Gil Hodges

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Belle played 10.5 seasons. His career totals pale in comparison to the numerous sluggers of his time. For a guy whose whole argument is peak performance, his black ink is not very high, 28, 1 point over average. He never really deserved an MVP either, another hallmark for short-career-big-peak selections.

I'd vote for Belle, but I see a valid argument against him and would rank him a low-end hall of famer. Whether a player is likable or not seems mostly irrelevant to the Hall. Belle, Kent, Schilling all deserve to be in regardless of what one thinks about their choices outside of baseball, their personalities, or if their political views align with ones own.

So what's dragging down his peak metrics, I see his WAR7 isn't even that impressive despite what certainly APPEAR to be quite a few massive years even in context? He seems to have walked a decent amount, so that doesn't seem to be the drag as it was for guys like Garvey etc.?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So what's dragging down his peak metrics, I see his WAR7 isn't even that impressive despite what certainly APPEAR to be quite a few massive years even in context? He seems to have walked a decent amount, so that doesn't seem to be the drag as it was for guys like Garvey etc.?

One problem is his atrocious defense. Or at least WAR thinks it is pretty bad.

He led in runs once, homers once, slugging twice, OPS+ once (but OPS twice). RBI's 3 times but I think that has more to do with hitting where he did in that stacked Cleveland lineup than anything.

He crossed a 140 OPS+ 6 times. OPS and OPS+ are really his best statistic most favorable to him. The problem is tons of other players did too during that period. The 90's offense stats are so extreme at the top end that it really hurts players like Belle.

In 1993, Belle posts a 145 OPS+, .922. But 5 players in the AL crossed 1.000.

In 1994 he has a 194 OPS+, absolutely amazing. But Thomas posted a 212.

1995, again amazing but bested by two guys.

1996, again beat by 5 guys while his year looks video-game like.

1998, he leads in OPS and OPS+, but his horrible defense (at least by WAR's view) hurts and other similar offense seasons by better defensive players or playing valuable positions. WAR likes Jeter better, among a couple others, which looks kind of ridiculous to me. A-Rod probably deserved the MVP that year, but he finished 9th and Belle 8th.

I don't think Belle's WAR is that bad, he ranks above other similar players who played more than him (thinking of Juan Gonzalez first). His rate statistics are extremely good for a career, because he was done at 33, the first year he wasn't great. But my missing counting stat years and poor left field defense, his WAR ends up less impressive. Looking at things, I think it gets him pegged about right, relative to others on the whole (some specific years and comparisons, no. I'd take him over Jeter 10 times out of 10 in 1998). His best years pegs him at 5-7 something, really good all-star, but probably not he best player. Which I think is generally accurate.

He suffers in WAR7 additionally because it's WAR7 and not WAR5. Belle has 5 years over a 4.0 total. Good but not that good years at 3.4 (1999) and 2.5 (1991) are included in his WAR7. His top 5 are 7.1, 7.0, 5.7, 5.7, 4.7. Those 5 years are 30.2 war, an average of 6 a year and 75% of his total career value, even counting his negative defense. The smaller the sample size, the better Belle looks.

Personally, I think this is a good lower barrier for the Hall of Fame. Guys who were really, really, really good for a few years and guys who were pretty good and decent for a really, really, really long time. Sutton, Kaat, Belle and Oliva make for a pretty good low threshold for the low tier of the Hall. But you know what opinions are like...

[ClementeFanOh]

BobC- Okay, I tried it the nice way and you decided to write a chapter of
War and Peace, mixed in with pretzel logic in favor of your guy McGwire, and
others. Bottom line is there are clearly prohibited PEDs that some of these
dudes took in secret, knowing they shouldn't, for competitive advantage that
was mostly to get their 300 foot flyouts, to be 350 foot homers. Period.
That's not "hogwash", it's what they did and they knew it was prohibited.
You can fool yourself into thinking that having 20 whatever eyesight instead
of eye glasses, is somehow a competitive advantage- whatever gets you
through the night.

Peter Spaeth- the old "amphetamines" argument... So some player took a
pill that replaced 6 cups of coffee (that's an estimate, by the way) and that's
the equivalent of the "clear and the cream"? No, it isn't. Don't recall Hank's
head(!) growing larger during his playing career from the amphetamines (if
it's true). I do remember taking No Doz and drinking "Jolt" Cola during exam
week in college, so I could stay up to study during finals week. I vaguely
remember it causing me to use the bathroom frequently and give me the
shakes, like I was a toy poodle. It did NOT somehow make me "smarter" for
finals- feel free to insert joke here about my intelligence. However, to
compare HGH to a caffeine pill is like comparing a Vespa to a Ferrari. Nope.

Trent King

PS- And the original point still stands, I'm glad Gil Hodges made it!

[Peter_Spaeth]

The amphetamine margin in sports
V G Laties, B Weiss
PMID: 7286248
Abstract
The amphetamines can enhance athletic performance. That much seems clear from the literature, some of which is reviewed here. Increases in endurance have been demonstrated in both humans and rats. Smith and Beecher, 20 years ago, showed improvement of running, swimming, and weight throwing in highly trained athletes. Laboratory analogs of such performances have also been used and similar enhancement demonstrated. The amount of change induced by the amphetamines is usually small, of the order of a few percent. Nevertheless, since a fraction of a percent improvement can make the difference between fame and oblivion, the margin conferred by these drugs can be quite important.

Similar articles

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah amphetamines don't do shit. Our heroes were clean!!

Amphetamines have several performance-enhancing qualities, experts say. The drugs can disconnect mental from physical fatigue, allowing an athlete to push through tiredness. There's also a cognitive enhancement, which can help in learning playbooks or developing strategy. There's also the effect of offsetting high travel demands and jet lag for frequent-flying athletes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

IMO every generation uses what's available to get an edge. To suggest Bonds and McGwire were lowlife scum but the greenie generation was squeaky clean just seems misguided and horribly biased because we want to love the latter.

[ClementeFanOh]

Peter- that didn't take you long, did it? Still not buying what you are selling.
Lots of folks who, in some form or fashion defend these guys are often trying
to legitimize "their" time as fans in this sport we adore. It's not easy to admit
we were all being fooled (or many of us). I've skipped that part of the process
and just admit it was a mirage. Don't miss Sammy Sosa a bit

Once again, since the original post point was about Gil Hodges and not
pimply backed guys hitting a baseball 1000 feet, I'll repeat I'm glad Gil
made it.

Trent King

[ClementeFanOh]

Peter- just noticed your two extra, edgier, posts since I just replied. At no
time did I say 50s/60s guys were "squeaky clean". Seems like you don't like
being countered. I don't either, but I've made my point clear and you're not
convincing me otherwise. Last note on this topic, you had the tougher task
here and it's showing. Trent King

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well Trent it seemed a fair inference from you equating amphetamines to coffee that you were downplaying them, but if I misread you I apologize. So assuming Mays, Mantle, Aaron etc. used them, what IS your opinion?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

BobC- Okay, I tried it the nice way and you decided to write a chapter of
War and Peace, mixed in with pretzel logic in favor of your guy McGwire, and
others. Bottom line is there are clearly prohibited PEDs that some of these
dudes took in secret, knowing they shouldn't, for competitive advantage that
was mostly to get their 300 foot flyouts, to be 350 foot homers. Period.
That's not "hogwash", it's what they did and they knew it was prohibited.
You can fool yourself into thinking that having 20 whatever eyesight instead
of eye glasses, is somehow a competitive advantage- whatever gets you
through the night.

You don't even understand the argument here, do you? Or any of the points I was trying to make and how they actually may be relevant. Just made a snarky comment about 'War and Peace' so you can apparently use that as a premise to not even bother to respond to my questions and just blow me off. I originally responded to you in defense of the earlier poster you jumped on. Your mind is all set though and you think you're 100% totally right, so its pretty obvious that trying to have an intelligent conversation with you anymore about this would likely just be a waste of my time.