better fielder, and way better of a power hitter. His 534 homeruns beat Gehrig's 493. Gehrig may have caught up with Foxx if he wasn't dying. Unfortuanetly he did. But Foxx still has more homeruns. Gehrig has a higher batting average, but I beg to differ that if Foxx didn't decline the way he did, he'd be close with Gehrig. Gehrig has more runs driven in, but again, Foxx declined, and didn't play everyday. 1995 to 1922. If Foxx played more reguarly, you mean to tell me Gehrig would not have been passed up by him? If Foxx was able to play everyday, he would've surpassed Gehrig in a numerous amount of offensive categories. And even though he was dying, Gehrig didn't have much of a decline. Which could be a possible explanation as to why his numbers look stronger.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by AlecBoy006
          Foxx is arguably one of the best fielding first baseman ever. Gehrig had a higher fielding percentage, but committed more errors. Even if it was on oppourtunities.
          No Foxx wasn't, but support why you think Foxx was a better defensive 1B

          <Gehrig has a higher batting average, but I beg to differ that if Foxx didn't decline the way he did, he'd be close with Gehrig. Gehrig has more runs driven in, but again, Foxx declined>

          So we pretend Foxx didn't decline?
          Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
          Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

          Comment


          • #95
            No. Gehrig didn't decline. I understand he has an excuse, but his averages would've went down further, and a chance for Foxx to pass these up.

            Well, as far as Foxx being a great defensive first baseman- would you say a .990 fielding percentage is bad? But Foxx could play outfield and third base which could be a difference in that. Foxx was versatile. And I like versatile ball players who can play other positions. Though that may be a factor, Foxx was still a great fielder.

            Comment


            • #96
              Alec, the decline argument doesn't make any sense because even before the decline the difference between Foxx and Gehrig was still essentially the same. Foxx's decline really started at age 32-through age 31 he had a 170 OPS+. Gehrig through the same age had a 184 OPS+. That's a 14 point gap still, Gehrig is still clearly a better hitter and by a solid margin. The decline argument doesn't get you anywhere because even before the decline Gehrig was still better by about the same margin.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by AlecBoy006
                Foxx is arguably one of the best fielding first baseman ever. Gehrig had a higher fielding percentage, but committed more errors. Even if it was on oppourtunities. Even if homeruns is a triple crown stat, Foxx had alot more. Foxx was a slightly better fielder, and way better of a power hitter. His 534 homeruns beat Gehrig's 493. Gehrig may have caught up with Foxx if he wasn't dying. Unfortuanetly he did. But Foxx still has more homeruns. Gehrig has a higher batting average, but I beg to differ that if Foxx didn't decline the way he did, he'd be close with Gehrig. Gehrig has more runs driven in, but again, Foxx declined, and didn't play everyday. 1995 to 1922. If Foxx played more reguarly, you mean to tell me Gehrig would not have been passed up by him? If Foxx was able to play everyday, he would've surpassed Gehrig in a numerous amount of offensive categories. And even though he was dying, Gehrig didn't have much of a decline. Which could be a possible explanation as to why his numbers look stronger.
                Foxx had 41 more homers than Gehrig based on playing 153 more games. But your statement was that Foxx was a "way better power hitter" than Gehrig. Now I realize you understand that there is more to being a power hitter than that. And that Gehrig's career slugging percentage was 53% higher than league average compared to 44% for Foxx. So given the complete picture, how exactly is Foxx a "way better power hitter" than Gehrig???

                And you are considering that Foxx's career OBP was 18% better than league average while Gehrig was 26% higher. Given the importance of getting on base, where did this figure into your comparison?

                And when you factor in that Gehrig's offensive winning percentage of .789 is higher than Foxx's .758, where did this figure into your comparison?

                I agree that Foxx was the better fielder than Gehrig. I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that he was one of the best in history, but his fielding is generally underrated and he scores higher here than Gehrig.

                So how does that offensive advantage for Gehrig compare to the defensive advantage for Foxx? If you add Gehrig's 456.51 offensive WS to his 33.02 defensive WS, that gives him a total of 489.52, combining both offense and defense. If you add Foxx's 46.18 defensive WS to his 386.47 offensive WS, that gives him a combined total of 434.73. And that is despite playing those 153 extra games.

                If you prefer TPR to WS, then the tally is 65.7 for Gehrig and 54 for Foxx.

                If you read my last post Alec, don't just post one or two facts and feel that tells the complete story. Don't just post home run totals and say that entails your entire argument. Put it all together. If you do, two things become clear: a) Foxx was a great player, and b) Gehrig was greater than Foxx.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by AstrosFan
                  But I think criticism should be more about forcing him to defend the logic of his list
                  Well, I think you have to look at this in context. AlecBoy has levied many, many opinions over the last few months and people did ask him to defend his logic, but he rarely does. I suppose that starts to lead to a level of dismissiveness. Because he's not harmlessly rendering opinions...he's pretty aggressive about shoving his opinions down throats, IMO.
                  "In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    gehrig over foxx is an opinion.

                    It doesn't make any sense? Gehrig had no decline. If Foxx didn't decline, and Gehrig did, he'd be the better player statistically.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Minstrel
                      Well, I think you have to look at this in context. AlecBoy has levied many, many opinions over the last few months and people did ask him to defend his logic, but he rarely does. I suppose that starts to lead to a level of dismissiveness. Because he's not harmlessly rendering opinions...he's pretty aggressive about shoving his opinions down throats, IMO.
                      And it is also pretty tough for anyone to defend positions that are indefensible, which is why you don't see AlecBoy provide many comprehensive defenses. Its that part about shoving indefensible positions down your throat that becomes tiresome.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AlecBoy006
                        Foxx is arguably one of the best fielding first baseman ever. Gehrig had a higher fielding percentage, but committed more errors. Even if it was on oppourtunities. Even if homeruns is a triple crown stat, Foxx had alot more. Foxx was a slightly better fielder, and way better of a power hitter. His 534 homeruns beat Gehrig's 493. Gehrig may have caught up with Foxx if he wasn't dying. Unfortuanetly he did. But Foxx still has more homeruns. Gehrig has a higher batting average, but I beg to differ that if Foxx didn't decline the way he did, he'd be close with Gehrig. Gehrig has more runs driven in, but again, Foxx declined, and didn't play everyday. 1995 to 1922. If Foxx played more reguarly, you mean to tell me Gehrig would not have been passed up by him? If Foxx was able to play everyday, he would've surpassed Gehrig in a numerous amount of offensive categories. And even though he was dying, Gehrig didn't have much of a decline. Which could be a possible explanation as to why his numbers look stronger.
                        Okay, let's go over these one by one:

                        1)Foxx was an above-average fielding 1B - but where is your evidence that he was one of the BEST fielding first basemen ever??? I haven't read any opinions of Foxx's contemporaries saying he was even the best in his league at the time he played. All of the fielding metrics I've seen have him somewhere from average to good - but never great. One thing's for sure -he is no where close to a Keith Hernandez, Eddie Murray, Mark Grace, or Will Clark. You've got to show some evidence if you're going to make an opinion like that.

                        2)Foxx did not have "a lot" more homers than Gehrig. 534-493 is not a wide margin at all. Plus, homers are not the "be-all and end-all" of power-hitting. Gehrig had 73 more extra-base hits than Foxx, while playing in 150 fewer games. That - plus his .632 - .609 advantage in slugging, shows that GEHRIG was the greater power hitter, not Foxx.

                        3)You can't have it both ways with Foxx's decline vs. Gehrig dying. On the one hand you say "unfortunately, he (Gehrig) died" and then turn around and say "if Foxx hadn't declined....". Well, unfortunately, AlecBoy, HE (Foxx) DID decline. Gehrig DID have a decline in 1938, but it was due to the disease, not a natural eroding of his skills. Actually, Foxx didn't have a very long decline phase at all. He only played two full seasons (1940 and 1941) in his decline, so there really wasn't much of a chance at all that Foxx would be close to Gehrig's batting or slugging averages. Most players have at least a couple more seasons of decline. Foxx "not playing everyday" in his decline is the main reason his lifetime slugging average managed to stay above .600. You're not contributing to your team if you're not playing everyday. Alec, if Foxx played more regularly during his decline phase, he might have passed Gehrig in RBI, but his lifetime averages would have been LOWER, not higher. So any gains he would've had in his counting stats would have been offset by the losses in his averages.

                        4)Having "more" of one particular stat (like HR) doesn't make someone greater. Gehrig had more Hits, 2B, 3B, XBH, RBI and Runs Scored than Foxx. There is NO way Foxx's HR lead makes up for all that. When you combine average and power - Gehrig was simply a better overall hitter, period.

                        Foxx was a little bit better fielder than Gehrig, but Gehrig's offensive lead is much to great for Foxx's fielding to overcome. I just don't understand why it's not clear to you.

                        Again, you've got some explaining to do about why 1)You think Foxx is the one of the greatest fielding 1B of all time and 2)why Foxx is a "much" greater power hitter than Gehrig. Those two things completely fly in the face of the evidence.
                        Last edited by Wee Willie; 03-11-2007, 07:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Ok, I'd put Keith Hernandez, Will Clark, and Don Mattingly over Foxx. But he was still a better fielder than Gehrig. I tend to go with defense over offense on here. If someone puts up great offensive numbers, and a better defense, I'll choose that person.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by AlecBoy006
                            Ok, I'd put Keith Hernandez, Will Clark, and Don Mattingly over Foxx. But he was still a better fielder than Gehrig. I tend to go with defense over offense on here. If someone puts up great offensive numbers, and a better defense, I'll choose that person.
                            A slight difference in fielding among 1st baseman doesn't mean much at all. A clear-cut difference in hitting among 1st baseman means a lot - and Gehrig was clearly the better hitter.

                            I don't understand the logic your using. Nap Lajoie put up great offensive numbers, and was a better defensive player than Cobb. But no one is going to put Lajoie over Cobb. So it depends on HOW MUCH greater one player is than another offensively, and defensively. Cobb's offensive lead over Lajoie overcomes Lajoie's defensive lead - even though Lajoie was a "great" offensive player. Same with Gehrig and Foxx - Foxx was a great hitter, but Gehrig was a greater one. Foxx was just not great enough defensively to make up for Gehrig's offensive lead, and first base is a hitter's position anyway.

                            Comment


                            • I don't see how Foxx is better than Gehrig. Why should Foxx get extra credit because he had a significant decline and Gehrig didn't? Foxx played to age 37, Gehrig to 36. It's not like Gehrig stopped playing at 30, didn't decline, while Foxx went on to age 40. Foxx was a great hitter, but he wasn't quit Gehrig. Gehrig put up a line of .340/.447/.632, .345 EqA, and a 179 OPS+ in 9554 PA's. Foxx went .325/.428/.609, .327 EqA, and a 163 OPS+ with about 50 more PA's. Foxx also wasn't one of the best 1B ever, atleast as far as FRAA says. Gehrig was at -3 at 1B, Foxx -1. Here are the a few of the real best ever, atleast by FRAA, which is the only fielding stat I can see for players that far back. I'd be curious to see what PCA says.

                              Keith Hernandez - 179
                              John Olerud - 154
                              Mark Grace - 133
                              Jeff Bagwell - 124
                              Todd Helton - 89
                              Will Clark - 74
                              Don Mattingly - 64

                              Here is a year-by-year comparision of the two, as overall players.

                              Win Shares
                              Code:
                              Age	Gehrig	Foxx
                              17	DNP	1
                              18	DNP	1
                              19	DNP	6
                              20	2	22
                              21	1	34
                              22	15	34
                              23	30	24
                              24	44	41
                              25	42	41
                              26	32	31
                              27	39	30
                              28	36	26
                              29	38	23
                              30	36	34
                              31	41	30
                              32	34	24
                              33	38	20
                              34	36	5
                              35	25	DNP
                              36	0	0
                              37	DNP	8
                              
                              TOT     489     435
                              And WARP3
                              Code:
                              Age	Gehrig	Foxx
                              17	DNP	0.2
                              18	DNP	0.4
                              19	DNP	1.1
                              20	0.5	7
                              21	0.2	9.6
                              22	4.9	8.7
                              23	9.9	6.5
                              24	13.6	13.1
                              25	11.3	10.5
                              26	10.1	10.4
                              27	10.9	11.5
                              28	11.4	7.8
                              29	10.8	6.7
                              30	9.4	10.1
                              31	13.9	8.5
                              32	11.4	7.6
                              33	12.2	7.1
                              34	10.6	1.3
                              35	6.2	DNP
                              36	-0.2	-0.3
                              37	DNP	2.1
                              		
                              TOT	147.2	129.7
                              I think it is pretty clear who is better.

                              Comment


                              • Let's compare both Foxx and Gehrig through 17 seasons (removing the last 3 seasons of Foxx's career - where he wasn't an everyday player).

                                Foxx:

                                2113 Games
                                7585 At-Bats
                                1678 Runs
                                2516 Hits
                                434 Doubles
                                124 Triples
                                519 Homers
                                1849 RBI
                                .332 Batting Avg
                                .436 On Base Percentage
                                .627 Slugging Average
                                168 OPS+

                                Gehrig:

                                2164 Games
                                8001 At-Bats
                                1888 Runs
                                2721 Hits
                                534 Doubles
                                163 Triples
                                493 Homers
                                1995 RBI
                                .340 Batting Avg
                                .447 On Base Percentage
                                .632 Slugging Average
                                179 OPS+


                                So, Gehrig Wins pretty much every stat when you compare both thru the same number of seasons. Remember, Foxx played in a better hitter's park than Gehrig - that's why Gehrig's OPS+ is a comfortable 11 points ahead. That's why the "decline" argument you made in your comparison doesn't hold up very well, AlecBoy.
                                Last edited by Wee Willie; 03-11-2007, 07:58 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X