The challenge is what value to ascribe to the advanced stats vs conventional ones. Do they turn our understanding of the game upside-down, just nudge it a little, or merely add noise?
I like the advanced stats for helping contextualize things like RBI totals in 1930 or hitters at Coors vs Astrodome. I also like some of the "new" measures like WAR for attempting imperfectly to quantify the total value of a player.
However, I still feel like a pitcher who went 22-10 had a better year than a guy who went 9-13, regardless of advanced metrics. I suspect the two pitchers in question would agree. I'm not saying the former is the better pitcher in vacuo...just that he had a better year.
By extension, I would say Gil Hodges and Steve Garvey also had better careers than nearly everyone regarded as equal or slightly better by the advanced measures.
To the extent the HOF is generally associated with great careers, I would look at Wins and RBIs as much more important than anything you need a calculator for.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
|