Hof

CMIZ5290 · #1 01-23-2020, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

The Braves weren't shitty when Murphy won those MVPs. They won the NL West in 1982 and finished three games behind the Dodgers in 1983.

And yet they didn't even win 90 games either season....This is my point exactly. Without Murphy, this team wouldn't have won 70 games. I wonder what the team records are for players that have won back to back MVPs? I bet they are better than Murphy's.....

packs · #2 01-23-2020, 02:38 PM

I think the only pre-war player really on the outside looking in is Harry Stovey. Can't think of any good reasons why he wouldn't be in except some bias against the AA, which someone in 2020 could not realistically have.

nat · #3 01-23-2020, 02:45 PM

He doesn't meet the 10 year requirement, but I'm partial to Ross Barnes for dominating the early days of professional ball.

But the hall has made it clear (by having the older committees meet less frequently) that they don't care much about inducting players who are long dead. Dahlen may yet make it (of the long dead he probably has the best chance), but someone like Dick Allen probably has better odds.

GeoPoto · #4 01-23-2020, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I think the only pre-war player really on the outside looking in is Harry Stovey. Can't think of any good reasons why he wouldn't be in except some bias against the AA, which someone in 2020 could not realistically have.

Career OBP of .361 and OPS+ of 144 are excellent. 509 SB in 9 seasons. His 12 year-peak numbers are good enough. But that is really all he played. The volume might not be enough.

packs · #5 01-23-2020, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

Career OBP of .361 and OPS+ of 144 are excellent. 509 SB in 9 seasons. His 12 year-peak numbers are good enough. But that is really all he played. The volume might not be enough.

Stats are only part of the story. He played the game like no one else around him. Power, speed, the way he ran the bases. Stovey was the prototype of the five tool player before it existed.

CurtisFlood · #6 01-23-2020, 05:43 PM

Walker was a great baserunner, fielder, had a rocket for an arm, and his offense speaks for itself.

I never really appreciated him till he moved to St. Louis late in his career. Watching him every day made me wish they had picked him up in 1991.

CurtisFlood · #7 01-23-2020, 05:43 PM

Walker was a great baserunner, fielder, had a rocket for an arm, and his offense speaks for itself.

I never really appreciated him till he moved to St. Louis late in his career. Watching him every day made me wish they had picked him up in 1991.

CMIZ5290 · #8 01-23-2020, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CurtisFlood

Walker was a great baserunner, fielder, had a rocket for an arm, and his offense speaks for itself.

I never really appreciated him till he moved to St. Louis late in his career. Watching him every day made me wish they had picked him up in 1991.

Larry Walker vs. Dale Murphy?? Really??

PowderedH2O · #9 01-24-2020, 10:16 AM

I liked Murphy a lot, but Walker was better and played at a high level for longer than Murphy. There are dozens of HOFers that don't measure up to Larry Walker. Now, Murphy vs guys like Baines, Lindstrom, etc... well, that I don't get.Compared to those guys Murphy is Babe Ruth. Heck, Bob Johnson should be in the HOF twice before Fred Lindstrom.

Chris-Counts · #10 01-23-2020, 02:59 PM

As long as Bud Selig is in, and Minnie Minoso is out, it's hard for me to take the Hall of Fame seriously, although I'm generally happy when any player gets in. The roster of inductees is simply too flawed after too many years of monkey business, and it isn't an accurate measure of who the greatest players ever were. As far as I'm concerned, the hall of fame has a serious credibility issue. So many of the voters have little clue about the game's history or comparative statistical analysis, which are necessary to accurately evaluate players. The numbers don't lie, but they require a long, hard look. It boggles my mind that so many collectors base their opinions about players on whether or not they a have a plaque in Cooperstown.

Leon · #11 01-25-2020, 07:13 AM

+1 all the way arouind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

As long as Bud Selig is in, and Minnie Minoso is out, it's hard for me to take the Hall of Fame seriously, although I'm generally happy when any player gets in. The roster of inductees is simply too flawed after too many years of monkey business, and it isn't an accurate measure of who the greatest players ever were. As far as I'm concerned, the hall of fame has a serious credibility issue. So many of the voters have little clue about the game's history or comparative statistical analysis, which are necessary to accurately evaluate players. The numbers don't lie, but they require a long, hard look. It boggles my mind that so many collectors base their opinions about players on whether or not they a have a plaque in Cooperstown.

conor912 · #12 01-26-2020, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

As long as Bud Selig is in, and Minnie Minoso is out, it's hard for me to take the Hall of Fame seriously, although I'm generally happy when any player gets in. The roster of inductees is simply too flawed after too many years of monkey business, and it isn't an accurate measure of who the greatest players ever were. As far as I'm concerned, the hall of fame has a serious credibility issue. So many of the voters have little clue about the game's history or comparative statistical analysis, which are necessary to accurately evaluate players. The numbers don't lie, but they require a long, hard look. It boggles my mind that so many collectors base their opinions about players on whether or not they a have a plaque in Cooperstown.

Hard to imagine we can’t come up with some sort of advanced algorithm where we set a minimum bar, plug all a player’s stats in, and out pops a yay or nay. At this point you’d have to make the bar equal to the worst player in, but that’s ok. Special consideration would be given to non-stat facts (PEDs, rings, etc).

CobbSpikedMe · #13 01-26-2020, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

Hard to imagine we can’t come up with some sort of advanced algorithm where we set a minimum bar, plug all a player’s stats in, and out pops a yay or nay. At this point you’d have to make the bar equal to the worst player in, but that’s ok. Special consideration would be given to non-stat facts (PEDs, rings, etc).

It's not the Hall of Stats. Jeter had so much Fame that he absolutely should be in the HOF. I'm not sure Walker was nearly as famous. Not saying he doesn't deserve it, just that his fame doesn't stack up to Jeter's at all.

conor912 · #14 01-26-2020, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

It's not the Hall of Stats. Jeter had so much Fame that he absolutely should be in the HOF. I'm not sure Walker was nearly as famous. Not saying he doesn't deserve it, just that his fame doesn't stack up to Jeter's at all.

Ok, if it's about fame then then go outside right now and ask 10 random people which name sounds more familiar, Jose Canseco or Harold Baines.

CobbSpikedMe · #15 01-26-2020, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

Ok, if it's about fame then then go outside right now and ask 10 random people which name sounds more familiar, Jose Canseco or Harold Baines.

I never said they haven't made mistakes or that everyone that is in the Hall is more famous than anyone who isn't in, just that stats aren't all it's about. Ask 10 people if they've heard of Harold Baines or Mike Kelly.

trdcrdkid · #16 01-24-2020, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

And yet they didn't even win 90 games either season....This is my point exactly. Without Murphy, this team wouldn't have won 70 games. I wonder what the team records are for players that have won back to back MVPs? I bet they are better than Murphy's.....

Ernie Banks won back to back MVPs for Cubs teams that had losing records both years. In fact, I think Banks was the first player to be MVP for a losing team.