Community Forum

I like Cbrev. He doesn't post much, but has a great attitude and a great way of explaining how he thinks his way through the game.

@poksey_mlbts said in HOF:

@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+

I love the back and forth here too. It's great to have a respectable debate without it devolving into "sHuT Up iDIot"

The slashline you posted is slightly above average for Yount's era.

As far as volume stats go, no a player's longevity obviously should not be held against him. And it should help his Hall worthiness. But having a slightly above average long career shouldn't put you over the top.

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!

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.

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.

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

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 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.

@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.

@raylewissb47_psn said in HOF:

@thegoaler_psn said in HOF:

So, do we get a David Ortiz HOF card to hold us until next game? Give him at least 80 speed

And can we get an animation of him breaking the bullpen phone in the dugout when he strikes out?

Hahaha, but only if we can get Pedro duct taped to a pole in the dugout.

@samguenther1987 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.

Alright I can admit when I'm wrong and I appear to be wrong here, known steroid used may have been to strong of a phrase. I apologize for that.

All good man

I agree with most what you said, except for "Ortiz was a user and abuser". What are you basing that on? The era? I'm inclined to believe he was using, but also acknowledge he has plausible deniability. So if we accept that, he doesn't really belong in the same group as Bonds and Clemens. Same with Griffey Jr. There hasn't been even a whisper to Griffey using, but he was part of that era so he probably was. That logic is flimsy at best, but it's all we got. But again, I do agree that Bonds and Clemens should be in. But the Hall should acknowledge that era for what it was and their role in it.

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.