Most undervalued HOFers

[Seven]

Many names have been mentioned in the undervalued category that I agree with. Kaline, Banks, Robinson, Collins, Jimmie Foxx as well. All stellar players that can still be found for reasonable prices IMO. I'd argue Hank Aaron is found at good prices as well considering what he did for the game. His Rookie Card isn't stratospheric in price.

As for the more recent discussion. I think Nolan and Perry were both fantastic pitchers. I'd be happy with either of them. I think the numbers give the edge to Mr. Perry, but I would probably want Nolan Ryan on my team. Just something about him that I can't put my finger on. SABR had an interesting discussion on this that I will link below.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...s-long-career/

[packs]

Baseball Reference has Rick Reuschel ranked as the 32nd best starting pitcher of all time. I can accept that whatever mathematical parameters BR used to come to that conclusion. Parameters have to be applied the same way to everyone and the results are the results.

Jim Palmer is ranked 43rd by BR. Personally, I feel as though there is plenty of room to say I’d choose Palmer over him every time. But I guess you can’t if the rankings are rankings.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Baseball Reference has Rick Reuschel ranked as the 32nd best starting pitcher of all time. I can accept that whatever mathematical parameters BR used to come to that conclusion. Parameters have to be applied the same way to everyone and the results are the results.

Jim Palmer is ranked 43rd by BR. Personally, I feel as though there is plenty of room to say I’d choose Palmer over him every time. But I guess you can’t if the rankings are rankings.

Not at all. One can absolutely disagree with the rankings. There is certainly nothing sacred about Bill James' rankings. That was not at all my point.

[packs]

Do you think that the people who developed the parameters for BR’s ranking also believe that Palmer was an inferior pitcher because the ranking has him where it does compared to Reuschel?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Do you think that the people who developed the parameters for BR’s ranking also believe that Palmer was an inferior pitcher because the ranking has him where it does compared to Reuschel?

I would assume so, as they obviously think their methodology captures who really were the best pitchers in what order. The whole point of this type of metric -- and of course you are free to disagree with it -- is to reexamine traditional assumptions.

[packs]

It’s a mathematical equation that gives results. That doesn’t infer anyone’s opinion about the results and I would doubt there are many people if any who would agree Palmer is the inferior pitcher.

[G1911]

James did, in actual fact, select Perry over Ryan. Whether one agrees with that choice or not is an opinion, which can be debated. The fact that it happened is not an opinion, and is not debatable. Pretending James did not select Perry over Ryan is just blatantly lying.

One can admit the actual demonstrable fact, that James did in actual fact select Perry over Ryan, without arguing that this choice is one they agree with. One can reasonably argue for Ryan, it does not require lying about the record. Over the top claims quickly proven to be factually false never help an argument.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

It’s a mathematical equation that gives results. That doesn’t infer anyone’s opinion about the results and I would doubt there are many people if any who would agree Palmer is the inferior pitcher.

I agree most people would think Palmer is better. But that is different from saying the developers of the equations don't believe in them. These are very different propositions.

Not to justify Reuschel over Palmer, because I would probably take Palmer myself although I haven't studied it, I've certainly read people's views that Palmer benefited disproportionally from having some of the best defenses in history playing behind him. Have not seen any detailed analysis though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Seven

Many names have been mentioned in the undervalued category that I agree with. Kaline, Banks, Robinson, Collins, Jimmie Foxx as well. All stellar players that can still be found for reasonable prices IMO. I'd argue Hank Aaron is found at good prices as well considering what he did for the game. His Rookie Card isn't stratospheric in price.

As for the more recent discussion. I think Nolan and Perry were both fantastic pitchers. I'd be happy with either of them. I think the numbers give the edge to Mr. Perry, but I would probably want Nolan Ryan on my team. Just something about him that I can't put my finger on. SABR had an interesting discussion on this that I will link below.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...s-long-career/

Yes I posted that before and quoted from it.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes I posted that before and quoted from it.

Peter,

Sorry I must have missed that, when working my way through the pages of discussion.

Statistically speaking I believe the advantage is Perry. Could I fault someone for taking Nolan Ryan though? No. Both were extremely dominant pitchers, Ryan from a pure power standpoint is tough to beat, but, I think you give it to Perry though for the consistency that he managed over the course of his career though. I think Ryan would fair better in todays game with how velocity has trended and his durability, but this is a moot point since we can't plop players from one era to another.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Seven

Peter,

Sorry I must have missed that, when working my way through the pages of discussion.

Statistically speaking I believe the advantage is Perry. Could I fault someone for taking Nolan Ryan though? No. Both were extremely dominant pitchers, Ryan from a pure power standpoint is tough to beat, but, I think you give it to Perry though for the consistency that he managed over the course of his career though. I think Ryan would fair better in todays game with how velocity has trended and his durability, but this is a moot point since we can't plop players from one era to another.

Agree. I could see it going either way, but I certainly don't think it's self-evident that Ryan was better and it's certainly not true that no one would think otherwise. People do think otherwise!!

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agree. I could see it going either way, but I certainly don't think it's self-evident that Ryan was better and it's certainly not true that no one would think otherwise. People do think otherwise!!

Agreed! I think another pitcher we could easily throw into this discussion, both in terms of comparability and being undervalued, is Phil Neikro.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Seven

Agreed! I think another pitcher we could easily throw into this discussion, both in terms of comparability and being undervalued, is Phil Neikro.

I saw Niekro in Boston towards the end of his endless career. He had nothing that day. Baylor hit one off him that must have left the park in 2 seconds and gone 1000 feet.