HOF results

JollyElm · #1 01-06-2016, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 01-06-2016, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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 · #3 01-06-2016, 09:08 PM

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...

darwinbulldog · #4 01-07-2016, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

This is true. All of it.

JollyElm · #5 01-06-2016, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

Peter_Spaeth · #6 01-06-2016, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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.

JollyElm · #7 01-06-2016, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

btcarfagno · #8 01-07-2016, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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

Peter_Spaeth · #9 01-07-2016, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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 · #10 01-07-2016, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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.

JollyElm · #11 01-07-2016, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

cammb · #12 01-09-2016, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
REA results	Tomman1961	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	06-04-2013 09:56 AM
New results from PSA	Brianruns10	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	2	07-27-2012 04:57 PM
PSA --> SGC Crossover Results	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	05-07-2008 07:36 PM
results - SGC to PSA	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	15	11-15-2007 07:27 PM
HOF Results	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	86	01-11-2007 06:15 PM