HOF results

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Nearly all of them. But his ability is much better represented on paper as you prefer.

That's a lot of games, wow. So do you think he should be in the Hall?

[packs]

No but I'd pick him for my team if I wanted to win a championship. Hell, I'd pick Orlando Hernandez before a ton of HOFers too. But if you only looked at JAWS and WAR you'd probably cross them off your list pretty fast.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

No but I'd pick him for my team if I wanted to win a championship. Hell, I'd pick Orlando Hernandez before a ton of HOFers too. But if you only looked at JAWS and WAR you'd probably cross them off your list pretty fast.

I always liked Bernie, but it was on the basis of a much smaller sampling of games obviously.

The thing is, I would bet you are quite unusual having seen that high a percentage of a given player's games. For most of us, we just have ideas based on a smaller sample, or we never saw them at all, which is why stats do matter.

[packs]

If you lived in NY and were a Yankees fan, it was pretty easy to watch the Yankees play. I don't think I'm particularly special because I'm a loyal hometown fan. My point is there are things you don't need stats to tell you. But you are only relying on stats in your analysis of anyone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

If you lived in NY and were a Yankees fan, it was pretty easy to watch the Yankees play. I don't think I'm particularly special because I'm a loyal hometown fan. My point is there are things you don't need stats to tell you. But you are only relying on stats in your analysis of anyone.

For better or worse stats are the common denominator. Suppose you were very knowledgeable about Bernie Williams, and another guy was very knowledgeable about Bagwell. Both of you claim their guy was great way beyond what his stats show, based on their personal observation. Do we just take both of your words and vote em both in (or if you don't think Bernie was worthy pick someone else, who it is is irrelevant to the problem)? If not, how do we test your claims? In baseball it seems, where EVERYTHING shows up in a stat sheet, what we have to make comparisons are stats. Because nobody has seen everybody.

[packs]

I think stats are useful when you're discussing a player you never saw play or a player who played a different kind of baseball, like say a deadball era player. But when we're a group discussing players we all saw play out their entire careers, I don't think stats are as important as personal experience. Years from now people may look at Vlad's numbers and think they're puny compared to a guy like Griffey. But if you saw Vlad play, you know he could hit with just about anyone. That's the difference.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I think stats are useful when you're discussing a player you never saw play or a player who played a different kind of baseball, like say a deadball era player. But when we're a group discussing players we all saw play out their entire careers, I don't think stats are as important as personal experience. Years from now people may look at Vlad's numbers and think they're puny compared to a guy like Griffey. But if you saw Vlad play, you know he could hit with just about anyone. That's the difference.

I saw Vlad, but maybe in 25-30 games, not a meaningful sample. Maybe more than that but still, not hundreds. Griffey maybe more than that, but still, overall, a very small percentage of his games and very few for the second half of his career as I am in an AL city. Those samples can be deceptive. When you test, for example, some of the great clutch hitter type claims based on subjective impressions (a la Munson), they don't hold up.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I always liked Bernie, but it was on the basis of a much smaller sampling of games obviously.

The thing is, I would bet you are quite unusual having seen that high a percentage of a given player's games. For most of us, we just have ideas based on a smaller sample, or we never saw them at all, which is why stats do matter.

When I lived in Houston I saw Phil Garner play at the Astrodome around 30 times. He probably hit 12 HR's in those games, which led me to believe that he was an incredible HR hitter. I also personally saw Sandy Alomar Jr hit the longest HR I've ever seen, t.v. or otherwise, leading me to believe that he was the strongest baseball player in history. We didn't have the internet back then, and I didn't have their baseball cards, so I would probably have voted both of them into the Hall of Fame. I also saw Edwin Correa carry a no-hitter into the 8th, and from what I remember about him, he always performed above average when I attended Rangers games, so I'm going to have to put him on my ballot as well.

I saw Griffey Jr. hit his last home run, and I also saw him asleep in the dug-out. I'm just glad he came back to wrap up things in Seattle; otherwise, I would never have gotten to see him play. Congrats to him for his election.

Regarding Edgar - there will always be those who argue against DH's in the Hall.
Regarding Sammy and McGwire - same thing for peds; however, it's kind of weird that Larry Stone (our local sports writer) voted for Barry Bonds, but left off Sosa and McGwire - where's the logic in that?
Regarding Kent and Grich - if you are going to let Rizzuto and Reese in, why not? On the other hand, are there any HOF'er baseball cards from Kent's days that you would trade for a Kent? for a Grich? I thought not.

Lots of nonsense in this thread, so I feel no guilt for adding mine.