|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 10, 2007 10:01:53 GMT -5
Nobody has mentioned the Hawk. Looks like he'll get in eventually. Count me among Andre's Army. Yeah, good to see Andre getting so many votes. Andre brings up an interesting question for SF: if a corner outfielder earns a slew of Gold Gloves, does that have an effect on his positional credit? EDIT: Uh, never mind. Should've read the whole thread first, including the sentence about Gold Gloves being essentially useless. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 10, 2007 10:09:36 GMT -5
Nobody has mentioned the Hawk. Looks like he'll get in eventually. Count me among Andre's Army. Yeah, good to see Andre getting so many votes. Andre brings up an interesting question for SF: if a corner outfielder earns a slew of Gold Gloves, does that have an effect on his positional credit? EDIT: Uh, never mind. Should've read the whole thread first, including the sentence about Gold Gloves being essentially useless. I'm not a fan of Gold Gloves but if a corner outfielder is a good fielder, I do account for that in the best way I can. I still compare them as players to corner outfielders, though. Where it gets fuzzy is that a good corner outfielder and a poor centerfielder with the same bat should end up somewhere near the same in a total ranking. I'm not sure if that always happens. Then again, there aren't many weak CF with 10 year careers. |
|
CO_Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,109
|
Post by CO_Hoya on Jan 10, 2007 13:48:34 GMT -5
Also, if McGwire used steroids, then he did break a baseball rule. But since there's no direct evidence, then I'd vote him in. Sorry I didn't notice or respond to this sooner, but (incredibly) MLB didn't ban steroids, etc. until after 2003 season, after McGwire had retired. I'd have voted for McGwire, not necessarily because I think he's innocent in this mess, but rather to stick it to the baseball establishment that turned a blind eye to steroids, HGH, etc. during the 90's in pursuit of the almighty dollar. McGwire's hypocrisy pales to Selig's and the owners'. Link to USA Today article, which has a summary of the policy timeline (scroll down). |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 10, 2007 13:55:17 GMT -5
I'm surprised Tony Gwynn's comments on McGwire didn't get bigger play. Most people just want to pontificate:
"In the late 1980s and early '90s, we had no rules," Gwynn said Tuesday on a conference call. "We knew, players knew, owners knew, everybody knew and we didn't say anything about it.
"As a player I kind of focused on what was going on on the field, and as far as I'm concerned he dominated an era."
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,044
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 12, 2007 6:55:06 GMT -5
HOF voters are hypocrites. they let in an admitted cheated in gaylord perry and now they want to keep out players they assume used steroids.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,044
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 12, 2007 7:06:09 GMT -5
concepcion was a much better defensive player than trammell. don't underestimate his importance to the reds of the 70's. also, name another NL shortstop that was better than davey during the 70's before templeton and ozzie came along late in the decade.
to attribute the 70's reds all star game appearances to ballot stuffing is ridiculous. they were the best players year in and year out.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 12, 2007 11:18:15 GMT -5
concepcion was a much better defensive player than trammell. don't underestimate his importance to the reds of the 70's. also, name another NL shortstop that was better than davey during the 70's before templeton and ozzie came along late in the decade. to attribute the 70's reds all star game appearances to ballot stuffing is ridiculous. they were the best players year in and year out. They actually got caught ballot-stuffing. The commissioner reversed some of their elections. Even without ballot-stuffing, using All-Star selections is ridiculous. Davey wouldn't be the worst entry to the Hall, but he'd be worse than most. It's arguments like "Don't underestimate his importance" that are completely pointless. That team had a series of legit HOF - Rose, Bench, Morgan - including two of the greatest of all time at their positions in Bench and Morgan. It had All-Star caliber players like Foster and Perez. You could've had me at SS and they would've been great. If Joe Morgan had his way, the entire team would be in the Hall. As for defense, Concepcion was better than Trammell. But Trammell was a very good defender himself -- Concepcion wasn't that much better. It isn't like Trammell was a hack. |
|
HoyaFanNY
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,044
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 12, 2007 12:03:11 GMT -5
you still can't name another national league ss that was better than concepcion in the 70's. you are way too stat conscious. numbers don't tell the whole story. look at cal ripken. IMO he is one of the most overrated players in history, but everyone is blinded by his selfish streak. that number got him into the HOF, not his slightly above average stats. harold baines has similar stats but no one thinks he is a hall of famer. both were compilers, just like rice.
personally, i don't think either trammell or concepcion belong in the HOF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2007 14:08:27 GMT -5
you still can't name another national league ss that was better than concepcion in the 70's. you are way too stat conscious. numbers don't tell the whole story. look at cal ripken. IMO he is one of the most overrated players in history, but everyone is blinded by his selfish streak. that number got him into the HOF, not his slightly above average stats. harold baines has similar stats but no one thinks he is a hall of famer. both were compilers, just like rice. personally, i don't think either trammell or concepcion belong in the HOF. The reason no one thinks Baines is a Hall of Famer is because he spent the last 46 years of his career as a DH. I also can't understand those who think Ripken was overrated. Only 8 guys in the history of the game have both 3000 hits and 400 HR. That's pretty heady company... He also ushered in the trend of big, hard-hitting shortstops. Before Ripken, SS were slap-hitting, good fielding little guys. He paved the way for guys like Jeter and A-Rod. And....the streak. Was it selfish and stubborn? Sure. But it's still 2,632 straight games. The streak alone doesn't get into the Hall of Fame. He'd be in on the numbers alone, particularly having done it while playing (mostly) at one of the most difficult and important defensive positions on the field. The top 10 "Similar Batters", according to baseball-reference. com: Dave Winfield Robin Yount Craig Biggio Al Kaline Eddie Murray Carl Yastrzemski George Brett Harold Baines Tony Perez Andre Dawson All Hall-of-Famers except for Baines (DH stigma), Biggio and Dawson (both of whom probably will get in someday). And if you're going to tag Ripken for being a "compiler", note that he played 3001 career games. The average for the 10 guys listed above: 2865. So, on average, he played 136 games more than those 10 guys. Less than a full season. Not exactly a lot of time to "compile" stats...unless all 10 of those guys were overrated. |
|
HoyaFanNY
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,044
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 12, 2007 14:33:53 GMT -5
to some extent, i think they all were overrated. none are considered a dominant hitter in their era, more second tier stars. i honestly don't think of any of them as HOF players (except maybe murray), but then again that is subject to personal opinion. personally, i go more dominance rather than longevity. for example, i consider pedro martinez a first ballot HOF, based on his ridiculously awesome seasons between 97 and 03, whereas i think someone like bert blyleven was a good pitcher but not HOF material. i'll take shorter term dominance (7-10 years) over 15-20 years of above average stats.
it's all personal preference. there is no right or wrong, just opinion. voters these days seem to base it more on popularity and who they liked more rather than just keeping it on the field.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 12, 2007 14:48:19 GMT -5
to some extent, i think they all were overrated. none are considered a dominant hitter in their era, more second tier stars. i honestly don't think of any of them as HOF players (except maybe murray), but then again that is subject to personal opinion. personally, i go more dominance rather than longevity. for example, i consider pedro martinez a first ballot HOF, based on his ridiculously awesome seasons between 97 and 03, whereas i think someone like bert blyleven was a good pitcher but not HOF material. i'll take shorter term dominance (7-10 years) over 15-20 years of above average stats. it's all personal preference. there is no right or wrong, just opinion. voters these days seem to base it more on popularity and who they liked more rather than just keeping it on the field. Yeah, but there are these things, called "statistics" that are an actual measurement of what people accomplished on the field and allowing us to compare the performance of each other, so that people aren't allowed to think stupid candidates, like Concepcion or, say, Scott Brosious, are anywhere near good enough for the Hall of Fame. And lay off Blyleven--he was both really good and pitched for a long time, something which has a lot of value. He just pitched for some crappy teams that didn't score him any runs. Was he Pedro good? No, but you'd have to throw a lot of guys out of the Hall if Pedro was your benchmark. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2007 14:50:04 GMT -5
to some extent, i think they all were overrated. none are considered a dominant hitter in their era, more second tier stars. i honestly don't think of any of them as HOF players (except maybe murray), but then again that is subject to personal opinion. personally, i go more dominance rather than longevity. for example, i consider pedro martinez a first ballot HOF, based on his ridiculously awesome seasons between 97 and 03, whereas i think someone like bert blyleven was a good pitcher but not HOF material. i'll take shorter term dominance (7-10 years) over 15-20 years of above average stats. it's all personal preference. there is no right or wrong, just opinion. voters these days seem to base it more on popularity and who they liked more rather than just keeping it on the field. Fair enough - I think the other thing in Ripken's favor is that he was the best at his position for a long time, from his rookie year in 82 until sometime in the mid-90s. Even if you bookend his "Shortstop Supremacy" (for lack of a better phrase) with his MVP years of 83 and 91, that's 9 seasons. I will agree that he was never truly dominant in the same way as Pedro (few are), but I think if you're the best at your position for over a decade, you're pretty much a shoo-in. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 12, 2007 16:04:50 GMT -5
you still can't name another national league ss that was better than concepcion in the 70's. you are way too stat conscious. numbers don't tell the whole story. look at cal ripken. IMO he is one of the most overrated players in history, but everyone is blinded by his selfish streak. that number got him into the HOF, not his slightly above average stats. harold baines has similar stats but no one thinks he is a hall of famer. both were compilers, just like rice. personally, i don't think either trammell or concepcion belong in the HOF. Does the best player at a position in each league for each decade (an arbitrary distinction) belong in the HOF? There's only about 280 HOF. Seeing as the HOF goes back to players in the 1870s, that's 13 decades. Two leagues for most of those. Eight positions for hitters. That's 208 players before pitchers. After taking out about 20 "pioneers", that's 50 pitchers. Over 13 decades. And that's not accounting for the fact that multiple position players should get in sometimes -- Mantle, Mays and Snider, for example. So no, I don't think best at your position in your league for the decade gets you in. ------------------- Streak or no streak, Cal should be in. Where you are trumpeting Davey Concepcion, Cal was also above average in fielding. And where Davey was worse than a league average hitter, Cal had ten straight seasons of being consistently better than league average, including TWO legit MVP seasons. Cal's 1991 probably produced more wins for the Orioles than two years of Davey Concepcion for the Reds. It isn't close. I'll rely on stats, thanks. You can rely on your man-love for Davey Concepcion. Mine are facts, yours are easily manipulated emotion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2007 16:21:57 GMT -5
Does the best player at a position in each league for each decade (an arbitrary distinction) belong in the HOF? There's only about 280 HOF. Seeing as the HOF goes back to players in the 1870s, that's 13 decades. Two leagues for most of those. Eight positions for hitters. That's 208 players before pitchers. After taking out about 20 "pioneers", that's 50 pitchers. Over 13 decades. And that's not accounting for the fact that multiple position players should get in sometimes -- Mantle, Mays and Snider, for example. So no, I don't think best at your position in your league for the decade gets you in. Well, if you break it down by decade, denoted by years ending in "0", the answer is no. That doesn't get you in. 'Cause that's incredibly arbitrary. Mark Grace is not the best hitter of the 90s even though he had more hits that anyone else from 1990-1999. It's just a fluky statistical anomaly based on the timing of one's career. My point is that it's pretty significant if someone is the best (or pretty darn close to it) at their position for 10 years or more. Realistically, that's a pretty limited group. |
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,486
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jan 12, 2007 22:52:04 GMT -5
you still can't name another national league ss that was better than concepcion in the 70's. you are way too stat conscious. numbers don't tell the whole story. look at cal ripken. IMO he is one of the most overrated players in history, but everyone is blinded by his selfish streak. that number got him into the HOF, not his slightly above average stats. harold baines has similar stats but no one thinks he is a hall of famer. both were compilers, just like rice. personally, i don't think either trammell or concepcion belong in the HOF. The reason no one thinks Baines is a Hall of Famer is because he spent the last 46 years of his career as a DH. I also can't understand those who think Ripken was overrated. Only 8 guys in the history of the game have both 3000 hits and 400 HR. That's pretty heady company... He also ushered in the trend of big, hard-hitting shortstops. Before Ripken, SS were slap-hitting, good fielding little guys. He paved the way for guys like Jeter and A-Rod. And....the streak. Was it selfish and stubborn? Sure. But it's still 2,632 straight games. The streak alone doesn't get into the Hall of Fame. He'd be in on the numbers alone, particularly having done it while playing (mostly) at one of the most difficult and important defensive positions on the field. The top 10 "Similar Batters", according to baseball-reference. com: Dave Winfield Robin Yount Craig Biggio Al Kaline Eddie Murray Carl Yastrzemski George Brett Harold Baines Tony Perez Andre Dawson All Hall-of-Famers except for Baines (DH stigma), Biggio and Dawson (both of whom probably will get in someday). And if you're going to tag Ripken for being a "compiler", note that he played 3001 career games. The average for the 10 guys listed above: 2865. So, on average, he played 136 games more than those 10 guys. Less than a full season. Not exactly a lot of time to "compile" stats...unless all 10 of those guys were overrated. Well, we all have our own standards. Yours are clearly higher than most, which is fine. But to say that Robin Yount and George Brett are not legitimate hall of famers is absurd. Yount would be a top 5 shortstop ever if he hadn't switched positions, and Brett is without question a top 5 third baseman - maybe top 2. Who's clearly better other than Mike Schmidt? |
|
DanMcQ
Moderator 
Posts: 32,853
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 13, 2007 12:37:43 GMT -5
HOF voters are hypocrites. they let in an admitted cheated in gaylord perry and now they want to keep out players they assume used steroids. A topic being bandied about on Boston sports radio this week was, if you snub McGwire because he allegedly used steroids, why is there no scrutiny on Ripkin who, at an age when players normally break down with some frequency, miraculously stayed healthy game after game after game? Who is to say that some unknown steroid's effect on more rapid recuperation was not at play? I don't know of any suspicion cast Cal's way but after all, he did play with Rafael Palmeiro. The argument is how can you assume ANY player is clean in this environment? Disclaimer: not saying I ascribe to any of the above, but it's an interesting issue that was raised. Ripken (and others who have squeaky-clean public personas) get a free pass - should they? I am inclined to believe Ripken - but what if things like this are just masterful publicity? |
|
HoyaFanNY
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,044
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 13, 2007 15:46:50 GMT -5
brett was a very good player. i can handle him being in, yount on the other hand i consider a compiler. just my opinion.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,044
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 13, 2007 15:52:11 GMT -5
man love for concepcion? are you serious SF? i never said he was a hall of famer. i was just laughing at your arrogance saying you could play short for the reds and there would be no drop off with the team. you basically called him a bum. you clearly didn't like the reds of the 70's. probably a bitter dodgers fan.
ripken had a career .276 batting average and averaged 23 homers and 91 rbi's a year his career. don't make him out to be ted williams. the streak got him all those votes, not his play on the field.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 13, 2007 17:58:18 GMT -5
man love for concepcion? are you serious SF? i never said he was a hall of famer. i was just laughing at your arrogance saying you could play short for the reds and there would be no drop off with the team. you basically called him a bum. you clearly didn't like the reds of the 70's. probably a bitter dodgers fan. ripken had a career .276 batting average and averaged 23 homers and 91 rbi's a year his career. don't make him out to be ted williams. the streak got him all those votes, not his play on the field. The position at which he had that .276/.340/.447 career line matters. Ripken was one of the best hitting shortstops of all time and a pretty good fielder as well. |
|
HoyaFanNY
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,044
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 13, 2007 18:29:54 GMT -5
i could care less about position. IMO he was, and continues to be, one of the most overrated players in baseball history. only 4 100+ rbi seasons, only once with 30+ homers, only 5 times above .300, and over 20 errors 6 times. not to mention he has by far the lowest SB total of any HOF shortstop. people are blinded by the streak and how much of a 'good guy' ripken supposedly is.
|
|
