Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wynn in the Hall?

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

  • SABR Matt
    replied
    No actually...he's not iPod...we can measure replacement level and he was slightly above it. VERY slightly (to the tune of about 1 offensive win), but he was above it.

    Leave a comment:


  • iPod
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Though the year was horrible he still did have value. He wasn't below replacement level.
    An outfielder who hits .200 with a lousy OPS and 10 steals absolutely is below replacement level.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by Myankee4life
    You can also be a great player with a low amount of walks.
    You can. I'm not disputing that. Never have. The only difference is that great players who don't walk much (Clemente, Ichiro, Sisler) tend to be overrated, while great players with low battting averages tend to be underrated.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001
    And finally:

    Yes, .207 in a full season (especially for a supposedly world class player) is a complete embarrassment!!! As was the season that he hit .203 (1971). Especially in light of the fact that the average National League outfielder hit .275 the year Wynn hit .207 and .276 the year he hit .203.
    His 1971 season when he hit .203 was bad, certainly. But, do you know why that season was so bad? He was playing hurt the whole year, and really could have easily taken the whole year off. He was stabbed by his wife before the season and didn't recover for the season. I'm not one to give injury credit to players, but I think it's wrong to count '71 against Wynn, especially since he could have just sat out the whole season if he wanted. Though the year was horrible he still did have value. He wasn't below replacement level. Also, he did rebound to become a very good player in the next few years.

    Sorry, Chris, most people here (me inclusive) aren't all going to submit a lifetime of extant baseball knowledge and experience to become sabermetric automatons. That's the reason why Wynn got murdered in the other poll against Ken Griffey, Jr., and why the number of people who voted "no" continues to increase here as the debate wears on, your argument weakens, and your points get more desperate and reaching.
    Are you calling me a "sabermetric automaton"? I'm not giving in all baseball knowledge to sabermetrics. I'm simply stating that Wynn was indeed a good player in 1976 despite batting .207. He did everything else well besides contact hitting.

    The complete submission to sabermetrics is also the main reason why you're in the extreme minority in most of your most committed opinions, including the majority of the those surveyed in "The Best of Chris 538280".
    Now, do you honestly believe I have a "complete submission to sabermetrics"?
    Last edited by 538280; 01-29-2006, 07:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SABR Matt
    replied
    No...I meant '76...(.207). His .203 year was genuinely bad...sorry.

    His .207 year, by every existing metric still places him in the top 5% of the 1976 NL

    Leave a comment:


  • Edgartohof
    replied
    Originally posted by SABR Matt
    in fact he remained among the top 5% of the NL when he hit .203...which says a lot about him as a player.
    I'm hoping you just mistyped the .203, and meant to put .207. Because as bad as Wynn's '76 campaign with his .207 BA, his '71 season with his .203 BA is WAY worse

    1971:

    .203/.302/.295
    123 games
    82 hits
    16 doubles
    7 HR's

    You are still wrong about his '76 campaign as well, but if you really were talking about 1971, then I don't know what to think.

    Leave a comment:


  • SABR Matt
    replied
    Value is value csh########

    I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't believe I'm WAY off in my evaluation of the value of Wynn's 1971 and 1976 seasons...neither of which were *GREAT* but neither of which were "absolute embarrassments" either. Everyone needs to get some perspective. Yes...you'd obviously like to see better batting averages from Wynn than .203 and .207, but no...he wasn't worthless in those seasons...in fact he remained among the top 5% of the NL when he hit .203...which says a lot about him as a player.

    Leave a comment:


  • Myankee4life
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    . YOU CAN BE A GOOD, EVEN A GREAT, PLAYER WITH A LOW BATTING AVERAGE! .
    You can also be a great player with a low amount of walks.

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    --Chris, I think you know that I'm mostly in agreement with you that BA is overrated and you can be a great player with an unspectacular one. However, there is no way to spin a .207 BA into a good season. When you go to such extremes you make it really hard for anybody to follow you.
    Exactly. And I'm also aware that you can be a great player with an unspectacular batting average- and not just a great player...you can still be an alltime great, without a great (or even very good) batting average. Mike Schmidt, Eddie Mathews, Willie McCovey, and many others were alltime greats with very uninspiring averages. Had Mark McGwire not (obviously) used steroids, I'd certainly consider him an alltime great and arguably the greatest HR hitter ever.

    In any case....Mark, it's good to see you haven't completely lost your bearings and forgotten baseball for sabermetrics, as several here obviously have (or maybe sabermetrics always came way before the game and its history..?). Being around here as much as you are, I would think the temptation would be almost unavoidable to take that ultra lazy route and just defer to some formula for the absoulte truth about every baseball player and as the automatic fallback answer in every debate.

    And finally:

    Yes, .207 in a full season (especially for a supposedly world class player) is a complete embarrassment!!! As was the season that he hit .203 (1971). Especially in light of the fact that the average National League outfielder hit .275 the year Wynn hit .207 and .276 the year he hit .203.

    Sorry, Chris, most people here (me inclusive) aren't all going to submit a lifetime of extant baseball knowledge and experience to become sabermetric automatons. That's the reason why Wynn got murdered in the other poll against Ken Griffey, Jr., and why the number of people who voted "no" continues to increase here as the debate wears on, your argument weakens, and your points get more desperate and reaching.

    The complete submission to sabermetrics is also the main reason why you're in the extreme minority in most of your most committed opinions, including the majority of the those surveyed in "The Best of Chris 538280".

    Leave a comment:


  • SABR Matt
    replied
    I do feel I hsould point out that Wynn wasn't actually much of a defensive CFer...both BP and PCA agree he was a little below average for his career...

    But his offensive reputation is not being fairly painted...aside from not hitting for contact, he was a very well rounded offensive player (ran well and smartly, hit for gap and HR power, drew walks almost as often as he struck out)

    Leave a comment:


  • SABR Matt
    replied
    Mark...that .207 looks kinda bad...but...let's take a look at the PCA breakdown...just for the hell of it:
    Code:
    Age	Yr	BaO	PRG	OWC	ADWC	Tot
    21	1963	200	62	2.44	0.83	3.27
    22	1964	183	69	1.20	0.29	1.49
    23	1965	435	154	13.07	1.84	14.91
    24	1966	335	109	4.20	2.09	6.29
    25	1967	471	155	9.07	1.37	10.44
    26	1968	428	162	9.29	1.30	10.59
    27	1969	381	152	16.60	0.97	17.57
    28	1970	426	146	13.64	0.00	13.64
    29	1971	345	106	1.72	1.44	3.16
    30	1972	414	145	9.52	1.69	11.21
    31	1973	402	132	5.77	1.51	7.28
    32	1974	425	146	12.62	3.35	15.97
    33	1975	327	123	7.08	1.80	8.88
    34	1976	377	138	9.48	2.95	12.43
    35	1977	163	22	0.41	0.22	0.63
    1976 was NOT a bad year. PCA isn't the only sabermetric method tht sees the quality of 1976 either.

    BP gives him a 5.7 WARP3...that's better than Alfonso Soriano the last two years...that's better than all but about 15 players in the 1976 NL...he was still a top player even with that bad batting average.

    Obviously PCA is somewhat more impressed with him, but my point is that he can't and shouldn't be compared to guys like Rob Deer and Dave Kingman.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    --Chris, I think you know that I'm mostly in agreement with you that BA is overrated and you can be a great player with an unspectacular one. However, there is no way to spin a .207 BA into a good season. When you go to such extremes you make it really hard for anybody to follow you.
    I don't know, Mark. When you play in a horrible era for BAs where the .207 isn't completely unacceptable, have a secondary average of .465, are 7 runs above average in the field, and steal 16 bases at a good percentage you just might be able to pull it off. Win Shares and WARP3 both show Wynn's '76 as a good, but not great year. I agree with that. I'm not saying Wynn in '76 was a great player, just that he was good and not terrible as Chris (CSH) continues to state as if it is an absolute fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Chris, I think you know that I'm mostly in agreement with you that BA is overrated and you can be a great player with an unspectacular one. However, there is no way to spin a .207 BA into a good season. When you go to such extremes you make it really hard for anybody to follow you.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001
    Also, those guys were actually great sluggers, RMB. If a guy can't hit singles, doubles, or triples, he had better hit a ton of homeruns to compensate. That is if someone is going to be deemed "a great hitter" or "a truly great player", as Chris has called him in the past.
    You are being unfair once again. You are stereotyping. You are lumping Wynn with the likes of guys like Rob Deer. Wynn was a much better player than guys like that. He has value outside of walks and strikeouts. He never was a guy who hit only home runs, he always hit a decent amount of doubles (20-25) on average, and triples he usually had a few. Wynn was a good baserunner who stole 19 bases per 162 games and usually at a good percentage. He was a very good fielding center fielder.

    All you seem to be willing to do is focusing on Wynn's batting average, and saying that he can't be a good player with such a low BA. I have said this many times, YOU CAN BE A GOOD, EVEN A GREAT, PLAYER WITH A LOW BATTING AVERAGE! You have called Wynn's 1976 season a bad season. It wasn't a bad season! Outside of his batting average he did everything well that year. Your complete disregard to look past that .207 BA is frustrating and it confounds me. I thought you knew better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dontworry
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001
    And that's a wonderful way to go about it- perpetually elect players because they were as good as several other guys who are borderline at best.

    "Well, Chick Hafey, George Kell, and Jim Bunning got in, so..."

    C'mon, man.

    There are already WAY too many guys in the HOF. Continually debasing the standard is the opposite of what baseball needs.
    If you read what i Posted, I said I wouldn't vote him in. However he would easily be a better choice than rice and dawson. The Hof isnt only for babe ruth and willie mays, it's for others as well.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X