Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wynn in the Hall?

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

  • #31
    Mac, I'm confused. What exactly are you trying to get across?
    Wynn, like Gimli, was a powerful dwarf who wielded a mighty battle axe.
    "The numbers are what brought me here; as it appears they brought you."
    - Danielle Rousseau

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mac195
      Wynn, like Gimli, was a powerful dwarf who wielded a mighty battle axe.
      Kind of like Ram-Man from the He-Man universe?

      http://www.he-man.org/cartoon/cmotu-.../ram-man.shtml

      http://www.he-man.org/cartoon/motu/u.../ram-man.shtml
      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by csh19792001
        In terms of hitting ability he was clearly superior to Wynn. And when I say hitting ability, that's actually getting base hits (as well as extra base hits). I'n not simply talking about lots of walks and a homerun once every 7 games.
        What you're basically saying here is that Clemente had better tools. He had better ability. But, you have to ask yourself-did that ability actually translate to tons of value for his team? Didn't Wynn's lesser ability actually equal more value to his team? Greatness, Chris, is how much a player helps his team.

        Clemente still probably was a slightly better hitter than Wynn (mostly because he played longer), but while they were playing Wynn may have been better.

        Comment


        • #34
          Edgar, your post tells me that you certainly did not read the Wynn article I asked everyone to read earlier. Here's the link again:

          http://www.astrosdaily.com/players/Wynn_Jim.html

          Well, so much for his "cannon" arm
          Wynn had a cannon arm for his entire career until VERY late. Ironically, the same is true of Ken Griffey Jr.'s fielding, which you constantly harped on how great it was on the other thread. You would know that if you read the Astros Daily article.

          Or that he SO, had minimal power for a power hitter - HR's may have been down at the 'dome, but he couldn't even hit doubles, or triples - and I thought he had speed. Ever think that he doesn't even have 2000 hits, 300 HR's, 300 doubles, and for a great SB guy, he doesn't even have 250 (at a 69% success rate). What do you see in there that is so great?
          Minimal power for a power hitter? Are you crazy? Minimal power for a power hitter is a guy like Mark Bellhorn. Wynn had great power. Name me one player who played mostly in the Astrodome in his career who finished top 5 in home runs 3 times. His slugging percentages are very, very good despite his low BA. If we take BA out of SLG and compare him to the league there (IsoSLG), Wynn was 52% better than league. Now tell me he had "minimal power for a power hitter". Larry Dierker actually once said that he would have hit 100 more home runs in his career if he played in another park.


          Just because he was the first standout guy on their team, doesn't mean he deserves to be in the HOF. The Mariner's Mr. Mariner himself - Alvin Davis, and he was a good player, and the first star on the team, but he just don't cut it for induction. (No I'm not saying Davis was better than Wynn - he's not. I was just using him as an example.).
          Did anyone ever say this about Alvin Davis:

          "Jimmy was the beginning of our scouting and player-development system. He had an enormous impact on the franchise." -Tal Smith, former Astros president of baseball operations

          Did Davis' performance have a ripple effect through the whole organization that made everyone better? Without Jimmy Wynn, the Astros of the 1960s are like the Devil Rays today, a horrible franchise that everyone laughs at and makes fun of. Jimmy Wynn was their star, their man to cheer on. Did Davis have this kind of impact?

          And anyway, I was just talking about Wynn's place as the Astros' centerpice because people wanted me to give evidence of Wynn's "baseball greatness". Even if Davis did have greatness in that way, he doesn't have the statistical HOF case Wynn has and thus his place as "Mr. Mariner" doesn't really mean much.
          Last edited by 538280; 01-21-2006, 08:20 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            HTML Code:
            Edgartohof]Well, good thing he didn't swing away a lot, or he might be a big SO guy - oh wait, he was.  The only categories he's in the top 50 in are walks and SO's.  Just doesn't cut it for me.
            So, let me understand this. He struck out a lot. So? A SO is an out. So is a drive over the CF wall that the CF'er hauls back in. Your point is?
            Now I suppose you would prefer that he didn't walk aso much, instead swinging away at pitches outside the strike zone and making a ton more outs??


            HTML Code:
            [B]Well, so much for his "cannon" arm.[/B]

            That's all you can say? Nothing else? No, argument otherwise than a sarcastic remark? His arm injury was later in his career.


            HTML Code:
            Or that he SO, had minimal power for a power hitter - HR's may have been down at the 'dome, but he couldn't even hit doubles, or triples - and I thought he had speed.  Ever think that he doesn't even have 2000 hits, 300 HR's, 300 doubles, and for a great SB guy, he doesn't even have 250 (at a 69% success rate).  What do you see in there that is so great?
            Minimal power for a power hitter??? Huh??? Well, I guess that sums it all up???

            Just because he was the first standout guy on their team, doesn't mean he deserves to be in the HOF. The Mariner's Mr. Mariner himself - Alvin Davis, and he was a good player, and the first star on the team, but he just don't cut it for induction. (No I'm not saying Davis was better than Wynn - he's not. I was just using him as an example.).[/QUOTE]

            Now you are comping Alvin Davis to Jimmy Wynn. Yeah, I do agree with you that Davis wasn't as good as Wynn. At least we agree on something.

            Yankees Fan Since 1957

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by 538280
              Greatness, Chris, is how much a player helps his team.
              Actually, you just defined "value". Greatness, (thankfully), can't be neatly and perfectly regimented and compartmentalized, Chris...not in baseball or any other endeavor.

              A 515 foot home run off helps one's team win to the same extent as a 315 footer that barely clears the fence... yet one is GREATER than the other. That's one of an innumerable group of instances where two things are quantitatively alike but qualitatively wholly disparate. Every run scored looks the same in the boxscore, as does every hit, catch, stolen base, and everything else that happens during the course of an inning, game, and season.

              Just because they're all are equal in value doesn't mean they're equally great.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 538280
                Edgar, your post tells me that you certainly did not read the Wynn article I asked everyone to read earlier.
                Actually, I did read the article, so yeah...okay.

                Originally posted by 538280
                Larry Dierker actually once said that he would have hit 100 more home runs in his career if he played in another park.
                And who's Larry Dierker? Never heard of him. And am I going to believe him when he says 100? Maybe they were friends - and do you think a friend is going to say differently?

                Here's a quote from one of your links:

                "No park could hold his blasts when he connected." (it didn't say who it was from)

                Well, that may be true, he may have had power - what I'm saying, is that he didn't connect all that often. Who cares if you hit the longes HR's ever, they don't make you score any runs, and if you don't hit a lot of them, then who cares. You can have all of the potential power you want, but if you don't use it, then who cares.

                Originally posted by 538280
                he [Alvin Davis] doesn't have the statistical HOF case Wynn has and thus his place as "Mr. Mariner" doesn't really mean much.
                Wynn himself doesn't have a statistical HOF case either, so don't know what you are talking about - and it appears that 70% of the voters here agree, so I'm not the odd one out here in this thinking, I'm just being more vocal about it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  --Larry Deirker was a fine pitcher and a teammate of Wynn's for a number of years. More recently (very recently in fact) he was the Astros manager. He isn't exactly an obscure figure and he would be a position to know better than any of us how valuable Wynn was.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by yanks0714
                    Now you are [comparing] Alvin Davis to Jimmy Wynn.
                    No, I wasn't, so don't even try going there. I used him because he was in a similar situation to Wynn - first star on a fledgling team, so stop trying to distort what I said.

                    [QUOTE=yanks0714]So, let me understand this. He struck out a lot. So? A SO is an out. So is a drive over the CF wall that the CF'er hauls back in. Your point is?

                    Now I suppose you would prefer that he didn't walk aso much, instead swinging away at pitches outside the strike zone and making a ton more outs??


                    Well, a lot of SO's means they can't hit a lot of pitches, and swing needlessly at a lot in a vain attempt to get lucky, and yes, a drive over the wall is better, because it at least shows they can get some contact with the ball, instead of wiffing all day long. It appears to me that Wynn went up and was either going to swing at everything or nothing. and when he did swing, he only swung big trying to hit a HR, and this led to a lot of walks and a lot of SO's, and he got lucky every once in a while

                    Tell me this, if the Astrodome was such a horrible park to HR's in, then why did Wynn always go up and try to hit them? Wouldn't he be better helping the team by adjusting to the park and learning to hit period - if a walk is as good as a single (although it isn't), then why didn't he get more singles? Or he could have hit more doubles and triples - if he had as much speed as people keep claiming, then that would have been no problem. But he didn't. That tells me that he wasn't good enough of a player to change his game to fit his park, and his style of play, wasn't good enough to get it done there either, so really, he wasn't all that great.

                    If you play half of your games somewhere, then you ought to be able to hit there better than elsewhere, know where to hit the ball, how to use the park to your advantage - since you spend more time there than any other single park. There have been many great players, who chose not to change their game, even when it might have helped them too, but at that point, they were just THAT good that they didn't have to. You say that he was hurt by his park, I say that he wasn't good enough to adapt to his park, and by that, he is not worthy of the Hall.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by yanks0714
                      Very interseting point. See my post on the research I did from 1903 - 2003 AL Pennant winners.

                      Invaribly, with few exceptions (the 1906 White Sox for instance if I remember correctly, the Hitless Wonders) the pennant winning teams had among the leagues best OBP, oftentimes league leading, and seldom below 3rd best. This research I did on my own is why I changed from disdaining OBP and supporting BA to promoting OBP (and slugging).
                      Even the 1906 White Soxe are not really exceptions. The finished 3rd in the AL in runs scored on the strength of their league leading 453 walks. They lead the AL in walks by 68.
                      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 538280
                        Did Davis' performance have a ripple effect through the whole organization that made everyone better? Without Jimmy Wynn, the Astros of the 1960s are like the Devil Rays today, a horrible franchise that everyone laughs at and makes fun of. Jimmy Wynn was their star, their man to cheer on. Did Davis have this kind of impact?
                        The Astros still sucked with Wynn! For the first six years of the Astros' existence they were a terrible team, similar to the D-Rays. It wasn't until the early 1970s that they were even medicore. It took then 11 years before they had a winning record. The D-Rays today have a lot of yount talent: Carl Crawford, Rocco Badelli, B.J. Upton, Jose Cantu, and Delmon Young...

                        1963: 66-96
                        1964: 66-96
                        1965: 65-97
                        1966: 72-90
                        1967: 69-93
                        1968: 72-90
                        1969: 81-81
                        1970: 79-83
                        1971: 79-83
                        1972: 84-69
                        1973: 82-80

                        And anyway, I was just talking about Wynn's place as the Astros' centerpice because people wanted me to give evidence of Wynn's "baseball greatness". Even if Davis did have greatness in that way, he doesn't have the statistical HOF case Wynn has and thus his place as "Mr. Mariner" doesn't really mean much.
                        This is true.
                        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally Posted by yanks0714
                          Very interseting point. See my post on the research I did from 1903 - 2003 AL Pennant winners.

                          Invaribly, with few exceptions (the 1906 White Sox for instance if I remember correctly, the Hitless Wonders) the pennant winning teams had among the leagues best OBP, oftentimes league leading, and seldom below 3rd best. This research I did on my own is why I changed from disdaining OBP and supporting BA to promoting OBP (and slugging).


                          Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
                          Even the 1906 White Soxe are not really exceptions. The finished 3rd in the AL in runs scored on the strength of their league leading 453 walks. They lead the AL in walks by 68.
                          Excellent point! An perfect example of how walks CAN lead to increased run scoring. Because they were 4th in OBP, despite all their walks, instead of the top three is why I called them an exception to the rule.
                          Man that team was clearly dead last in HRs and SLG and had only the 4th best OBP despite having a ton more walks than the 2nd best BB team.

                          Yankees Fan Since 1957

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
                            The Astros still sucked with Wynn! For the first six years of the Astros' existence they were a terrible team, similar to the D-Rays. It wasn't until the early 1970s that they were even medicore. It took then 11 years before they had a winning record. The D-Rays today have a lot of yount talent: Carl Crawford, Rocco Badelli, B.J. Upton, Jose Cantu, and Delmon Young...
                            But I think you're missing the point. The Astros of that time weren't thought of in the way the D-Rays are today. Why? Because of Jimmy Wynn. THey had a legitimate star in Wynn, and even if they were losing he brought respect to the franchise.

                            This is an example of Wynn's "baseball greatness". It was stated earlier that Wynn had no real impact on the game outside of his stats. That is not true.

                            Originally posted by Edgartohof
                            Wynn himself doesn't have a statistical HOF case either, so don't know what you are talking about - and it appears that 70% of the voters here agree, so I'm not the odd one out here in this thinking, I'm just being more vocal about it.
                            No-70% don't agree with you that he doesn't have a case. Even if most people don't think Wynn is a HOFer, it doesn't mean they don't think he even has a case.

                            And who's Larry Dierker? Never heard of him. And am I going to believe him when he says 100? Maybe they were friends - and do you think a friend is going to say differently?

                            Here's a quote from one of your links:

                            "No park could hold his blasts when he connected." (it didn't say who it was from)

                            Originally posted by Edgartohof
                            Well, that may be true, he may have had power - what I'm saying, is that he didn't connect all that often. Who cares if you hit the longes HR's ever, they don't make you score any runs, and if you don't hit a lot of them, then who cares. You can have all of the potential power you want, but if you don't use it, then who cares
                            .

                            Well, it appears csh disagrees with you....

                            A 515 foot home run off helps one's team win to the same extent as a 315 footer that barely clears the fence... yet one is GREATER than the other. That's one of an innumerable group of instances where two things are quantitatively alike but qualitatively wholly disparate. Every run scored looks the same in the boxscore, as does every hit, catch, stolen base, and everything else that happens during the course of an inning, game, and season
                            Now, first of all this would support Wynn's case anyway, if tape measure HRs really are better. Wynn was known in his time for hitting some of the longest home runs in the league.

                            Anyway, who cares if it's greater? Yeah, it looks a whole lot better but it's not helping the team any more. You really sound like you rate baseball players by their tools.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 538280
                              You really sound like you rate baseball players by their tools.
                              Yeah, I do - the three tools:

                              Gloves
                              Shoes
                              Bats

                              Glove: Wynn had a good arm, but I haven't heard much about his glove, and he never won a GG

                              Shoes: He was a decent baserunner and basestealer, but not amazing anyone there

                              Bat: He hit a few HR's, even when trying to do so wasn't necessarily helping his team, and he SO a lot, and walked because he couldn't hit.

                              So what do you rate them by? If you liked them or not? the more walks, SO's and lower their BA, the better they are?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Edgartohof
                                So what do you rate them by? If you liked them or not? the more walks, SO's and lower their BA, the better they are?
                                Actually... that sounds about right for this bufoon and his ideas..

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X