HOF
-
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
@jogger171717_psn said in HOF:
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
I'm a biased sox fan, but hearing "Ortiz is a know PED user" isn't accurate. His name was on a list that got leaked years after the fact. Also, that whole testing program in 2003 had serious problems. Manfred even said it's possible he wasn't even on that list. But I say let in the juicers like Bonds and Clemens, just mention their histories on their plaques. Same with Pete Rose.
But Scott Rolen and Curt Schilling? Lol, hall of FAME not hall of very good.So like, you haven’t even looked at Rolen’s stats have you? His 69.9 career fWAR is just slightly below Santo’s 70.9 and Cabrera’s 70.3, while it’s higher than Molitor’s 67.7 and Killebrew’s 66.1
It’s also slightly higher than Gary Carter’s 69.4, Pudge’s 69.2, Thome’s 69.1, Walker’s 68.7, Fisk’s 68.3, Whitaker’s 68.1, Larkin’s 67.0, Yount’s 66.5, Manny Ramirez’s 66.4, Gwynn’s 65.0, etc., and way higher than Ortiz’s 51.0
I have looked at Rolen's stats and they are all very good. Career .280ish hitter not bad. Career OBP is very good, decent power numbers, great fielder, rookie of the year etc. You lose me at WAR. I get it, WAR is a valuable stat and now it's being used in collective bargaining and blah blah blah. Stats like that are fun if you're into that sort of deep analysis, but for the rest of us who just like watching games and seeing simple stats, WAR is a bit much. And on top of that there are multiple versions of WAR? Popsicle headache.
There will always be debates and statistical comparisons with who should get in versus who is already in. I dunno, for me Rolen is close but just not enough for the hall.I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s not as complicated as you think it is. The two main types of WAR are fWAR and bWAR (some people call it rWAR). Fangraphs uses fWAR (hence the “f”) and Baseball Reference uses bWAR (hence the “b”). The only difference is the stats the make up each formula. Most people that are really into stats will say fWAR is better for position players, and it’s also the version that MLB is proposing to use in arbitration hearings.
Basically, it takes offense, defense, and baserunning (to a lesser extent) and combines them into a single number. Base stats like AVG and OBP are already included in it in the form of wRC+ for fWAR. This allows us to see a player’s total value to his team, regardless of his strengths. A pure hitter that’s terrible on defense can put up the same amount of value as a below average hitter with fantastic defense. There’s more to it, so I highly suggest reading some articles that explain everything better. Fangraphs has plenty on their site. The fact of the matter is that 69.9 fWAR should be a guaranteed ticket to the HoF based on other players that are already in. As of now, Rolen is the 11th best 3B of all time by fWAR. If being the 11th best at a position in a sport that’s been around for well over a century and has had over 1500 thirdbasemen isn’t enough to get into the hall of fame, I don’t know what is.
-
I hear ya, we'll just agree to disagree on WAR and Rolen. One more point about Rolen: For MVP voting he only cracked the top 5 once, and received any votes at all only 4 times. That doesn't feel like a hall of famer to me. But I digress, fun debate though.
-
The HOF should be about one thing: How the player performed on the field.
MLB created the unfair competitive environment by creating and tolerating the steroid culture in their sport. The players should not be punished for wanting to even the playing field. Besides, a lot of these players were HOF potential before their alleged steroid use.
In addition, Pete Rose is the all-time Hits leader and played the game with unparalleled passion. His "alleged" gambling has NOTHING to do with his greatness. it is pathetic for MLB to cancel him out -- hypocrites they are.
-
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
I hear ya, we'll just agree to disagree on WAR and Rolen. One more point about Rolen: For MVP voting he only cracked the top 5 once, and received any votes at all only 4 times. That doesn't feel like a hall of famer to me. But I digress, fun debate though.
Basing your opinion on a purely subjective vote is never a good idea. Rolen’s career was statistically better than many other hall of famers, and that’s all that should matter. A player can’t control whether or not some voters vote for him or how good his contemporaries are. But he can control how good he himself is, and Rolen played good enough to easily deserve a spot in the hall.
-
-
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
We just have different philosophies. I think that for a player to get into the hall they should have been elite in their era for significant amount of time.
I mean, Rolen was though. Was he the best hitter every year? No, but he had a consistent 120-130 wRC+ with a few bigger years thrown in. Combine that with fantastic defense and you have an elite player. You don’t get basically 70 fWAR without being elite for a majority of your career.
I genuinely would like to know if you think Larkin, Carter, Pudge, Thome, Walker, Molitor, McCovey, Yount, Gwynn, Trammell, Piazza, Banks, Stargell, Sandberg, Winfield, Dawson, Kiner or Guerrero deserve to be in the hall.
-
Very quick analysis:
Larkin - Yes: perennial all star, won an MVP
Carter - Yes: perennial all star, in the MVP convo multiple times, good postseason #'s
Pudge - Yes: same reasons as Larkin
Thome: Yes, but barely
Walker: close but no
Molitor: Sure why not
McCovey:Yes: perennial all star, won an MVP
Yount: 2 MVP's but no
Gwynn: Yes, don't be silly
Trammell: close but no
Piazza: Yes, perennial All Star, ROY,
Banks: Yes, perennial all star, 2 MVPs
Stargell: 475 Hrs is tough to say no to but, no
Sandberg: Yes: perennial all star, won an MVP
Winfield: toss up. sure why not
Dawson: so close but no
Kiner: no. mo vaughn has better #'s
Guerrero: yes, one of the most feared hitters of the late 90's/2000s -
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
Very quick analysis:
Larkin - Yes: perennial all star, won an MVP
Carter - Yes: perennial all star, in the MVP convo multiple times, good postseason #'s
Pudge - Yes: same reasons as Larkin
Thome: Yes, but barely
Walker: close but no
Molitor: Sure why not
McCovey:Yes: perennial all star, won an MVP
Yount: 2 MVP's but no
Gwynn: Yes, don't be silly
Trammell: close but no
Piazza: Yes, perennial All Star, ROY,
Banks: Yes, perennial all star, 2 MVPs
Stargell: 475 Hrs is tough to say no to but, no
Sandberg: Yes: perennial all star, won an MVP
Winfield: toss up. sure why not
Dawson: so close but no
Kiner: no. mo vaughn has better #'s
Guerrero: yes, one of the most feared hitters of the late 90's/2000sLarkin: 67.0 fWAR, less than Rolen
Carter: 69.4 fWAR, essentially equivalent to Rolen
Pudge: 69.2 fWAR, essentially equivalent to Rolen
Thome: 69.1 fWAR, essentially equivalent to Rolen
Walker: 68.7 fWAR, less than Rolen
Molitor: 67.7 fWAR, less than Rolen
McCovey: 67.4 fWAR, less than Rolen
Yount: 66.5 fWAR, less than Rolen
Gwynn: 65.0 fWAR, less than Rolen
Trammell: 63.7 fWAR, less than Rolen
Piazza: 63.7 fWAR, less than Rolen
Banks: 63.3 fWAR, less than Rolen
Stargell: 62.9 fWAR, less than Rolen
Sandberg: 60.9 fWAR, less than Rolen
Winfield: 59.9 fWAR, less than Rolen
Dawson: 59.5 fWAR, less than Rolen
Kiner: 47.6 fWAR, less than Rolen
Guerrero: 54.5 fWAR, less than Rolen.Rolen is equivalent or better than everybody on that list. It’s pure hypocrisy to say that any one on that list should be in the hall but Rolen shouldn’t be. I think they should all be in except for Guerrero and Kiner. There’s so many things you’re missing if you just base your opinion on subjective things like All-Star appearances and MVP votes and don’t look at what the player actually did on the field.
-
Cool. I've already said my piece about fWAR, which is to say I don't care about fWAR. A better way to look at hall worthiness, in my opinion, is All Star appearances, MVP voting. Stuff that people vote on (like the hall!) after watching guys play. Then taking a look at their career as a whole.
-
Yount isnt a HOFer? LOL. Whatever man.
-
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
Cool. I've already said my piece about fWAR, which is to say I don't care about fWAR. A better way to look at hall worthiness, in my opinion, is All Star appearances, MVP voting. Stuff that people vote on (like the hall!) after watching guys play. Then taking a look at their career as a whole.
That’s literally the worst possible way to look at who should be in the hall lmao. Why should subjective voting be more important than what a guy actually does on the field? Why should someone like Rolen have his fantastic career stats diminished because some voters didn’t vote for him at the time? Why not look at his career in retrospect and realize that it is very much hall of fame worthy based on what he did on the field? Your thought process is the most backwards thing I’ve ever seen.
-
@jogger171717_psn said in HOF:
Nothing against him, congrats to him and his family. But Bonds, Clemens, Arod, Schilling, Rolen, Wagner, Manny, Sheffield, Jones, and Pettitte should all be in the hall ahead of him.
Agreed!
-
Subjective voting puts them in the hall. So by your logic there should only be some benchmarks that players need to hit and then they're in. Honest question: is that what you want? And the All Star and MVP voting just doesn't fall out of the sky. For the most part, they get it right. Sure, there are some outliers (see what I did there?) with the All Star voting, but all in all it's very good.
And to the Yount guy: when is the last time you looked at his #'s? Been a while for me, so I was pretty surprised at how average they are. I think we tend to overrate older players like him.
-
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
I'm a biased sox fan, but hearing "Ortiz is a know PED user" isn't accurate. His name was on a list that got leaked years after the fact. Also, that whole testing program in 2003 had serious problems. Manfred even said it's possible he wasn't even on that list. But I say let in the juicers like Bonds and Clemens, just mention their histories on their plaques. Same with Pete Rose.
But Scott Rolen and Curt Schilling? Lol, hall of FAME not hall of very good.Respectfully sir, I think you’re dead wrong when it comes to Schilling. Now in regard to Rolen, I can see how someone that didn’t live near STL or Philly would think that. Once Rolen became a Cardinal, I saw him play everyday for years. I’ve watched more baseball in my life than most people. I’ll put him right there with Arenado defensively. People won’t believe that and they will call me insane, but I’m tellin ya it’s true. I saw it first hand. That combined with the numbers he put up offensively, I think he deserves it. All this is my opinion and doesn’t mean jack squat.
-
Also, it’s time to take HOF voting away from the writers and give it the players and former players. It is clear the writers are completely lost and have no clue what they’re doing!
-
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
...
And to the Yount guy: when is the last time you looked at his #'s? Been a while for me, so I was pretty surprised at how average they are. I think we tend to overrate older players like him.
What?
30th all time in offensive WAR
40th all time in runs
20th all time in hits
36th all time in Total Bases
22nd all time in Doubles6 top 10 seasons in batting average
4 top 10 seasons in SLG%
He led the league in OPS as a SS, then was 3rd as a CF.
He also is 49th all time in XBH, and 77th in RBI even though many people remember him as a top of the lineup singles hitter.What exactly is there about those numbers that make you think he wasnt good?
-
Never said he wasn't good, he was very good! A lot of the stats you mentioned are volume stats, which if you play for 20 years, will stack up on all time lists. Again, the hall should be the elite of the era in which the played. Just my take, it's ok if I'm wrong!
-
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
Subjective voting puts them in the hall. So by your logic there should only be some benchmarks that players need to hit and then they're in. Honest question: is that what you want? And the All Star and MVP voting just doesn't fall out of the sky. For the most part, they get it right. Sure, there are some outliers (see what I did there?) with the All Star voting, but all in all it's very good.
And to the Yount guy: when is the last time you looked at his #'s? Been a while for me, so I was pretty surprised at how average they are. I think we tend to overrate older players like him.
Yes, subjective voting does put them in the hall, unfortunately. We’ve seen just how “great” that system is recently. What I want is stats to matter first and foremost. A guy with 70 fWAR, 3 MVPs, and 6 AS appearances is the same as a player with 70 fWAR, no MVPs, and no AS appearances. In the end, they both put up the same value to their teams.
All-Star voting is the definition of a popularity contest due to fans voting. Obviously people are going to vote for their favorite players regardless of their stats. MVPs have gotten much better in recent years, but they still aren’t as accurate as they should be. My main point isn’t necessarily that AS and MVP votes are totally wrong, it’s that a guy not getting those votes doesn’t make him any worse than a player that does. In Rolen’s case, he put up a 9.0 fWAR season in 2004, which is by all definitions an MVP caliber season. It isn’t his fault that a roided up Bonds had an insane 11.9 fWAR season and Adrian Beltre had his best career year by far. That doesn’t take away from the fact that most good or even great players will never have a 9.0 season like Rolen. But he didn’t win MVP, so apparently it doesn’t matter how amazing the season was. Were there better players than Rolen during his career? Of course, but a great player next to another great player is still a great player.
-
@mjfc_363_psn said in HOF:
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
I'm a biased sox fan, but hearing "Ortiz is a know PED user" isn't accurate. His name was on a list that got leaked years after the fact. Also, that whole testing program in 2003 had serious problems. Manfred even said it's possible he wasn't even on that list. But I say let in the juicers like Bonds and Clemens, just mention their histories on their plaques. Same with Pete Rose.
But Scott Rolen and Curt Schilling? Lol, hall of FAME not hall of very good.Respectfully sir, I think you’re dead wrong when it comes to Schilling. Now in regard to Rolen, I can see how someone that didn’t live near STL or Philly would think that. Once Rolen became a Cardinal, I saw him play everyday for years. I’ve watched more baseball in my life than most people. I’ll put him right there with Arenado defensively. People won’t believe that and they will call me insane, but I’m tellin ya it’s true. I saw it first hand. That combined with the numbers he put up offensively, I think he deserves it. All this is my opinion and doesn’t mean jack squat.
Based on the metrics we have, Rolen was actually way better than Arenado defensively. UZR only goes back to 2002, but Rolen had 20+ in 2002 and 2004, along with 3 more 10+ seasons. Arenado’s best UZR was 14.6 in 2013, and his only other 10+ season is 10.3 in 2019. Rolen also had 30 DRS in 2004, while Arenado’s best is 23 is 2019. Arenado’s best seasons by Fangraphs’ Def are 16.5 in 2013 and 12.5 in 2019. Rolen’s best seasons by Def are 24.9 in 2002, 23.4 in 2004, and 18.0 in 1999, along with 6 other 10+ seasons. Arenado’s only 10+ seasons are the two I mentioned.
-
@ndb34_psn said in HOF:
Never said he wasn't good, he was very good! A lot of the stats you mentioned are volume stats, which if you play for 20 years, will stack up on all time lists. Again, the hall should be the elite of the era in which the played. Just my take, it's ok if I'm wrong!
Yount was elite though. He won 2 MVPs in the 80s. He was up against Cal Ripken and Trammell for SS in the AL. Moving to CF, hes up against Puckett, Griffey, and Rickey Henderson for all star voting. Everyone considers Ripken a slam dunk HOF player. Compare Younts slashline with Ripken. It's pretty close.
Ripken .276 AVG/.340 OBP/.447 SLG/.788 OPS/ 112 OPS+
Yount .285 AVG/.342 OBP/.430 SLG/.772 OPS/ 115 OPS+
