HOF results

[paul]

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

[Wite3]

Begs the question...who are the three asses that left Griffey off and why?

Joshua

[ksabet]

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

why are you saddened?

I never really understood all the hoopla over %. You're in youre in right?

I think how many years it takes is more important to a players legacy.

[39special]

why are you saddened?

I never really understood all the hoopla over %. You're in youre in right?

I think how many years it takes is more important to a players legacy.

+1

[paul]

I'm saddened because it was just nice to be able to say that my favorite player held the all time record for HOF votes. No big deal though.

If I remember correctly, 4 guys didn't vote for Seaver. Two were protesting Pete Rose being left off the ballot. One was sick in the hospital and mismarked his ballot. And one always voted no for first year players just to ensure that no one ever was a unanimous selection. I wonder if there are similar stories for the three no votes for Griffey.

[Vintageclout]

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

Fyi Paul, the real sad thing is that of the 5 writers that didn't vote for Seaver, 3 of them totally boycotted the HOF voting that year because the HOF banned Pete Rose. Those 3 writers publicly stated they were offended the HOF chose to take the Rose situation completely out of the writers hands, thus choosing to submit empty ballots. In restrospect, only 2 writers left Seaver off the ballot because of not voting for "1st timers". Had there been NO Rose ban, Seaver would still own the highest %. Oh well....

JoeT

[Vintageclout]

I'm saddened because it was just nice to be able to say that my favorite player held the all time record for HOF votes. No big deal though.

If I remember correctly, 4 guys didn't vote for Seaver. Two were protesting Pete Rose being left off the ballot. One was sick in the hospital and mismarked his ballot. And one always voted no for first year players just to ensure that no one ever was a unanimous selection. I wonder if there are similar stories for the three no votes for Griffey.

Paul - never saw your 2nd post until now. It was 5 non-voters and I'm almost certain 3 boycotted the vote. I assumed the other 2 were non-first ballot voters, but as you stated, one might have misparked his ballot. Bottom line is with no Rose ban, Seaver would still stand at the top of the charts!

[JoeyFarino]

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

I guess im biased since im from seattle but griffey deserves 100% imo

[CMIZ5290]

Begs the question...who are the three asses that left Griffey off and why?

Joshua

+1 Joshua, totally agree...

[kamikidEFFL]

I grew up watching Griffey. I think it should of been 100% for sure

[Griffins]

Begs the question...who are the three asses that left Griffey off and why?

Joshua

Probably the same 3 that voted for Mike Sweeney.

[egbeachley]

Begs the question...who are the three asses that left Griffey off and why?

Here is a plausible explanation. They wanted to vote for 11 guys but were limited to 10. If I was in that situation I could see leaving off the guy (Griffey) that was getting in no matter what I did.

[timber63401]

Anybody that doesn't vote for someone just because they "never vote people on first ballot" deserve the honor of voting revoked.

[CMIZ5290]

First of all, the reason the three guys left off Griffey probably was because of someone getting hurt feelings on something as stupid as an interview where there were hurt feelings. Maybe someone didn't like the way Griffey treated him. In other words, someone getting pissed off and telling their other writer buddies. Maybe one of them agreed. Yes, human nature does come into the equation ( even though it shouldn't). Secondly, I look at Griffey from the time he was an 18yr old rookie to the time he retired, he basically had the same physical structure and abilities. Then I look at guys like McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa. Please.....Go back to their early photos and then look at how they ballooned up later in their careers. It's borderline ridiculous, and so obvious as well. Griffey was clean, and had the best swing ever in the game with maybe Ted W. getting a close argument. If he had not had the serious injuries, he would have hit 800 home runs. Just my opinion....

[oldjudge]

I think it's a joke that Piazza got in. He was a liability behind the plate. The most important part of a catcher's game is on defense.

[JollyElm]

First of all, the reason the three guys left off Griffey probably was because of someone getting hurt feelings on something as stupid as an interview where there were hurt feelings. Maybe someone didn't like the way Griffey treated him. In other words, someone getting pissed off and telling their other writer buddies. Maybe one of them agreed. Yes, human nature does come into the equation ( even though it shouldn't).

I'll bring up Jeff Kent again. How does a guy with his run producing numbers at second base not get more votes?? Your statements probably say it all.

[glchen]

I'll bring up Jeff Kent again. How does a guy with his run producing numbers at second base not get more votes?? Your statements probably say it all.

I think Kent was hurt by the 10 player rule on the ballot. A lot of voters are still putting PED users on the ballot because they don't believe they should be excluded. Therefore, somewhat more "marginal" HOFers are losing significant numbers of votes.

I think Kent will eventually be voted in by the Veterans Committee, and I don't really have a problem with that approach.

Personally, I still don't believe PED users should get into the HOF. Their numbers aren't "real" numbers. People argue that they were competing against other PED users so those stats were legit. However, to me, it's like Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France. You can say that he was competing against other users on the Tour, so you shouldn't strip him of his titles? That doesn't make sense to me. The Hall honors the best players, and you can't really say you deserve to be one of the best if you cheated your way there.

[JollyElm]

I think Kent was hurt by the 10 player rule on the ballot. A lot of voters are still putting PED users on the ballot because they don't believe they should be excluded. Therefore, somewhat more "marginal" HOFers are losing significant numbers of votes.

I think Kent will eventually be voted in by the Veterans Committee, and I don't really have a problem with that approach.

Personally, I still don't believe PED users should get into the HOF. Their numbers aren't "real" numbers. People argue that they were competing against other PED users so those stats were legit. However, to me, it's like Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France. You can say that he was competing against other users on the Tour, so you shouldn't strip him of his titles? That doesn't make sense to me. The Hall honors the best players, and you can't really say you deserve to be one of the best if you cheated your way there.

Well said. But I do hope the voters wake up and elect Kent the traditional way. For all of the steroid heads, I hope to God they never get to Cooperstown.

[ooo-ribay]

Well said. But I do hope the voters wake up and elect Kent the traditional way. For all of the steroid heads, I hope to God they never get to Cooperstown.

Well, there's probably already a few in.

[kmac32]

Griffey and Piazza were elected. Griffey set a new record with 99% of the votes, breaking the record held by Tom Seaver. As a lifelong Seaver fan, I'm saddened.

Griffey was a great player but he was no Tom Seaver when it comes to HOF players. Of course they weren't apples to apples as on was a pitcher and the other an outfielder so I guess there were other criteria to be evaluated.

[clydepepper]

Reliable sources indicate a strong possibility that two of the three voters who did not vote for Griffey are brothers: Moe and Curly. The third voter goes by Larry.



I was happy to see that one of my favorite players, David Eckstein, got two votes...but, I hope those two votes did not come at Griffey's expense.


Like Jayson Stark, I would have had Billy Wagner (another of my favorites) as one of my full ballot of ten. (check out Starks comments from this morning on ESPN.com)

Good to see Trevor Hoffman get so much support in his first year.

I think with Piazza getting in, Bagwell should get in next year, then perhaps Sheffield and even Bonds and Clemens and Sosa.

I'm not yet accepting of those last few getting in but the Commissioner made a good, sound argument as to why they should get in.

The same reasoning would keep out Palmeiro, McGwire, and Manny Ramirez since they have actually been caught in the act.
.
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'll bring up Jeff Kent again. How does a guy with his run producing numbers at second base not get more votes?? Your statements probably say it all.

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Reliable sources indicate a strong possibility that two of the three voters who did not vote for Griffey are brothers: Moe and Curly. The third voter goes by Larry.



I was happy to see that one of my favorite players, David Eckstein, got two votes...but, I hope those two votes did not come at Griffey's expense.


Like Jayson Stark, I would have had Billy Wagner (another of my favorites) as one of my full ballot of ten. (check out Starks comments from this morning on ESPN.com)

Good to see Trevor Hoffman get so much support in his first year.

I think with Piazza getting in, Bagwell should get in next year, then perhaps Sheffield and even Bonds and Clemens and Sosa.

I'm not yet accepting of those last few getting in but the Commissioner made a good, sound argument as to why they should get in.

The same reasoning would keep out Palmeiro, McGwire, and Manny Ramirez since they have actually been caught in the act.
.
.

I very much doubt Sheffield ever gets in even if they start inducting roiders.

[glchen]

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

However, if the other players producing those numbers were roiders, and Kent wasn't, wouldn't that mean something? I've never heard of Kent being tainted by roid rumors, so I assume he's clean. Like McGriff, I think this is another place where PED users hurt legitimate players because their stats get lost in the forest.

[kmac32]

Reliable sources indicate a strong possibility that two of the three voters who did not vote for Griffey are brothers: Moe and Curly. The third voter goes by Larry.



I was happy to see that one of my favorite players, David Eckstein, got two votes...but, I hope those two votes did not come at Griffey's expense.


Like Jayson Stark, I would have had Billy Wagner (another of my favorites) as one of my full ballot of ten. (check out Starks comments from this morning on ESPN.com)

Good to see Trevor Hoffman get so much support in his first year.

I think with Piazza getting in, Bagwell should get in next year, then perhaps Sheffield and even Bonds and Clemens and Sosa.

I'm not yet accepting of those last few getting in but the Commissioner made a good, sound argument as to why they should get in.

The same reasoning would keep out Palmeiro, McGwire, and Manny Ramirez since they have actually been caught in the act.
.
.
I agree that it was nice to see Hoffman get support, but also sad that Lee Smith did not gain any ground. Lee was the premeir closer in his era and players should be grouped with their peers. Nobody was better than Lee in his time but the fact that he in general was not associated with any particular team has hurt his chances. In my Hall, he is a first round winner as not only was he a great closer, but he is also a top notch human being. Great guy and none of the nasty attitude that so many stars have. All positives in my book. Maybe he will eventually make it in through the veterens committee.

[JollyElm]

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

In context, Peter??? What the hell other second baseman produced as many runs as him year after year? And according to your logic, since it was the era of 'huge numbers,' why were Piazza and Griffey elected?? They, too, played in the same era as Kent.

[veloce]

I think it's a joke that Piazza got in. He was a liability behind the plate. The most important part of a catcher's game is on defense.

A good article that points out that, while Piazza was poor at throwing out runners, he was a plus defender in addition to an all-time great offensive catcher: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mike-piazza-was-more-than-a-big-bat/

[JoeyFarino]

Griffey was a great player but he was no Tom Seaver when it comes to HOF players. Of course they weren't apples to apples as on was a pitcher and the other an outfielder so I guess there were other criteria to be evaluated.

Ken Griffey Jr is right up there with seaver.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In context, Peter??? What the hell other second baseman produced as many runs as him year after year? And according to your logic, since it was the era of 'huge numbers,' why were Piazza and Griffey elected?? They, too, played in the same era as Kent.

Well, since to date he is only getting 15 percent of the vote, sounds like you have your work cut out for you to convince people that that is the relevant criterion, to be the leading run producer at a given position. FWIW JAWS has him at 18th all time second baseman. Piazza is 5th at catcher. Griffey is 5th in center.

[Golfcollector]

Griffey is #4 all time in the NON Steroids Home Run Category, and was the best defensive CF of an entire generation, while playing for mostly bad teams.

Yeah...I guess he wasn't better than Seaver...:rolleyes:

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ken Griffey Jr is right up there with seaver.

I would say not quite. Seaver is a top 10 all time pitcher. Griffey is probably more in the top 25 than top 10 tier.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I agree that it was nice to see Hoffman get support, but also sad that Lee Smith did not gain any ground. Lee was the premeir closer in his era and players should be grouped with their peers. Nobody was better than Lee in his time but the fact that he in general was not associated with any particular team has hurt his chances. In my Hall, he is a first round winner as not only was he a great closer, but he is also a top notch human being. Great guy and none of the nasty attitude that so many stars have. All positives in my book. Maybe he will eventually make it in through the veterens committee.

Being 71-92 didn't help Smith either. He comes in 14th among relief pitchers in the JAWS metric. Hoffman, interestingly, is 21st. I have read that he was very overrated but I can't place that now, maybe Bill James?

[JollyElm]

Well, since to date he is only getting 15 percent of the vote, sounds like you have your work cut out for you to convince people that that is the relevant criterion, to be the leading run producer at a given position. FWIW JAWS has him at 18th all time second baseman. Piazza is 5th at catcher. Griffey is 5th in center.

Ha ha. Now it's about everyone's favorite new stat of relevance, WAR?? Only moments ago you said he shouldn't be elected because, "Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers." So when one stat doesn't fit your narrative, you find one that does? Is that where we're at?

[packs]

Griffey was a monster. I'd say he's top 10. Elite defense, elite hitter, the prettiest swing you ever saw. Had a real shot at breaking Aaron's record if not for getting hurt.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ha ha. Now it's about everyone's favorite new stat of relevance, WAR?? Only moments ago you said he shouldn't be elected because, "Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers." So when one stat doesn't fit your narrative, you find one that does? Is that where we're at?

Do you even know how WAR works? It's adjusted for the era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Griffey was a monster. I'd say he's top 10. Elite defense, elite hitter, the prettiest swing you ever saw. Should have hit 800 homers if not for getting hurt.

Nah.
Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 26 (73), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 162 (71), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 235 (29), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 61 (28), Average HOFer ≈ 50

[Vintageclout]

I would say not quite. Seaver is a top 10 all time pitcher. Griffey is probably more in the top 25 than top 10 tier.

Peter - Seaver is top 7 WAR & JAWS with a "cheater" (Clemens) and two 19th century pitchers (Kid Nichols & Cy Young for half a career) rated above him. Thus, a top 4/5 pitcher of all time which Griffey cannot nearly boast among position players. Not taking anything away from Junior because he is one of my all-time favorites, but on a comparable basis, not as highly ranked as Tom Terrific.

JoeT

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter - Seaver is top 7 WAR & JAWS with a "cheater" (Clemens) and two 19th century pitchers (Kid Nichols & Cy Young for half a career) rated above him. Thus, a top 4/5 pitcher of all time which Griffey cannot nearly boast among position players. Not taking anything away from Junior because he is one of my all-time favorites, but on a comparable basis, not as highly ranked as Tom Terrific.

JoeT

Exactly. Now if Junior didn't get hurt, who knows, but we can't rate guys on what might have been. It always amuses me to hear people who say Ryan was better than Seaver. Not.

[btcarfagno]

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

I would put Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker in before Kent. Especially Grich.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would put Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker in before Kent. Especially Grich.

Tom C

Yeah, although I don't think contemporaneously he was considered a superstar, Grich rates as the number 7 all time second baseman by the JAWS metric. He's ahead of Sandberg and Alomar and Biggio, and just behind Carew, which I really can't figure out. Must be one of those era adjusted phenomena.

[Vintageclout]

Exactly. Now if Junior didn't get hurt, who knows, but we can't rate guys on what might have been. It always amuses me to hear people who say Ryan was better than Seaver. Not.

LOL - I totally agree....not even close Peter. Nolan Ryan was NEVER the equal of Tom Seaver. Post WWII, Combination peak value and career, only Maddux and Randy Johnson rate with Seaver. Pedro Martinez doesn't have the same longevity, Koufax was a 4/5 year pitcher and Clemens was a cheater. Here's a Seaver stat that is absolutely remarkable. Over the first 15 consecutive seasons of his career, Seaver posted a 2.62 ERA, an incredible feat considering he averaged approximately 252 IP per season over that span!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah, Reggie really said it best, didn't he.

[JollyElm]

Do you even know how WAR works? It's adjusted for the era.

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[kmac32]

Ken Griffey Jr is right up there with seaver.

Did not say that Griffey didn't belong in the Hall of Fame. What I basically said is that in his era, Seaver was in a league of his own. In the Griffey era, there were quite a few guys that could hit the ball and field so when you look at his peers, he was awesome but some other players had almost as much value. Also keep in mind that many of Griffey's peers were steroid users so it is harder to judge his class of position players. Seaver did not come from the steroid era so talent was easier to judge.

[AddieJoss]

Anyone have thoughts in Mussina jumping up in the voting to 43%? Think he eventually gets there?

[kmac32]

Anyone have thoughts in Mussina jumping up in the voting to 43%? Think he eventually gets there?

Lee Smith started there and his % has not change much and even declined a little. Great player but with the way HOF voters do things, I doubt if he will.

[AddieJoss]

Lee Smith started there and his % has not change much and even declined a little. Great player but with the way HOF voters do things, I doubt if he will.

Mussina has been increasing each year on the ballot....and has a bunch of gold gloves to go with his pitching stats.

[Tabe]

I agree that it was nice to see Hoffman get support, but also sad that Lee Smith did not gain any ground. Lee was the premeir closer in his era and players should be grouped with their peers. Nobody was better than Lee in his time but the fact that he in general was not associated with any particular team has hurt his chances. In my Hall, he is a first round winner as not only was he a great closer, but he is also a top notch human being. Great guy and none of the nasty attitude that so many stars have. All positives in my book. Maybe he will eventually make it in through the veterens committee.

Premier closer in his era? Really? Early 80s, Sutter was better. Late 80s & Early 90s, Eck was better. Mid-late 90s? No.

[kmac32]

Premier closer in his era? Really? Early 80s, Sutter was better. Late 80s & Early 90s, Eck was better. Mid-late 90s? No.

And who is third on the list of all time saves in MLB? Wasn't Sutter or Eckersley last time I checked. Believe the order is Hoffman, Rivera, Smith. Don't see Sutter or Eckersley in the top 5 of the list. Sutter is 26th on the list with 300 saves and Eckersley is 6th with 390 saves. Smith had 478 career saves. The numbers speak for themselves.

[clydepepper]

I very much doubt Sheffield ever gets in even if they start inducting roiders.


I think Bagwell, Sheffield and Sosa would get in because while there was only speculation, none ever failed a drug test or were otherwise suspended for same.

Palmeiro, Ramirez, and Rodriguez were all suspended for PEDs, while McGwire got caught with some in his locker (funny how he never got charged for anything, but the known presence of the stuff in his locker put him in this group). I think McGwire skated at the time because, admit it, we were all caught up in that HR race. I was really more offended by his lying to the Maris family.

Bonds and Clemens are a more difficult discussion: Both were arguably the best players at their position well before 'strange things' started showing up. Neither was ever convicted of using PEDs, although if you want to believe in such, no one would be better prepared to have the finest 'masking' product available.
.
.

[btcarfagno]

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

He was an excellent offensive player in an era with many many excellent offensive players. Thus the reason his career OPS+ is just 123. For his career he was approximately 23% better than league average. That is excellent for a second baseman. Still not as good as Bobby Grich, but certainly excellent. When you add in the poor defense, I would say he is more like a Lou Whitaker. Whitaker had excellent defense and a career OPS+ of 117. Kent isn't as good as Bobby Grich either offensively or defensively (when compared to league average during their respective careers), but he is better than a number of current HOF 2B men. Kent should certainly be pulling higher numbers than he is no doubt. But there are other 2B who were better an are not in the Hall.

Tom C

[kamikidEFFL]

I think to many people get into the hof. Let's be honest I mean players who were good not great seem to always squeak in. I think it's overrated the hof now. I say you have 3 ballots to get in and if by then u don't well sorry you don't get in. Plain and simple.

[53Browns]

But speaking of Griffey Jr., IMHO it's a real shame that a century player like that had all of his early baseball cards created in a crap time of mass production. If he had played 100+ years ago can you imagine what a T206 high grade Griffey would go for? :D

[Peter_Spaeth]

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

And 15 percent of the voters who were "around to watch him play" agree with you!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

And 15 percent of the voters agree with you!! And I haven't changed my narrative at all it's just that you are unable to appreciate what I am saying -- that in context, on an era adjusted basis, his stats are less impressive than they might be in absolute terms. But again, 1 in 7 voters agree with you, so I will defer.

[rats60]

I think Bagwell, Sheffield and Sosa would get in because while there was only speculation, none ever failed a drug test or were otherwise suspended for same.

Palmeiro, Ramirez, and Rodriguez were all suspended for PEDs, while McGwire got caught with some in his locker (funny how he never got charged for anything, but the known presence of the stuff in his locker put him in this group). I think McGwire skated at the time because, admit it, we were all caught up in that HR race. I was really more offended by his lying to the Maris family.

Bonds and Clemens are a more difficult discussion: Both were arguably the best players at their position well before 'strange things' started showing up. Neither was ever convicted of using PEDs, although if you want to believe in such, no one would be better prepared to have the finest 'masking' product available.
.
.
Mc Gwire got caught with Andro in his locker which was legal at the time, sold at GNC, but later banned. Do you know who else was caught using Andro? Newest hofer Mike Piazza.

McGwire admitted to using steroids long after his career was over, but didn't say what he used. It is widely believed that he used illegal drugs too, but he wasn't caught doing so.

[packs]

And who is third on the list of all time saves in MLB? Wasn't Sutter or Eckersley last time I checked. Believe the order is Hoffman, Rivera, Smith. Don't see Sutter or Eckersley in the top 5 of the list. Sutter is 26th on the list with 300 saves and Eckersley is 6th with 390 saves. Smith had 478 career saves. The numbers speak for themselves.

Eckersley won CY and MVP in the same season. Sutter was CY. Lee Smith won....uh....

[UnVme7]

I think Bagwell, Sheffield and Sosa would get in because while there was only speculation, none ever failed a drug test or were otherwise suspended for same.

Palmeiro, Ramirez, and Rodriguez were all suspended for PEDs, while McGwire got caught with some in his locker (funny how he never got charged for anything, but the known presence of the stuff in his locker put him in this group). I think McGwire skated at the time because, admit it, we were all caught up in that HR race. I was really more offended by his lying to the Maris family.

Bonds and Clemens are a more difficult discussion: Both were arguably the best players at their position well before 'strange things' started showing up. Neither was ever convicted of using PEDs, although if you want to believe in such, no one would be better prepared to have the finest 'masking' product available.
.
.

Hmm, wasn't Sheffield on the 2003 list? And Sosa got caught with a corked bat. That's still cheating, right?

[UnVme7]

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

[btcarfagno]

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

OPS+ shows how a player rates offensively when compared to their contemporaries and when adjusted for park factors.

Jeff Kent career OPS+ 123
Bobby Grich career OPS+ 125

Bobby Grich 4x Gold Gloves (and should have won several more)
Jeff Kent Gold Gloves...BWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kent should absolutely be getting a higher percentage than he is currently. He may get in eventually and I have no problem with that at all. But you MUST take his numbers within the context of his times...whatever position he plays. Bobby Grich was a better second baseman (relative to his era) than was Jeff Kent. Lou Whitaker was a slightly worse offensive player but a much better defensive player. Heck, taking defense into account, I could make a case for Willie Randolph not being that far off from Kent.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

Well, try to convince the 6 out of 7 voters who don't agree, what can I say. Maybe his stock will go up over time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

OPS+ shows how a player rates offensively when compared to their contemporaries and when adjusted for park factors.

Jeff Kent career OPS+ 123
Bobby Grich career OPS+ 125

Bobby Grich 4x Gold Gloves (and should have won several more)
Jeff Kent Gold Gloves...BWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kent should absolutely be getting a higher percentage than he is currently. He may get in eventually and I have no problem with that at all. But you MUST take his numbers within the context of his times...whatever position he plays. Bobby Grich was a better second baseman (relative to his era) than was Jeff Kent. Lou Whitaker was a slightly worse offensive player but a much better defensive player. Heck, taking defense into account, I could make a case for Willie Randolph not being that far off from Kent.

Tom C

Grich rates 7th per JAWS, Kent 18th. But just ask Darren, we saw Kent so we don't need JAWS.

[UnVme7]

Kent shouldn't be penalized for playing avg defense. If that's his only flaw then I don't have a problem getting in.

Edgar is getting quite a few votes and he didn't even play defense at all. At least Kent played a defensive position.

[trdcrdkid]

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

Plus he was on Survivor!

[packs]

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

And that's exactly the point of JAWS, to enable a meaningful comparison where you can't make one from personal observation, as well as to eliminate bias. Anyhoo, Alomar ranks ahead of Kent statistically. And Biggio.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_2B.shtml

[glchen]

Kent has more home runs than any other 2nd baseman in history, and by a considerable margin (377 to 301), 3rd in RBI's for all 2nd basemen in history, 2nd in slugging, 6th in OPS, and he has an MVP to boot. He's one of the few 2nd basemen in history who consistently batted 3-5 in a lineup during his entire career. Sure, he might not be as good as Alomar, but he's still a legitimate HOFer.

[btcarfagno]

Kent has more home runs than any other 2nd baseman in history, and by a considerable margin (377 to 301), 3rd in RBI's for all 2nd basemen in history, 2nd in slugging, 6th in OPS, and he has an MVP to boot. He's one of the few 2nd basemen in history who consistently batted 3-5 in a lineup during his entire career. Sure, he might not be as good as Alomar, but he's still a legitimate HOFer.

In context to the era in which he played he was not as good as Bobby Grich. When taking defense into consideration, Grich was a MUCH better player.

Tom C

[UnVme7]

And that's exactly the point of JAWS, to enable a meaningful comparison where you can't make one from personal observation, as well as to eliminate bias. Anyhoo, Alomar ranks ahead of Kent statistically. And Biggio.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_2B.shtml


No doubt. Completely agree Alomar was a better player than Kent overall. And I'm ok if Alomar and Biggio rank ahead of Kent. They're both HOF'ers. Kent ranks ahead of them in other stats as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kent has more home runs than any other 2nd baseman in history, and by a considerable margin (377 to 301), 3rd in RBI's for all 2nd basemen in history, 2nd in slugging, 6th in OPS, and he has an MVP to boot. He's one of the few 2nd basemen in history who consistently batted 3-5 in a lineup during his entire career. Sure, he might not be as good as Alomar, but he's still a legitimate HOFer.

So why on an objective metric (JAWS) is he so far below Alomar and Biggio?

[glchen]

In context to the era in which he played he was not as good as Bobby Grich. When taking defense into consideration, Grich was a MUCH better player.

Tom C

Right, but Kent was playing in an era with a bunch of juicers, where as far as I know, that is something Kent has never been accused of. Is there some WAR where all of the suspected juicers are excluded?

So why on an objective metric (JAWS) is he so far below Alomar and Biggio?

You need an objective metric where the suspected juicers in that era are excluded. For example, you have known juicers like Bret Boone at 2nd base who impact the WAR for players like Kent.

[darwinbulldog]

Griffey is #4 all time in the NON Steroids Home Run Category, and was the best defensive CF of an entire generation, while playing for mostly bad teams.

Yeah...I guess he wasn't better than Seaver...:rolleyes:

This is true. All of it.

[PM770]

Premier closer in his era? Really? Early 80s, Sutter was better. Late 80s & Early 90s, Eck was better. Mid-late 90s? No.

Wouldn't Lee Smith have been considered the "Premier Closer" of that 1993-96 window when Eck dropped off and pre-Rivera taking over as Yankee closer?

Not really an era, but I do remember a short period of time when Lee Smith was considered THE closer.

That said, I'm not sure I would put him either.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Right, but Kent was playing in an era with a bunch of juicers, where as far as I know, that is something Kent has never been accused of. Is there some WAR where all of the suspected juicers are excluded?



You need an objective metric where the suspected juicers in that era are excluded. For example, you have known juicers like Bret Boone at 2nd base who impact the WAR for players like Kent.

The juicer issue may affect Kent's standing relative to guys in other eras, but why would it affect his standing vis a vis guys in the same era, i.e. Alomar and Biggio? Any change to the weight factor is going to affect all equally, I would think?

[btcarfagno]

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

From 1992-1997, Tony Phillips and Roberto Alomar and Chuck Knoblauch were better than Kent both offensively and defensively.

I have no problem saying that over a 8 year period from 1998-2005, Kent was the best offensive second baseman in baseball. Likely the best overall, as I value offense to defense about 80/20.

After 2005, guys like Utley and Cano and Pedroia are better than Kent all around.

Does being the top in your position in the majors over and 8 year period, plus being in the top 6-8 at your position for another 8 or so years, make you a Hall Of Famer? I think in conjunction with the way his counting stats look, most likely the answer is yes. I just don't think it is as ct and dry as some are making it out to be.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wouldn't Lee Smith have been considered the "Premier Closer" of that 1993-96 window when Eck dropped off and pre-Rivera taking over as Yankee closer?

Not really an era, but I do remember a short period of time when Lee Smith was considered THE closer.

That said, I'm not sure I would put him either.

Unless I am missing someone obvious, Bill Freehan was the best offensive catcher of the 60s. Jim Fregosi or Bert Campaneris were the best offensive shortstops (same caveat). It's too narrow a criterion.

[btcarfagno]

Right, but Kent was playing in an era with a bunch of juicers, where as far as I know, that is something Kent has never been accused of. Is there some WAR where all of the suspected juicers are excluded?



You need an objective metric where the suspected juicers in that era are excluded. For example, you have known juicers like Bret Boone at 2nd base who impact the WAR for players like Kent.

Production is production regardless of whether it was enhanced with drugs or not. Since we will never know if he definitively did or did not use, we are left with his numbers.

As to whether there was any speculation, you would likely have to ask Mets and Indians fans their thoughts on what he "suddenly" became once he became a teammate of Barry Bonds.

Tom C

[packs]

The juicer issue may affect Kent's standing relative to guys in other eras, but why would it affect his standing vis a vis guys in the same era, i.e. Alomar and Biggio? Any change to the weight factor is going to affect all equally, I would think?


The thing is though: Alomar and Biggio were typical second basemen, just better than most. Alomar had some pop, but not so much more than the average second baseman. He topped out at 24 homers. Kent's power sets him apart. It makes him a unique player. He stands alone at second. And I would think that being unique trumps being better than usual. But I understand Kent is under the PED cloud and that is the only logical reason not to vote for him. You can't argue with his numbers, no matter how hard you try.

[btcarfagno]

The thing is though: Alomar and Biggio were typical second baseman. Alomar had some pop, but not so much more than the average second baseman. He topped out at 24 homers. Kent's power sets him apart. It makes him a unique player. He stands alone at second. And I would think that being unique trumps being better than usual. But I understand Kent is under the PED cloud and that is the only logical reason not to vote for him. You can't argue with his numbers, no matter how hard you try.

I tend to agree that Kent should get into the Hall. But you and others seem to be stuck on the raw numbers. Yes he had more power than any other 2B in terms of the raw numbers. But when put in the context of the era in which he played, the numbers (whether he was a second baseman or first baseman or catcher) are not quite what they seem.

Pie Traynor hit .366 in 1930. Great year.

Roberto Clemente hit .320 in 1963.

Looking at each just as raw numbers, Traynor seems to have had the much better year in terms of this one statistic, batting average. However, The National League hit .303 as a whole in 1930. Thus Traynor was 20.8% better than average. The league as a whole hit .245 in 1963. Thus Clemente was 30.6% better than average.

Clemente had the better year in terms of batting average because the year in which he and Traynor played must be taken into consideration.

For Kent, his raw offensive numbers blow away those of someone like Bobby Grich. However, when adjusted against the league average during their years played and then adjusted again for park factors, Bobby Grich was actually a better hitter than Jeff Kent.

Tom C

[packs]

You say that but you're ignoring an important aspect too: there have been a thousand Bobby Grich's at second base and only ONE Jeff Kent.

[btcarfagno]

You say that but you're ignoring an important aspect too: there have been a thousand Bobby Grich's at second base and only ONE Jeff Kent.

A thousand Bobby Grich's?

Name them.

He is one of the ten best 2B ever.

Tom C

[packs]

I'm talking about average second basemen. They're everywhere. Maybe Bobby Grich was a little better, but nothing sets him apart from the plethora of guys like him. Decent stats, above average, but not the all time hitter Kent was.

Name another second basemen who could hit like Kent. You can't.

[btcarfagno]

I'm talking about average second basemen. They're everywhere. Maybe Bobby Grich was a little better, but nothing sets him apart from the plethora of guys like him.

Name another second basemen who could hit like Kent. You can't.

I just did. Bobby Grich was a better hitter than Jeff Kent.

He was also a better hitter than Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar. And Frankie Frisch.

Tom C

[Rickyy]

Was surprised and kind of sad to see Jim Edmonds dropped off after one year...I think he got lost in the shuffle...one of the better outfielders in during his time....

Ricky Y

[ALR-bishop]

http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539/9F48F0E9-52EB-4609-999C-3D832FBE57C2_zpsvsxm5l9s.jpg

[Peter_Spaeth]

I just did. Bobby Grich was a better hitter than Jeff Kent.

He was also a better hitter than Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar. And Frankie Frisch.

Tom C

Tom there are none so blind as those who cannot see, eh?

[btcarfagno]

That mustache alone is Hall Of Fame worthy.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm talking about average second basemen. They're everywhere. Maybe Bobby Grich was a little better, but nothing sets him apart from the plethora of guys like him. Decent stats, above average, but not the all time hitter Kent was.

Name another second basemen who could hit like Kent. You can't.

Hornsby, Lajoie, Collins, Morgan, Robinson, Alomar, Biggio, Gehringer, Carew, Grich, Sandberg, Utley, Frisch.

[btcarfagno]

Hornsby, Lajoie, Collins, Morgan, Robinson, Alomar, Biggio, Gehringer, Carew, Grich, Sandberg, Utley, Frisch.

I would add Cano as well.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would add Cano as well.

Tom C

Whitaker maybe as well.

[packs]

I'm not going to quote JAWS but I don't remember any of them driving in 100 runs six years in a row. I'm also not going to compare people like Hornsby, Lajoie and Eddie Collins to Jeff Kent. Clearly we are talking about the modern era and the modern game.

[btcarfagno]

I'm not going to quote JAWS but I don't remember any of them driving in 100 runs six years in a row. I'm also not going to compare Lajoie and Eddie Collins to Jeff Kent.

Why not? They are second basemen. You said no second baseman ever hit like Jeff Kent. They are relevant.

As to driving in x amount of runs x years in a row...first off RBI is a stat that requires the performance of other players (to be on base). It is one of the most flawed measurable stats out there when used to compare one player from one team against another from another team in a different situation (let alone from different eras). Secondly, again, 100 RBI during Kent's playing career meant far less than it did at other times. Scoring was sky high league wide. 100 RBI in 2004 might have meant the same as 75 or 80 in 1975.

Tom C

[packs]

So you think it's apt to compare say Cy Young to Pedro Martinez?

[PM770]

Unless I am missing someone obvious, Bill Freehan was the best offensive catcher of the 60s. Jim Fregosi or Bert Campaneris were the best offensive shortstops (same caveat). It's too narrow a criterion.

I was just saying that there was a very brief time when Lee Smith was considered the top closer in baseball.

Not that it should translate into the HOF.

And I will have to admit to loving Campy Campaneris. :)

[btcarfagno]

So you think it's apt to compare say Cy Young to Pedro Martinez?

Not in terms.of raw numbers as you are doing. But in terms of Youngs performance versus a league average pitcher of his time and Martinez performance versus a league average pitcher of his time, absolutely.

How much better than an average pitcher of his day was each one? That is quantifiable and thus each can be compared based on that.

Tom C

[packs]

Whatever you say. I think players like Morgan and Carew were better pure hitters and for a longer amount of time, but they couldn't do what Kent did with the bat. Only Jeff Kent could and to an extent Sandberg. And with 3 decades between debuts, I think that says something about the special player Kent was considering there's no one on your list in between.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Whatever you say. I think players like Morgan and Carew were better pure hitters and for a longer amount of time, but they couldn't do what Kent did with the bat. Only Jeff Kent could and to an extent Sandberg. And with 3 decades between debuts, I think that says something about the special player Kent was considering there's no one on your list in between.

Well so far you, Darren, and one out of seven voters are the only ones buying. :D

[JollyElm]

And 15 percent of the voters agree with you!! And I haven't changed my narrative at all it's just that you are unable to appreciate what I am saying -- that in context, on an era adjusted basis, his stats are less impressive than they might be in absolute terms. But again, 1 in 7 voters agree with you, so I will defer.

There's never been a player unanimously elected, so how does that fit in with your narrative as you try to pivot to me being wrong because he only got 15% of the votes?? So in your world, all of the people who didn't vote for Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, WIllie Mays, Roberto Clemente and others were correct, because in your mind the HOF voters are infallible? Isn't that your implication?? Let's imagine for a moment that those people were the only ones allowed to vote. Wouldn't The Hall of Fame be empty, devoid of ANY players?? And, of course, leave it to you to completely ignore the blatant fact that Kent had a horrible relationship with the press corps, so it's pretty damn obvious to anyone with a brain cell that many, many of them have a personal animus towards him and will never vote for him no matter what. So the 15% isn't what I would call a realistic number by anyone's measurement, wouldn't you agree, Peter?? I'm sure you can find some new sabermetric to back that up.

And as for your reliance on sabermetrics since, I guess, it's the only thing you base all of your never-ending opinions on, you realize WAR is theoretical, don't you?? Theoretical. I'm reminded of Kevin Costner in the movie JFK:
"Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense."

Jeff Kent had 9 ridiculously great years in a row (with a few different teams) while the bookends of his career were still pretty darn good for run producing. This guy batted .290, is the all-time leader in HR's for a second baseman and #3 or 4 all time for the position in RBI's, yet in your THEORETICAL WAR-based world he was barely better than some bottom of the barrel schmuck they could've replaced him with??? Really? That's your common sense?? Sure, makes sense to me.

[btcarfagno]

Whatever you say. I think players like Morgan and Carew were better pure hitters and for a longer amount of time, but they couldn't do what Kent did with the bat. Only Jeff Kent could and to an extent Sandberg. And with 3 decades between debuts, I think that says something about the special player Kent was considering there's no one on your list in between.

Offensively Kent was special. No question. If I try real hard I could make a case for him to be in the top ten second basemen in terms of just offense. And because I don't value defense as much as others might, Kent may be around #14 or 15 all time at the position. That's a HOFer in my book. Not a slam dunk, but deserving. Certainly way better than his voting percentages thus far.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

You make less than no sense to me. Somebody not being unanimous has nothing to do with somebody getting 15 percent of the vote. Total straw man argument. Or just a meaningless one. Oy vey. Is that seriously your argument, that HOF voting is meaningless because Willie Mays wasn't unanimous? Huh?? Here is a challenge for you, identify the best players ever who initially got 15 percent or less of the vote. Then we have something meaningful to discuss.

Yes, WAR and JAWS are theoretical. They are statistical efforts to compare players, and while you may not like them, many people find them informative.

[JollyElm]

Well so far you, Darren, and one out of seven voters are the only ones buying. :D

It's so funny reading your constant passive aggressive BS. But what's even funnier is how you so obviously think you're always the smartest person in the room.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's so funny reading your constant passive aggressive BS. But what's even funnier is how you so obviously think you're always the smartest person in the room.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It took you this long to get ad hominem, congratulations on your restraint LOL. Passive aggressive? It was a good-natured jab at you, Jesus what the bleep is your problem?

[JollyElm]

You make less than no sense to me. Somebody not being unanimous has nothing to do with somebody getting 15 percent of the vote. Total straw man argument. Or just a meaningless one. Oy vey. Is that seriously your argument, that HOF voting is meaningless because Willie Mays wasn't unanimous? Huh?? Here is a challenge for you, identify the best players ever who initially got 15 percent or less of the vote. Then we have something meaningful to discuss.

Yes, WAR and JAWS are theoretical. They are statistical efforts to compare players, and while you may not like them, many people find them informative.

Oh sure, Peter, it's not obvious to me or anyone else (because we're so stupid) that you want to direct the conversation in a completely different way. To steer into some other area that has nothing to do with anything being talked about. You think I'm going to fall for that BS?? Lemme take a wild guess, you're a lawyer???

Straw man argument?? You imply that the voters are the say all, know it alls of baseball. So if these folks are the arbiters of who belongs in the Hall, how in hell did any of them leave those inarguably great players off their ballots?????

Yes, WAR and JAWS are theoretical. They are statistical efforts to compare players, and while you may not like them, many people find them informative.

Many people like you, right? You? If that's the metric, then I will gladly ignore all of them and rely on reality instead.

[btcarfagno]

Not all sabermetric stats are theoretical. OPS+ is quantitative. Kent is not a top ten second baseman in OPS+. Barely top 20 for players with 6,000+ plate appearances.

Tom C

[JollyElm]

It took you this long to get ad hominem, congratulations on your restraint LOL. Passive aggressive? It was a good-natured jab at you, Jesus what the bleep is your problem?

I just read this thread, since I haven't been here all day and you mentioned me numerous times. That's passive aggressive, not jabs, you tool.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Oh sure, Peter, it's not obvious to me or anyone else (because we're so stupid) that you want to direct the conversation in a completely different way. To steer into some other area that has nothing to do with anything being talked about. You think I'm going to fall for that BS?? Lemme take a wild guess, you're a lawyer???

Straw man argument?? You imply that the voters are the say all, know it alls of baseball. So if these folks are the arbiters of who belongs in the Hall, how in hell did any of them leave those inarguably great players off their ballots?????



Many people like you, right? You? If that's the metric, then I will gladly ignore all of them and rely on reality instead.

Let me take a wild guess, you're not. :D

I think in the aggregate, yes, the voters are a pretty good barometer of who is Hall-worthy. Obviously there are some idiots voting but overall, someone getting 15 percent in their first three tries, is pretty relevant. Now if it's true that the reason people aren't voting for Kent is steroid suspicion, then I would have to modify that. But wasn't Kent leading the charge for testing? And wasn't he even speaking out against HGH?

http://www.sfgate.com/giants/shea/article/Does-Kent-deserve-credit-in-steroid-era-4197014.php

Perhaps more than any other ballplayer, Kent lobbied for testing when it wasn't trendy, when the union and much of its membership fought against it. In a clubhouse in which Greg Anderson once had free rein as a drug runner for Bonds and other Giants, Kent often stood at his locker and called for Major League Baseball and the union to iron out a legitimate steroids policy.

[Rookiemonster]

How about Larry Doyle ?

[ALR-bishop]

Peter--- you're a passive aggressive lawyer ? Darn.

[packs]

If WAR and JAWS is the only way you can understand a player you watched that's sad. People like you will look at a player like Bernie Williams' stats forever and have no idea about how clutch he was when it mattered. But I will because I used my eyes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If WAR and JAWS is the only way you can understand a player you watched that's sad. People like you will look at a player like Bernie Williams' stats forever and have no idea about how clutch he was when it mattered. But I will because I used my eyes.

How many of his 2076 games did you see?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter--- you're a passive aggressive lawyer ? Darn.

More aggressive than passive I would say.

[packs]

How many of his 2076 games did you see?


Nearly all of them. But his ability is much better represented on paper as you prefer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Nearly all of them. But his ability is much better represented on paper as you prefer.

That's a lot of games, wow. So do you think he should be in the Hall?

[packs]

No but I'd pick him for my team if I wanted to win a championship. Hell, I'd pick Orlando Hernandez before a ton of HOFers too. But if you only looked at JAWS and WAR you'd probably cross them off your list pretty fast.

[Peter_Spaeth]

No but I'd pick him for my team if I wanted to win a championship. Hell, I'd pick Orlando Hernandez before a ton of HOFers too. But if you only looked at JAWS and WAR you'd probably cross them off your list pretty fast.

I always liked Bernie, but it was on the basis of a much smaller sampling of games obviously.

The thing is, I would bet you are quite unusual having seen that high a percentage of a given player's games. For most of us, we just have ideas based on a smaller sample, or we never saw them at all, which is why stats do matter.

[packs]

If you lived in NY and were a Yankees fan, it was pretty easy to watch the Yankees play. I don't think I'm particularly special because I'm a loyal hometown fan. My point is there are things you don't need stats to tell you. But you are only relying on stats in your analysis of anyone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you lived in NY and were a Yankees fan, it was pretty easy to watch the Yankees play. I don't think I'm particularly special because I'm a loyal hometown fan. My point is there are things you don't need stats to tell you. But you are only relying on stats in your analysis of anyone.

For better or worse stats are the common denominator. Suppose you were very knowledgeable about Bernie Williams, and another guy was very knowledgeable about Bagwell. Both of you claim their guy was great way beyond what his stats show, based on their personal observation. Do we just take both of your words and vote em both in (or if you don't think Bernie was worthy pick someone else, who it is is irrelevant to the problem)? If not, how do we test your claims? In baseball it seems, where EVERYTHING shows up in a stat sheet, what we have to make comparisons are stats. Because nobody has seen everybody.

[packs]

I think stats are useful when you're discussing a player you never saw play or a player who played a different kind of baseball, like say a deadball era player. But when we're a group discussing players we all saw play out their entire careers, I don't think stats are as important as personal experience. Years from now people may look at Vlad's numbers and think they're puny compared to a guy like Griffey. But if you saw Vlad play, you know he could hit with just about anyone. That's the difference.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think stats are useful when you're discussing a player you never saw play or a player who played a different kind of baseball, like say a deadball era player. But when we're a group discussing players we all saw play out their entire careers, I don't think stats are as important as personal experience. Years from now people may look at Vlad's numbers and think they're puny compared to a guy like Griffey. But if you saw Vlad play, you know he could hit with just about anyone. That's the difference.

I saw Vlad, but maybe in 25-30 games, not a meaningful sample. Maybe more than that but still, not hundreds. Griffey maybe more than that, but still, overall, a very small percentage of his games and very few for the second half of his career as I am in an AL city. Those samples can be deceptive. When you test, for example, some of the great clutch hitter type claims based on subjective impressions (a la Munson), they don't hold up.

[packs]

Right but I'm talking about the perception a stat sheet gives you vs. first hand watching the player. Vlad's numbers aren't going to jump out at anyone 100 years from now. But anyone who saw him play even once would tell you the guy was a pure hitter amongst pure hitters and it's going to be a while before you see another one like him. A stat sheet won't tell you that and since we're discussing players of today, I think there's room for debate without a stat sheet in front of you.

[btcarfagno]

If you can come up with a game situation, there is a stay for it. Driving in the go ahead run with two out in the seventh inning or later? That can be gotten. Whatever your definition of "clutch" is it can be quantified. It may not agree with a preconceived notion, bias, or emotion. But it can most certainly be quantified.

Tom C

[packs]

I don't think so. Tommy Henrich's nickname is Old Reliable. I don't know why. I never saw him play and his 262 WS average doesn't jump out at me. But I bet someone on the board who did see him play will defend him forever.

My only point is that we shouldn't be so stringent in our discussions about modern players that we've all seen play. Stats don't need to fill in the blanks for these players. We all saw them and we should be able to debate them without being reduced to JAWS or WAR. That's for guys you never saw.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Impressions, and memories, are highly subjective. And often biased.

[rgpete]

In recent years the Hall of Fame has turned into the Hall of Mediocrity

[glchen]

Hornsby, Lajoie, Collins, Morgan, Robinson, Alomar, Biggio, Gehringer, Carew, Grich, Sandberg, Utley, Frisch.

I really think there is an eye test that is being missed here. What we do know is that Kent moved to Astros in 2003, and joined Biggio there. However, Kent is the player who stayed at 2nd base, and Biggio moved to the outfield. If Biggio were the better player at 2nd, wouldn't the team have kept him at 2nd and moved Kent to the OF?

I really think it's pointless to continue to argue this because I'm pretty confident that Kent will eventually make the HOF even if it is via the Veteran's Committee (unless of course, he is implicated for using PEDs). Every other player who leads his position (excluding pitchers) in home runs all time is in the Hall of Fame (taking out PED users). He's obviously not a first ballot HOFer, and he doesn't have the 3000 hit credentials like Biggio. However, he is someone like a Gary Carter who will get in eventually.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I really think there is an eye test that is being missed here. What we do know is that Kent moved to Astros in 2003, and joined Biggio there. However, Kent is the player who stayed at 2nd base, and Biggio moved to the outfield. If Biggio were the better player at 2nd, wouldn't the team have kept him at 2nd and moved Kent to the OF?

I really think it's pointless to continue to argue this because I'm pretty confident that Kent will eventually make the HOF even if it is via the Veteran's Committee (unless of course, he is implicated for using PEDs). Every other player who leads his position (excluding pitchers) in home runs all time is in the Hall of Fame (taking out PED users). He's obviously not a first ballot HOFer, and he doesn't have the 3000 hit credentials like Biggio. However, he is someone like a Gary Carter who will get in eventually.

What does moving Biggio to the outfield have to do with whether he or Kent was the better hitter? Or maybe Biggio was more adaptable and Kent couldn't play outfield?

[btcarfagno]

I really think there is an eye test that is being missed here. What we do know is that Kent moved to Astros in 2003, and joined Biggio there. However, Kent is the player who stayed at 2nd base, and Biggio moved to the outfield. If Biggio were the better player at 2nd, wouldn't the team have kept him at 2nd and moved Kent to the OF?

I really think it's pointless to continue to argue this because I'm pretty confident that Kent will eventually make the HOF even if it is via the Veteran's Committee (unless of course, he is implicated for using PEDs). Every other player who leads his position (excluding pitchers) in home runs all time is in the Hall of Fame (taking out PED users). He's obviously not a first ballot HOFer, and he doesn't have the 3000 hit credentials like Biggio. However, he is someone like a Gary Carter who will get in eventually.

I agree he will eventually get in barring some PED issue real or imagined keeping him out.

But Biggio went to center field because he was a good enough athlete to move there. He was also a good enough athlete to have started his career as a catcher. Jeff Kent in Center field?

Oh. My. Freaking. Goodness. No.

No.

Tom C

[glchen]

What does moving Biggio to the outfield have to do with whether he or Kent was the better hitter? Or maybe Biggio was more adaptable and Kent couldn't play outfield?

Peter, please just read your comments again. Seriously, if that doesn't get through, how about Kent had a higher WAR than Biggio those two years that both played for the Astros? Would that prove to you that Kent was the better hitter then during those years?

I agree he will eventually get in barring some PED issue real or imagined keeping him out.

But Biggio went to center field because he was a good enough athlete to move there. He was also a good enough athlete to have started his career as a catcher. Jeff Kent in Center field?

Oh. My. Freaking. Goodness. No.

No.

Tom C

Tom, Biggio had a negative defensive WAR during those 2003 and 2004 when he played OF when Kent was there. In fact, Biggio's career defensive WAR is -3.9 while Kent's career defensive WAR is -0.9. Therefore, just maybe Kent was the better athlete.

[btcarfagno]

Regarding Bernie Williams and "clutch", Fangraphs has a stat called...well...clutch. It measures a players stats in such " clutch" situations versus his stats overall. Someone with better stats in the clutch situations will have a positive "clutch" value. Generally a number greater than zero but less than two. So conversely, a negative number means that person did worse than their normal in clutch situations.

Bernie Williams clutch number is -.99.

Tom C

[packs]

Does this clutch factor into playoff games or only regular season?

[btcarfagno]

Does this clutch factor into playoff games or only regular season?

Only regular season. Doing just playoff games would be too small of a sample size to be meaningful.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

regarding bernie williams and "clutch", fangraphs has a stat called...well...clutch. It measures a players stats in such " clutch" situations versus his stats overall. Someone with better stats in the clutch situations will have a positive "clutch" value. Generally a number greater than zero but less than two. So conversely, a negative number means that person did worse than their normal in clutch situations.

Bernie williams clutch number is -.99.

Tom c

lol.

[Vintageclout]

I'm talking about average second basemen. They're everywhere. Maybe Bobby Grich was a little better, but nothing sets him apart from the plethora of guys like him. Decent stats, above average, but not the all time hitter Kent was.

Name another second basemen who could hit like Kent. You can't.

Peak value for a 4/5 year period, Joe Morgan was a better hitter than Kent...case closed. Historically speaking, Hornsby, Lajoie and Collins are all better pure hitters, with Hornsby arguably the greatest right handed hitter ever along with Aaron and Foxx.

[Vintageclout]

What does moving Biggio to the outfield have to do with whether he or Kent was the better hitter? Or maybe Biggio was more adaptable and Kent couldn't play outfield?

Well said Peter. Jeff Kent couldn't run down a beach ball in the outfield, let alone a batted baseball!

[packs]

Only regular season. Doing just playoff games would be too small of a sample size to be meaningful.

Tom C

Postseason is what I was talking about when I said clutch. I said I'd pick Bernie for my team if I wanted to win. He hit 280 with 22 homers and 80 rbi's in 121 postseason games. That's nearly an entire season of postseason games and he played that well when it mattered most.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peak value for a 4/5 year period, Joe Morgan was a better hitter than Kent...case closed. Historically speaking, Hornsby, Lajoie and Collins are all better pure hitters, with Hornsby arguably the greatest right handed hitter ever along with Aaron and Foxx.

Then there's a guy named Carew who won 6 batting titles in 7 years.

[CMIZ5290]

Why in the World do we keep talking about Jeff Kent? What am I missing?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Postseason is what I was talking about when I said clutch. I said I'd pick Bernie for my team if I wanted to win. He hit 280 with 22 homers and 80 rbi's in 121 postseason games. That's nearly an entire season of postseason games and he played that well when it mattered most.

A little more power, but relatively consistent with his regular season stats where he had a 162 game average of 22-98-/297

[Peter_Spaeth]

Why in the World do we keep talking about Jeff Kent? What am I missing?

Because he's an obvious HOFer, the best hitting second baseman of the modern era, who has been shafted by the voters. :eek:

[ejharrington]

In my opinion, Jeff Kent should be in the HOF. Bobby Grich should not be. Kent was considered elite during his peak years. I don't recall Grich being perceived the same way.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In my opinion, Jeff Kent should be in the HOF. Bobby Grich should not be. Kent was considered elite during his peak years. I don't recall Grich being perceived the same way.

Kent made five all star teams, Grich six.

[packs]

A little more power, but relatively consistent with his regular season stats where he had a 162 game average of 22-98-/297

Yes that's true but you're not factoring in the importance of the games he played in. The guy was a winner. He's who I want in centerfield if I'm trying to win a championship. If I want a guy to play well all year and crap out when I need him most I'll look elsewhere. Anyway we're getting away from the central point I was trying to make which was that I don't need a stat sheet to tell me about a player I watched. Your JAWS, WAR, and anything else you want to throw in means nothing to me if I saw the player and we can discuss the player independent of those stats.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Good article on Kent and his HOF case.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/12/16/jaws-2015-hall-of-fame-ballot-jeff-kent

[ejharrington]

Kent made five all star teams, Grich six.
I know, but Kent won the MVP and seemed to me more dominant than Grich in his prime.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes that's true but you're not factoring in the importance of the games he played in. The guy was a winner. He's who I want in centerfield if I'm trying to win a championship. If I want a guy to play well all year and crap out when I need him most I'll look elsewhere. Anyway we're getting away from the central point I was trying to make which was that I don't need a stat sheet to tell me about a player I watched. Your JAWS, WAR, and anything else you want to throw in means nothing to me if I saw the player and we can discuss the player independent of those stats.

I am not saying anything against Williams, as I said I liked him a lot. But my point is that impressions, memories, etc. are subjective and don't always hold up to reality.

[packs]

Of course not but we're talking about players who retired less than 10 years ago. Memory isn't that fluid. And like I said, when you look back on the game as an old man, are you bringing up WAR? Is that how you want to remember a player like Griffey? Can't we talk about what we saw on the field?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course not but we're talking about players who retired less than 10 years ago. Memory isn't that fluid. And like I said, when you look back on the game as an old man, are you bringing up WAR? Is that how you want to remember a player like Griffey? Can't we talk about what we saw on the field?

Of course, but when the question is raised who is better, X or Y, I think the argument will be made far more persuasively with statistics than memories.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I know, but Kent won the MVP and seemed to me more dominant than Grich in his prime.





Turning to peak WAR, covering his best seven seasons, Kent's 35.6 ranks 25th, about nine wins behind the average Hall of Fame second baseman and below 13 of the 19 enshrined. Kent is hurt on both WAR fronts because he had just three seasons of at least 5.0 WAR, all of them from 1999 to 2001, and two more seasons of at least 4.0 WAR. By comparison, Morgan had 10 seasons of at least 5.0 WAR. Alomar, Cano, Grich, Sandberg and Utley had six apiece, and Biggio, Rod Carew and Dustin Pedroia recorded five. Even at the 4.0 WAR bar, 11 post-expansion second basemen had more big seasons.

In the end, Kent's 45.4 JAWS is 12.6 points below the Hall standard for second basemen, 18th all-time but below 11 of the 19 Hall of Famers, and too far to be made up by the parts of his resumé that the system doesn't capture, mainly the awards and the postseason (a characteristic .276/.340/.500 with nine homers in 189 PA). Outside of his 2000 MVP award, his highest finish was sixth, and he made just five All-Star teams. He scores 122 ("a good possibility") on the Bill James Hall of Fame Monitor, but the average score for a Hall of Fame second baseman is 161.

[Runscott]

I always liked Bernie, but it was on the basis of a much smaller sampling of games obviously.

The thing is, I would bet you are quite unusual having seen that high a percentage of a given player's games. For most of us, we just have ideas based on a smaller sample, or we never saw them at all, which is why stats do matter.

When I lived in Houston I saw Phil Garner play at the Astrodome around 30 times. He probably hit 12 HR's in those games, which led me to believe that he was an incredible HR hitter. I also personally saw Sandy Alomar Jr hit the longest HR I've ever seen, t.v. or otherwise, leading me to believe that he was the strongest baseball player in history. We didn't have the internet back then, and I didn't have their baseball cards, so I would probably have voted both of them into the Hall of Fame. I also saw Edwin Correa carry a no-hitter into the 8th, and from what I remember about him, he always performed above average when I attended Rangers games, so I'm going to have to put him on my ballot as well.

I saw Griffey Jr. hit his last home run, and I also saw him asleep in the dug-out. I'm just glad he came back to wrap up things in Seattle; otherwise, I would never have gotten to see him play. Congrats to him for his election.

Regarding Edgar - there will always be those who argue against DH's in the Hall.
Regarding Sammy and McGwire - same thing for peds; however, it's kind of weird that Larry Stone (our local sports writer) voted for Barry Bonds, but left off Sosa and McGwire - where's the logic in that?
Regarding Kent and Grich - if you are going to let Rizzuto and Reese in, why not? On the other hand, are there any HOF'er baseball cards from Kent's days that you would trade for a Kent? for a Grich? I thought not.

Lots of nonsense in this thread, so I feel no guilt for adding mine.

[ejharrington]

Turning to peak WAR, covering his best seven seasons, Kent's 35.6 ranks 25th, about nine wins behind the average Hall of Fame second baseman and below 13 of the 19 enshrined. Kent is hurt on both WAR fronts because he had just three seasons of at least 5.0 WAR, all of them from 1999 to 2001, and two more seasons of at least 4.0 WAR. By comparison, Morgan had 10 seasons of at least 5.0 WAR. Alomar, Cano, Grich, Sandberg and Utley had six apiece, and Biggio, Rod Carew and Dustin Pedroia recorded five. Even at the 4.0 WAR bar, 11 post-expansion second basemen had more big seasons.

In the end, Kent's 45.4 JAWS is 12.6 points below the Hall standard for second basemen, 18th all-time but below 11 of the 19 Hall of Famers, and too far to be made up by the parts of his resumé that the system doesn't capture, mainly the awards and the postseason (a characteristic .276/.340/.500 with nine homers in 189 PA). Outside of his 2000 MVP award, his highest finish was sixth, and he made just five All-Star teams. He scores 122 ("a good possibility") on the Bill James Hall of Fame Monitor, but the average score for a Hall of Fame second baseman is 161.
I know, I have the JAWS stats on my favorites. WAR / JAWS is helpful but by itself is not a bright line for or against Hall induction, especially since defensive WAR is highly suspect and in some cases totally inaccurate. I know Bobby Grich's baseball cards were in the commons bin growing up. He was underrated but not considered an elite player during his day.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I know, I have the JAWS stats on my favorites. WAR / JAWS is helpful but by itself is not a bright line for or against Hall induction, especially since defensive WAR is highly suspect and in some cases totally inaccurate. I know Bobby Grich's baseball cards were in the commons bin growing up. He was underrated but not considered an elite player during his day.

And Kent's were valuable?:confused:

[ejharrington]

And Kent's were valuable?:confused:
LOL, by that time none of them were...

[GregMitch34]

Where is BALCO located? Put up a PED Hall of Fame there and let all these guys in. That's where they belong. Will be fun induction ceremonies.

[UnVme7]

Kent made five all star teams, Grich six.

I take All Star appearances with a grain of salt in all sports where fans vote.

Example- Adrian Beltre(who I believe will be a HOF'er btw), hit 48 HR's with a .330 BA in 2004, second in MVP behind Bonds and didn't make an All Star appearance that year.

It looks good when you have them, but if you don't, I don't put into much consideration. I look more at the top 15 MVP each year.

[UnVme7]

I take All Star appearances with a grain of salt in all sports where fans vote.

Example- Adrian Beltre(who I believe will be a HOF'er btw), hit 48 HR's with a .330 BA in 2004, second in MVP behind Bonds and didn't make an All Star appearance that year.

It looks good when you have them, but if you don't, I don't put into much consideration. I look more at the top 15 MVP each year.

Speaking of MVP-

Grich
MVP (yr lg (rk, shr))
1972 AL (14, 5%)
1973 AL (19, 3%)
1974 AL (9, 15%)
1979 AL (8, 15%)
1981 AL (14, 5%)
0.43 Career Shares (501st)

Kent
MVP (yr lg (rk, shr))
1997 NL (8, 20%)
1998 NL (9, 12%)
1999 NL (26, 0%)
2000 NL (1, 88%)
2002 NL (6, 30%)
2004 NL (13, 4%)
2005 NL (19, 4%)
1 MVP
1.58 Career Shares (145th)

[clydepepper]

Reliable sources indicate a strong possibility that two of the three voters who did not vote for Griffey are brothers: Moe and Curly. The third voter goes by Larry.



I was happy to see that one of my favorite players, David Eckstein, got two votes...but, I hope those two votes did not come at Griffey's expense.


Like Jayson Stark, I would have had Billy Wagner (another of my favorites) as one of my full ballot of ten. (check out Starks comments from this morning on ESPN.com)

Good to see Trevor Hoffman get so much support in his first year.

I think with Piazza getting in, Bagwell should get in next year, then perhaps Sheffield and even Bonds and Clemens and Sosa.
(Well, maybe not)

I'm not yet accepting of those last few getting in but the Commissioner made a good, sound argument as to why they should get in.

The same reasoning would keep out Palmeiro, McGwire, and Manny Ramirez since they have actually been caught in the act.
.
.


I went back and checked the Mitchell Report and Sheffield, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens were all mentioned and I believe that report still has enough influence to keep all those mentioned out of the Hall & I hope the commissioner and the voters would feel the same way.
.
.

[btcarfagno]

Speaking of MVP-

Grich
MVP (yr lg (rk, shr))
1972 AL (14, 5%)
1973 AL (19, 3%)
1974 AL (9, 15%)
1979 AL (8, 15%)
1981 AL (14, 5%)
0.43 Career Shares (501st)

Kent
MVP (yr lg (rk, shr))
1997 NL (8, 20%)
1998 NL (9, 12%)
1999 NL (26, 0%)
2000 NL (1, 88%)
2002 NL (6, 30%)
2004 NL (13, 4%)
2005 NL (19, 4%)
1 MVP
1.58 Career Shares (145th)

I am not sure what the point of this is. It has already been established that Grich always has been overlooked as a player. "Cards in the common bin" and all that.

It has also been established that be was a better hitter than Kent when judged against the other players of his time, and when judged by WAR. Grich also won four gold gloves and likely should have won several more. He was a top defensive second baseman.

Kent no so much.

Better hitter. FAR better fielder. Vastly undervalued.

Tom C

[UnVme7]

Because someone brought up All Star appearances between the 2, and in my previous post I stated that...

Ehh, just scroll up and read it. I put MVP because All Star appearances are pointless.

[Tabe]

And who is third on the list of all time saves in MLB? Wasn't Sutter or Eckersley last time I checked. Believe the order is Hoffman, Rivera, Smith. Don't see Sutter or Eckersley in the top 5 of the list. Sutter is 26th on the list with 300 saves and Eckersley is 6th with 390 saves. Smith had 478 career saves. The numbers speak for themselves.

Saves are a worthless stat.

Basically, you're saying, of all the relievers who played from 1980-1997 and finished with exactly 478 saves, Lee Smith was the premier guy. I certainly can't argue with that.

Premier closers put up sub-2.00 ERA seasons. Smith did that once. But he did have 13 over 3.00 - a by-no-means great number for a closer.

[AndrewJerome]

Very interesting thread. Comparing real world perceptions of player value (i.e watching guys play) to pure statistical analysis is something modern MLB upper management seems to have trouble balancing, and this thread is no different.

[UnVme7]

Very interesting thread. Comparing real world perceptions of player value (i.e watching guys play) to pure statistical analysis is something modern MLB upper management seems to have trouble balancing, and this thread is no different.

Yep. I don't go off of WAR and all this new stuff in the last 5 yrs. I just watch the players with my own eyes. You'd think that would be good enough.

[Tabe]

I really think there is an eye test that is being missed here. What we do know is that Kent moved to Astros in 2003, and joined Biggio there. However, Kent is the player who stayed at 2nd base, and Biggio moved to the outfield. If Biggio were the better player at 2nd, wouldn't the team have kept him at 2nd and moved Kent to the OF?


ARod was a vastly superior shortstop in comparison to Jeter. Who ended up moving?

[Kenny Cole]

Of course, but when the question is raised who is better, X or Y, I think the argument will be made far more persuasively with statistics than memories.

Completely disagree with that. There are far too many aspects of baseball that don't translate well, or at all, to statistics. Making a great cutoff throw. Taking an extra base. Taking a pitch to allow a steal. Attitude. Pitch framing. Calling a game. How do you statistically measure Gibson's ability to inspire a team by hitting a home run while playing on one leg? You can try, but its kinda hard to do. Its pretty easy to see though if you watch the game.

Most defensive statistic are, to say the least, imperfect. Stats are obviously an important tool, but they fall waaaaayyyy short of the eye test in that regard IMO. And, for my money, Grich was a far better baseball player than Kent :-)

[Tedski_TX]

Begs the question...who are the three asses that left Griffey off and why?

Joshua

It was 3 guys who just can't stand players wearing their caps backward.:D

[glchen]

ARod was a vastly superior shortstop in comparison to Jeter. Who ended up moving?

The story there was that since ARod was going to the Yanks, he would move to a new position. If it had been Jeter going to the Rangers, then ARod would have stayed at shortstop and Jeter would move to a new position. This was what both Jeter and ARod told the media at that time, I believe.

In the Kent/Biggio case, Kent moved to the Astros, but it was still the incumbent Biggio who ended up moving positions. Hmmmm.....

[btcarfagno]

The story there was that since ARod was going to the Yanks, he would move to a new position. If it had been Jeter going to the Rangers, then ARod would have stayed at shortstop and Jeter would move to a new position. This was what both Jeter and ARod told the media at that time, I believe.

In the Kent/Biggio case, Kent moved to the Astros, but it was still the incumbent Biggio who ended up moving positions. Hmmmm.....

Jeff Kent had less range at second than the McCovey statue. I would pay good money go see him try to play center field.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Completely disagree with that. There are far too many aspects of baseball that don't translate well, or at all, to statistics. Making a great cutoff throw. Taking an extra base. Taking a pitch to allow a steal. Attitude. Pitch framing. Calling a game. How do you statistically measure Gibson's ability to inspire a team by hitting a home run while playing on one leg? You can try, but its kinda hard to do. Its pretty easy to see though if you watch the game.

Most defensive statistic are, to say the least, imperfect. Stats are obviously an important tool, but they fall waaaaayyyy short of the eye test in that regard IMO. And, for my money, Grich was a far better baseball player than Kent :-)

Agree on defensive stats and Grich. The problem with your first point is that most of us see only a smattering of games, and even if we watch our home team loyally, we see almost nothing of the other league and get only a small sample of other teams in the same league. So one is left with subjective impressions that may be distorted. The only way we know how good guys really are is because we have the box scores and stat lines. is it perfect, no, of course not, there are always some intangibles.

[packs]

That is no longer true today nor has it been for a long time. You can watch any game you want today and if you miss it, you can catch all the highlights at night. Everyone can see any player they want and it's been that way for years. We aren't living in a time when there's one game a week on TV. And we're discussing players who retired no later than 2006.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That is no longer true today nor has it been for a long time. You can watch any game you want today and if you miss it, you can catch all the highlights at night. Everyone can see any player they want and it's been that way for years. We aren't living in a time when there's one game a week on TV. And we're discussing players who retired no later than 2006.

How many of Bumgarner's starts have you caught? Kershaw's? What percentage of Halliday's innings pitched did you see personally?

[packs]

How many of Bumgarner's starts have you caught? Kershaw's? What percentage of Halliday's innings pitched did you see personally?

Glad you asked. I lived in San Francisco for four years and regularly watched Baumgarner pitch against the Dodgers, who included Kershaw. Not to mention watching West Coast games the entire time I was there. I also watched Halladay pitch every time the Yankees played him and the Blue Jays.

Had I not seen them in real time, I have every opportunity to watch them on the news at night, or on Sportscenter, MLB Network and/or Youtube, along with their team's websites.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Glad you asked. I lived in San Francisco for four years and regularly watched Baumgarner pitch against the Dodgers, who included Kershaw. Not to mention watching West Coast games the entire time I was there. I also watched Halladay pitch every time the Yankees played him and the Blue Jays.

Had I not seen them in real time, I have every opportunity to watch them on the news at night, or on Sportscenter, MLB Network and/or Youtube, along with their team's websites.

Somehow I doubt the average or even above average fan is catching hours of baseball on a nightly basis. I could be wrong. Personal observation is great, but I am guessing even someone as devoted as you would not be able to accurately rate players just based on what you saw if hypothetically you had no idea what their stats were.

[packs]

I think that's an old world view. For the Sportscenter generation (like me) we are used to seeing sports highlights played round the clock every day. The fantasy generation (like me) is well aware of stats and who's who, perhaps even more than ever before. While fantasy is stats based, it does not take into account things like WAR or JAWS, only what you see in front of you.

[btcarfagno]

I think that's an old world view. For the Sportscenter generation (like me) we are used to seeing sports highlights played round the clock every day. The fantasy generation (like me) is well aware of stats and who's who, perhaps even more than ever before. While fantasy is stats based, it does not take into account things like WAR or JAWS, only what you see in front of you.

If all you see are highlights how is that an accurate representation of a player's abilities at bat to at bat and game to game? You see a guy do something great in the clutch on Sportcenter every other week and in your mind he must be "clutch". Sportcenter may not be showing the 9 other times he came up with the game on the line and crapped himself. But without seeing it on Sportscenter you wouldn't know. Perception versus reality.

And are you saying that because fantasy baseball uses counting stats that those are somehow more valid?

Tom C

[Kenny Cole]

Somehow I doubt the average or even above average fan is catching hours of baseball on a nightly basis. I could be wrong. Personal observation is great, but I am guessing even someone as devoted as you would not be able to accurately rate players just based on what you saw if hypothetically you had no idea what their stats were.

The fans aren't voting on who gets into the HOF. The baseball sports writers are. Since its their job to watch and report on games, I would venture to guess that they see quite a few more games in any given season than almost any fan.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The fans aren't voting on who gets into the HOF. The baseball sports writers are. Since its their job to watch and report on games, I would venture to guess that they see quite a few more games in any given season than almost any fan.

Then I guess the corollary of that is you should have faith in their voting.

[Kenny Cole]

Then I guess the corollary of that is you should have faith in their voting.

Ah, deflection away from the issue at hand. Nice. I like it. Very lawyerly. Kind of reminds me of arguing with my wife. :)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ah, deflection away from the issue at hand. Nice. I like it. Very lawyerly. Kind of reminds me of arguing with my wife. :)

Heh. :D

[packs]

If all you see are highlights how is that an accurate representation of a player's abilities at bat to at bat and game to game? You see a guy do something great in the clutch on Sportcenter every other week and in your mind he must be "clutch". Sportcenter may not be showing the 9 other times he came up with the game on the line and crapped himself. But without seeing it on Sportscenter you wouldn't know. Perception versus reality.

And are you saying that because fantasy baseball uses counting stats that those are somehow more valid?

Tom C


No, I'm saying fantasy baseball uses the same counting stats people in this thread have brought up to show why they feel a player (like Kent) was worthy of the HOF. And that fantasy stats are more in tune with what your eyes see than something like JAWS or WAR.

In terms of highlights, I think you're treating people like they're blind or have no concept of the game. If you hear things about a player like Mike Trout and then watch highlights of Mike Trout, it should be apparent to even a casual fan that he is elite. If it's not, then that person shouldn't really have a valid opinion on who is a HOFer and who isn't in the first place.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If Mike Trout is elite, his stats will reflect it -- and of course they do.

Though ESPN highlights won't tell you that he still strikes out an awful lot.

[packs]

Yes but I don't need to know his WAR or JAWS to know the player he is, which is my point. I can watch him play.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes but I don't need to know his WAR or JAWS to know the player he is, which is my point. I can watch him play.

You cannot possibly watch players from all 30 teams regularly enough to accurately judge them without statistics.

[packs]

Counting statistics yes, JAWS and WAR no.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Counting statistics yes, JAWS and WAR no.

Well that is a different debate, no? I thought we were talking about statistics versus observation. Whether JAWS WAR etc. are meaningful compared to more traditional stats is a whole 'nother discussion, it seems to me.

[packs]

No all I've been saying the whole time is I don't need WAR or JAWS to discuss a player I'm watching. They are only relevant to discussing players from bygone eras. So when you start using JAWS and WAR to discuss someone like Jeff Kent, they mean nothing to me because I saw him play and I know what he did (i.e. counting stats).

[Peter_Spaeth]

No all I've been saying the whole time is I don't need WAR or JAWS to discuss a player I'm watching. They are only relevant to discussing players from bygone eras. So when you start using JAWS and WAR to discuss someone like Jeff Kent, they mean nothing to me because I saw him play and I know what he did (i.e. counting stats).

Got it. And my view is that counting stats, even aided by personal observation, don't tell you enough because to me the other metrics give a better overall context (both present and historical). So with that, I think we have had a good discussion.

[btcarfagno]

Got it. And my view is that counting stats, even aided by personal observation, don't tell you enough because to me the other metrics give a better overall context (both present and historical). So with that, I think we have had a good discussion.

This debate isn't over until we decide it is!

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!!!

Tom C

[packs]

You guys have been great to debate with. I appreciate the mutual respect even in disagreement. Sometimes people just start throwing out four letter words after two posts.

[frankbmd]

I thought this was a pre-WAR forum.

I know I am.:D

JAWS was a movie.

[glchen]

Well that is a different debate, no? I thought we were talking about statistics versus observation. Whether JAWS WAR etc. are meaningful compared to more traditional stats is a whole 'nother discussion, it seems to me.

Right, the issue is that stats like WAR and JAWS (which is based on WAR) is not like traditional statistics, in that they are based on someone's opinion on the weighting that goes into the formulas not to mention who knows what else. In addition, these newer stats become skewed in the age of PED users. You are comparing players to other players around the league, but if those players are using, and their stats go up, then the non-users WAR goes down in comparison.

The other thing is that WAR is trying era-adjust, so that you can compare players across the years. That is like saying, in every year, there have to be a few players that are HOF-worthy. It does not take into account that there may be valleys and spikes across the eras, where there may be a bunch of really great players in one decade, but a dearth of them in another.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Right, the issue is that stats like WAR and JAWS (which is based on WAR) is not like traditional statistics, in that they are based on someone's opinion on the weighting that goes into the formulas not to mention who knows what else. In addition, these newer stats become skewed in the age of PED users. You are comparing players to other players around the league, but if those players are using, and their stats go up, then the non-users WAR goes down in comparison.

The other thing is that WAR is trying era-adjust, so that you can compare players across the years. That is like saying, in every year, there have to be a few players that are HOF-worthy. It does not take into account that there may be valleys and spikes across the eras, where there may be a bunch of really great players in one decade, but a dearth of them in another.

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

[glchen]

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

Well, when I see players like Bobby Grich with such high WAR's, I think that's insane. Seriously, I was taking a look at one of his highest WAR year, and in that year, Grich batted 6th in his lineup. So, we're saying that his manager thought he was the 4th best hitter on his team, at best, yet this guy is somehow a marginal HOFer, while the 3-4-5 batters on the team (like Brian Downing) are like jokes when considering them of the Hall? Just the common sense of this doesn't ring true to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.hallofstats.com/articles/bobby-grich-hall-of-fame-case

[glchen]

Peter, most of that article uses elements of what goes into WAR, which as I've said has flaws. For example, if we use WAR, Cy Young (WAR of 170) destroys Walter Johnson (WAR of 152) for same number of years played. And Sandy Koufax has about the same WAR as Urban Shocker for about the same number of years played.

[ejharrington]

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?
Keith Hernandez having a lifetime defensive WAR of 0.6.

Adam Jones being rated an average or below average center fielder.

Defensive WAR is not something that can be relied on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Keith Hernandez having a lifetime defensive WAR of 0.6.

Adam Jones being rated an average or below average center fielder.

Defensive WAR is not something that can be relied on.

yeah I am not convinced yet about defensive stats

[Vintageclout]

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

Peter, while I am a fan of WAR/JAWS metrics, from a pitcher's perspective, Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven being rated ahead of Christy Mathewson is absolutely ludicrous....beyond insane. Yet, as with any rating xystem, there has to be flaws and the Matty ranking is certainly one of them....LOL!!!

[glchen]

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?


Right, I do think that WAR has its uses as another stat when used in conjunction with other stats. For example, if you have a player like Dave Kingman with a lot of home runs, you also have to take a look at his Mendoza line batting average. I think a lot of folks consider WAR the "best" stat because it consolidates a lot of others. However, I think it should be used in with other stats and obvious common sense. This was like the BCS in college football before where they had computers do the rankings. Obviously, no matter how much you tried to input into the system, there were still issues with what the computers came up with.

[btcarfagno]

Well, when I see players like Bobby Grich with such high WAR's, I think that's insane. Seriously, I was taking a look at one of his highest WAR year, and in that year, Grich batted 6th in his lineup. So, we're saying that his manager thought he was the 4th best hitter on his team, at best, yet this guy is somehow a marginal HOFer, while the 3-4-5 batters on the team (like Brian Downing) are like jokes when considering them of the Hall? Just the common sense of this doesn't ring true to me.

That was an excellent article breaking down the case for Grich in layman's terms. Basically he is one of the top 8 offensive second basemen of all time, and one of the top 10 defensively of all time. The only second baseman better than Grich on both offense and defense is Nap Lajoie. That's it.

OPS+ is a quantitative stat. Nothing to do with someone's perception of value going into a complicated formula. OPS+ is what it is. Grich's career OPS+ is 125. Only four second basemen with 8,000 or more career plate appearances have a better career OPS+. Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan.

But you are basing it on where he batted in the lineup during his best year?

Do you see the problem here?

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter, while I am a fan of WAR/JAWS metrics, from a pitcher's perspective, Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven being rated ahead of Christy Mathewson is absolutely ludicrous....beyond insane. Yet, as with any rating xystem, there has to be flaws and the Matty ranking is certainly one of them....LOL!!!

Not according to what I am looking at. Matty blows them away using JAWS and is still ahead using WAR.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

or

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

[Peter_Spaeth]

Where Grich really stands out offensively is power and patience. He slugged .424 while the league slugged .384. His OBP was .371 while the league’s was .324. That is a huge difference. Add it up and Grich’s OPS was .794 against the league’s .707. That’s how you get an OPS+ of 125. Steve Garvey’s OPS+, for example, was 117. Jim Rice was 128. Dave Parker was 121. That’s how good an offensive player Grich was. He just did it with plate discipline and power during a power-depressed era. That’s how you fly under the radar.

[Vintageclout]

Not according to what I am looking at. Matty blows them away using JAWS and is still ahead using WAR.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

or

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

Thx Peter. The listing I was looking at had Matty's WAR at 95.3 versus the 101 in your reference? Maybe it was outdated.....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Thx Peter. The listing I was looking at had Matty's WAR at 95.3 versus the 101 in your reference? Maybe it was outdated.....

Yeah he had a couple of good seasons recently.:D

No clue, actually.

[btcarfagno]

Yeah he had a couple of good seasons recently.:D

No clue, actually.

Pretty sure Matty could slip out of the grave today and out pitch at least 2/5 of the 2016 Pirates rotation.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Pretty sure Matty could slip out of the grave today and out pitch at least 2/5 of the 2016 Pirates rotation.

Tom C

Reminds me of when Cobb (allegedly) was asked in the 1950s how he would do against today's pitching. He said he thought he would hit about .275. He was then asked was the pitching really that much better than in his time, and he said, well I am almost 70.

[glchen]

That was an excellent article breaking down the case for Grich in layman's terms. Basically he is one of the top 8 offensive second basemen of all time, and one of the top 10 defensively of all time. The only second baseman better than Grich on both offense and defense is Nap Lajoie. That's it.

OPS+ is a quantitative stat. Nothing to do with someone's perception of value going into a complicated formula. OPS+ is what it is. Grich's career OPS+ is 125. Only four second basemen with 8,000 or more career plate appearances have a better career OPS+. Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan.

But you are basing it on where he batted in the lineup during his best year?

Do you see the problem here?

Tom C

Tom, I know you're using stats, but I'm looking more at common sense. Grich, you are not even the most valuable player on this team, maybe the 4th most valuable at best, not including pitchers. Yet you're the only one who deserves to be looked at for inclusion into the Hall of Fame. Doesn't that just seem strange to you?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Tom, I know you're using stats, but I'm looking more at common sense. Grich, you are not even the most valuable player on this team, maybe the 4th most valuable at best, not including pitchers. Yet you're the only one who deserves to be looked at for inclusion into the Hall of Fame. Doesn't that just seem strange to you?

If he were an outfielder we wouldn't be having this discussion. He was a middle infielder where the standards are different.

[glchen]

That's where it vexes me, especially for 2nd basemen. You don't have the arm or athleticism for SS. And you don't have much of a bat either, but you're decent on defense, just not as good as our SS. Yet we need to meet our quota for 2nd basemen in the HOF. This and catcher are like where players who can't hit try to get a position on the team. (e.g., if Piazza played 1B, I doubt he'd be in the HOF.)

[Topps206]

Please, please, please next year be the year Raines gets it.

[Cozumeleno]

Where Grich really stands out offensively is power and patience. He slugged .424 while the league slugged .384. His OBP was .371 while the league’s was .324. That is a huge difference. Add it up and Grich’s OPS was .794 against the league’s .707. That’s how you get an OPS+ of 125. Steve Garvey’s OPS+, for example, was 117. Jim Rice was 128. Dave Parker was 121. That’s how good an offensive player Grich was. He just did it with plate discipline and power during a power-depressed era. That’s how you fly under the radar.

I don't have a horse in this race regarding Grich/Kent but if you're comparing Grich's OPS against the league, you should do so to his batting average as well for a broader scope. Most years you'll find that he wasn't that much better (and sometimes worse) than the league average. League average for middle infielders, I'm sure he was better. But that's one thing about Kent - his average was significantly higher than the rest of the league more times than not and against middle infielders, I'm sure it was even higher.

I know you're talking mostly power at this point, but it's still something I think you have to consider if you're comparing Grich to the rest of the league offensively. I say that as someone who thinks Grich was undervalued as a power hitting middle infielder, too.

[btcarfagno]

I don't have a horse in this race regarding Grich/Kent but if you're comparing Grich's OPS against the league, you should do so to his batting average as well for a broader scope. Most years you'll find that he wasn't that much better (and sometimes worse) than the league average. League average for middle infielders, I'm sure he was better. But that's one thing about Kent - his average was significantly higher than the rest of the league more times than not and against middle infielders, I'm sure it was even higher.

I know you're talking mostly power at this point, but it's still something I think you have to consider if you're comparing Grich to the rest of the league offensively. I say that as someone who thinks Grich was undervalued as a power hitting middle infielder, too.

That is why Grich gets so overlooked (one of seceral reasons really). His batting average wasn't anything special, even compared to league averages. Where he separates is on base percentage plus the power. He got on base at a much higher clip than league average. He hit for far more power than league average. Amd he likely should have won 7 gold gloves on defense instead of the four that he actually won.

His 1973 season may have been the best defensively for a second baseman ever. That year his OPS+ was 116, which was the worst that it was over a five year period.

Tom C

[Cozumeleno]

That is why Grich gets so overlooked (one of seceral reasons really). His batting average wasn't anything special, even compared to league averages. Where he separates is on base percentage plus the power. He got on base at a much higher clip than league average. He hit for far more power than league average. Amd he likely should have won 7 gold gloves on defense instead of the four that he actually won.

His 1973 season may have been the best defensively for a second baseman ever. That year his OPS+ was 116, which was the worst that it was over a five year period.

Tom C

I agree - I think if you look at him as a power hitter, he has a lot more value. Kent hit for both power average, which was what made him unique. Offensively, he fit the profile of a corner outfielder. Defensively, he was certainly not Grich's equal and there's no question that Grich is the more underrated of the two.

[cardsfan73]

I just did. Bobby Grich was a better hitter than Jeff Kent.

He was also a better hitter than Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar. And Frankie Frisch.

Tom C

I am curious how Grich would be considered a better hitter than those three.

[howard38]

That's where it vexes me, especially for 2nd basemen. You don't have the arm or athleticism for SS. And you don't have much of a bat either, but you're decent on defense, just not as good as our SS. Yet we need to meet our quota for 2nd basemen in the HOF. This and catcher are like where players who can't hit try to get a position on the team. (e.g., if Piazza played 1B, I doubt he'd be in the HOF.)
He did have the athleticism and the arm to play SS. He was recognized as an outstanding SS in the minor leagues and played the position for the Orioles when he first made the majors where he was still considered outstanding. He was only moved to 2B to accommodate Mark Belanger who probably ranks w/Ozzie Smith as the GOAT defensively at the position. As it turned out Grich was even better at 2B than he was at SS so he remained there for the rest of his career.

[Peter_Spaeth]

He did have the athleticism and the arm to play SS. He was recognized as an outstanding SS in the minor leagues and played the position for the Orioles when he first made the majors where he was still considered outstanding. He was only moved to 2B to accommodate Mark Belanger who probably ranks w/Ozzie Smith as the GOAT defensively at the position. As it turned out Grich was even better at 2B than he was at SS so he remained there for the rest of his career.

Belanger came up years before Grich. I think he was injured Grich's rookie year which is why Grich played some SS. Once Belanger was healthy, Grich was moved.

[howard38]

Belanger came up years before Grich. I think he was injured Grich's rookie year which is why Grich played some SS. Once Belanger was healthy, Grich was moved.
Belanger wasn't injured in 1972 (at least he wasn't on the DL) but he hit so poorly that Earl Weaver benched him frequently. Grich played most of his minor league career at SS and had progressed to the point that he was named the IL's best defensive IF as well as being the league's best hitter in 1971. So it was a logical move to try him in place of Belanger in 1972. It might have stayed that way but 2B Davey Johnson was so bad in 1972 that he was traded, making room for Grich and making Belanger the regular SS again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Belanger wasn't injured in 1972 (at least he wasn't on the DL) but he hit so poorly that Earl Weaver benched him frequently. Grich played most of his minor league career at SS and had progressed to the point that he was named the IL's best defensive IF as well as being the league's best hitter in 1971. So it was a logical move to try him in place of Belanger in 1972. It might have stayed that way but 2B Davey Johnson was so bad in 1972 that he was traded, making room for Grich and making Belanger the regular SS again.

Oh he played only 100 games as opposed to 150 for all the years before and all the years after so I just assumed it was injury. Yeah the guy couldn't hit although he somehow managed to throw a couple of pretty good years in there along with all the awful ones. He had a .287 a .270 and a .266 along with a slew of absolute dogs.

[btcarfagno]

I am curious how Grich would be considered a better hitter than those three.

Career WAR

Bobby Grich 70.9
Frankie Frisch 70.4
Ryne Sandberg 67.5
Roberto Alomar 66.8

Career OPS+

Bobby Grich 125
Roberto Alomar 116
Ryne Sandberg 114
Frankie Frisch 110

Offensive Runs Above Average Career

Roberto Alomar 272.5
Bobby Grich 254.5
Frankie Frisch 223.9
Ryne Sandberg 178.5

wRC+ Career (100 is league average...this stat is both league and park adjusted similar io OPS+)

Bobby Grich 129
Roberto Alomar 118
Ryne Sandberg 115
Frankie Frisch 112

Runs Above Replacement Career (Frisch greatly aided here by career longevity versus the others on this list)

Frankie Frisch 769.8
Bobby Grich 648.1
Roberto Alomar 638.3
Ryne Sandberg 582.3



That's why.

I could keep going.

Tom C

[howard38]

Oh he played only 100 games as opposed to 150 for all the years before and all the years after so I just assumed it was injury. Yeah the guy couldn't hit although he somehow managed to throw a couple of pretty good years in there along with all the awful ones. He had a .287 a .270 and a .266 along with a slew of absolute dogs.
Go figure. If he was anywhere near those numbers for the rest of his career he might be a hall of famer. Yet he never even reached .230 in any other season.

[cammb]

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.



+1

[cammb]

Unless I am missing someone obvious, Bill Freehan was the best offensive catcher of the 60s. Jim Fregosi or Bert Campaneris were the best offensive shortstops (same caveat). It's too narrow a criterion.

I feel Elston Howard was a little better.

[cammb]

It's so funny reading your constant passive aggressive BS. But what's even funnier is how you so obviously think you're always the smartest person in the room.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Couldn't agree more. This theoretical crap is for jock sniffers.

[btcarfagno]

Couldn't agree more. This theoretical crap is for jock sniffers.

Jock sniffers? Really? What is that supposed to mean? That people who believe in advanced metrics don't know what they are talking about because they never played the game or something? That seems a bit insulting and prejudiced. It is certainly untrue in my situation.

Had I said "Thank goodness these idiot dinosaurs who are too stupid or too lazy to try to understand advanced metrics are either dying off or being thrown off the BBWAA voting rolls so we can get some people in there who actually get it".... would you feel a bit insulted? It isn't how I feel, but it would be the same thing as what you just said.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Tom, I'm just glad Daren found a friend. :)

[frankbmd]

Got the ITCH, Wear a GRICH,


http://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/frankbmd/z-folder/36480/grich-strap

For if you've got the ROT, It helps a LOT.



Guaranteed to have a better SCENT than a KENT or your money back

[cammb]

Lol

[cammb]

Jock sniffers? Really? What is that supposed to mean? That people who believe in advanced metrics don't know what they are talking about because they never played the game or something? That seems a bit insulting and prejudiced. It is certainly untrue in my situation.

Had I said "Thank goodness these idiot dinosaurs who are too stupid or too lazy to try to understand advanced metrics are either dying off or being thrown off the BBWAA voting rolls so we can get some people in there who actually get it".... would you feel a bit insulted? It isn't how I feel, but it would be the same thing as what you just said.

Tom C

Insulted? Not at all. That's your opinion. You know mine.

[Runscott]

Very interesting thread. Comparing real world perceptions of player value (i.e watching guys play) to pure statistical analysis is something modern MLB upper management seems to have trouble balancing, and this thread is no different.

Very true. I was never all that impressed with Kent, but given all the guys here whose opinion is that Kent should be in the HOF, I checked out his stats. To me, they still don't add up to HOF:


His hitting was above average, but certainly not great.
He was MVP once, but other than that never received more than 6 votes.
He never won a gold glove at his position, so if you are going to argue that he was a 'great' hitter compared to other second basemen, you'd also have to admit that he wasn't as great of a fielder as other second-basemen - even those playing at the same time he was;i.e-compare his hitting to those second basemen who were all-around HOF'ers.
While his 162 game numbers are above average, he only played 140 games or more in 7 seasons, so not a great fielder and no iron man.


I think he easily makes the 'Hall of above average'