OT - New Hall of Famers: Bagwell, Raines and Ivan Rodriguez

[campyfan39]

I'll take Gil and Shil over all three of them!

[Bruinsfan94]

Originally Posted by bnorth

No I don't and it seems like stuff like that has a weird way of disappearing. I did find this link but the actual video is also no longer available. The interview I seen was at the beginning of a sporting event and he was the guest. It was also in the time frame of him trying to peddle his book. In the interview I saw he also told the story of the Viagra crushed up in a drink but added there was another PED in it that Manny would bring back from the Dominican Republic.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/pe...s-with-viagra/

Yep giant conspiracy to protect Pedro. Of course you have no link.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Bruinsfan94

Yep giant conspiracy to protect Pedro. Of course you have no link.

Why would I have a link to a interview I seen on live TV when Pedro was trying to sell a book?

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by biohazard

I think the 80's MLB drug scandal (cocaine) hurt Raines.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/hof07/column...crasnick_jerry

Always found his nickname "Rock" to be funny in regards to this lol. Glad to see him get in though. Well deserved for an underrated player.

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

As for Raines, he was unfortunate enough to play for mostly crappy teams

I hate to nitpick (well, OK really I love to), but this statement is the complete opposite of reality. Throughout his career he was almost always on winning teams.

He spent the first 12 seasons of his career with the Expos (1979 to 1990), during which time the team only had two seasons with losing records (1984 and 1986, and even then they were close to 500). While they only made the playoffs once in that time frame they were constant contenders and had a lot of 2nd place finishes - they were arguably one of the best teams in the NL throughout the 80s (though they didn't get much attention for it), hardly a "crappy" team.

Then he spent the next 5 seasons with the White Sox, in 4 of which the Sox had winning seasons including 2 first place finishes.

Then three seasons with the Yankees, in every one of which they made the playoffs and in two of which they won the World Series.

Then he had two more part time seasons with a few teams, some of which were crappy, but are hardly significant parts of his career.

Really he played most of his career for great teams, but for various reasons he was either a big fish in a little pond (his Expos years) or a little fish in a big pond (his Yankees days) so he didn't get the spotlight much.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by z28jd

I have no problem with Rodriguez getting in, but he was clearly a PED guy. My problem is the double standard that allows the leader of the era, Bud "I did nothing except collect a seven-figure salary until congress forced it, then took all of the credit" Selig, and a known PED user to go in on the first ballot, but Bonds and Clemens got passed up again.

Rodriguez was named in Canseco's book along with everyone else who was found guilty. He came back looking like a bobblehead the first year they started testing and his power dropped, plus he refused to answer questions on PED's. Others who covered the Rangers also either agreed with Canseco's accusation of him, or had their own suspicions before the book.

These voters are showing a ridiculous bias towards players they didn't like as players, or they just didn't know any better so they go with the masses. MLB made certain players scapegoats and other players skated with no issues. I doubt Mark McGwire is any more guilty than Rodriguez, but he will likely never get in the Hall of Fame because he was a face of the era.

Basically, voters just need to be consistent. You either vote in the PED players or you don't, but you don't pick and choose the ones you want in based on spite.

+1

[sycks22]

You are missing a few points for some reason?
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode...fame-1.3929035[/QUOTE]


I'm missing that he had over 800 stolen bases? 2,600 hits for a 24 year career is far from impressive. Bill Buckner had more hits in less years, is he a hall of famer? One category (SB's) shouldn't be the main reason to get someone in the hall. Kenny Lofton led the lead in sbs the same amount as Raines and had a higher career batting average, should he be in? Raines was above average, not great

[rats60]

Originally Posted by sycks22

You are missing a few points for some reason?
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode...fame-1.3929035

I'm missing that he had over 800 stolen bases? 2,600 hits for a 24 year career is far from impressive. Bill Buckner had more hits in less years, is he a hall of famer? One category (SB's) shouldn't be the main reason to get someone in the hall. Kenny Lofton led the lead in sbs the same amount as Raines and had a higher career batting average, should he be in? Raines was above average, not great[/QUOTE]

He walked a lot. That is somehow supposed to make up for him not being a great hitter. 135th in OBP right between Earl Torgeson and Tim Salmon, two great players. He wasn't a good defensive player. He was fast and stole a lot of bases. Let's start a campaign to elect Eddie Yost and Darrell Evans to the hof.

[rdixon1208]

Originally Posted by rats60

I'm missing that he had over 800 stolen bases? 2,600 hits for a 24 year career is far from impressive. Bill Buckner had more hits in less years, is he a hall of famer? One category (SB's) shouldn't be the main reason to get someone in the hall. Kenny Lofton led the lead in sbs the same amount as Raines and had a higher career batting average, should he be in? Raines was above average, not great

I agree with this. He was pretty good, but not a HOF player in my opinion. Baseball-Reference also has him as below average HOF in every statistical category (black ink, grey ink, HOF standards, etc.).

[conor912]

The system is set up in a way that allows for B and C tier HOFers. Ten years on the ballot is absurd. For a truly elite HOF it would be one year.....One chance.....In or out.

[JollyElm]

I can't believe Raines got in. We all saw him play his entire career. While he was on the field, did anyone ever think, "He's a sure Hall of Famer"???? No frickin' way. Like others have said, he was a decent player who stole bases, but far from a 'great.'

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by conor912

The system is set up in a way that allows for B and C tier HOFers. Ten years on the ballot is absurd. For a truly elite HOF it would be one year.....One chance.....In or out.

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS. He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

[ejharrington]

Schilling is a Hall of Fame player is every way (core stats, WAR, and big time performances). The sportswriters who did not vote for him because they don't like him personally are abusing the huge power they have been granted.

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by rats60

I'm missing that he had over 800 stolen bases? 2,600 hits for a 24 year career is far from impressive. Bill Buckner had more hits in less years, is he a hall of famer? One category (SB's) shouldn't be the main reason to get someone in the hall. Kenny Lofton led the lead in sbs the same amount as Raines and had a higher career batting average, should he be in? Raines was above average, not great

He walked a lot. That is somehow supposed to make up for him not being a great hitter. 135th in OBP right between Earl Torgeson and Tim Salmon, two great players. He wasn't a good defensive player. He was fast and stole a lot of bases. Let's start a campaign to elect Eddie Yost and Darrell Evans to the hof.[/QUOTE]

agree

[conor912]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS. He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

Perhaps, though I'd recommend reading the article I linked in post #13. All Here's a line from it:

"Until 1946, BBWAA members could vote for literally any player -- living or dead, active or retired."

All three of your examples fall before 1946. There literally was no ballot or set criteria, which is why voting was so wonky and all over the place. If you give a few hundred writers each a limited number of votes, and tell them they can vote for any player who ever played (or is still playing), the chances of any one player getting 75% are fairly nil.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by conor912

The system is set up in a way that allows for B and C tier HOFers. Ten years on the ballot is absurd. For a truly elite HOF it would be one year.....One chance.....In or out.

Conor, my first inclination was to agree with your post. Certainly, for the last 30 years I do completely agree with you. There were a few who were 'almost great' during that period, like Sandberg, Jenkins and Hunter; however, the truly great all got in their first year.

Prior to that you have Marichal and Killebrew who didn't get in immediately, and I consider both to be great and HOF-worthy. But I wonder if there isn't currently a mentality among voters that they can put off voting for players because they have ten years - they don't have to start thinking hard until the 8 or 9 year mark. If it were reduced to 'now or never', Killebrew, Marichal and maybe even a few others, might have gotten in on the first ballot.

I would love to see a HOF that contained only the truly great players, but our sports mentality is 'the more the merrier', as such a philosophy can generally be linked to a result of 'more money'.

[bravos4evr]

you old guys crack me up, the thing is, most voters don't use stats like batting avg anymore because they are kinda worthless and incomplete statistics that can create a false image of a player's ability.

How Raines compares with other LF'ers (where he played the majority of his career) all time :

14th in fWAR

2nd in stolen bases

1st in stolen base %

40th in OBP

Raines is perhaps the 2nd greatest base stealer and all around bade runner of all time. considering that he was also good at getting on base and an avg fielder his total production is pretty high.

He isn't an inner circle HOF'er,but he's in the same tier as Kirby Puckett, Tony Gwynn and Craig Biggio.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Conor, my first inclination was to agree with your post. Certainly, for the last 30 years I do completely agree with you. There were a few who were 'almost great' during that period, like Sandberg, Jenkins and Hunter; however, the truly great all got in their first year.

Prior to that you have Marichal and Killebrew who didn't get in immediately, and I consider both to be great and HOF-worthy. But I wonder if there isn't currently a mentality among voters that they can put off voting for players because they have ten years - they don't have to start thinking hard until the 8 or 9 year mark. If it were reduced to 'now or never', Killebrew, Marichal and maybe even a few others, might have gotten in on the first ballot.

I would love to see a HOF that contained only the truly great players, but our sports mentality is 'the more the merrier', as such a philosophy can generally be linked to a result of 'more money'.

bolding mine:

yes I know from reading voter's articles that many leave guys off they know will stay on the ballot so as to use one of their 10 spots on a guy they want to either keep on for another year or try to get in. IMO all of this could be avoided if the HOF would change the process from "pick 10" to "give each player in the ballot a vote of yes or no"

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

bolding mine:

yes I know from reading voter's articles that many leave guys off they know will stay on the ballot so as to use one of their 10 spots on a guy they want to either keep on for another year or try to get in. IMO all of this could be avoided if the HOF would change the process from "pick 10" to "give each player in the ballot a vote of yes or no"

I agree with you on the 'yes or no' idea. I'm curious whether the HOF would look much different as a result. It might affect Edgar Martinez, as some voters are realizing that currently popular new metrics make him look much better.

I know a HOF voter who I will ask about this, as he voted for 10 players this go-round.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS. He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

the early years of HOF voting were also hurt because so many really great players were eligible and not in, so with a limit of 10(out of maybe 60 future HOF players) to choose from, a lot of guys kept getting left off ballots.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I agree with you on the 'yes or no' idea. I'm curious whether the HOF would look much different as a result. It might affect Edgar Martinez, as some voters are realizing that currently popular new metrics make him look much better.

I know a HOF voter who I will ask about this, as he voted for 10 players this go-round.

I think it would accomplish 2 things:

1- clear the logjam of players and thus make it easier for guys to get in earlier in the future

2- by requiring a response on each player it would avoid voters from pulling the dick move and leaving guys off because they think "he's not a first ballot HOF'er" so we wouldn't have the goofy travesties of guys like Maddux and Griffey Jr not being unanimous selections because one guy has some sort of beef.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS. He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

DiMaggio was still playing in 1945. He had just retired in 1951, getting elected was faster than the now 5 year wait guys.

Rogers Hornsby was still active in 1936, playing his last game in 1937, elected 4 years after retirement.

No player has ever been elected while still an active player.

Cy Young wasn't elected because of confusion about the ballot. Voters weren't sure if he should be included with pre 1900 or post 1900 players.

Arky Vaughan is one of 3 players who in my opinion slipped through the cracks and had to be elected by the Veterans Committee. 300 game winner Eddie Plank and Johnny Mize with his OPS+ of 158, but low counting stats due to missing 3 years serving in WW2 are the others. I think Vaughan's tragic death in 1952 before he was even on the ballot also hurt his case.

[midwaylandscaping]

HOF's and voting are highly subjective. Bagwell should have gotten in sooner, but, at least he's in. Rodriguez looks like a first ballot HOF'er, and became one. My only gripe with Ivan has to do with Mike Piazza. Who also should have been a first ballot HOF'er. One could craft an easy narrative that Piazza's wait led to Ivan's first ballot induction.

Raines, well, I can see both sides. I like to use traditional and advanced stats. I think it's the best way to go about things. Of course this also means I don't find batting average(or RBI for that matter) to be worthless stats, or only having worth within context. To me that's a false narrative.
But anyway, I use advanced and traditional and my own noggin, and don't condescend or take pot shots at those who use primarily one set. That's counter productive. I would not have voted for him myself, there are far too many superior players on the ballot to Raines, in my opinion. Tim didn't measure up by any standard to Rickey Henderson, that's obvious, but who does. The main name thrown up when Tim's name is mentioned. Rickey is an inner circle HOF'er. There's a wide gap between the two, and something of a false equivalency. As a Yankee fan I enjoyed Tim's time with the Yanks, and he was a key contributor in limited spots for the 96 and 98 World Series winners. There are worse players in the Hall than Raines, there are better players not in. I can understand some, not all, of the arguments for Tim's induction. Just wouldn't have advocated for it myself, nor voted for him after a lot of thought.

[RCMcKenzie]

It would be fun for someone to open up a museum down the street from the Hall with Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Shoeless Joe Jackson in there. They could put in Bill Dahlen, Hal Chase, Roger Maris etc..

As a kid, Fred Lynn was my favorite player. He is in the Red Sox HOF and that's where I would put Raines, Bagwell and Pudge, in the Expos, Astros and Rangers HOF. Up there with Cesar Cedeno, Bob Watson, Jose Cruz, Terry Puhl and JR Richard.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by pclpads

Yeah, and you'll probably be leading the cheering section when Rivera goes in 1st time / 1st ballot. Other than 50 more saves than Hoffman and being a Yankee vs a Pudre, what makes him more HOF worthy than Hoffy if you take away the saves?

What makes him more worthy? Seriously?

One guy's ERA+ was 205. The other's was 141.

One guy had 11 seasons with an ERA under 2.00. The other had 2.

One guy is the best reliever in postseason history (0.70 ERA in 141 IP). The other guy was below average for a reliever (3.46 ERA).


I have an extremely high standard for closers to be in the HOF. Because they pitch so little - sometimes as little as 50 innings - they had better be incredibly dominant in those innings to be worthy of the Hall. Rivera was. Hoffman wasn't. If we're looking for an NL reliever from Hoffman's time to put in the Hall, look at Billy Wagner. He was a LOT better.

[Tabe]

Put me also in the camp wondering why Raines got in. To me, nothing about his career screams "great". He had a nice, long productive career but great?

OBP? 135th all-time.

2600 hits in 23 seasons - 110 a year. Not great.

No power.

Career OPS+ of 123. Not great.

Terrible defense even by the low standards of LF.

How many great seasons did he have? 3? Maybe less. His best season was 1987 when he hit .330 with 18 HRs and an OPS of .955, 6th in the NL.

Honestly, his whole case is "he stole a lot of bases!" He finished with 808, 5th all-time. And that's nice and all - except we know that stolen bases aren't all that important.

So what are we left with? A terrible defensive LF who stole a lot of bases, got on base at a decent (but not great) rate and had little power.

That sure doesn't sound like a HOFer to me.

[pclpads]

[QUOTE=Tabe;1622636]What makes him more worthy? Seriously?

One guy's ERA+ was 205. The other's was 141.

One guy had 11 seasons with an ERA under 2.00. The other had 2.

One guy is the best reliever in postseason history (0.70 ERA in 141 IP). The other guy was below average for a reliever (3.46 ERA).

Yeah, seriously! Hoffy is like Lee Smith, who killed it for bad ball clubs ending with 478 saves. Doesn't get a sniff for HOF. Like Smith, Hoffy killed it for lousy Pudres teams - minus the '98 WS - with, like Smith, a bunch of scrubs supporting him. That makes what Hoffy and Smith accomplished as remarkable as Rivera and all his WS stuff with much better support than Hoffy or Smith ever had.

[alanu]

I'm glad Raines got in.

Kind of surprised with Bagwell and Pudge with their PED suspicions.

I remember Bagwell shrinking considerably after his injury that caused him to retire.

[irv]

There is no doubt the HOF is flawed, but just look at the differences of opinions in this thread alone.

I, for one have griped about them and the fact so many greats have been left out (Minoso) and so many undeserving's have made it in, but where do you draw the line who makes and who doesn't?

I know Raines' numbers don't scream a shoe-in, but if there are worse players in the hall, how do you leave him, and other's out?

If we all had to pick 3-5 players who should be in and 3-5 who shouldn't, we'd all come up with different players.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by packs

Seriously? Have you looked at Rivera's numbers in the post season? Are you aware that he was as close to an automatic win as there has ever been in baseball? The guy threw one pitch. Every batter he ever faced knew it was coming. None of them could hit it. That's greatness.

There is a commercial stating more people have walked on the moon than scored against Rivera in the post-season lol.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by pclpads

Yeah, seriously! Hoffy is like Lee Smith, who killed it for bad ball clubs ending with 478 saves. Doesn't get a sniff for HOF. Like Smith, Hoffy killed it for lousy Pudres teams - minus the '98 WS - with, like Smith, a bunch of scrubs supporting him. That makes what Hoffy and Smith accomplished as remarkable as Rivera and all his WS stuff with much better support than Hoffy or Smith ever had.

Or it could just be that Hoffman wasn't anywhere near as good. That's sure what the numbers say.

[Snapolit1]

Went to the NY Baseball Writers dinner last night. Congratulated Raines on the HOF in the men's room as he was trying in vain to dry his hands in one those lousy air blowers. A bit odd but I'll take it.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Vlad should be a first ballot HOF'er.

[bravos4evr]

Of course this also means I don't find batting average(or RBI for that matter) to be worthless stats, or only having worth within context. To me that's a false narrative.

the thing is that stats are either valuable or not valuable regardless of your opinion. Please explain, in as much detail as possible, why batting avg and RBI's are important stats for explaining player production.

I will retort when you are done.

[pclpads]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Or it could just be that Hoffman wasn't anywhere near as good. That's sure what the numbers say.

ROFLMAO!

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Or it could just be that Hoffman wasn't anywhere near as good. That's sure what the numbers say.

No, he wasn't as good, BUT, if you look at the top 10 of relief WAR all time Hoffman is 3rd in far less innings than #4 and 5 (Fingers, Lee Smith)

Billy Wagner was better on rate stats than Rivera (K/9 BB/9 and played far less innings because he chose to retire young, he has HOF stats too.

I agree that relievers should be held to a high standard, but adding Hoffman and Wagner would maintain a high standard.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Vlad should be a first ballot HOF'er.

Agree 100%

[nat]

Adding no relievers at all would set a better standard, what with them pitching far fewer innings than starting pitchers.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by z28jd

I have no problem with Rodriguez getting in, but he was clearly a PED guy. My problem is the double standard that allows the leader of the era, Bud "I did nothing except collect a seven-figure salary until congress forced it, then took all of the credit" Selig, and a known PED user to go in on the first ballot, but Bonds and Clemens got passed up again.

Rodriguez was named in Canseco's book along with everyone else who was found guilty. He came back looking like a bobblehead the first year they started testing and his power dropped, plus he refused to answer questions on PED's. Others who covered the Rangers also either agreed with Canseco's accusation of him, or had their own suspicions before the book.

These voters are showing a ridiculous bias towards players they didn't like as players, or they just didn't know any better so they go with the masses. MLB made certain players scapegoats and other players skated with no issues. I doubt Mark McGwire is any more guilty than Rodriguez, but he will likely never get in the Hall of Fame because he was a face of the era.

Basically, voters just need to be consistent. You either vote in the PED players or you don't, but you don't pick and choose the ones you want in based on spite.

Agree 100%, great post.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Vlad should be a first ballot HOF'er.

I'm not 100% he's a HOF'er at all. His numbers are in the borderline of inclusion.

29th in career RF fWAR (below Berkman, luis Gonzales)

23rd in career RF wRC+ (below Reggie Smith , Sheffield and Larry Walker)

50th in career RF OBP

14th in career RF ISO (isolated power)

12th in career RF home runs


idk, he's a top 30 right fielder of all time, but is that hall of fame worthy?

[JasonD08]

Vlad is not a HOFer.

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by JasonD08

Vlad is not a HOFer.

Vlad's first 10 full seasons:
950 Runs, 1781 Hits, 337 HR, 1051 RBI, .325 Avg Top 3 RF. Hit .300+ every year

Miggy's first 10 seasons:
961 Runs, 1802 Hits, 321 HR, 1123 RBI, .318 Avg Below Average 3B / 1B. Hit under .300 3x's

Would anyone argue that Miggy isn't a first ballot HOFer?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Vlad's first 9 full seasons:
950 Runs, 1781 Hits, 337 HR, 1051 RBI, .325 Avg

Miggy's first 9 seasons:
961 Runs, 1802 Hits, 321 HR, 1123 RBI, .318 Avg

Would anyone argue that Miggy isn't a first ballot HOFer?

Those old outdated stats mean nothing. You need the new cool ones. You know the ones were they use hypothetical and theoretical in the explanation of how they got those stats.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Vlad's first 10 full seasons:
950 Runs, 1781 Hits, 337 HR, 1051 RBI, .325 Avg Top 3 RF. Hit .300+ every year

Miggy's first 10 seasons:
961 Runs, 1802 Hits, 321 HR, 1123 RBI, .318 Avg Below Average 3B / 1B. Hit under .300 3x's

Would anyone argue that Miggy isn't a first ballot HOFer?

Originally Posted by bnorth

Those old outdated stats mean nothing. You need the new cool ones. You know the ones were they use hypothetical and theoretical in the explanation of how they got those stats.

Vlad first ten seasons: (10th during that period)

48.6 fWAR

144 wRC+ (100 is avg)

.405 wOBA

.381 OBP

.584 SLG



Miggy first ten seasons (3rd over that period)

52.7 fWAR

155 wRC+

.411 wOBA

.403 OBP

.573 SLG


first ten seasons they do compare pretty well, but their ENSUING seasons look like this:

Vlad (2007-11):

5.9 fWAR

120 wRC+

.361 wOBA

.354 OBP

.490 SLG


Miggy (2013-16):

21.8 fWAR

164 wRC+

.412 wOBA

.409 OBP

.565 SLG



Miggy has been on an entirely different level after about his 3rd or 4th season (he's dragged down a bit by his early years as he was so young when he came into MLB) Vlad is a good player, a borderline player, but his decline was pretty fast and his defense wasn't good enough to make up for his bat (and injuries)


saber stats are not hypothetical, they use real data and more data than stuff like batting average (for instance wRC+ takes into account the parks played in, league played in, the type of hit accrued....etc )

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Vlad first ten seasons: (10th during that period)

48.6 fWAR

144 wRC+ (100 is avg)

.405 wOBA

.381 OBP

.584 SLG



Miggy first ten seasons (3rd over that period)

52.7 fWAR

155 wRC+

.411 wOBA

.403 OBP

.573 SLG


first ten seasons they do compare pretty well, but their ENSUING seasons look like this:

Vlad (2007-11):

5.9 fWAR

120 wRC+

.361 wOBA

.354 OBP

.490 SLG


Miggy (2013-16):

21.8 fWAR

164 wRC+

.412 wOBA

.409 OBP

.565 SLG



Miggy has been on an entirely different level after about his 3rd or 4th season (he's dragged down a bit by his early years as he was so young when he came into MLB) Vlad is a good player, a borderline player, but his decline was pretty fast and his defense wasn't good enough to make up for his bat (and injuries)


saber stats are not hypothetical, they use real data and more data than stuff like batting average (for instance wRC+ takes into account the parks played in, league played in, the type of hit accrued....etc )

No, they are hypothetical. Someone makes up a model, plugs in actual data and comes up with a number. They can't prove that number means anything.

If you want to claim otherwise, provide me with a mathematical proof that those stats mean what you claim they do. It is one person's opinion, that is all.

[packs]

You can't pick and choose which stats are more advantageous to your point. Either you look at every stat or no stats. If someone posts production numbers such as HR, RBI, AVE, OPS, those stats are just as relevant as your stats.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Vlad's first 10 full seasons:
950 Runs, 1781 Hits, 337 HR, 1051 RBI, .325 Avg Top 3 RF. Hit .300+ every year

Miggy's first 10 seasons:
961 Runs, 1802 Hits, 321 HR, 1123 RBI, .318 Avg Below Average 3B / 1B. Hit under .300 3x's

Would anyone argue that Miggy isn't a first ballot HOFer?

I know there is issues with WAR, but if you look at the simple numbers from BLACK INK, which is a score based off being a league leader (no hypothetical). Than you would see that Miggy has been more dominant during his playing days than Vlad.

Miggy - 43. Ranked 34th all time.
Vlad - 6. Ranked 373rd all time.

I do believe, though, Vlad would be a fine HOF because even though he didn't lead the league as often, he was in the top 10 plenty of times. Even scoring a higher gray ink than Griffey.

[nat]

Here's a good place to start: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pri...inear-weights/

You don't need to worry about wOBA in the above link, the run expectancy tables are the important part. They are what is at the heart of WAR.

[Louieman]

Of course looking at the sabremetrics is essential to evaluating whether someone is a HOFer or not. But I think just as importantly you have to simply ask yourself, especially if you were witness to the career of the player, "Is this guy a HOFer and was he a dominant player in his time?" Vladimir Guerrero completely passes that test in my book. And to add on, you have to give a little bonus to the guy because he carved his own little niche into the approach of being a great ballplayer. A bare-bones, raw, quirky approach. I'm unhappy he didn't get first ballot. But hopefully next year is his year.

[Fred]

Raines deserves to be in the HOF. He was the second best lead-off hitter of his era and that's saying a lot considering Rickey was (and will arguably probably always be) the best lead-off hitter, ever.

Making a case for closers for the HOF is difficult. Most people will probably agree that Mariano Rivera is a first ballot shoe-in, I think so (and I hate the Yankees - but who can hate Mariano and Jeter, that'd be tough).

Hoffy should have been voted in on this past ballot (second ballot). I figure if people are going to mention dominance, then the K/9 rate should be a huge consideration.

Hoffy's K-rate of 9.4K/9 is much better than Mariano Rivera's rate of 8.2K/9. Does that mean I'm indicating Hoffy was a better closer than Mariano - HELL NO. But if people are going to bring dominance and pitching into the mix, then K's should be a huge consideration. If Hoffman was going to be elected based on his humility, humbleness and genuine incredible character, then he would have been voted in on the first ballot before the 5 years passed by. That guy is "Class", personified. And he was a great closer and a pitcher who was incredible in high leverage situations.