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

Past "Good" players who would be valued more today

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by abolishthedh View Post
    In the spirit of the question posed in the thread, I must re-iterate the mention of Keith Hernandez. He walked just slightly more than he struck out, which in today's game would make him stand out like a beacon. His defense would be valued in any era. IMHO, I believe in role model players, and Hernandez might have demonstrated to his teammates that a player might be worth more without trying to hit moonshots in every AB.

    In the spirit of recent posts, I believe that any player who had demonstrated himself to be an effective leadoff hitter would have to be valuable simply because so few leadoff stereotypes exist. Vince Coleman, and especially Coleman in his prime, would be one. Yet, I would advocate that point much more strongly for Willie Wilson of the Royals.

    My concern would be that should we find the flex-capacitor and transport Keith H back to today's time, he would be a leadoff guy instead of the 3-hole guy, and he might not be as effective in that spot. Bill James has his POV, but I must disagree with him on this point over batting order. Players have psyches and egos, and once they have it in their heads that they belong in a certain spot, then rightly or wrongly they produce accordingly. Sabermetrics first limitation is that the players are not robots, but ego-centric and prideful human beings.

    And, here we go again. I would take Lou Brock as my second leadoff guy after Rickey. His team made the WS three times in the mid-60s in a pitcher-dominant era. True, his team had great pitching and a CF named Curt Flood, and a few other defensively strong players. His teams were solid. However, in that league, the Cubs and the Giants had monster lineups every year, and the Dodgers had better pitching over the Cards.

    The...difference....between....those....teams....a nd....the....Cardinals....was....Lou.... Brock.
    Problem is they seemed to rise and fall with Lou Brock. Those three world series teams were also his three best seasons, and if using bbref WAR were his only seasons over 5.
    "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

    -Bill James

    Comment


    • #92
      If I'm not mistaken ... I was listening to radio broadcasts from that Series the other day ... Keane led off Flood in '64 and batted Brock No. 2, Schoendienst is the one who made Brock a leadoff batter, for what that's worth.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
        More on Whitey:

        There was a prevailing idea that the Cards were kinda a bunch of hardworking misfits who efforted and schemed and systemed their way to three World Series, a great 1981 (in which they were screwed out of the postseason) and a near playoff trip in 1989. People looked at them compared to the Mets and other teams and didn't see the same star power. A lot of that success was attributed to Herzog. And he deserves some. But those teams were more talented than people at the time liked to think. Ozzie and Sutter were HOFers. Hernandez should be. Willie McGee and Terry Pendleton were both league MVPs at one time. Jack Clark could have been a a HOFer without all of the injuries. Tudor, Andujar, and Forsch were all above average pitchers. Very talented bullpens too. Very good players and occasional All Stars like Van Slyke, Darell Porter, and Pedro Guerrero made appearances as well. And a slew of solid players like Herr and Tony Pena and Vince Coleman, etc.

        This was not the Bad News Bears. But there were as such that when they failed in 83-84, 86, 88, and 90 - people here blamed everything else but Whitey.
        Whitey cleaned up a mess when he took over and deserves credit for that. IMO people kind of gravitated to him because he gave the impression of being a no nonsense no B.S. blue collar guy, when he actually was full of brown stuff up to his eyeballs. He couldn't carry La Russa's lineup card as a manager.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by PRW View Post
          Whitey cleaned up a mess when he took over and deserves credit for that. IMO people kind of gravitated to him because he gave the impression of being a no nonsense no B.S. blue collar guy, when he actually was full of brown stuff up to his eyeballs. He couldn't carry La Russa's lineup card as a manager.
          Yeah - he was the GM who pretty much built the great 81-82 and 85 teams. I would ersnaly rather have Whitey than TLR - but the enthusiasm gap here between the two was massive. And you are right about the blue collar reputation. TLR was always viewed as a West Coast elitist outsider who spent his winters in California while Whitey was Midwest born and raised.
          1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

          1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

          1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


          The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
          The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Francoeurstein View Post
            Not sure if the ship has sailed on the Gene Tenace discussion, but I wanna get my two cents in. While he does own a career 136 OPS+, I think it is deceptive and not his true value.

            Tenace's offensive value was based mostly on an elite walk rate. While walks are important, and have been more valued in recent times, I think we lose sight of what a walk truly is. A walk can only advance a baserunner if someone is on first. It can only drive in a run if the bases are loaded. A single will automatically (in most cases) advance each baserunner, sometimes two bases even. It also has a much better chance of driving in a run. I wish I had concrete numbers to support my claims, but while walks are neat and all, a single is infinitely more productive.

            Let's take Tenace's 1980 season, where he ran an absurd 22.1% walk rate. Let's take that and cut it in half to about 11%, which is still comfortably above the 1980 league average of 8.2%. If we cut his walks down from 92 to 46 and add 24 singles, his line changes from .222/.399/.424 to .260/.387/.439 which both yield an OPS of .823. The adjusted version will get on base slightly less, but will likely move more runners over and drive in more runs.... And that's assuming the 22 PA's I didn't account for were all outs. I would take the adjusted version every single time.

            On the other side of the spectrum, you have guys like Tony Gwynn who are able to produce value with elite batting averages and not much else. In 1995, Gwynn slashed .368/.404/.484 with an OPS+ of 137, which is the same that Tenace had in '80. If you gave me the choice of a high BA, low BB season versus a low BA high BB season that were equal in adjusted value, I'd take the high average each time.

            Not all adjusted batting rates are the same IMO. I believe that a player that excels in one area while struggling mightily in another should be taken with a grain of salt.
            I was in San Diego for parts of the 78, 79, and 80 seasons. Radio announcer Jerry Coleman used to often joke that pitchers had to try to hit Tenace's bat, in order for him to hit a fair ball.
            This week's Giant

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

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Francoeurstein View Post
              Tenace's offensive value was based mostly on an elite walk rate. While walks are important, and have been more valued in recent times, I think we lose sight of what a walk truly is. A walk can only advance a baserunner if someone is on first. It can only drive in a run if the bases are loaded. A single will automatically (in most cases) advance each baserunner, sometimes two bases even. It also has a much better chance of driving in a run. I wish I had concrete numbers to support my claims, but while walks are neat and all, a single is infinitely more productive.
              With no one on base a walk is BETTER than a single. Some singles end up being outs when a runner is thrown out trying to stretch it to a double. With men on base some singles end up with a runner getting thrown out trying to take an extra base.
              .


              19th Century League Champion
              1900s League Champion
              1910s League Champion

              1930s League Division Winner
              1950s League Champion
              1960 Strat-O-Matic League Regular Season Winner
              1960s League Division Winner
              1970s League Champion
              1971 Strat-O-Matic League Runner Up
              1980s League Champion
              All Time Greats League Champion

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                I was in San Diego for parts of the 78, 79, and 80 seasons. Radio announcer Jerry Coleman used to often joke that pitchers had to try to hit Tenace's bat, in order for him to hit a fair ball.
                Do you have any other insights on those Padre teams, because they were completely awful yet you seem to only focus on Tenace who would be near the top of the team in OPS+ and WAR.

                In Coleman's one season as manager (1980) Tenace lead in OPS+ while usually hitting 6th. He also seemed to love having Ozzie Smith, of his career slash lines of .233/.296/.283 batting in the 1 or 2 slot.


                I did find this on those Padres teams https://www.si.com/vault/1980/08/11/...-remains-bleak

                Seems like Tenace may not have been the issue.
                "Batting stats and pitching stats do not indicate the quality of play, merely which part of that struggle is dominant at the moment."

                -Bill James

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by sturg1dj View Post
                  Do you have any other insights on those Padre teams, because they were completely awful yet you seem to only focus on Tenace who would be near the top of the team in OPS+ and WAR.

                  In Coleman's one season as manager (1980) Tenace lead in OPS+ while usually hitting 6th. He also seemed to love having Ozzie Smith, of his career slash lines of .233/.296/.283 batting in the 1 or 2 slot.


                  I did find this on those Padres teams https://www.si.com/vault/1980/08/11/...-remains-bleak

                  Seems like Tenace may not have been the issue.
                  But we weren't talking about those other players.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by sturg1dj View Post
                    Do you have any other insights on those Padre teams, because they were completely awful yet you seem to only focus on Tenace who would be near the top of the team in OPS+ and WAR.

                    In Coleman's one season as manager (1980) Tenace lead in OPS+ while usually hitting 6th. He also seemed to love having Ozzie Smith, of his career slash lines of .233/.296/.283 batting in the 1 or 2 slot.


                    I did find this on those Padres teams https://www.si.com/vault/1980/08/11/...-remains-bleak

                    Seems like Tenace may not have been the issue.
                    Sure I was actually stationed in Hawaii in 76 and 77 and saw some of their guys there too.

                    Having 4 HOFers and being bad is kind of a paradox. Actually, they weren't bad in 78. They had a winning team. They had too many holes, 2B (Fer
                    nando Gonzalez), 3B (Almon, Roberts) 1B (Broderick Perkins). Their pitching was never that bad, Fingers did have a down year in 79.

                    thoughts on some players:

                    Oscar Gamble- big FA acquisition prior to the 78 season. He was just psyched out by the stadium and got off to a bad start. The press was all over him and called him Oscar 2.8 for his huge (then) 2.8 million multi year contract. He has a hot streak to make his stats respectable, but I don't think that he even slugged .400

                    Dave Winfield- a marvelous player who really cultivated his image. He seemed perfect for the small market environment. I can see why he got overwhelmed in NY and turned into Mr May.

                    Ozzie Smith- just sensational. We knew about him before the rest of the world did.

                    Gaylord Perry- A master. He thrived in that stadium. He never looked like anything bothered him.

                    Rollie Fingers - He was on TV all the time selling RVs. (La Mesa RV!!) Another Super Pro.

                    Gene Richards- Could hit, could run, but a glove just seemed foreign to him. Terrible fielder and just looked out of place in the field

                    Derrell Thomas- had an arm comparable to Winfield's. Made basket catches in the outfield. He could play anywhere. Too bad that he was an average hitter

                    Randy Jones- a little past his peak when I saw him, he seemed to be pitching out of trouble a lot.

                    John D'Aquisto- had a great year in 78 and threw some real cheese coming out of the bullpen.

                    Eric Rasmussen - Had great stuff I always thought he should have a better career

                    note: I wrote this before I read the article- kind of errie to have many of the same insights
                    Last edited by JR Hart; 04-20-2017, 07:46 AM.
                    This week's Giant

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                      So let me ask everyone this:

                      If everyone always knew how exactly how important and fundamental OB% were to winning...

                      Why were the players mentioned on this thread viewed so differently when active than today? We have been told modern sabermetrics is nothing but "revisionism." If the revisionism isn't centered around getting on-base - what is it that is being revised to make these guys who were considered bordlerline All Starts when active considered maybe even borderline HOFers now?

                      What exactly is the revisionism if it isn't the amount they got on base? That, along with often times HOW good they were defensively seem to be the common threads running through them all.

                      The revisionism is nonsense like "Gene Tenace belongs in the HOF." And, yes, people have said that.

                      The irony to me is, most of the people propagating this claim to eschew narratives, but in fact, they're buying into their own narrative. I just had this discussion with some friends on Facebook earlier today: The notion that Gene Tenace wasn't valued is itself a narrative that isn't supported by evidence.

                      In the free agency re-entry draft in 1976, the very first player snatched up wasn't Reggie Jackson. Wasn't Rollie Fingers. Wasn't Bobby Grich, Dave Cash, Bert Campaneris, Sal Bando or Richie Hebner. No, the first player taken off the market was Gene Tenace, who was paid the then-handsome sum of $310k per year -- more than the $266k the Padres would later pay Fingers. The following year, the Angels paid RBI man Don Baylor $246k per year; talented lefthander Don Gullett was paid $333k, slightly more than Tenace. That sounds to me like he was valued pretty highly.

                      In 1975 and 1976, Tenace got 18 MVP votes each year. That's not a ton, but it's not insignificant -- and not indicative of a player whose talents weren't appreciated.

                      Looking at BBRef's similarity scores, Tenace's offensive numbers are similar to:

                      Mickey Tettleton (926.1)
                      Dan Uggla (898.4)
                      Mike Stanley (895.8)
                      Rico Petrocelli (895.3)
                      Jose Hernandez (889.4)
                      Rickie Weeks (870.7)
                      Woodie Held (865.9)
                      Mike Napoli (864.8)
                      Dick McAuliffe (858.0)
                      Tony Batista (857.7)

                      Now, is there anyone on that list you would say was more highly-regarded in his time than Gene Tenace? Maybe Petrocelli, because he had 3 years of great power numbers, and fans perhaps remembered him for that. But it's not like Tenace was overlooked the way some now claim. I think his contemporaries thought of him as he should have been: Solid but not great. And sure as hell not even close to the HOF unless he bought a ticket.

                      The notion that Tenace was underrated until sabermetrics came along is just another narrative. I've yet to see any proof from those who claim they only care about verifiable facts; only people saying he was underrated.

                      The fact that he was the first guy snatched up when FA became an option for the owners, and paid more than 6 times the average MLB salary, suggests he was valued more than modern revisionists claim.
                      Last edited by Victory Faust; 04-20-2017, 08:37 PM.
                      "Hey Mr. McGraw! Can I pitch to-day?"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                        But you DO believe that the recent focus on OB% is a major revisionism (agree or disagree). So you agree with me. Nobody is debating (right now) is sabermetrics are right about it.

                        So unless you think people have always cared about getting on base the same amount as they do now - there is nothing to argue about.

                        That's where you're missing the point: The revisionism is in OVER-emphasizing it. It's always been valued; it's just that nobody was nominating Gene Tenace for the HOF back then.
                        "Hey Mr. McGraw! Can I pitch to-day?"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Victory Faust View Post
                          The revisionism is nonsense like "Gene Tenace belongs in the HOF." And, yes, people have said that.

                          The irony to me is, most of the people propagating this claim to eschew narratives, but in fact, they're buying into their own narrative. I just had this discussion with some friends on Facebook earlier today: The notion that Gene Tenace wasn't valued is itself a narrative that isn't supported by evidence.

                          In the free agency re-entry draft in 1976, the very first player snatched up wasn't Reggie Jackson. Wasn't Rollie Fingers. Wasn't Bobby Grich, Dave Cash, Bert Campaneris, Sal Bando or Richie Hebner. No, the first player taken off the market was Gene Tenace, who was paid the then-handsome sum of $310k per year -- more than the $266k the Padres would later pay Fingers. The following year, the Angels paid RBI man Don Baylor $246k per year; talented lefthander Don Gullett was paid $333k, slightly more than Tenace. That sounds to me like he was valued pretty highly.

                          In 1975 and 1976, Tenace got 18 MVP votes each year. That's not a ton, but it's not insignificant -- and not indicative of a player whose talents weren't appreciated.

                          Looking at BBRef's similarity scores, Tenace's offensive numbers are similar to:

                          Mickey Tettleton (926.1)
                          Dan Uggla (898.4)
                          Mike Stanley (895.8)
                          Rico Petrocelli (895.3)
                          Jose Hernandez (889.4)
                          Rickie Weeks (870.7)
                          Woodie Held (865.9)
                          Mike Napoli (864.8)
                          Dick McAuliffe (858.0)
                          Tony Batista (857.7)

                          Now, is there anyone on that list you would say was more highly-regarded in his time than Gene Tenace? Maybe Petrocelli, because he had 3 years of great power numbers, and fans perhaps remembered him for that. But it's not like Tenace was overlooked the way some now claim. I think his contemporaries thought of him as he should have been: Solid but not great. And sure as hell not even close to the HOF unless he bought a ticket.

                          The notion that Tenace was underrated until sabermetrics came along is just another narrative. I've yet to see any proof from those who claim they only care about verifiable facts; only people saying he was underrated.

                          The fact that he was the first guy snatched up when FA became an option for the owners, and paid more than 6 times the average MLB salary, suggests he was valued more than modern revisionists claim.
                          For the record - I do not have Tenace in my HOF. But I do think he was underrated when active. But we all now all of this. We have all said these as suches many times. I refuse to turn this into a debate about OB% - it doesn;t relly fit the connotation of the thread and I;d hate to derail it with stat-talk.

                          But of course Tenace was valued highly. I just said not as much. Which you agree with considering how you said the idea of Tenace-A=as-HOFer is also revisionism. JR seems to be the only guy who thinks he was trash. Like you said - he is now considered by many to be a HOFer or close to it. What that the case when he was active? of course not. That is where the perceived "revisionism" comes in and the perception of his OB% was a major part of that. I don't see how any of this is debatable. But again - I have never been talking about the value of OB - just the perception thereof.

                          So...We both agree that the perception of OB% has changed. We both agree tht Tenace was not considered a scrub when active. we both agree that his perception has improved over time. I am assuming that we both agree that OB% is the major reasn for that.

                          The only thing we disagree on is if the perception chance of OB% is warranted - which isn't even what I (or we ) are talking about here.
                          Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 04-21-2017, 04:34 AM.
                          1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                          1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                          1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                          The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                          The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                          Comment


                          • I retract the times I've called Gene Tenace "a borderline major leaguer." That was absolutely hyperbole.

                            Comment


                            • Just blame that guy Jack Daniels
                              "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

                              ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                                For the record - I do not have Tenace in my HOF. But I do think he was underrated when active. But we all now all of this. We have all said these as suches many times. I refuse to turn this into a debate about OB% - it doesn;t relly fit the connotation of the thread and I;d hate to derail it with stat-talk.

                                But of course Tenace was valued highly. I just said not as much. Which you agree with considering how you said the idea of Tenace-A=as-HOFer is also revisionism. JR seems to be the only guy who thinks he was trash. Like you said - he is now considered by many to be a HOFer or close to it. What that the case when he was active? of course not. That is where the perceived "revisionism" comes in and the perception of his OB% was a major part of that. I don't see how any of this is debatable. But again - I have never been talking about the value of OB - just the perception thereof.

                                So...We both agree that the perception of OB% has changed. We both agree tht Tenace was not considered a scrub when active. we both agree that his perception has improved over time. I am assuming that we both agree that OB% is the major reasn for that.

                                The only thing we disagree on is if the perception chance of OB% is warranted - which isn't even what I (or we ) are talking about here.


                                I agree with all this.
                                "Hey Mr. McGraw! Can I pitch to-day?"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X