Your top 3 non HOFers

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nat

What's with the love for Gil Hodges? Here's a game, guess which line belongs to which player. The first number is plate appearances, the second is home runs, the third is OPS+ (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage, adjusted to take home park into account, and compared to league average, 100 is dead average each year, higher is better), and wins above replacement.

8657, 473, 138, 44

7137, 293, 128, 38

8102, 370, 120, 45

7809, 339, 134, 39

7914, 377, 139, 52

8230, 340, 137, 53


And here's the names in a different order: Kent Hrbeck, Boog Powell, Jack Clark, Gil Hodges, Carlos Delgado, and Norm Cash. See if you can match the line to the name.

That's a bunch of similar players right there. None of them are in the hall of fame, and none of them have much of a chance.

As has been mentioned, he drove in 100+ runs 7 seasons. He was also a key member of a team that won 7 pennants and 2 championships. 8 time all star, recieved mvp votes 9 times and won 3 gold gloves (would have won a lot more if the award existed his whole career). Hodges was also very good in team wins (and bad in losses) , hitting .309 with a .974 ops. So despite his career numbers, he was very important to team success on a team that won a lot and is remembered for being good in those wins. He was also good defensively although some don't seem to value defense at all. That is why although he may not make the hof, he stands out on that list of first basemen.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

As has been mentioned, he drove in 100+ runs 7 seasons. He was also a key member of a team that won 7 pennants and 2 championships. 8 time all star, recieved mvp votes 9 times and won 3 gold gloves (would have won a lot more if the award existed his whole career). Hodges was also very good in team wins (and bad in losses) , hitting .309 with a .974 ops. So despite his career numbers, he was very important to team success on a team that won a lot and is remembered for being good in those wins. He was also good defensively although some don't seem to value defense at all. That is why although he may not make the hof, he stands out on that list of first basemen.

RBI's is not a very good number to use for player's individual performance because it s driven by the quality of the player's who bat in front of him. 3 guys can have equal offensive production but vary greatly in RBI because one guy played for a good offensive team and the others didn't.

not trying to start a SABER war, but I think RBI is like pitcher wins, it's just too contingent on the performance of other people to be treated as if it is the product of the individual.

[Johnny630]

Mine would be
1.Gil Hodges
2. Ken Boyer
3. Minnie Minoso
3. Tony Oliva
4. Dick Allen

Favorite Signature would be Gil Hodges on a 52 Topps ! Wow

[Jim65]

Bill Madlock, .305 Career BA, 4 Batting Titles

[DBesse27]

Minoso, Oliva, murphy, Garvey, Dwight Evans. That's more than 3, but I couldn't decide who to drop

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

RBI's is not a very good number to use for player's individual performance because it s driven by the quality of the player's who bat in front of him. 3 guys can have equal offensive production but vary greatly in RBI because one guy played for a good offensive team and the others didn't.

not trying to start a SABER war, but I think RBI is like pitcher wins, it's just too contingent on the performance of other people to be treated as if it is the product of the individual.

Well will just have to agree to disagree then because I strongly disagree with your whole post. The player has to drive in those runs. I would rather have a player like Hodges than some guy who walks a lot and has an inflated obp, but doesn't produce. I wouldn't penalize a guy who played on a bad team and didn't have opportunities to drive in runs. However, you have to give Hodges credit for taking advantage of his opportunities and driving in those runs that led to wins.

As far as pitching wins, after era it is the most important stat. After all the idea of the game is the score the most runs/allow the fewest runs and win games. Have a good fip, whip, bb/k ratio, etc. are all fine, but in the end may be meaningless to the result of this game. Some people act like this game is played in a vacuum. They ignore that valid strategies of the game harm those prized sabr stats but produce wins. Things like pitching around hitters in situations or pitching to the score of the game. Also, to complain that a pitcher's bullpen can't hold a lead when the pitcher is partially at fault because he wasn't able to finish the game is silly in my opinion.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

Well will just have to agree to disagree then because I strongly disagree with your whole post. The player has to drive in those runs. I would rather have a player like Hodges than some guy who walks a lot and has an inflated obp, but doesn't produce. I wouldn't penalize a guy who played on a bad team and didn't have opportunities to drive in runs. However, you have to give Hodges credit for taking advantage of his opportunities and driving in those runs that led to wins.

As far as pitching wins, after era it is the most important stat. After all the idea of the game is the score the most runs/allow the fewest runs and win games. Have a good fip, whip, bb/k ratio, etc. are all fine, but in the end may be meaningless to the result of this game. Some people act like this game is played in a vacuum. They ignore that valid strategies of the game harm those prized sabr stats but produce wins. Things like pitching around hitters in situations or pitching to the score of the game. Also, to complain that a pitcher's bullpen can't hold a lead when the pitcher is partially at fault because he wasn't able to finish the game is silly in my opinion.

IDK man, "agree to disagree" is not solving the issue. pitcher wins have been PROVEN to be a worthless stat. Maybe not as much in the old days where guys threw 400 innings a year, but it's still too contingent on the quality of the offense one plays with. and that has no bearing on the ability of the pitcher. (See King Felix winning the Cy Young with 12 wins, he was easily the best arm that year, but his team's offense was awful)

and that tired argument about "played in a vacuum" doesn't fly. the only difference between modern stats and older stats is accuracy. Nobody gets accused of 'seeing the game in a vacuum" because they use batting avg and wins, so there's no reason to make the same accusations against the modern stats.

Time moves on, the game changes, stats become better, more accurate. It is the nature of science and the world. No reason to be dismissive of it.

[Mark70Z]

I'm sure no one picked any of these three but I'll go total homer and I'd pick Belanger, McNally and Grich.

If not a homer then Oliva, Minoso and Allen.