Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC
That is yours and James' opinion based on modern sabermetrics. You can't be proven right, or wrong, so say what you want. My comments were more directed to the fact that some people rely almost exclusively on these sabermetrics as their reasons for thinking of certain players as they do, and yet, having never actually seen them play, they have no idea how the person actually played and how well they performed, aside from those numbers on the page.
I feel these modern statistics include some modern bias as they are geared more for how the game is played today, not back in the dead ball or other early eras. But if you don't feel that way, good for you. You are very adept at playing both sides of an argument till an advantage presents itself, and you can take it. I think that at the time Sisler was elected to the HOF he was definitely not considered a lowly, mid-tier HOFer. But using changes to the game and solely modern statistics, you and James are now downplaying such a legendary player in light of what is happening in today's game and how it is played differently now.
That kind of talk and dissing of some old player's career starts to sound akin to someone else saying things like how Hyun-jin Ryu is a so much greater pitcher than Warren Spahn ever was. Talk and comments like that are disrespectful to the player, and those that actually saw him play and originally elected him to the HOF.
|
If you look at the lists generated by metrics like JAWS, most would say there is an ANTI modern bias since they are dominated by the usual suspects. Take RF, Ruth, Aaron, Musial, Ott, Frank Robinson, for example. Let's try 2B. Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Morgan, Gehringer. 1B Gehrig, Pujols, Foxx, Anson, Roger Connor. That's two 19TH CENTURY players. Really don't follow your point here.
03-31-2022, 08:29 PM
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
