Your top 3 non HOFers

[bravos4evr]

However, I still feel like a pitcher who went 22-10 had a better year than a guy who went 9-13, regardless of advanced metrics. I suspect the two pitchers in question would agree. I'm not saying the former is the better pitcher in vacuo...just that he had a better year.

hmm, in 2010 Felix Hernandez had an ERA of 2.27 over 249 innings and yet only had a record of 13-12 (yet he won the Cy Young that year)

The league leaders in wins were CC Sabathia 21-7 with a 3.18 ERA , Lester at 19-9 with a 3.25 ERA and David Price with a 19-6 record and 2.72 ERA.

Felix had an ERA nearly half a pt better than the nearest win leader yet he had a mediocre record. why? he played for a bad team.

pitcher wins really have very little merit anymore. a guy can throw 8 scoreless , have a 4-0 lead, and the pen can come in and blow it, then the team walk off in the btm of the inning and the guy who blew it gets the win!

[bravos4evr]

anyway back to the task at hand!

3 more guys

1- Bobby Grich

2-Lou Whittaker

3-Alan Trammel

[steve B]

lots of excellent choices. Hard to pick a top 3. I'll go with 3 I really liked, two already mentioned one not.

1)Munson
2)Parker
3) Dwight Evans. (Like the other 3 really should be in, but fell just short of what used to be sure thing stats, and got knocked off the ballot by one super strong group in I think his 4th year. )

Plus one not yet eligible who I think should be in, but won't be.
Jason Varitek.

More no-hitters as a catcher than anyone, and a load of the intangibles that everyone ignores. Not a great hitter, but not horrible. Fielding etc was hurt by catching Wakefield so often.
No, he won't get in.


Steve B

[nat]

Hodges was good defensively. The first stat line I posted was Carlos Delgado, the third was Hodges. Delgado was the better hitter (138 to 120 OPS+), but they have virtually identical WAR totals. The difference is defense (plus maybe some base running). So we can and do take his defense into account.

As noted above, RBIs are extremely team dependent. They're not a good way to evaluate a player. Take June 12, 1949 for example. Hodges had 8 RBIs. Pretty nice. But it doesn't hurt that he's got Pee Wee Reese (.411 on base percentage), Gene Hermanski (.452 at the time), Duke Snider (a relative slacker at .348), and Jackie Robinson (.411) batting in front of him. He's going to have a TON of opportunities to drive in runs, because those guys are going to be on base all the time.

The all star appearances show that he was thought of as a star at the time, but are only a very weak indication that he was actually a good player. See, for example, George Kell and his 10 all star appearances. Dave Concepcion made 9. Frank McCormick made 9. It happens.

The "advanced" stats are just records of what happened, just like wins and RBIs are. The difference with a lot of them, though, is that they try to isolate the player's contribution from the effects of the parks that he played in (this is what the various + stats do), or they try to strip out the effects of events that aren't under the player's control (that the guys batting in front of Hodges reached base frequently, is one example).

[bravos4evr]

Hodges was a hell of a player. I was surprised to discover he wasn't in a few years back, just had always assumed he was!

[KCRfan1]

I'll go with :

Gil Hodges
Ted Simmons
Dick Allen

Fun thread!

[RTK]

Bill Buckner
Lee Smith
Buck O'Neil