Quote:
Originally Posted by cyseymour
Rhett, you are forgetting to take into consideration the era in which the player played. For instance, Reggie Jackson and Brooks Robinson played in extreme pitching eras and actually put up very good WAR ratings in spite of their raw stats. Factor in Brooks Robinson's outstanding defense and he definitely belongs. Also, a horrible year at age 38 kind of drags down his hitting stats. Traynor has the better stats on the surface, but if you look deeper, Robinson was the better player.
|
Actually. no I'm not forgetting about the era they played in. I have read more Bill James and SABR-metrics statistical analyses than anyone I know. I understand where you are coming from and part of me agrees but at the end of the day Brooks just wasn't that great of a hitter yet he gets mad kudos from people, the same people that like to say Bill Mazeroski is the worst HOFer...ever. I just feel like a lot of the guys that delve too into statistics tend to have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees. Brooks may very well be the best fielder at his position, but his cards shouldn't be worth more than guys like Frank Robinson and the like, it just defies logic to me.
It seems to me that you are really eager to overlook Robinson's shortcomings (ie hitting) and very quick to denigrate Pie Traynor or Jimmy Collins strengths. I don't agree that Brooks was the better player, and many would agree with me, although I am probably in the minority as Brooks seems to be a fan favorite as people in Baltimore love the guy.