Best team with no HOFers or HOF caliber players?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Isn't your WAR based on your performance alone? I'm not understanding how another player having a good year would negatively affect your own WAR.

Many of WAR’s components are contextual - it won’t value the same stat line the same way in 1927, 1967, and 2007. Because much of it is contextual to the league when you have lots of guys posting monster numbers you don’t necessarily get monster WAR. Hence why there aren’t 25 guys from c. 2000 with 100 WAR.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by G1911

Many of WAR’s components are contextual - it won’t value the same stat line the same way in 1927, 1967, and 2007. Because much of it is contextual to the league when you have lots of guys posting monster numbers you don’t necessarily get monster WAR. Hence why there aren’t 25 guys from c. 2000 with 100 WAR.

I would have saved a lot of time, if I had figured out how to say what you had just said.

[bdk1976]

Before Larkin was inexplicably let into the HOF, my answer would have been the 1990 Reds.

I think a good argument can still be made that the Reds did not have a legit HOF caliber player that year and still won it all.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

Before Larkin was inexplicably let into the HOF, my answer would have been the 1990 Reds.

I think a good argument can still be made that the Reds did not have a legit HOF caliber player that year and still won it all.

I think the same could be said about the 1940 Reds, whose only Hall of Famer was Ernie Lombardi, who is probably the weakest catcher in the HOF besides Rick Ferrell.

I think Larkin, a 12x all-star, 9x silver slugger, and former MVP is HOF material, myself. Larkin also hit .353 in the World Series in their sweep of the A's.

[paul]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I think the same could be said about the 1940 Reds, whose only Hall of Famer was Ernie Lombardi, who is probably the weakest catcher in the HOF besides Rick Ferrell.

I think Larkin, a 12x all-star, 9x silver slugger, and former MVP is HOF material, myself. Larkin also hit .353 in the World Series in their sweep of the A's.

Why does Lombardi get no love? Two batting titles as a catcher is pretty impressive.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

Before Larkin was inexplicably let into the HOF, my answer would have been the 1990 Reds.

I think a good argument can still be made that the Reds did not have a legit HOF caliber player that year and still won it all.

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I think Larkin, a 12x all-star, 9x silver slugger, and former MVP is HOF material, myself. Larkin also hit .353 in the World Series in their sweep of the A's.

Are you really saying Larkin is not HOF quality? In addition to the stats already listed, he is the best SS of the 1990s, has a peak performance as good as Jeter, was a 20/20 member in 1991, and became the first 30/30 SS in 1996. Barry Larkin (like Ripken Jr, and Yount) are the bridge generation from defense first SS to dual threat shortstops.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[G1911]

SS's in the Hall better than Larkin:
Appling
Banks
Boudreau
Cronin
Davis
Jeter
Ripken
Vaughn
Wagner
Yount

SS's in the Hall I'm undecided if are better than Larkin:
Wallace


SS's in the Hall worse than Larkin:
Aparicio
Bancroft
Jackson
Maranville
Reese
Rizzuto
Sewell
Smith (unpopular opinion)
Tinker
Trammell


I have a hard time seeing how Larkin is 1) not a deserving HOF SS, and 2) so ill-deserved that his election is inexplicable. He's better than about 50% of the SS's in. He's certainly better than the bottom 5.

Any reasonable argument here, or just hot take bias?

[todeen]

Originally Posted by G1911

SS's in the Hall better than Larkin:
Appling
Banks
Boudreau
Cronin
Davis
Jeter
Ripken
Vaughn
Wagner
Yount

SS's in the Hall I'm undecided if are better than Larkin:
Wallace


SS's in the Hall worse than Larkin:
Aparicio
Bancroft
Jackson
Maranville
Reese
Rizzuto
Sewell
Smith (unpopular opinion)
Tinker
Trammell


I have a hard time seeing how Larkin is 1) not a deserving HOF SS, and 2) so ill-deserved that his election is inexplicable. He's better than about 50% of the SS's in. He's certainly better than the bottom 5.

Any reasonable argument here, or just hot take bias?

I assume you are looking at WAR. But I read some years ago that JAWS has Jeter and Larkin neck-and-neck, the difference being .5 pts.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

Many of WAR’s components are contextual - it won’t value the same stat line the same way in 1927, 1967, and 2007. Because much of it is contextual to the league when you have lots of guys posting monster numbers you don’t necessarily get monster WAR. Hence why there aren’t 25 guys from c. 2000 with 100 WAR.

Fred McGriff was probably impacted by this as well since his 493 home runs didn't seem as impressive when guys are getting to 600 and 700.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Fred McGriff was probably impacted by this as well since his 493 home runs didn't seem as impressive when guys are getting to 600 and 700.

Fred McGriff really kind of gets screwed by this and the steroid guys. The Hall standard the the steroid guys can't make it but the writers don't want to put in guys at offensive positions who didn't post numbers as gaudy as the steroid guys makes for an extremely high standard different from previous eras. Was glad to see the committee put him in.