2023 Contemporary Era Ballot Nominees

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

But why not talk about production AND OPS+? Belle's 106 game season was clearly superior. 1994 was a strike season. He didn't play 106 games because that's all he could be in the field for. And he hit 36 homers, drove in 101 runs, scored 90 runs while hitting 357.

Clearly leaps and bounds ahead of Snider's 80 game output.

Yes it was superior. But if we are dismissing part-time production, than it needs to be done for both. We're counting Albert's 109 OPS+ season and partial seasons, but trying to cut Snider off when he was outhitting the league by leaps and bounds. It must be consistent and have a consistent standard, not a different one for each player to writ the desired outcome.

I agree, again, that Belle's peak is better than Snider's, that when he was on the field Belle was a better hitter. That does not change the reality that Snider's effective career is much, much longer than Belle's. Snider is not a brief-time producer like Belle. They are very different type players.

For the fiftieth time, Albert would have my vote. But he is a brief peak player, as any reasonable look at the dataset will tell anyone.

[packs]

What separates them so much in your mind, though? From 22 to 30, Snider was a great player and his career stats for that length of time are eerily similar to Albert Belle's. But you're saying they weren't similar players. In what way?

Also, I only see one half-way decent season from Snider after his 30th birthday. he was decent in 1959 but pretty pedestrian every other season. I don't believe his peak was all that longer than Albert's. maybe one season.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

What separates them so much in your mind, though? From 22 to 30, Snider was a great player and his career stats for that length of time are eerily similar to Albert Belle's. But you're saying they weren't similar players. In what way?

Also, I only see one half-way decent season from Snider after his 30th birthday. he was decent in 1959 but pretty pedestrian every other season. I don't believe his peak was all that longer than Albert's. maybe one season.

I don't know how many ways I can say this. BElle's career is very brief, Snider's is not. Snider played 604 more games in a time when the season was shorter (their period of being junk is roughly equal), and he played them effectively. 604 games would constitute 39% of Belle's career. That is a huge difference, 39%.

I get that you like Belle. I would vote for him too. But reality is reality, his career is very short. It is obviously way shorter than Snider's. It is very, very easy to look at the records. It's right there, in the Games column. This is an absurd thing to argue, that their careers are the same length or that in the context of a HOF discussion, Belle's career is not short.

[packs]

I'm not in an argument. I'm just asking why you can't consider peaks over entirety? And if we're not talking about milestone numbers (like 500, 3,000, etc.), why does it matter if they played 6 or so pedestrian seasons at the end of their career? How did it factor into their HOF case?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm not in an argument. I'm just asking why you can't consider peaks over entirety? And if we're not talking about milestone numbers (like 500, 3,000, etc.), why does it matter if they played 6 or so pedestrian seasons at the end of their career? How did it factor into their HOF case?

As said earlier, if one wants to argue that peak is all that matters and longevity doesn't, and that the Hall should reward X year peaks, then that is your argument to make. It has nothing to do with the fact that Belle's career is factually short that you repeatedly objected too, even as I said I would vote for him.

Snider did not play another 6 pedestrian seasons. His extra time was all at an excellent rate, with a higher OPS+ than what you're counting for some of Belle's 10 year run. If you want to dismiss 120, 130, 140 OPS+ for Snider you must do the same for Belle to be reasonable. Snider's extra time was not him hitting .220 and being a detriment. His extra 39% is not like Pujols just hanging around and being league average or below.

How does it factor into their HOF case? Because as constituted the HOF rewards a career. Hence why Belle hasn't done well and would likely struggle even if he wasn't a prick and Snider is in, the career metrics all have Snider as having a more valuable career. He's got like 1/3 more WAR, and WAR thinks Snider was an atrocious CF.

Guy's who play 1,500 games in modernity have a hard time making the Hall. Maybe that's wrong. But it is so.

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

As said earlier, if one wants to argue that peak is all that matters and longevity doesn't, and that the Hall should reward X year peaks, then that is your argument to make. It has nothing to do with the fact that Belle's career is factually short that you repeatedly objected too, even as I said I would vote for him.

Snider did not play another 6 pedestrian seasons. His extra time was all at an excellent rate, with a higher OPS+ than what you're counting for some of Belle's 10 year run. If you want to dismiss 120, 130, 140 OPS+ for Snider you must do the same for Belle to be reasonable. Snider's extra time was not him hitting .220 and being a detriment. His extra 39% is not like Pujols just hanging around and being league average or below.

How does it factor into their HOF case? Because as constituted the HOF rewards a career. Hence why Belle hasn't done well and would likely struggle even if he wasn't a prick and Snider is in, the career metrics all have Snider as having a more valuable career. He's got like 1/3 more WAR, and WAR thinks Snider was an atrocious CF.

Guy's who play 1,500 games in modernity have a hard time making the Hall. Maybe that's wrong. But it is so.

I don't know why you're still citing Snider's OPS+ figures. Look at all the numbers. That's like saying I want to dismiss Albert Belle's first two seasons, which I'm happy to do. Anyone evaluating Snider's candidacy did not need to look at what he did in his final 5 seasons. They were inconsequential because he'd already put himself in the Hall during his peak.

It's my understanding that unless you're talking milestone numbers, peak is all you've got. Isn't that why Koufax is in? Isn't that why Dean is in? Isn't that why Catfish Hunter is in?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't know why you're still citing Snider's OPS+ figures. Look at all the numbers. That's like saying I want to dismiss Albert Belle's first two seasons, which I'm happy to do. Anyone evaluating Snider's candidacy did not need to look at what he did in his final 5 seasons. They were inconsequential because he'd already put himself in the Hall during his peak.

It's my understanding that unless you're talking milestone numbers, peak is all you've got. Isn't that Koufax is in? Isn't that why Dean is in? Isn't that Catfish Hunter is in?

What stat would you like to use? Snider didn't suck for an extra 604 games, as any honest look will tell you. OPS+ works to Belle's advantage, that stat is very friendly to him and his game. OPS+ is an effective measure of offensive production for power hitters that contextualizes it to time and place. I get that you don't like the result.

Is your moving argument now that Snider would be in the Hall if only his first 1,539 games counted? You can make that case if you'd like, it has nothing to do with anything I've said. I am not speaking of a hypothetical Snider but the actual Snider who was effective for like another third of Belle's career. It's a big gap.

I think it is obvious that peak is not everything a player has. Obviously Dean and Koufax and Hunter are elected for peak. Numerous other players are in for their total careers who didn't reach 3,000 hits or 500 bombs. Unless we want to redefine peak as being any year in which a player produced effectively, this is absurd.