Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
You commented the modern metrics were not well suited to judging players from the early years or that is how I understood you. My point is that the players from that era we always list as all time greats do quite well by those metrics, which to me seems contrary to your proposition.
Specifically you said
the stats and numbers people like James use are borne and derived from the more modern game, and IMO do not properly or fully take in the context and changes that have occurred over the years.
|
So, because some players do measure well using modern statistics, they all should? Cause that is exactly what you're implying by the statement you are making. I find stats interesting, but don't put the time and energy a lot of people do into them because they are at best, an imperfect way to measure, compare and predict performance. Aren't a lot of these advanced measures based on how well players perform against and in relation to their contemporary peers? We've gone over this BS before about how trying to compare players of today and long ago doesn't work because of all the context and other differences.
I am not going down this back and forth road. If you think James and his numbers are right, good for you. If not, good for you. Believe what you like, and I'll do the same. i just find it somewhat reprehensible when people keep putting down old players because of modern stats, and yet they've never even seen them actually play. I would tend to think the people putting Sisler in the HOF knew a lot more about him as a man and a player than Bill James ever will. So let him spew whatever crap he wants. And if you want to stick up for him, so be it. You win, Sisler is a crap player and doesn't deserve to be in the HOF. Feel better!