Originally Posted by ejharrington (Post 1489325)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489326)

And Kent's were valuable?:confused:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489288)

Kent made five all star teams, Grich six.

Originally Posted by UnVme7 (Post 1489380)

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.

Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 1488831)

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.
.
.

Originally Posted by UnVme7 (Post 1489381)

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)

Originally Posted by kmac32 (Post 1488919)

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.

Originally Posted by AndrewJerome (Post 1489424)

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.

Originally Posted by glchen (Post 1489230)

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?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489299)

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.

Originally Posted by Wite3 (Post 1488766)

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

Joshua

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 1489433)

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

Originally Posted by glchen (Post 1489450)

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.....

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole (Post 1489441)

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 :-)

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1489478)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489486)

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

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1489489)

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.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1489494)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489492)

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.

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole (Post 1489516)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489523)

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

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole (Post 1489534)

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

Originally Posted by btcarfagno (Post 1489503)

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

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1489568)

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.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1489570)

Counting statistics yes, JAWS and WAR no.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1489573)

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).

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489579)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489572)

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.

Originally Posted by glchen (Post 1489590)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489592)

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?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489592)

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?

Originally Posted by ejharrington (Post 1489621)

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489592)

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?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1489592)

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?

Originally Posted by glchen (Post 1489602)

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.

Originally Posted by Vintageclout (Post 1489633)

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!!!