Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wynn in the Hall?

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

  • #46
    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?
    I rate them by value, which means how much they help their team win.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by 538280
      I rate them by value, which means how much they help their team win.
      Well, since in his 12 full years of service, his teams were over .500 only 4 times (.500 one other time), then how do you consider him Hall worthy? If his team never actually won anything, then how can you say he's great? He made it to the playoffs once in his "historic" career, where he faired okay in the NLCS, and was a bomb in the WS. So how much winning do you attibute to him?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Edgartohof
        Well, since in his 12 full years of service, his teams were over .500 only 4 times (.500 one other time), then how do you consider him Hall worthy? If his team never actually won anything, then how can you say he's great? He made it to the playoffs once in his "historic" career, where he faired okay in the NLCS, and was a bomb in the WS. So how much winning do you attibute to him?
        C'mon, man. Don't be stupid. You know exactly what I mean. It wasn't Wynn's fault his teammates sucked. They would have been far worse without him. If you don't believe me, check out the quote I cited earlier from Tal Smith. It was the presence of a star (Wynn) that made the Astros a respected organization. Without him, they're like the Devil Rays today.

        By value, I mean how much a player contributes to his team. Wynn was contributing lots to his team.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by 538280
          C'mon, man. Don't be stupid. You know exactly what I mean. It wasn't Wynn's fault his teammates sucked. They would have been far worse without him. If you don't believe me, check out the quote I cited earlier from Tal Smith. It was the presence of a star (Wynn) that made the Astros a respected organization. Without him, they're like the Devil Rays today.
          Another ridiculous statement. Come on Chris, The Astros were exactly like the D-Rays are today. It took the Astros 11 years to have a winning season. I bet the D-Ray beat that. Plus, the Astros of the 1960s were worse than the D-Rays because they didnt have as many good prospects. Right now the D-Rays are in the process of becoming a good team. They are loaded with young talented players: Carl Crawford, Jorge Cantu, Rocco Badelli, Delmon Young, and B.J. Upton. Did the Astros of the 1960s have that many prospects at one time? And I find it disengenuous that you would use eye-witness accounts to support your case since you haver stated MANY times that you tend to discount eyewitness accounts. But it seems you only use eyewitness accounts when it suits your purpose and supports your arguments.

          By value, I mean how much a player contributes to his team. Wynn was contributing lots to his team.
          Says you...
          Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 01-24-2006, 11:34 AM.
          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
            Another ridiculous statement. Come on Chris, The Astros were exactly like the D-Rays are today. It took the Astros 11 years to have a winning season. I bet the D-Ray beat that. Plus, the Astros of the 1960s were worse than the D-Rays because they didnt have as many good prospects. Right now the D-Rays are in the process of becoming a good team. They are loaded with young talented players: Carl Crawford, Jorge Cantu, Rocco Badelli, Delmon Young, and B.J. Upton.
            But you're missing the point. The Astros performed just as bad as the D-Rays in the standings, but they weren't perceived to be the joke of a franchise that the D-Rays are today. Why? Because they had a legitimate star in Jimmy Wynn.

            Did the Astros of the 1960s have that many prospects at one time? And I find it disengenuous that you would use eye-witness accounts to support your case since you haver stated MANY times that you tend to discount eyewitness accounts. But it seems you only use eyewitness accounts when it suits your purpose and supports your arguments.
            I don't know about the state of the Astros' farm system at that time.

            I'm using eyewitnesses here because others like them, and if I don't use them people will constantly jump on me and call me a "mindless stat monger". When making my own judgements, I hardly every use them.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by 538280
              But you're missing the point. The Astros performed just as bad as the D-Rays in the standings, but they weren't perceived to be the joke of a franchise that the D-Rays are today. Why? Because they had a legitimate star in Jimmy Wynn.
              Personally, I'd say Crawford is a star, and I don't consider the D-Rays a joke - just a bad team that has tons of potential. And even with his minimal experience in the majors, I'd take Crawford anyday over Wynn.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by 538280
                But you're missing the point. The Astros performed just as bad as the D-Rays in the standings, but they weren't perceived to be the joke of a franchise that the D-Rays are today. Why? Because they had a legitimate star in Jimmy Wynn.
                Who is preceiving the D-Rays as a "joke"? I do not. They are about to become a really good team. I expet them to have a 85-90 win season within the next 2-3 years.
                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
                  Who is preceiving the D-Rays as a "joke"? I do not. They are about to become a really good team. I expet them to have a 85-90 win season within the next 2-3 years.
                  For the past few years, the Devil Rays have been a target of jokes and criticism from the media as losers and such. They are not really a respected franchise, at least from what I've watched and read.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by 538280
                    For the past few years, the Devil Rays have been a target of jokes and criticism from the media as losers and such. They are not really a respected franchise, at least from what I've watched and read.
                    Can you give specific quotes from specific "media people"? There has been criticism about their supposed mismanagment yet they've been able to stockpile a lot of great prospects. The D-Rays have been as successful as the Astros were in their first decade of existence. Historically, most expansion teams needed well over a decade to really compete.
                    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
                      Can you give specific quotes from specific "media people"? There has been criticism about their supposed mismanagment yet they've been able to stockpile a lot of great prospects. The D-Rays have been as successful as the Astros were in their first decade of existence. Historically, most expansion teams needed well over a decade to really compete.
                      Here are some quotes I was able to find online:

                      "The word "crusty" was invented for the constantly raging Pinella, who has somehow turned the Devil Rays into something other than a joke."-Baseball writer Will Leitch, after the D-Rays were over .500 for a short time in 2004.

                      "He is definitely one of the best managers of this generation, but a manager alone can't change the joke that is the Devil Rays."-Wagerweb's (a popular online sports gambling site) CEO on the Devil Rays hiring Lou Pinella

                      "Really, who would have thought that while nobody was paying much attention, the Devil Rays, the horrible joke of a team that is the Devil Rays, quietly went about becoming the hottest team in baseball"-from an online blog "infinite probability". It was part of a series of humorous articles which basically said the apocalypse must be upon us if the D-Rays are dong well.

                      “Seventy wins is a step up, but it’s still a joke"-Aubrey Huff

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Chris 538280:

                        How many of these guys absolutely belong in the Baseball Hall of Fame, in your opinion? (With the same absolutism you feel for Wynn's candidacy).

                        Jeff Burroughs
                        Jesse Barfield
                        Rick Monday
                        Jack Clark
                        Bobby Murcer
                        Chili Davis
                        Gary Matthews
                        George Hendrick
                        John Mayberry

                        (and)

                        Don Mattingly

                        How many were also greater baseball players than Ken Griffey, Jr?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Ahhhh...straw men...how common they are in debate...especially coming from you csh########

                          NONE of those players are Wynn's equal...none of them are even CLOSE by PCA...and yet I have Wynn slightly ahead of Griffey (it's pretty close). You picked a list of players who are nothing even slightly like Jimmy Wynn.

                          Typical.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Numbers wise, offensively, I think Clark is a pretty good comparison, especially the tail-end of Clark's career. Those seasons look very similar to Wynn's
                            THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                            In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              The thing is, the whole argument on Wynn from the sabermetric side is based on the difficulty of scoring 1) in his time and 2) in his home parks. I don't discount either of them, but it seems to me that in order to go with the sabermetric conclusion on Wynn, we need to know how much the parks affected Wynn. Wynn's home/road splits don't show any huge overall dropoff at home, though he did lose about 20 homers or so in his career. But he had more doubles at home to compensate. The real killer for me is if we double his road figures, which is in a slightly better than neutral park because it eliminates the Astrodome and Dodger Stadium when Wynn played for those teams. Doubling the road figures gives Wynn 1654 career hits and 300 homers with a 245/355/429 line. I don't care what era Wynn played in, those numbers are not HOF caliber.

                              Jim Albright
                              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


                              • #60
                                The average center fielder hit .271 compared to Wynn's .250 during his career. That's just the average center fielder, mind you, not even the very good ones or the great ones. So in the light you're casting him (as a Hall of Famer and an alltime great player), yes, a .250 average IS terrible. Find another HOF outfielder who has a mark like that. If you do, I'm sure he's one that doesn't belong there, anyway.

                                Another thing to consider is that Wynn didn't even play past age 35, and most players decline considerably as their skills erode as they near (and sometimes past) 40 years old. This didn't even happen to Wynn, who was out of baseball at 35 after only ~1900 games and 6600 at bats.

                                So his rate stats (which aren't even great, but you're certainly not going to be able to make an argument based on career totals) are actually inflated due to having a very short career and not playing into old age.

                                Originally posted by 538280
                                But, Wynn had some horrible decline BA seasons in there and that year in the middle of his prime where he hit .203 because he was still recovering from when he was stabbed by his wife. It also includes two horrible BA years at the front end of his career. Take out the decline and that season, and his career BA is .263. That still isn't that great, of course, but it is above league average and beyond anyone claiming that "he couldn't hit" because of it.
                                And those embarrassing years count the same as his other years. You can't just pretend they didn't happen in an effort to distort the truth and make a guy look respectable in terms of ability to get hits, which Wynn wasn't.

                                Wynn played 148 games as a .207 hitter with a .367 slugging average that year. Another year he hit .203 with a .295 slugging in 123 games.

                                It seems that people here just look at best years and career value. They don't consider consistency and how many BAD years a player had. Wynn had several

                                The point is that we aren't talking about seasons of 5 and 37 games here. For a guy with a short career, these seasons matter.

                                It's especially inexcusable since it wasn't like he was 42 or 43 with 3000 games and a lifetime of wear and tear behind him. He fell apart while most players are still going strong, and rate stats are all he has.

                                To just "take off" his bad years (of which there were several for a guy who was gone at 35 years old) is just more obfuscation and distortion of facts. The fact that you have to bring out “relative isolated slugging” just serves to illustrate what a feeble attempt this has been.

                                A "truly great hitter" who had almost as many career strikeouts as hits? Ridiculous.

                                Had Don Mattingly had been a .250 hitter with identical obp/slg, you'd probably be ranting and raving about him in the HOF. That's the silliest part of this whole exercise.

                                Originally posted by 538280
                                This completely confounds me that people are unable to realize that Wynn was a great hitter.
                                Yeah, and it confounds basically everyone else here that you continue to believe that this guy was A) an alltime great and B) a great hitter.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X