|
|
Post by noetsi on Jan 4, 2019 18:47:38 GMT -5
I suspect the HOF was always political and its pretty much useless to say X got in, Y is better than X, so he should get in. For one thing players are (and likely should be) judged relatively to other players in their era rather than by some "objective" numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Jan 4, 2019 20:47:02 GMT -5
Fred McGriff has always seemed borderline HOF to me, the kind of guy who makes the arguments interesting and who by necessity forces us into headache-inducing statistical analysis to make the case for or against. I think a plausible argument can be made either way, but I don't feel like doing the deep dive to get into it. In any case, it doesn't require a deep dive to understand that his credentials were clearly better than those of Baines -- who like McGriff is a sterling person but who unlike McGriff has enough strategically placed friends to get him elected. I loved McGriff as a player -- he never moved the needle like no-doubt-about-it HOFers -- but boy was he consistent. For seven straight seasons between 1988 and 1994, he never hit fewer than 31 HRs and never hit more than 37 HRs. Just plug him in and watch him go. There are many better players in the Hall, and many lesser ones. I was a McGriff fan. I remember him as one of the most feared HR hitters of his time. Certainly, Harold Baines was no more feared and was, overall, no better. That's for sure. I think the issue really is that the Hall of Fame isn't what it used to be--or, at least, isn't what it was supposed to be. Maybe it's never been what it was supposed to be. Maybe there have always been "borderline great" players selected. Maybe it's always been more "political" than folks would like to recognize. I don't know. Numbers, alone, haven't guaranteed HoF entry (e.g. Gary Sheffield) and poor character has never been exclusionary (e.g. Ty Cobb). The guys who vote just seem to vote for certain very good-great players and not for others. Harold Baines, fine player that he was, doesn't belong in the same conversation as Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams. But there he is--soon to be enshrined. I used to think the HoF had some real integrity. But, it doesn't. Best just to view it as entertainment, not as something that really means very much. Blue Marlin, borderline (or worse) guys have been getting in for years. I say this as a fan of the Hall of Fame who has spent many hours there and worked with some of the wonderful and exceptionally helpful staff. But you do have to keep the place in perspective, which ultimately is, as you note, entertainment. It is unquestionably a great museum, and that alone makes it worthwhile. A flawed Hall is better than no Hall at all, in my frivolous opinion. In the early days, inductees were mostly unquestioned greats of the game. That part was easy, because they were looking back at over 60 years of major league baseball, so it was a simple task to pick out the likes of Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner and Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson. Probably the most notorious sustained degradation of the system came when Frankie Frisch -- a well-deserved HOFer in his own right -- became Chairman of the Veterans Committee in the 1950s and pushed through all of his old buddies from the Giants. Vague players mostly unknown today except by hardcore baseball historians -- Jesse Haines, Dave Bancroft, Chick Hafey, Rube Marquard, Ross Youngs, George Kelly -- were pushed through by Frisch. At least LaRussa and Reinsdorf limited it to Baines without throwing in Ron Kittle and Lamar Hoyt and Greg Walker. I personally wouldn't say that the HOF has no integrity. I think every unquestioned great player (excepting those ruled ineligible or hanging on PED issues) is in there. I just think that once you get below the elite level, there is an inevitable mish-mash in a large gray area. For sure there are politics involved, as is the case in many areas of human life. I don't think Gary Sheffield made a lot of friends among HOF voters, and that, along with the PED talk, is keeping him from greater consideration. So the system can be unfair at the margins. I have plenty of complaints about the makeup of the Hall of Fame, but it still captures the interest of most baseball fans, even if it's negative. Halls of Fame in general tend to do that, whether it is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or the National Mining Hall of Fame (there really is such a place.) Next time you are in Wisconsin, be sure to drop by the National Freshwater Fish Hall of Fame. McGriff isn't in there either. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Jan 4, 2019 20:56:43 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I am in the Bobby Grich for HOF camp, although his chances appear to be in the slim to none category. I saw this guy play hundreds of times and besides being an outstanding defensive second baseman and a face-in-the-dirt guy who made Pete Rose seem like a figure skater, he put up great batting numbers for a middle infielder of his era. Does anyone know (or care) that he is 60th all-time in WAR for position players? Among the 59 ahead of him, all but two -- Larry Walker and late 19th-early 20th century SS Bill Dahlen -- are in the HOF (except those not eligible or PED-tainted.) And certainly Walker (and probably Dahlen, but few are interested) should be in there. Among the next 19 after him on the list, again all are either in the HOF, not eligible or have PED issues. Scott Rolen, at number 67, is just eligible this year and will surely get in at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Jan 4, 2019 21:13:11 GMT -5
Problem is McGriff I think for these voters is he falls just short of some of the benchmark numbers. .284 493 1550 If anyone of those numbers were slightly higher I think he would get more votes. Something like .300 500 1700 just looks a little more attractive to voters. Also no mvps and only 5 all star appearances From the numerical perspective, yes. Something like that...One thing that can also happen to players that take a fair number of walks is that they give up RBI opportunies. Often free swinging players are glorified for driving in runs, perhaps beyond what they deserve. On of my favorite examples of this is Joe Carter. Quite over rated in my view. Lots of ribbies, can’t deny that, but the BA and OBP combo scream that he may have helped his team more by taking instead of raking... Joe Carter is an interesting case, Inger. Until you raised the subject, I would never have suspected that his OBP and adjusted OPS+ were so modest. He certainly seemed to be a dangerous hitter, no doubt in part because of his World Series exploits on some great Toronto teams. Numbers aside, I still can't get him out of my head as a guy you did not want to face with the game on the line. I think part of it was that from the age of 35 for four seasons his OPS+ numbers nosedived to well below league average, resulting in a less than scintillating career figure. His OBP suffered, as you note, because he simply did not walk very much. The most he ever walked in one year was 49 times. On the other hand, for a power hitter, he didn't strike out all that much. His highest K total for a season was 113, and he was never in the top ten in any year for strikeouts. So clearly he was a bat-on-ball guy. That probably helped that RBI total. Also, if you believe as I do that the most important ability is availability, Carter comes up huge. For twelve straight seasons, 1986-1997, the most games Joe Carter missed was 13. The second most was seven. There were two strike years in there, which is why his total games played were down in those seasons. There is something to be said for simply showing up. Reactionary as it may be, I still love those ribbies, however you do it. But thanks for raising the Strange Case of Joe Carter, whose numbers were in truth far below what I would have guessed just from watching him play. |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Jan 4, 2019 22:34:11 GMT -5
From the numerical perspective, yes. Something like that...One thing that can also happen to players that take a fair number of walks is that they give up RBI opportunies. Often free swinging players are glorified for driving in runs, perhaps beyond what they deserve. On of my favorite examples of this is Joe Carter. Quite over rated in my view. Lots of ribbies, can’t deny that, but the BA and OBP combo scream that he may have helped his team more by taking instead of raking... Joe Carter is an interesting case, Inger. Until you raised the subject, I would never have suspected that his OBP and adjusted OPS+ were so modest. He certainly seemed to be a dangerous hitter, no doubt in part because of his World Series exploits on some great Toronto teams. Numbers aside, I still can't get him out of my head as a guy you did not want to face with the game on the line. I think part of it was that from the age of 35 for four seasons his OPS+ numbers nosedived to well below league average, resulting in a less than scintillating career figure. His OBP suffered, as you note, because he simply did not walk very much. The most he ever walked in one year was 49 times. On the other hand, for a power hitter, he didn't strike out all that much. His highest K total for a season was 113, and he was never in the top ten in any year for strikeouts. So clearly he was a bat-on-ball guy. That probably helped that RBI total. Also, if you believe as I do that the most important ability is availability, Carter comes up huge. For twelve straight seasons, 1986-1997, the most games Joe Carter missed was 13. The second most was seven. There were two strike years in there, which is why his total games played were down in those seasons. There is something to be said for simply showing up. Reactionary as it may be, I still love those ribbies, however you do it. But thanks for raising the Strange Case of Joe Carter, whose numbers were in truth far below what I would have guessed just from watching him play. More on Carter: I agree that RBI have now been devalued to the point of being under valued. Yet, they are only one measuring stick of a player’s skill. Carter’s flukish RBI do nicely demonstrate that those who don’t mind watching the breeze blow during all of modern day baseball don’t understand that you can be more productive making contact. In any event, look at Carter’s career again and cast your eyes to the left. You’ll see a different player who played nearly every game and only scored 100+ runs once, and that in what would easily stand as his best-hitting season. He hit .302, and had a career high .335 OBP that season. It was also a season during which he was young and ran very well (see bases, stolen.., back into the right side columns). So, now looking at Carter’s 1990 season, in which he had the MLB record of the lowest OPS for a 100+ RBI season, (BTW , he has three of the top twenty such seasons and 7 of the top 100, with no one else having more than 3 on that list). He was a.232 hitter. According to retro Sheet.com in the 1990 season the average batter that hit a single that year with runners on base drove in .607 batters per single. Carter got 25 singles in those situations and the runner scored 23 times (8 more than expected) Moral of this story: It’s good to have Tony Gwynn, Robbie Alomar, and Bip Roberts teaching base regularly in front of you, and running the bases (this was pre-rotund days for Gwynn). Well, I got lost there for a moment, as usual. Back to those left hand columns. While Carter giveth, he also taketh away by not getting on base an not scoring runs himself. This has been a good excercise for me because I’m constantly harping that while the modern stats are very helpful, they also need to be taken in context. What do I bitch about that the younger fans don’t quite “get”? Contact. Speed. The need to diversify the lineup. All the black guys should lead off, see and..,just kidding, so settle down crowd... You need to diversify in a different way. You need a speedy OBP guy or two. You need some guys that will grind out at bats and take walks. You need some guys that can make contact and hit for average that aren’t afraid to swing the bat to move runners and knock them in. If enough of them can hit HRs without swinging from the heels and constantly TRYING to hit home runs, you’ll score a lot of runs. Especially if you can arrange to have runners on base when the HR happen...and speed on base when the singes and doubles happen. Which is way more often than when HR happen. Get away from one dimensional baseball! Joe Carter has a 105 OPS. It’s slightly above average, so he wasn’t a bad player offensively. He was slightly above average, and he made a fine career of his knack for being available, and hitting in some nice, high scoring lineups for most of his career. He was also fortunate that his managers chose to ignore the left hand column and bat him in the middle of the line up instead of sixth or seventh because of that single knack he had. Unlike Forrest Gump, that’s not really all InhVe to say about Carter, but it is the gist of what I know and how I see his career. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Jan 5, 2019 11:19:44 GMT -5
Haha. This is why I love baseball. Two people who have never met spending several hours researching and discussing somebody like Joe Carter, who I suspect neither of us really care about all that much. Got those old Hot Stove Blues.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Jan 5, 2019 15:41:45 GMT -5
I was a McGriff fan. I remember him as one of the most feared HR hitters of his time. Certainly, Harold Baines was no more feared and was, overall, no better. That's for sure. I think the issue really is that the Hall of Fame isn't what it used to be--or, at least, isn't what it was supposed to be. Maybe it's never been what it was supposed to be. Maybe there have always been "borderline great" players selected. Maybe it's always been more "political" than folks would like to recognize. I don't know. Numbers, alone, haven't guaranteed HoF entry (e.g. Gary Sheffield) and poor character has never been exclusionary (e.g. Ty Cobb). The guys who vote just seem to vote for certain very good-great players and not for others. Harold Baines, fine player that he was, doesn't belong in the same conversation as Mickey Mantle or Ted Williams. But there he is--soon to be enshrined. I used to think the HoF had some real integrity. But, it doesn't. Best just to view it as entertainment, not as something that really means very much. Blue Marlin, borderline (or worse) guys have been getting in for years. I say this as a fan of the Hall of Fame who has spent many hours there and worked with some of the wonderful and exceptionally helpful staff. But you do have to keep the place in perspective, which ultimately is, as you note, entertainment. It is unquestionably a great museum, and that alone makes it worthwhile. A flawed Hall is better than no Hall at all, in my frivolous opinion. In the early days, inductees were mostly unquestioned greats of the game. That part was easy, because they were looking back at over 60 years of major league baseball, so it was a simple task to pick out the likes of Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner and Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson. Probably the most notorious sustained degradation of the system came when Frankie Frisch -- a well-deserved HOFer in his own right -- became Chairman of the Veterans Committee in the 1950s and pushed through all of his old buddies from the Giants. Vague players mostly unknown today except by hardcore baseball historians -- Jesse Haines, Dave Bancroft, Chick Hafey, Rube Marquard, Ross Youngs, George Kelly -- were pushed through by Frisch. At least LaRussa and Reinsdorf limited it to Baines without throwing in Ron Kittle and Lamar Hoyt and Greg Walker. I personally wouldn't say that the HOF has no integrity. I think every unquestioned great player (excepting those ruled ineligible or hanging on PED issues) is in there. I just think that once you get below the elite level, there is an inevitable mish-mash in a large gray area. For sure there are politics involved, as is the case in many areas of human life. I don't think Gary Sheffield made a lot of friends among HOF voters, and that, along with the PED talk, is keeping him from greater consideration. So the system can be unfair at the margins. I have plenty of complaints about the makeup of the Hall of Fame, but it still captures the interest of most baseball fans, even if it's negative. Halls of Fame in general tend to do that, whether it is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or the National Mining Hall of Fame (there really is such a place.) Next time you are in Wisconsin, be sure to drop by the National Freshwater Fish Hall of Fame. McGriff isn't in there either. Blue Marlin won’t survive in the Fresh Water Fish Hall of Fame... |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Jan 5, 2019 15:47:32 GMT -5
Haha. This is why I love baseball. Two people who have never met spending several hours researching and discussing somebody like Joe Carter, who I suspect neither of us really care about all that much. Got those old Hot Stove Blues. Not only that, but if you have mind that wanders, like mine..,during the research I got to thinking about other things, like players with extreme home and road splits...and that leads to Colorado Rockies players like Todd Helton, Andres Galarraga, Dante Bichette... Why? Because I saw Carl Yastrzemski’s name On a list. I don’t get a lot of agreement when I say Yaz was over rated... but I still say it... |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Jan 5, 2019 23:20:45 GMT -5
So here’s a question that I’d like to float out there. If a player has extreme home/road splits, how much should that be considered when valuing that player?
Before answering, consider that most players do have better splits at home. The differential can be greater if they play in a good run-scoring park of course. In some cases splits can be affected by Stadium dimensions. For instance, it’s long been considered that Fenway is a bad place to start lefties, so Red Sox hitters have tended to see more RHP, which can change line up decisions. Yankee Stadium tends to cause opposing teams to start more LHP for opposite line up decisions...Some parks are more favorable for fly ball pitchers and/or hitters...
|
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Jan 7, 2019 17:29:26 GMT -5
I wonder if PED usage actually matters to voters anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatfatness on Jan 7, 2019 18:40:34 GMT -5
I wonder if PED usage actually matters to voters anymore. If it didn’t then Clemens, Bonds and Sosa would all be in unanimously. If you ignore cheating or consider it irrelevant their careers were among the best ever. |
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Jan 9, 2019 17:38:44 GMT -5
If they get in this year wouldn't that suggest PED no longer matters to most voters, I agree it has mattered in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Jan 9, 2019 17:47:43 GMT -5
If they get in this year wouldn't that suggest PED no longer matters to most voters, I agree it has mattered in the past. IF. Small word. Large meaning. And even IF, isn’t it still different IF instead of being elected in their first year by a healthy margin they all had to wait several years to squeeze by on the ballot?.... |
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Jan 11, 2019 17:14:00 GMT -5
Given that they might not have gotten in at all without PED it still rewards cheating.
|
|
|
|
Post by chiyankee on Jan 11, 2019 17:24:11 GMT -5
Given that they might not have gotten in at all without PED it still rewards cheating. I think you clearly make that case for Sosa, but Bonds, Clemens & Ramirez have been HOF type players for a majority of their careers. I'd still put them in. |
|
