Slightly OT - 2020 Modern Baseball Era HOF Ballot

Orioles1954 · #1 11-06-2019, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Why do people think Whitaker was such a good player? He only received 2.9 % of the vote when he was first eligible and was voted on by writers who watched him play. Mattingly was on the ballot for 15 years and people are saying he wasn't even close.

Top 100 WAR all-time. Better than most infielders already inducted.

packs · #2 11-06-2019, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Top 100 WAR all-time. Better than most infielders already inducted.

Better in what sense, though? I look at his 162 game average and I see a player who might have made a couple all star teams in their career: 276 / 17 homers / 73 rbis / 789 OPS / 117 OPS+.

You're telling me that if you saw those stats without knowing who the player was, you'd think they were one of the top 100 payers of all time?

JollyElm · #3 11-06-2019, 04:40 PM

When I hear people talking about WAR (a completely theoretical stat!!), it's like listening to the arrogant Bob Costas lecturing us about baseball. He has never played a game of baseball in his life. He's never even played a game of Wiffle Ball at a family picnic in his life, yet he wants to be all pedantic about the game. That analysis doesn't gel with people (like me and my friends) who have played baseball/softball our entire lives. Having real knowledge about what actually happens on a field is much more important when analyzing players. For instance, how many runs/extra base hits/base advances did Dave Parker prevent due to his opponents' fear of his cannon of an arm? And I have to imagine that the vast majority of people on this site have seen most, if not all, of these players in their primes. Hometown and personal biases aside, we all KNOW what each of these guys brought to the table. Deep dives into advanced sabermetrics are unnecessary.

AGuinness · #4 11-06-2019, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

When I hear people talking about WAR (a completely theoretical stat!!), it's like listening to the arrogant Bob Costas lecturing us about baseball. He has never played a game of baseball in his life. He's never even played a game of Wiffle Ball at a family picnic in his life, yet he wants to be all pedantic about the game. That analysis doesn't gel with people (like me and my friends) who have played baseball/softball our entire lives. Having real knowledge about what actually happens on a field is much more important when analyzing players.

Arguments like this are funny, like saying that because Albert Einstein never travelled at the speed of light his theory of relativity is BS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yastrzemski Sports · #5 11-06-2019, 05:06 PM

Edgars career numbers most closely resemble Will Clark, Moises Alou, Magglio Ordonez and John Olerud. You can talk about War and OPS all you want but his career numbers are equivalent with these guys. Tell me why Will Clark shouldn�t be in if Edgar is.

JollyElm · #6 11-06-2019, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Arguments like this are funny, like saying that because Albert Einstein never travelled at the speed of light his theory of relativity is BS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OMG, you are hilarious!!!!! Your dumb analogy doesn't even come close to what I was saying.

AGuinness · #7 11-06-2019, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

OMG, you are hilarious!!!!! Your dumb analogy doesn't even come close to what I was saying.

Well, my use of the word funny wasn't meant in the comedic sense. It was in the strange/perplexing sense. And I certainly didn't mean anything personally against you, specifically, when I posted. That's why it is funny (strange) to me that you would seem to take it that way.

Peter_Spaeth · #8 11-06-2019, 06:24 PM

Personal observation tends to be both anecdotal and biased which is why stats are very helpful. Now what stats you think matter is a subject for debate.

hysell · #9 11-06-2019, 06:43 PM

I like to KNOW {WHY } we hold catchers to such HIGH stats as a 1b, 3b or a of player ? Lets put Mantle, Schimdt , Gehrig behind the plate for most of there careers & lets see , how less stats , they would have ! To me if you hit 225 to 300 HRS, drive in around 1100 runs, or get 2,000 hits or 400 doubles , add catch a good game & can throw a little, that is GOOD ENOUGH ? HOFer catchers are Munson ,Simmons , L.Parrish ....Munson was well on his way, Simmons was a{SH } & the better hitter on this list .Parrish won gold gloves , went to ALL*STAR games in the 1980's & like Gary Carter , both had 324 career HRS, top 5 ALL - time at the catcher spot ?

JollyElm · #10 11-06-2019, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Well, my use of the word funny wasn't meant in the comedic sense. It was in the strange/perplexing sense. And I certainly didn't mean anything personally against you, specifically, when I posted. That's why it is funny (strange) to me that you would seem to take it that way.

My point was clearly that we saw these people play throughout most or all of their careers. We experienced these players directly. So with regard to your Albert Einstein analogy, in this case he DID travel at the speed of light. He (analogous to us rating these players) is talking through direct knowledge and not theoretics.

rats60 · #11 11-07-2019, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Arguments like this are funny, like saying that because Albert Einstein never travelled at the speed of light his theory of relativity is BS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is not a good analogy. A better one is if Albert Einstein said I have this formula E=mc2, but I am not going to tell you what it is, you give me the data and I will give you the answer. I am not going to subject my formula to scientific analysis and I can change my formula anytime I like, but you mist accept everything I say as true. Would you just drink the koolaid? This is WAR, except we have multiple people claiming to be Albert Einstein.

Jim65 · #12 11-07-2019, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not a good analogy. A better one is if Albert Einstein said I have this formula E=mc2, but I am not going to tell you what it is, you give me the data and I will give you the answer. I am not going to subject my formula to scientific analysis and I can change my formula anytime I like, but you mist accept everything I say as true. Would you just drink the koolaid? This is WAR, except we have multiple people claiming to be Albert Einstein.

That is the problem with modern analytics, we are taking someones word that it is what they say it is. Old days, most kids knew how to figure BA, ERA, Win Pct, now you need a computer and have to know the secret formula.

I still like some modern analytics because they go deeper than old school stats.

AGuinness · #13 11-07-2019, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim65

That is the problem with modern analytics, we are taking someones word that it is what they say it is. Old days, most kids knew how to figure BA, ERA, Win Pct, now you need a computer and have to know the secret formula.

I still like some modern analytics because they go deeper than old school stats.

It's true that most kids can figure out those stats, just as most kids can figure out heartbeats per minute or even the P/E ratio for a stock or the area of a circle.
But can most adults understand the math and equations behind some of the numbers on a health chart at the hospital, or some of the complex computations in investing, or even how to figure out engine displacement?
WAR is not something created and owned by one person, or even two. It's been vetted by others in the statistical community who understand the math at a high level. I don't understand the gritty details of it, as many others don't, but I also don't understand the math that goes into engine displacement, some investment equations, etc. etc. I trust, as many people do, professionals who do understand them, and often in life-or-death situations.
And that doesn't mean the trust should be complete - WAR, as with other statistics, should be taken with a grain of salt. But I don't see it as just taking someone's word for it, WAR is a product of a larger community that has vetted and honed it over the years.

AGuinness · #14 11-07-2019, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

This is not a good analogy. A better one is if Albert Einstein said I have this formula E=mc2, but I am not going to tell you what it is, you give me the data and I will give you the answer. I am not going to subject my formula to scientific analysis and I can change my formula anytime I like, but you mist accept everything I say as true. Would you just drink the koolaid? This is WAR, except we have multiple people claiming to be Albert Einstein.

I was talking about the Bob Costas part of the comment I quoted and the argument that I have heard many players use, which is that if you haven't played the game you don't have a basis for analyzing it. Which I think is completely bunk.

JunkyJoe · #15 11-06-2019, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

... ...... Having real knowledge about what actually happens on a field is much more important when analyzing players. For instance, how many runs/extra base hits/base advances did Dave Parker prevent due to his opponents' fear of his cannon of an arm? And I have to imagine that the vast majority of people on this site have seen most, if not all, of these players in their primes. Hometown and personal biases aside, we all KNOW what each of these guys brought to the table. Deep dives into advanced sabermetrics are unnecessary.

+1

The fans who truly understand the intricacies of the game (especially from firsthand playing experience), and the players and coaches who battled against the ballot candidates, are the ones who can speak to the unquantifiables that some of the greatest players brought to the game.

AGuinness · #16 11-06-2019, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Better in what sense, though? I look at his 162 game average and I see a player who might have made a couple all star teams in their career: 276 / 17 homers / 73 rbis / 789 OPS / 117 OPS+.

You're telling me that if you saw those stats without knowing who the player was, you'd think they were one of the top 100 payers of all time?

I think context plays a big role (particularly era they were in), while also Lou's defense obviously plays a big role, too.
One other middle infielder slashed .262/.337/.328 for a career OPS of .666 and an OPS+ of 87 and made it to the HOF on his first ballot, thanks to stellar defense.
The Cooperstown Cred article on Whitaker notes how close he and Sandberg are statistically, too...
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/when...-hall-of-fame/

packs · #17 11-07-2019, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGuinness

I think context plays a big role (particularly era they were in), while also Lou's defense obviously plays a big role, too.
One other middle infielder slashed .262/.337/.328 for a career OPS of .666 and an OPS+ of 87 and made it to the HOF on his first ballot, thanks to stellar defense.
The Cooperstown Cred article on Whitaker notes how close he and Sandberg are statistically, too...
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/when...-hall-of-fame/

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Whitaker's 117 OPS + is 10 below Mattingly's at 127. Whitaker, who I guess played good enough defense to merit consideration also only won three gold gloves compared to Mattingly's nine. Even Sandberg won nine. Sandberg and Mattingly also won MVPs. I really don't see what elevates Whitaker over either of them other than some outlier WAR total that doesn't seem to fit his actual production.

AGuinness · #18 11-07-2019, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Whitaker's 117 OPS + is 10 below Mattingly's at 127. Whitaker, who I guess played good enough defense to merit consideration also only won three gold gloves compared to Mattingly's nine. Even Sandberg won nine. Sandberg and Mattingly also won MVPs. I really don't see what elevates Whitaker over either of them other than some outlier WAR total that doesn't seem to fit his actual production.

Context certainly plays a role, here, too. Mattingly's career is also considered against the first basemen in the Hall, which is stacked. Whitaker is up against second basemen, of course, which is a different thing all together.
I highly recommend reading the Cooperstown Cred article on Whitaker regarding his comparisons and defensive abilities:
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/when...-hall-of-fame/

View Poll Results: Who should be voted into the Hall?
Dwight Evans	18	21.95%
Steve Garvey	13	15.85%
Tommy John	24	29.27%
Don Mattingly	17	20.73%
Marvin Miller	25	30.49%
Thurmon Munson	16	19.51%
Dale Murphy	25	30.49%
Dave Parker	11	13.41%
Ted Simmons	32	39.02%
Lou Whitaker	50	60.98%
NON of the above	9	10.98%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2020 Field of Dreams Baseball Game ?	Directly	WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics	7	07-07-2020 10:52 AM
Modern Era HOF Ballot: Who do you think should get in?	clydepepper	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	62	12-11-2017 12:54 PM
2006 Baseball Allstar Ballot $3 shipped	richardcards	Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T	1	04-20-2014 12:02 PM
Modern Gai authenticated autos...? slightly OT	yanksfan09	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	18	04-10-2010 06:04 PM
The Baseball Card HOF Official Ballot	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	26	08-30-2002 07:23 PM