Hawk for the Hall 2010. . . . do it, fuckers.
Alomar
Dawson
Blyleven
Larkin
Raines
Eligible but not on ballot:
Paul Abbott, Andy Ashby, Danny Bautista, Brian Boehringer, Darren Bragg, Dave Burba, Greg Colbrunn, Mike Fetters, Brook Fordyce, Karim Garcia, Tom Goodwin, Ricky Gutierrez, Jimmy Haynes, Sterling Hitchcock, Curt Leskanic, Josias Manzanillo, Brent Mayne, Mark McLemore, Scott Service, Chris Stynes, Scott Sullivan, Todd Van Poppel, John Vander Wal, Fernando Viña, and Turk Wendell.
7 played for KC
mike fetters had "the look" when he pitched from the stretch. anyone remember that? fernando vina got blasted by albert belle. turk wendell had all the crazy superstitions and all the 9's in his contract. mark mclemore was actually on the 86 angels team but didn't make the playoff roster, i don't think. sterling hitchcock threw a no-hitter against the angels when he was with the pads. todd van poppel, future halll of famer!
Barry Larkin. Best shortstop of his generation by far.
Should be first ballot. But most surely wont because baseball is a fucking scam.
Larkin will get in 1st ballot. . . he has the stats and the intangible stuff
Alomar before Larkin
I think Larkin and Bert will have to wait another year. They deserve in, but the voters suck. Just look at Raines.
2011
Wilson Alvarez, Carlos Baerga, Jeff Bagwell, Bret Boone, Kevin Brown, Cal
Eldred, John Franco, Juan Gonzalez, Marquis Grissom, Bobby Higginson, Charles Johnson, Al Leiter, Tino Martinez, Raul Mondesi, Jose Offerman, John Olerud, Rafael Palmeiro, Paul Quantrill, Steve Reed, Kirk Rueter, Rey Sanchez, Benito Santiago, B.J. Surhoff, Ugueth Urbina, Ismael Valdez, Larry Walker, and Dan Wilson
Alomar, Dawson, Blyleven, Larkin probably all deserve to be in.
(http://badwax.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/86donrussmcgriffrookie.jpg)
493 homers
Hall of Famer
McGriff definitely ain't a HOFer
Quote from: ryno on 12/05/09, 10:05:16 AM
Larkin will get in 1st ballot. . . he has the stats and the intangible stuff
I don't think so. He was good for a SS, but his stats aren't very impressive (especially given the era he played in). Less than 200 HRs, under 1000 RBI, under .300 for his career. Never had a 100 RBI season. Only scored 100 runs twice. He might have had the intangibles, but those aren't HOF stats for a guy that played 19 seasons. He'll get in, but not first ballot.
Quote from: Shooty on 12/05/09, 04:32:14 PM
Quote from: ryno on 12/05/09, 10:05:16 AM
Larkin will get in 1st ballot. . . he has the stats and the intangible stuff
I don't think so. He was good for a SS, but his stats aren't very impressive (especially given the era he played in). Less than 200 HRs, under 1000 RBI, under .300 for his career. Never had a 100 RBI season. Only scored 100 runs twice. He might have had the intangibles, but those are HOF stats for a guy that played 19 seasons. He'll get in, but not first ballot.
I agree with the Canadian fellow. Piss on Larkin.
RAINES RAINES RAINES RAINES
Barry Larkin is my favorite player of all-time. That should be enough to get him in first ballot.
What, it's not? I would think that being the best offensive SS of his generation, the 1995 MVP award and the career stats would be enough.
Though I agree with what most people are saying here. While I think he deserves it, he likely won't get in first ballot. But he will be a hall-of-famer. And if I can at all pull it off, that'll be the only HOF induction ceremony I'll ever go to.
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219
2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16 937 1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190
2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458
This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively. The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie. Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be. At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users. McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use. I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in. However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.
Quote from: edfan on 12/07/09, 07:36:39 AM
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219
2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16 937 1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190
2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458
This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively. The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie. Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be. At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users. McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use. I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in. However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.
agreed
Quote from: Shooty on 12/05/09, 04:32:14 PM
Quote from: ryno on 12/05/09, 10:05:16 AM
Larkin will get in 1st ballot. . . he has the stats and the intangible stuff
I don't think so. He was good for a SS, but his stats aren't very impressive (especially given the era he played in). Less than 200 HRs, under 1000 RBI, under .300 for his career. Never had a 100 RBI season. Only scored 100 runs twice. He might have had the intangibles, but those aren't HOF stats for a guy that played 19 seasons. He'll get in, but not first ballot.
"Intangibles" aside, he put up a .371 OBP with power from a defense-first position, while playing good defense, too. He was easily the best shortstop in baseball for about a decade.
Also, it's depressing that people still think runs and RBI are actually useful ways to measure how good a player is.
Quote from: edfan on 12/07/09, 07:36:39 AM
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219
2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16 937 1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190
2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458
This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively. The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie. Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be. At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users. McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use. I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in. However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.
While it's a good point with the shockingly close numbers, you can't compare players of different eras with straight stats. McGriff played in a powerful era and he simply wasn't at the cream of the crop among his peers imo. The OPS+ is telling about the eras...
Quote from: Gantry on 12/07/09, 08:38:24 AM
The OPS+ is telling about the eras...
and the reason the crime dog is a half step behind the other 2
Quote from: BeefMaster on 12/07/09, 08:29:31 AM
Quote from: Shooty on 12/05/09, 04:32:14 PM
Quote from: ryno on 12/05/09, 10:05:16 AM
Larkin will get in 1st ballot. . . he has the stats and the intangible stuff
I don't think so. He was good for a SS, but his stats aren't very impressive (especially given the era he played in). Less than 200 HRs, under 1000 RBI, under .300 for his career. Never had a 100 RBI season. Only scored 100 runs twice. He might have had the intangibles, but those aren't HOF stats for a guy that played 19 seasons. He'll get in, but not first ballot.
"Intangibles" aside, he put up a .371 OBP with power from a defense-first position, while playing good defense, too. He was easily the best shortstop in baseball for about a decade.
Also, it's depressing that people still think runs and RBI are actually useful ways to measure how good a player is.
Hey, I'm just tellign you WHY it will take a while for him to get it the Hall. The other thing that will hurt him is that with guys like HanRam, A Rod, Ripken etc, the position of SS has evolved in most people's minds. So the fact Larkin played SS will help his odds, but not to the same degree if those other guys didn't come along.
Larkin was fucking great. Far superior to Ozzie Smith.
Quote from: Shooty on 12/07/09, 09:29:33 AM
Hey, I'm just tellign you WHY it will take a while for him to get it the Hall. The other thing that will hurt him is that with guys like HanRam, A Rod, Ripken etc, the position of SS has evolved in most people's minds. So the fact Larkin played SS will help his odds, but not to the same degree if those other guys didn't come along.
I'm in agreement with you there - a lot of his value was walks and non-homer extra-base hits, which the voters don't give as much weight to.
Quote from: Gantry on 12/07/09, 08:38:24 AM
Quote from: edfan on 12/07/09, 07:36:39 AM
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219
2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16 937 1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190
2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458
This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively. The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie. Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be. At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users. McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use. I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in. However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.
While it's a good point with the shockingly close numbers, you can't compare players of different eras with straight stats. McGriff played in a powerful era and he simply wasn't at the cream of the crop among his peers imo. The OPS+ is telling about the eras...
EDF's point, I think, is that the era was steroid-plagued (the reason, at least in part, for inflated numbers), yet McGriff hasn't been under serious scrutiny for this. His numbers are clean (or at least seen to be), and that should compensate for the fact that he was just very good (not spectacular) for his era.
Quote from: Reds on 12/07/09, 09:37:47 AM
Larkin was fucking great. Far superior to Ozzie Smith.
Cut it out.
not gonna rehash this argument....but Ozzie Smith has no business in the HOF. And Larkin was VASTLY superior to him offensively, and an equal defensively.
Quote from: Reds on 12/07/09, 11:15:18 AM
not gonna rehash this argument....but Ozzie Smith has no business in the HOF. And Larkin did far fewer backflips.
Quote from: Nacho on 12/07/09, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: Gantry on 12/07/09, 08:38:24 AM
Quote from: edfan on 12/07/09, 07:36:39 AM
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219
2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16 937 1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190
2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458
This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively. The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie. Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be. At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users. McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use. I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in. However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.
While it's a good point with the shockingly close numbers, you can't compare players of different eras with straight stats. McGriff played in a powerful era and he simply wasn't at the cream of the crop among his peers imo. The OPS+ is telling about the eras...
EDF's point, I think, is that the era was steroid-plagued (the reason, at least in part, for inflated numbers), yet McGriff hasn't been under serious scrutiny for this. His numbers are clean (or at least seen to be), and that should compensate for the fact that he was just very good (not spectacular) for his era.
But it's not the "baseball hall for very good players who didn't get caught using steroids with lesser stats than their peers" now is it? :)
I just don't think McGriff was an elite player and shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame
Quote from: Reds on 12/07/09, 11:15:18 AM
not gonna rehash this argument....but HERE GOES!
Quote from: Gantry on 12/07/09, 11:52:23 AM
Quote from: Nacho on 12/07/09, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: Gantry on 12/07/09, 08:38:24 AM
Quote from: edfan on 12/07/09, 07:36:39 AM
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219
2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16 937 1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190
2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458
This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively. The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie. Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be. At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users. McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use. I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in. However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.
While it's a good point with the shockingly close numbers, you can't compare players of different eras with straight stats. McGriff played in a powerful era and he simply wasn't at the cream of the crop among his peers imo. The OPS+ is telling about the eras...
EDF's point, I think, is that the era was steroid-plagued (the reason, at least in part, for inflated numbers), yet McGriff hasn't been under serious scrutiny for this. His numbers are clean (or at least seen to be), and that should compensate for the fact that he was just very good (not spectacular) for his era.
But it's not the "baseball hall for very good players who didn't get caught using steroids with lesser stats than their peers" now is it? :)
I just don't think McGriff was an elite player and shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame
I don't really have an opinion, but I think the argument that he put up HoF numbers in an era in which lots of people put up similar HoF numbers because of steroid use--thus artificially inflating standards--is a valid one. His numbers compare quite well to Stargell and McCovey. The problem is that McGriff was overshadowed by people putting up even better numbers with the help of steroids, making McGriff seem not-so-elite.
Running in circles, I'm letting this one go. I would say that if there was a HOF for baseball instructional videos, McGriff gets in first ballot.
Quote from: Gantry on 12/07/09, 12:20:24 PM
Running in circles, I'm letting this one go. I would say that if there was a HOF for baseball instructional videos, McGriff gets in first ballot.
I disagree. I think he'd be giving the opening speech for Tom Emansky. And that speech would be great.
Quote from: Gantry on 12/07/09, 12:20:24 PM
Running in circles, I'm letting this one go. I would say that if there was a HOF for baseball instructional videos, McGriff gets in first ballot.
:POW:
Quote from: Nacho on 12/07/09, 10:21:18 AM
EDF's point, I think, is that the era was steroid-plagued (the reason, at least in part, for inflated numbers), yet McGriff hasn't been under serious scrutiny for this. His numbers are clean (or at least seen to be), and that should compensate for the fact that he was just very good (not spectacular) for his era.
How do you decide who was clean? "This guy was skinny enough; let's let him into the Hall." Yeah, there are some guys who we know used, but given some estimates of usage, there are a ton of guys who may have used, and it seems almost foolish to rule many folks out.
Then again, I'm in the "let 'em all in" camp, on the grounds that Gaylord Perry is in, everyone since about 1960 used greenies, and I would be shocked if Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth would have eschewed steroids had they been available then.
If you put steroids in a sandwich, Babe Ruth would have eaten it
Quote from: Nacho on 12/07/09, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: Gantry on 12/07/09, 08:38:24 AM
Quote from: edfan on 12/07/09, 07:36:39 AM
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB
2588 9686 8197 1229 2211 353 46 521 1555 26 22 1345 1550 .270 .374 .515 .889 147 4219
2360 9026 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 17 16 937 1936 .282 .360 .529 .889 147 4190
2460 10174 8757 1349 2490 441 24 493 1550 72 38 1305 1882 .284 .377 .509 .886 134 4458
This is a statline comparison of Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff respectively. The only major difference is that Fred McGriff isn't named Willie. Both McCovey and Stargell are in the HOF, so I don't see why McGriff would not be. At one time, conventional wisdom would be that he had power, but not enough compared to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. However, all of those guys have been exposed as steroid users. McGriff put up HOF-ish numbers without any shadow of steroid use. I think that the comparison to the guys who are already in + the lack of steroid scandal should get him in. However, I would not be shocked if he does not make it.
While it's a good point with the shockingly close numbers, you can't compare players of different eras with straight stats. McGriff played in a powerful era and he simply wasn't at the cream of the crop among his peers imo. The OPS+ is telling about the eras...
EDF's point, I think, is that the era was steroid-plagued (the reason, at least in part, for inflated numbers), yet McGriff hasn't been under serious scrutiny for this. His numbers are clean (or at least seen to be), and that should compensate for the fact that he was just very good (not spectacular) for his era.
Right...
The guys most contemporary with McGriff and more homers than him are:
Barry Bonds - 762, steroids
Ken Griffey Jr. - 630 and counting...no steroids
Sammy Sosa - 609, steroids
Mark McGwire - 583, steroids
Rafael Palmeiro - 569, steroids
Jim Thome - 564 and counting...no steroids that I am aware of
Manny Ramirez - 542, steroids
Frank Thomas, 521 and counting
Gary Sheffield, 509 and counting, steroids
You can't really say that he was any less dominating than his peers because 2/3 of those guys are proven steroid users.
In a similar way, Stargell and McCovey were contemporary to guys like Carl Yastrzemski, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, Harmon Killebrew, and Reggie Jackson. Nobody would argue that either of those guys were more dominant (or even as dominant) as any of the above, but that does not make them less viable as HOF candidates. They were very solid players for a long time moreso than being dominant players in their era.
And as far as how to determine who is clean...no idea. However, it is pretty much proven that 6 of the 9 contemporary guys who have more homers than McGriff were users, so I would say that McGriff has HOF numbers unless he was proven to be on steroids. His numbers are only mediocre if he was actually using.
Good analysis. I think the things that helped McCovey and Stargell is that they each won an MVP award (with Stargell being in the top 3 in voting 4 times). McGriff never got in the top 3 in voting ever. HOF fame voters like shit like that. They like the 500 HRs and the MVP awards. I would equate McGriff to Tommy John. Nice career numbers but never the best at any time and never quite reaching the the 500 HR/300 win plateau.
And quite fankly if its taking this long to get Blyleven in the HOF, I don't think McGriff has much of a chance. But yeah, the steroid guys pretty much fucked it up for McGriff.
Quote from: Shooty on 12/07/09, 02:12:34 PM
Good analysis. I think the things that helped McCovey and Stargell is that they each won an MVP award (with Stargell being in the top 3 in voting 4 times). McGriff never got in the top 3 in voting ever. HOF fame voters like shit like that. They like the 500 HRs and the MVP awards. I would equate McGriff to Tommy John. Nice career numbers but never the best at any time and never quite reaching the the 500 HR/300 win plateau.
And quite fankly if its taking this long to get Blyleven in the HOF, I don't think McGriff has much of a chance. But yeah, the steroid guys pretty much fucked it up for McGriff.
All my arguments for McGriff aside, I generally agree with your analysis. He is just one of those guys that I always liked and hope that he will get in. Jim Rice and Blyleven have been the others
McGriff played at least half of his career in a non-roid era -- 87-94 / 95. I think 96 was when the really stupid stats started.
McGriff did everything voters want --- decent average, power, run producer, won a WS. . .. he just wasn't all that sexy and / or controversial.
Stats aside, McGriff had one of the few really good nicknames of the last few decades.
thanks to Chris Berman
Quote from: Reds on 12/07/09, 11:15:18 AM
not gonna rehash this argument....but Ozzie Smith has no business in the HOF. And Larkin was VASTLY superior to him offensively, and an equal defensively.
Nobody is calling Reds out on this?
Nope, not since it's true.
I don't believe it to be true. Although Vizquel is probably better than the Wiz.
Punto's still better than the whole lot.
Quote from: Gantry on 12/07/09, 09:30:27 PM
Quote from: Reds on 12/07/09, 11:15:18 AM
not gonna rehash this argument....but Ozzie Smith has no business in the HOF. And Larkin was VASTLY superior to him offensively, and an equal defensively.
Nobody is calling Reds out on this?
He may not have been equal defensively, but if Smith was better it was not by that much. Plus, as Reds said, Larkin was way better offensively. All around, Larkin was a much better shortstop.
Ozzie Smith was a great defender, but that was it as far as baseball goes. Dave Concepcion was definitely equal to Smith defensively (and similar offensively), but he played in a much less televised era and did not do backflips.
Omar Vizquel is probably superior to all of these guys defensively and probably somewhere between Smith and Larkin offensively. The fact that he has no chance to go into the HOF will be a travesty of Blyleven proportions
I think Vizquel has a shot at the hall. I also think that Smith doesn't get enough credit for his offense. He was a great base-stealer and made good contact.
Quote from: Nacho on 12/08/09, 10:14:07 AM
I think Vizquel has a shot at the hall. I also think that Smith doesn't get enough credit for his offense. He was a great base-stealer and made good contact.
How much credit do you give a guy who is a lifetime .262 hitter? If him being in the HOF relied at all on his offense, then it is a no-go. He was a decent base-stealer, though
Also...you wanna talk injustice...here is the statline for Ozzie Smith and Dave Concepcion. Can you tell which is which?
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
2488 9640 8723 993 2326 389 48 101 950 321 109 736 1186 .267 .322 .357 .679
2573 10778 9396 1257 2460 402 69 28 793 580 148 1072 589 .262 .337 .328 .666
Here are the defensive stats for Concepcion and Smith too
Ch PO A E DP Fld%
12905 4249 8375 281 1590 .978
11595 4245 7024 326 1390 .972
Basically, that averages out to a little over 2 errors more per season for Concepcion. So, because Ozzie Smith made 2 fewer errors per season, he is a worthy HOF candidate?
So Ozzie had 250 more steals, 300 more runs, walked more, struck out half as many times, had a higher on base percentage, turned more double plays, made two less errors/year, and (I don't know how true this one is) made more amazing plays at short, and you think the two are comparable?
I say this as a Cards fan who doesn't remember much of Ozzie (especially not in his prime), so I'm biased even if I am too young to see him much. Obviously, Ozzie isn't there because of his offense. I was just pointing out that he doesn't get any credit for being able to hold a bat, but he held his own and was a solid #2 hitter for a long time.
Quote from: Nacho on 12/08/09, 10:46:30 AM
So Ozzie had 250 more steals, 300 more runs, walked more, struck out half as many times, had a higher on base percentage, turned more double plays, made two less errors/year, and (I don't know how true this one is) made more amazing plays at short, and you think the two are comparable?
I say this as a Cards fan who doesn't remember much of Ozzie (especially not in his prime), so I'm biased even if I am too young to see him much. Obviously, Ozzie isn't there because of his offense. I was just pointing out that he doesn't get any credit for being able to hold a bat, but he held his own and was a solid #2 hitter for a long time.
Concepcion played on the Big Red Machine. He and Joe Morgan would likely have a lot more steals if they, but you don't always run when Johnny Bench and George Foster are at the plate. The errors thing was just simple math. They both had 19 year careers and Concepcion had 45 more errors over the duration of his career which works out to about 2.3 something errors per season. You did leave out the fact that Concepcion hit over 100 homers which probably accounts for his higher strikeout totals and fewer walks. The premium for that team was not small ball, though. It was for the Cardinals as we should all know as RBI fans. If Concepcion played for a team like the Cardinals (little power, lots of speed) he probably would have been a guy who looked to draw a walk, steal 2nd, maybe 3rd, then a hit/sacrifice home for the run
Ozzie also had 1300 more assists, which probably demonstrates that he had a LOT more range.
That may be true. I saw a lot of Ozzie in his prime, and nothing that I am saying is meant to take away from how great he was on defense. I saw very little of Concepcion because I only got Cubs or Braves games growing up.
I guess my basic point is that while Ozzie is great and revered, Concepcion is mostly forgotten and that is sad considering that Dave Concepcion was a very similar player
Quote from: edfan on 12/08/09, 10:41:19 AM
Here are the defensive stats for Concepcion and Smith too
Ch PO A E DP Fld%
12905 4249 8375 281 1590 .978
11595 4245 7024 326 1390 .972
Basically, that averages out to a little over 2 errors more per season for Concepcion. So, because Ozzie Smith made 2 fewer errors per season, he is a worthy HOF candidate?
You're reading the wrong column to make your judgment - fielding percentage is generally overrated unless a guy is an Offerman-esque butcher in the field. If you want to know why Ozzie was a better defender, look at the first column, total chances - Ozzie fielded over 1300 more balls in only about 100 more games. Not only did he make fewer errors, but he did so while covering a far greater range.
Quote from: BeefMaster on 12/08/09, 11:37:09 AM
Quote from: edfan on 12/08/09, 10:41:19 AM
Here are the defensive stats for Concepcion and Smith too
Ch PO A E DP Fld%
12905 4249 8375 281 1590 .978
11595 4245 7024 326 1390 .972
Basically, that averages out to a little over 2 errors more per season for Concepcion. So, because Ozzie Smith made 2 fewer errors per season, he is a worthy HOF candidate?
You're reading the wrong column to make your judgment - fielding percentage is generally overrated unless a guy is an Offerman-esque butcher in the field. If you want to know why Ozzie was a better defender, look at the first column, total chances - Ozzie fielded over 1300 more balls in only about 100 more games. Not only did he make fewer errors, but he did so while covering a far greater range.
I messed up on Concepcion's statline. He played the bulk of his games at SS, but the line that I copied and pasted included all of his stats from playing other positions.
Here are the corrected stat comparisons of just the two at SS:
Ch PO A E DP Fld%
12905 4249 8375 281 1590 .978
10575 3670 6594 311 1290 .971
Concepcion played 2178 games at SS while Smith played 2511. Difference of about 330 games or so
So when you look at that, Concepcion averaged 4.8 chances per game to Ozzie's 5.1 per game.
Ozzie also had 3.3 assists per game, while Concepcion had 3.0. While this could indicate that Ozzie has better range, it does show that on a per game average, Concepcion was statistically similar to Smith
Quote from: BeefMaster on 12/08/09, 11:37:09 AM
Quote from: edfan on 12/08/09, 10:41:19 AM
Here are the defensive stats for Concepcion and Smith too
Ch PO A E DP Fld%
12905 4249 8375 281 1590 .978
11595 4245 7024 326 1390 .972
Basically, that averages out to a little over 2 errors more per season for Concepcion. So, because Ozzie Smith made 2 fewer errors per season, he is a worthy HOF candidate?
You're reading the wrong column to make your judgment - fielding percentage is generally overrated unless a guy is an Offerman-esque butcher in the field. If you want to know why Ozzie was a better defender, look at the first column, total chances - Ozzie fielded over 1300 more balls in only about 100 more games. Not only did he make fewer errors, but he did so while covering a far greater range.
Thanks for not reading my post, jerk...
Ozzie had about 50 chances more per season
So, on average, Ozzie got to one more ball every three games that Concepcion didn't. I would buy that. There's more to it than that due to other factors, but for my limited mind, that works.
Just so it is clearly known:
Yes, I am trying to manipulate the statistics by dividing them into seasonal averages to make them fit my argument. I have no idea if there is any relevance to them :P
You'd better make a column for Larry Bowa as well.
I'd rather be pitching with Ozzie in the field.
Quote from: bonny on 12/08/09, 02:56:18 PM
I'd rather be pitching with Onix Concepcion in the field.
Quote from: bonny on 12/08/09, 02:56:18 PM
I'd rather be pitching with Onyx in the field. Bacdafucup!
Quote from: edfan on 12/08/09, 10:35:03 AM
Also...you wanna talk injustice...here is the statline for Ozzie Smith and Dave Concepcion. Can you tell which is which?
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
2488 9640 8723 993 2326 389 48 101 950 321 109 736 1186 .267 .322 .357 .679
2573 10778 9396 1257 2460 402 69 28 793 580 148 1072 589 .262 .337 .328 .666
Yeah, because you just told us that Smith's career BA is .262. It wasn't difficult to take it from there.
Ha...I thought about that after I posted it. Good sleuthing, Slylock Fox...now shut your face
Quote from: fathedX on 12/08/09, 12:14:17 PM
So, on average, Ozzie got to one more ball every three games that Concepcion didn't. I would buy that. There's more to it than that due to other factors, but for my limited mind, that works.
Imagine if a player has one more hit than another player every three games. (Essentially, that meant Ozzie was taking away one more hit every three games.) That's the difference between a guy getting 180 hits/year and 235 hits/year. That's a big difference.
55 hits a year? It's almost the difference between hitting like Ozzie Smith and hitting like someone who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame!
Exactly.
I'd also note that Ozzie had well over 2000 more assists and 1000 more putouts than Larkin, and they both played 19 seasons.
But almost identical putouts strangely enough.
Quote from: Nacho on 12/09/09, 04:10:51 PM
I'd also note that Ozzie had well over 2000 more assists and 1000 more putouts than Larkin, and they both played 19 seasons.
Quote from: Reds on 12/09/09, 05:47:25 PM
But almost identical putouts strangely enough.
Reading comprehension Is great!
My point being
1. im a complete idiot.
2. No one in their right mind would choose Smith over Larkin based on those numbers. 1 putout every 3 games for all those better batting numbers?
3. Profit.
Quote from: Reds on 12/09/09, 05:59:49 PM
2. No one in their right mind would choose Smith over Larkin based on those numbers. 1 putout every 3 games for all those better batting numbers?
Quote from: Nacho on 12/09/09, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: fathedX on 12/08/09, 12:14:17 PM
So, on average, Ozzie got to one more ball every three games that Concepcion didn't. I would buy that. There's more to it than that due to other factors, but for my limited mind, that works.
Imagine if a player has one more hit than another player every three games. (Essentially, that meant Ozzie was taking away one more hit every three games.) That's the difference between a guy getting 180 hits/year and 235 hits/year. That's a big difference.
I'd say taking an extra hit away every three games (about 55 or so on a season) is about the equivalent of getting an extra hit on offense every three games, no?
You can't possibly think every one of those would have been a hit if Ozzie wasn't out there.
Mclane has half a mind,
Nacho not so much.
Maybe not every one. Maybe the 2b grabs a few. But the vast majority of those are hits if he doesn't grab them, and that doesn't count the extra putouts that he also gets to.
there are probably 25 shortstops i could think of off the top of my head that i'd rather have than ozzie.
maybe it's the sabremetrics talking, but i feel like defensive numbers can be highly overrated in many contexts. and this is coming from someone who got by with a solid glove, decent speed, and warning track power.
all things considered, however, and all numbers aside, ozzie definitely deserves to be in the hall of fame. i really think that the hall should be less about numbers and more about the player you are remembered as. of course, the typical milestones should guarantee some players, but a dynamic player like ozzie (media hype or not) is a guy who is very important to the game of baseball. the whole fact that any type of person can be a baseball player is modeled by ozzie. he's a goofy black dude with some nasty range and a flashy attitude. hell fucking yeah the guy rules.
If you were picking a team playground style, Ozzie would get SS everytime. Slide all those other fuckers over to 3B.
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1806999/5964629
first play, try to watch it in slow motion
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 12/10/09, 12:24:05 AM
there are probably 25 shortstops i could think of off the top of my head that i'd rather have than ozzie.
You are retarded.
Quote from: Gantry on 12/07/09, 12:20:24 PM
Running in circles, I'm letting this one go. I would say that if there was a HOF for baseball instructional videos, McGriff gets in first ballot.
as long as Harold Reynolds is inducted at the same time. i've been looking for the video on youtube for a while now, with no success.
COACHING IS SO IMPORTANT!
found it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpMOLAlHe94
Quote from: Shooty on 12/10/09, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 12/10/09, 12:24:05 AM
there are probably 25 shortstops i could think of off the top of my head that i'd rather have than ozzie.
You are retarded.
really? am i?
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 12/10/09, 06:38:18 PM
Quote from: Shooty on 12/10/09, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 12/10/09, 12:24:05 AM
there are probably 25 shortstops i could think of off the top of my head that i'd rather have than ozzie.
You are retarded.
really? am i?
yes
Quote from: ultimate7 on 12/10/09, 11:19:26 AM
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1806999/5964629
first play, try to watch it in slow motion
i posted that one, damnit!!!
Quote from: ryno on 12/10/09, 10:21:09 PM
Quote from: ultimate7 on 12/10/09, 11:19:26 AM
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1806999/5964629
first play, try to watch it in slow motion
i posted that one, damnit!!!
But it was a LOT better when ultimate posted it. Sorry ryno.
Quote from: Reds on 12/09/09, 05:59:49 PM
My point being
1. im a complete idiot.
2. No one in their right mind would choose Smith over Larkin based on those numbers. 1 putout every 3 games for all those better batting numbers?
3. Profit.
Yes, not only are you an idiot, but a fuckin' retard as well. What, you know baseball now? Pfffff....give.me.a.break.
Any moran that claims Larkin is better than Smith deserves to be gang raped by well endowed gorillas. That's just nonsense coming from a guy who never played baseball and generally is retarded in life.
Sorry, I just read the recent posts and that kind of nonsense infuriates me. Great defense at SS heavily outweighs the offensive numbers. Who in the fuck wants a SS that can rake but can't field? And within the context of this debate, Ozzie is far more deserving than Larkin, Conception, or anyone else. He redefined the position.
Holy shit the nonsense in this thread coming out of Reds and nomaaaa.
Quote from: Nacho on 12/08/09, 11:09:39 AM
Ozzie also had 1300 more assists, which probably demonstrates that he had a LOT more range.
Quote from: Nacho on 12/09/09, 08:28:27 PM
Maybe not every one. Maybe the 2b grabs a few. But the vast majority of those are hits if he doesn't grab them, and that doesn't count the extra putouts that he also gets to.
Great points Nacho. You always make much better sense when you speak baseball.
You guys have to understand how huge that is to take hits away from the hitters....and doing things that nobody else can on a consistent basis. It takes a lot of pressure off the pitcher, changes momentum, and it saves a lot of potential runs and kills or prevents rallies.
What Ozzie did was alter many games with his range and wizardry. Being a baseball player, I know how important this is. Fuck, we lost the final game of the Swedish Championships because the shortstop from Stockholm robbed two hits in two different innings with two outs and runners in scoring position...all because of his range. That was the difference.
SS (catcher as well) is the most important position out in the field. I've played with Shortstops and catchers who couldn't hit jackshit, but they still get drafted high or low because they could ball defensively. Great defense is the better offense in baseball. And hitting numbers that were in the range of Ozzie bears no significance because nobody could play SS like Ozzie could.
Discussion mediated by Darky...case closed.
Quote from: Dårky on 12/11/09, 05:24:05 AM
the shortstop from Stockholm belongs in the Hall
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 12/11/09, 02:57:19 AM
Quote from: Shooty on 12/10/09, 06:38:44 PM
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 12/10/09, 06:38:18 PM
Quote from: Shooty on 12/10/09, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 12/10/09, 12:24:05 AM
there are probably 25 shortstops i could think of off the top of my head that i'd rather have than ozzie.
You are retarded.
really? am i?
yes
word
If this is true, check with your school. I'm sure you're eligible for some additional scholarship money reserved only for retarded people.
If they want proof, just show them this thread
I've certainly never coached football.
Quote from: Dårky on 12/11/09, 05:12:39 AM
Ozzie is far more deserving than Larkin, Conception, or anyone else. He redefined the position.
If anyone redefined (whether for good or for bad) the position of SS, it was probably Cal Ripken. Ozzie did what most SS did historically. He fielded his position well and, if he could hit that was a bonus. Ripken put a premium on offense and was a big guy rather than being a wiry, light-hitting/slick fielding Ozzie Smith, Mark Belanger, Luis Aparicio, or Dave Concepcion.
Credit for this should/could probably go to Ernie Banks for this had he played more of his career at SS.
I don't think that Ozzie redefined SS by any means. He was just an outstanding example of what was expected at SS in his time.
I think EDF is right. He served as the prototype of the position and was maybe the last great SS of that type (save for Vizquel). Ripken really ushered in an era of the big offensive-minded shortstop. We really don't have many like Ozzie left.
Good points, you two.
Ozzie is still the better SS defensively. He was what you call a shutdown SS. Ripken could hit, no doubt about that, but he was nowhere near Ozzie's stratosphere as far as fielding the ball with that kind of exceptional range. We disagree, no big deal. As long as you two don't bring up Larkin into this or say that you'd take 25 SS over Ozzie.
As a player, I'd want Ozzie in the field with me. His defense more than compensates for all the offensive output Ripken produced.
Quote from: Dårky on 12/11/09, 11:59:22 AM
He was what you call a shutdown SS.
Keep your football bullshit out of this.
Who calls it that? Nobody.
Please come up with a better term Bonny to strengthen this case for Ozzie...
He was a shutdown SS though...just saying. And shut the fuck up btw. Don't address me like that in a baseball thread, I STOLE TWO BASES OFF CUBA!!!111 ;)
Quote from: Dårky on 12/11/09, 11:59:22 AM
Good points, you two.
Ozzie is still the better SS defensively. He was what you call a shutdown SS. Ripken could hit, no doubt about that, but he was nowhere near Ozzie's stratosphere as far as fielding the ball with that kind of exceptional range. We disagree, no big deal. As long as you two don't bring up Larkin into this or say that you'd take 25 SS over Ozzie.
As a player, I'd want Ozzie in the field with me. His defense more than compensates for all the offensive output Ripken produced.
That is basically what we were saying. The position of SS was for a strong defensive player and the bat was icing on the cake. Ozzie was exceptional and really became the bar by which other defensive SS were measured. Ripken was a great offensive SS while still decent with the glove. I am not saying one is better than the other, but more that Ripken changed what is expected of a SS. People expect offensive production out of a SS now
Let's face it--people expect offense out of every position these days...save for the P in the NL.
Baseball was better when defense at ss and C were valued above hitting from those positions, imo.
Fair enough edfan. We have different philosophies in that regard.
:firm handshake:
Quote from: JoeDirt on 12/11/09, 12:55:39 PM
Let's face it--people expect offense out of every position these days...save for the P in the NL.
Baseball was better when defense at ss and C were valued above hitting from those positions, imo.
You're probably right about that.
Quote from: JoeDirt on 12/11/09, 12:55:39 PM
Let's face it--people expect offense out of every position these days...save for the P in the NL.
Baseball was better when defense at ss and C were valued above hitting from those positions, imo.
Great post btw...
Quote from: edfan on 12/11/09, 10:38:34 AM
Quote from: Dårky on 12/11/09, 05:12:39 AM
Ozzie is far more deserving than Larkin, Conception, or anyone else. He redefined the position.
If anyone redefined (whether for good or for bad) the position of SS, it was probably Cal Ripken. Ozzie did what most SS did historically. He fielded his position well and, if he could hit that was a bonus. Ripken put a premium on offense and was a big guy rather than being a wiry, light-hitting/slick fielding Ozzie Smith, Mark Belanger, Luis Aparicio, or Dave Concepcion.
Credit for this should/could probably go to Ernie Banks for this had he played more of his career at SS.
I don't think that Ozzie redefined SS by any means. He was just an outstanding example of what was expected at SS in his time.
Wait, Ripken
redefined the SS position? When one of his contemporaries was equal to or better than him?
And what made Ripken that much better than Larkin offensively? His power numbers? Besides home runs and RBI's, Ripken doesn't have Larkin beat by a large margin anywhere. Surprisingly, Larkin has the higher OPS and OPS+. And I think we can all agree Larkin was the better baserunner/stealer and defensive SS.
If Ripken hadn't had the consecutive game streak, he'd be a borderline hall-of-famer. His making the 3,000 hit club and all that were all due to his longevity, and the streak made him TERRIBLY overrated.
All bias aside, I'd take Larkin over Ripken AND Smith.
Comparison (Ripken on top, Larkin on bottom):
Aren't you a Reds fan Barton? I find it hard to believe that you really mean " All bias aside". :D
Really. I don't think you can say "bias aside" and then go on to pick a guy from your team. Of course you will be biased. I also don't think that career averages are a good basis of comparison, considering some guys stick it out too long, come up early and don't produce for a while, etc. etc.
I'm biased and I'd go Smith, Ripken, Larkin.
I am completely shocked that Ripken & Larkin have the same career SLG
Um, I said "all bias aside," and then put up the comparison, which backs up my point. What's the argument here?
Yeah, but Ripken has twice has many HRs and over 50% more RBI...and was far less injury prone. Ripken in a landslide.
I'd be more convinced by a comparison of their best 10-year stretch rather than their career averages.
Quote from: JoeDirt on 12/11/09, 03:00:16 PM
Yeah, but Ripken has twice has many HRs and over 50% more RBI...and was far less injury prone. Ripken in a landslide.
Yeah, and I'd rather have Larkin's average and speed numbers. And defense.
Quote from: Nacho on 12/11/09, 03:00:57 PM
I'd be more convinced by a comparison of their best 10-year stretch rather than their career averages.
I also would like to see their 10-year stretches. But this did also have their 162-game average, which is, I believe, in Larkin's favor. But I guess I'm biased. ;D
defense people, defense.
Quote from: Barton on 12/11/09, 01:58:40 PM
Wait, Ripken redefined the SS position? When one of his contemporaries was equal to or better than him?
What contemporary are you taking about?
Larkin? Even if you make the case that you'd rather have Larkin over Ripken, he didn't redefine the position at all. A decent hitting SS with moderate power and good defense is not redefining the position. In fact, if anything he's probably close to the first great SS, Honus Wagner who hit for average, had decent pop for his era (150 OPS+), and stole a shit ton of bases.
Even if you misued the word contemporary and meant Banks, he didn't redefine the position. Even though he was like no other SS before him with that kind of power, no other SS followed along that path for another 20+ years. He was the pioneer, but no other player followed suit so you can't say it redefined the position.
Either way, I'm not sure what your point is.
Quote from: Barton on 12/11/09, 03:08:12 PM
I also would like to see their 10-year stretches. But this did also have their 162-game average, which is, I believe, in Larkin's favor. But I guess I'm biased. ;D
162-game average is incredibly unfair to Ripken in this comparison because of Larkin's durability problems. While I agree that the streak was overrated, there's something to be said for the fact that Ripken played over 800 more games in just two more seasons.
Regardless, I think Larkin should be a Hall of Famer.
Quote from: Clambutt on 12/11/09, 06:27:11 AM
Quote from: Dårky on 12/11/09, 05:24:05 AM
the shortstop from Stockholm belongs in the Hall
have you seen his vorp+ in late games when trailing by 2 runs on a friday? That guy is horrible! No HALL for him!
all i know is that i could field much better than a lot of the college recruits i was up against at shortstop, but being a singles hitter pretty much solidified that i wasn't getting any scholarships (save like d3)
Quote from: ryno on 12/10/09, 10:21:09 PM
Quote from: ultimate7 on 12/10/09, 11:19:26 AM
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1806999/5964629
first play, try to watch it in slow motion
where? I didn't see it in this thread?
i posted that one, damnit!!!
Quote from: Barton on 12/11/09, 01:58:40 PM
His making the 3,000 hit club and all that were all due to his longevity
longevity is huge for the HOF, that's why 3000H, 400HR are huge numbers. OPS+ says they had basically the same career offensive numbers, but Ripken did it for 6 more seasons. That is a huge difference.
Ozzie...
Quote from: ultimate7 on 12/12/09, 10:41:45 AM
Quote from: Barton on 12/11/09, 01:58:40 PM
His making the 3,000 hit club and all that were all due to his longevity
longevity is huge for the HOF, that's why 3000H, 400HR are huge numbers. OPS+ says they had basically the same career offensive numbers, but Ripken did it for 6 more seasons. That is a huge difference.
Which is why I don't understand all the hate for Dawson and McGriff
never been much of a Mcgriff fan but Dawson should get in.
never been much of a Dawson fan but McGriff should get in.
They both suck
Quote from: ryno on 12/12/09, 11:30:28 AM
Quote from: ultimate7 on 12/12/09, 10:41:45 AM
Quote from: Barton on 12/11/09, 01:58:40 PM
His making the 3,000 hit club and all that were all due to his longevity
longevity is huge for the HOF, that's why 3000H, 400HR are huge numbers. OPS+ says they had basically the same career offensive numbers, but Ripken did it for 6 more seasons. That is a huge difference.
Which is why I don't understand all the hate for Dawson and McGriff
McGriff struggles because he hit 30 homers a year at a time when guys started hitting 50. Dawson struggles in sabermetric circles because he couldn't take a walk, and he wasn't actually as awesome a power hitter as RBI makes us remember - he only hit 30 homers three times. Both struggle because sportswriters don't appear to care much about the 80s - there was no dominant team, not a lot of defining players, and offense was lower than I think people expect.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if they both got in, but I'm pretty liberal about Hall of Fame induction - I think that if a guy is on the bubble, you should let him in, because the more players in the Hall, the more of baseball history is represented there. For the same reason, I think the football Hall's annual limit of 7 inductees is dumb.
Sportwriters are cocks. McGriff can't get in because he hit 30 homers per year when roid guys hit 50. Roid guys can't get in because they hit 50 homers per year instead of hitting 30 clean ones.
Dawson was consistently in the top 10 home run hitters in the league -- from 78 to 92.
I'm like you -- liberal when it comes to HoF. What's the harm?
Oh there's harm alright.
Dawson should be in the Hall. McGriff, I don't think so.
I think no for both of them. I don't even want to look at their numbers.
I like the hall being exclusive. There are plenty of players that are very good, but not hall-worthy. Both of these guys miss the cut in the Bdawk hall of fame.
So does Sandberg, Rice, Molitor, Carter, Winfield, Perez, etc. I could go on, but about half of the recent inductees would be cut. Rose gets in oddly enough
Quote from: Mike D. on 12/15/09, 10:10:59 AM
Dawson should be in the Hall. McGriff, I don't think so.
this
Dawson was a strong defensive OF (CF early in his career plus a cannon). He stole a lot of bases before his knees went, and had strong power numbers.
McGriff hit, and that's it, he was a shitty defensive 1B
Quote from: BDawk on 12/15/09, 10:25:26 AM
I think no for both of them. I don't even want to look at their numbers.
I like the hall being exclusive. There are plenty of players that are very good, but not hall-worthy. Both of these guys miss the cut in the Bdawk hall of fame.
So does Sandberg, Rice, Molitor, Carter, Winfield, Perez, etc. I could go on, but about half of the recent inductees would be cut. Rose gets in oddly enough
So what's your cutoff? Is it stats, longevity, records held? Molitor, for instance, is in the 3000 hit club, which is (well, used to be, before steroids) an automatic qualifier. I think of the group you listed, he and Perez should be in, Winfield next, Sandberg a longshot and Carter and Rice no.
I just think it's general awesomeness. I never thought of these guys as elite. 3000 hits is nice, but Molitor never overly impressed me. Maybe it's a product of marketing or personality, but some guys just aren't big time enough for me.
Molitor's stats are roughly comparable to Jeter's, FWIW.
If there was a Hall of Fame for "Players You Wouldn't Have Expected to be Cokeheads but Were," Molitor's a first-ballot guy.
if there was a hall of fame for "players who had uncommonly hairy fore-arms," molitor's a first-ballot guy (along with garvey).
If there were a Hall of Fame for "Players who were as good as Derek Jeter but will never be mentioned alongside him because they didn't play in NY," he'd be a first ballot guy.
If there were a hall of fam eof "Players who went to the same high school as Joe Mauer" he'd be the only other guy in there.
I assume, then, that Winfield went to a different high school?
I think Winfield went to Central, I know both Molitor and Mauer went to Cretin-Durham and Prince went to Academy of Holy Angels (which for some reason I also want to say that Larry Fitzgerald attended, but not 100% certain).
Quote from: BDawk on 12/15/09, 11:27:02 AM
I just think it's general awesomeness. I never thought of these guys as elite. 3000 hits is nice, but Molitor never overly impressed me. Maybe it's a product of marketing or personality, but some guys just aren't big time enough for me.
don't you guys know anything? Look up Dawson's awesomeness stat and it is just not cutting it.
::)
Molitor was awesome, he had very good numbers and was injured about half the time, had he had a somewhat healthy career his numbers would be off the charts.
Quote from: Brookensrules! on 12/16/09, 04:23:28 PM
Quote from: BDawk on 12/15/09, 11:27:02 AM
I just think it's general awesomeness. I never thought of these guys as elite. 3000 hits is nice, but Molitor never overly impressed me. Maybe it's a product of marketing or personality, but some guys just aren't big time enough for me.
don't you guys know anything? Look up Dawson's awesomeness stat and it is just not cutting it.
::)
Molitor was awesome, he had very good numbers and was injured about half the time, had he had a somewhat healthy career his numbers would be off the charts.
But he didn't have a somewhat healthy career. Which is why longevity and staying healthy is important.
Sandberg deserves the HoF for putting up such good numbers while knowing that every mexican on the team was greasing his wife's asshole.
Quisenberry.
if he could have maintained what he did from 80-85 for a full career, he'd be a no brainer.
Even with the slide at the end of his career, he was right at a career ERA+ of 146.
6th all time
Quote from: fightonusc on 12/16/09, 07:08:46 PM
Quote from: Brookensrules! on 12/16/09, 04:23:28 PM
Quote from: BDawk on 12/15/09, 11:27:02 AM
I just think it's general awesomeness. I never thought of these guys as elite. 3000 hits is nice, but Molitor never overly impressed me. Maybe it's a product of marketing or personality, but some guys just aren't big time enough for me.
don't you guys know anything? Look up Dawson's awesomeness stat and it is just not cutting it.
::)
Molitor was awesome, he had very good numbers and was injured about half the time, had he had a somewhat healthy career his numbers would be off the charts.
But he didn't have a somewhat healthy career. Which is why longevity and staying healthy is important.
He did have a long career, check his stats and despite being often injured he still had really good numbers. Did you read my previous post?
Albert Belle should be a HOFer.
I agree. . . ..the hall is full of assholes.
I think the hall needs a new voting system / set of rules. The ones they have now served a purpose, but it's not working well today.
I'd like to see them incorporate former players in the process.
Quote from: ryno on 12/27/09, 03:28:39 PM
I'd like to see them incorporate former players in the process.
Maybe like a veterans committee or something
Dude on FoxSports with a good discussion of Larkin and Trammell. (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Morosi-Hall-of-Fame-122609) Sounds a lot like some of the banter we had back and forth on here.
Quote from: Attezz on 12/27/09, 03:31:41 PM
Quote from: ryno on 12/27/09, 03:28:39 PM
I'd like to see them incorporate former players in the process.
Maybe like a veterans committee or something
Yeah, but don't limit it just former hall of famers. And it should be something incorporated into the voting each year. The Vet's committee votes every other year.
Von Hayes
Belle.
Dude was a bad motherfucker, and apparently clean. Except for some cork. Scariest AL hitter for most of the 90's
Quote from: bonny on 12/28/09, 05:08:40 PM
Scariest house to trick or treat at for most of the 90's
Quote from: bonny on 12/28/09, 05:08:40 PM
Belle.
Dude was a bad motherfucker, and apparently clean. Except for some cork. Scariest AL hitter for most of the 90's
the dude even had his own candy bar.
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 12/29/09, 03:29:29 AM
Quote from: bonny on 12/28/09, 05:08:40 PM
Belle.
Dude was a bad motherfucker, and apparently clean. Except for some cork. Scariest AL hitter for most of the 90's
the dude even had his own candy bar.
It's got nothing on Hafner's.
Haffner's:
(http://www.haffnersoil.com/images/photos/GasStation06.jpg)
Ass it kicks, indeed.
Quote from: Barton on 12/29/09, 07:41:26 AM
Quote from: nomaaaaa on 12/29/09, 03:29:29 AM
Quote from: bonny on 12/28/09, 05:08:40 PM
Belle.
Dude was a bad motherfucker, and apparently clean. Except for some cork. Scariest AL hitter for most of the 90's
the dude even had his own candy bar.
It's got nothing on Hafner's.
i assume you know it's the same exact candy bar from the same vendor, then
One last useless promotion for the Crime Dog since today is the day that the voting is released. Fred McGriff is currently tied for 26th all-time on the career home run leaderboard. 10 of those ahead of him could be considered to be McGriff's contemporary:
Bonds - 1st all time
Griffey Jr - 5 all time
Sosa - 6th all time
McGwire/Rodriguez - tied for 8th all time
Palmeiro - 11th all time
Thome - 12th all time
Ramirez - 15th all time
Thomas - tied for 21st all time
Sheffield - 24th all time
Of these contemporaries, 7 of them are pretty much proven steroid users. Only Griffey, Thome, and Thomas as McGriff's contemporaries hit more home runs without being suspected of steroid use (that I am aware of anyway). This, more than anything else, should merit his HOF status given the stance that writers have apparently taken against guys like McGwire
Speaking of McGriff: http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/fred-mcgriff-and-the-endorsement-that-lives-forever/
more bullshit
(even though neither are HOF worthy)
Will Clark off the ballot first year of eligibility. Don Mattingly remains on and still recieves votes. Clark was the better player. Yankee mystyque keeps Mattingly on the ballot, even though his Yankee teams never won shit.
I would like it if Dewey Evans got a few votes. Not a HOF'er, but I think he's deserving of a couple courtesy ballots.
http://www.mlbnotebook.com/2010-articles/january/jack-morris-wasnt-better-than-kevin-appier.html
Guy talking about Appier being better than Jack Morris.
Appier was great to watch (talking to himself, sweating profusely, his ape like pitching motion) but played for mostly shit teams. His slider/slurve/curve that they called "Thing" was nasty in his prime. He also was a wbit different Burning his uni in the shower after losses, living on a farm in rural Kansas, reading etc.
Wasnt the same pitcher after age 30.
Neither Morris nor Appier deserve HOF
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/KCA/KCA200308130.shtml
Game in '03 2nd start back with KC after being released by the Angels. Threw 6 shutout innings with low 80's stuff. Straight guts. One of my all time favorite pitching performances.
Quote from: Mike D. on 01/07/10, 09:15:21 AM
I would like it if Dewey Evans got a few votes. Not a HOF'er, but I think he's deserving of a couple courtesy ballots.
Great player, one of my favorites growing up. Dude got better with age.
Sucks that he finished his career in Baltimore. Always had a great tan.
Appier was indeed a stud in his prime, was oh so short but one of the best if not the best in the AL for a short time.
Quote from: bonny on 01/07/10, 09:07:04 AM
more bullshit
(even though neither are HOF worthy)
Will Clark off the ballot first year of eligibility. Don Mattingly remains on and still recieves votes. Clark was the better player. Yankee mystyque keeps Mattingly on the ballot, even though his Yankee teams never won shit.
I just looked at Clark's season-by-season numbers and was pretty surprised at how unimpressive they looked compared to what I thought they were.
In other words, they are not what I thought they were.
Quote from: Mike D. on 01/07/10, 09:15:21 AM
I would like it if Dewey Evans got a few votes. Not a HOF'er, but I think he's deserving of a couple courtesy ballots.
he's in the same class as Dawson and Rice imo
I'm surprised to see that Appier only had 1 season with over 200 SOs. I thought he was much more of a power pitcher.
Quote from: Nacho on 01/07/10, 01:23:31 PM
Quote from: bonny on 01/07/10, 09:07:04 AM
more bullshit
(even though neither are HOF worthy)
Will Clark off the ballot first year of eligibility. Don Mattingly remains on and still recieves votes. Clark was the better player. Yankee mystyque keeps Mattingly on the ballot, even though his Yankee teams never won shit.
I just looked at Clark's season-by-season numbers and was pretty surprised at how unimpressive they looked compared to what I thought they were.
In other words, they are not what I thought they were.
Don't crown him if you don't want to crown him!!
Quote from: JoeDirt on 01/07/10, 01:37:12 PM
I'm surprised to see that Appier only had 1 season with over 200 SOs. I thought he was much more of a power pitcher.
Was awhile ago, but I remember him getting hurt quite a bit during the season. Seems like he missed a lot of starts...
Fix the election process by allowing a player to be on the ballot only ONCE. Too simple for sportswriters.
the only scarry part about that is probably more guys who deserve to get in won't.
which might actually be a good idea