SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2020 Hall of Fame - Miller, Simmons in, (+Jeter, Walker)
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 23, 2020 14:09:20 GMT -5
Well so I said this to Manfred above, but to reiterate the point: Walker had considerably better offensive and defensive numbers than Jeter, albeit in a shorter career. I get the argument that Jeter is a more obvious HoF candidate than Walker despite that - longevity counts for something! But you are treating it as completely obvious that Jeter should have been unanimously elected and just as obvious that Walker shouldn't have been elected at all, and I just don't understand how those are consistent views. Can you explain it? I agree with your larger point, that Walker was better offensively, although he did receive a huge boost from Colorado and the injuries, which he got playing on turf a lot with Montreal which Curt Schilling pointed out, and I can buy that he was a better RF than Jeter was a SS. However, the fact that Jeter was a SS does matter. Jeter was playing a key defensive position (mediocre to be kind) while Walker wasn't so he should have much better numbers than Jeter to get in. Jeter's offensive numbers for a SS were extremely strong, and of course that doesn't factor in post-season performances. So what I'm trying to say is that Jeter is obvious for a good reason. He was among the elite SS in the game, and the fact that he was for a very prolonged time is significant. I like looking at the fangraphs numbers because their positional adjustment accounts for the value of Jeter playing a more important defensive position (see their 'Def' numbers) - yet even despite that he sucked so bad at it that his numbers come out worse than Walker's. And wRC+ accounts for ballpark effects, yet that shows Walker to be way better than Jeter as well - 140 vs. 119. By the way, you know who had very similar offensive numbers to Jeter? Barry Larkin (118 wRC+). Of course Larkin's defense was much better; on the other hand he played in only about 80% as many games. All in all I'd probably take Larkin before I'd take Jeter as a HoF candidate. Yet you don't tend to hear stuff like "it's crazy that Larkin wasn't a unanimous selection," etc. Anyway, I certainly think Jeter obviously belongs in the Hall of Fame. But I also think Walker obviously belongs in the Hall of Fame. And I can't figure out a rationale for saying Jeter does but Walker clearly doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 23, 2020 14:18:04 GMT -5
I find it interesting that so many people think of Jeter as a generational great player, part of which I thin is because of his likability and winning. Which granted is great and all but his ego about playing SS when he was not good at it and should have been moved off to another position tells a different story. That hurt the MFY.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2020 14:35:05 GMT -5
I find it interesting that so many people think of Jeter as a generational great player, part of which I thin is because of his likability and winning. Which granted is great and all but his ego about playing SS when he was not good at it and should have been moved off to another position tells a different story. That hurt the MFY. I guess it's similar to how Tom Brady is thought of as the best QB of all-time even though there are some with better numbers. Same thing - likabilty and winning (a lot of winning) and like Jeter, a lot of big memorable moments, signature moments.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 23, 2020 14:47:22 GMT -5
I find it interesting that so many people think of Jeter as a generational great player, part of which I thin is because of his likability and winning. Which granted is great and all but his ego about playing SS when he was not good at it and should have been moved off to another position tells a different story. That hurt the MFY. Jeter had 73 fWAR for his career. That's about 90 short of Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds. The "why wasn't Jeter unanimous?" questions are ridiculous considering how many other recent players have had more WAR and missed by a lot more than one vote. Hell, why weren't Ricky Henderson and Wade Boggs unanimous? Why weren't Chipper Jones, Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux unanimous? They were way, way better players. Now it's like only Jeter got robbed? Complete BS. I'd vote for Scott Rolen over Jeter if I had to choose and he can't even get elected. Jeter got 50% more plate appearances to get 3 more WAR. Are people not going to bitch about Mike Trout not being unanimous because he's "not a winner"? He already has more career fWAR than Jeter in 1558 fewer games.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 23, 2020 15:33:19 GMT -5
Next year has the potential to be the most hated HOF class ever. No legit candidates get added to the ballot (Tim Hudson, Aramis Ramirez, Mark Buehrle, etc.). Imagine an all-heel class of Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens.
Things get interesting again in 2022 with ARod and Papi.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 23, 2020 15:51:31 GMT -5
Next year has the potential to be the most hated HOF class ever. No legit candidates get added to the ballot (Tim Hudson, Aramis Ramirez, Mark Buehrle, etc.). Imagine an all-heel class of Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens. Things get interesting again in 2022 with ARod and Papi. Yikes. I wonder if that helps someone like Vizquel or Rolen get in just as like a palate cleanser.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 23, 2020 15:58:13 GMT -5
In regards to the steroid era and Bonds and Clemens and the rest. Yes it was bad but how much do we know about the other eras? The greenies and uppers that they were taking. Or how much the game has improved from the era in which Rico Petrocelli said he would drink a 6 pack in between doubleheaders. I don't know the facts but even though I hate Clemens I am not sure those guys should be held out.
I mean hello, Doc Ellis says he pitched a nono on LSD
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 23, 2020 16:21:11 GMT -5
Next year has the potential to be the most hated HOF class ever. No legit candidates get added to the ballot (Tim Hudson, Aramis Ramirez, Mark Buehrle, etc.). Imagine an all-heel class of Schilling, Bonds, and Clemens. Things get interesting again in 2022 with ARod and Papi. Yikes. I wonder if that helps someone like Vizquel or Rolen get in just as like a palate cleanser. With Walker in, I think Rolen becomes the next guy to benefit from a public campaign on his behalf.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 23, 2020 16:42:58 GMT -5
In regards to the steroid era and Bonds and Clemens and the rest. Yes it was bad but how much do we know about the other eras? The greenies and uppers that they were taking. Or how much the game has improved from the era in which Rico Petrocelli said he would drink a 6 pack in between doubleheaders. I don't know the facts but even though I hate Clemens I am not sure those guys should be held out. I mean hello, Doc Ellis says he pitched a nono on LSD I wasn't even referring to the PEDs, necessarily. Bonds has been accused of abuse by his first wife (which I didn't realize until Keith Law's newsletter yesterday) and Clemens has the Mindy McCready thing. PEDs just compound the issues with them. NOTE: Let's not get into a full discussion of this stuff - I was merely referring to their existence.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 23, 2020 16:51:54 GMT -5
Few points on the ongoing debates.
I'm actually coming around on Larry Walker. Doesn't have the longevity or games played, but there's credence in his numbers. Things like WAR and fWAR are suppose to take into account park factors, but the thin air at Coors, especially before the humidors, is a unique animal. Still, I hadn't realized he was infinitely better hitting there than anyone else. I think that should be a factor. I also read an article that away performances for him dipped after the first game away from Coors, like it does for everyone else, because of the changing altitude.
I still think it's weird for a guy to get down to 10% in 2014, get 30% for the first time in 2018 and then we're enshrining in 2020.
I try not to use playoff success against a player (unless they're truly horrible, but even then), but if you have a phenomenal postseason record and 5 rings then I'm sorry, that counts for something. That's what makes a borderline player like Jeter unanimous. I didn't respect his game all that much when he played, but he clearly belongs in the hall. It's why I think Schilling should be in. He's borderline on his own credentials and then you factor in his tremendous October success.
Craig Biggio I still do not really respect. He was never the best nor someone you ever confused as ever being a future HoFer. He wasn't ever the best at his position and he accumulated his WAR and hitting numbers by basically being a healthy starter from age 23 (50 games at 22) to 41. He was a productive starter with a long career hitting: .281/.363/.433/.796
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 23, 2020 17:02:58 GMT -5
In regards to the steroid era and Bonds and Clemens and the rest. Yes it was bad but how much do we know about the other eras? The greenies and uppers that they were taking. Or how much the game has improved from the era in which Rico Petrocelli said he would drink a 6 pack in between doubleheaders. I don't know the facts but even though I hate Clemens I am not sure those guys should be held out. I mean hello, Doc Ellis says he pitched a nono on LSD I wasn't even referring to the PEDs, necessarily. Bonds has been accused of abuse by his first wife (which I didn't realize until Keith Law's newsletter yesterday) and Clemens has the Mindy McCready thing. PEDs just compound the issues with them. NOTE: Let's not get into a full discussion of this stuff - I was merely referring to their existence. And Pete Rose has allegations against him beyond cheating, but I'm not one who votes on a player based on anything off the field. I think that's a slippery slope and quite frankly, not relevant to their contributions on the baseball field and their ability to throw or hit a ball. If David Ortiz pulled an Aaron Hernandez I'd still want him in the hall. Maybe you don't celebrate the man per ce, but that doesn't change what he's done on the field.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 23, 2020 17:08:03 GMT -5
Well the issue is that voting is supposed to be based on "the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
Depends somewhat on how you interpret the charge, but I think it's tough to ignore off-field stuff entirely.
Now, whether that SHOULD be the charge is a different discussion.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2020 17:49:06 GMT -5
I find it interesting that so many people think of Jeter as a generational great player, part of which I thin is because of his likability and winning. Which granted is great and all but his ego about playing SS when he was not good at it and should have been moved off to another position tells a different story. That hurt the MFY. Jeter had 73 fWAR for his career. That's about 90 short of Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds. The "why wasn't Jeter unanimous?" questions are ridiculous considering how many other recent players have had more WAR and missed by a lot more than one vote. Hell, why weren't Ricky Henderson and Wade Boggs unanimous? Why weren't Chipper Jones, Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux unanimous? They were way, way better players. Now it's like only Jeter got robbed? Complete BS. tha Are people not going to bitch about Mike Trout not being unanimous because he's "not a winner"? He already has more career fWAR than Jeter in 1558 fewer games. Clueless voters would be my answer. Don't know why you wouldn't vote for those players. If the voters were incapable of voting for an obvious HOFer, then perhaps they shouldn't have the privilege of voting. And the players you mentioned weren't even Ruth, Cobb, Williams, or Cy Young and not to vote for them in my opinion should be seen as "Man, were those people stupid", not well, "If Ruth didn't get 100% why should anybody then?" as if continuing to be ignorant is a good thing. I look at it as the writers were foolish back then. You'd hope they'd be better now and for the most part they are, but some are still clueless.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 23, 2020 22:12:07 GMT -5
I try not to use playoff success against a player (unless they're truly horrible, but even then), but if you have a phenomenal postseason record and 5 rings then I'm sorry, that counts for something. That's what makes a borderline player like Jeter unanimous. I didn't respect his game all that much when he played, but he clearly belongs in the hall. It's why I think Schilling should be in. He's borderline on his own credentials and then you factor in his tremendous October success. I agree that postseason performance should count for something. But: Derek Jeter, regular season career: .310/.377/.440 Derek Jeter, postseason career: .308/.374/.465 He's just the exact same player. And if you're wondering about Mr. November's clutchiness, his career postseason WPA is... -0.92. It's actually kind of remarkable he was that unclutch, considering the very respectable slash line. He played essentially a full season's worth of postseason games, and that WPA is worse than any single season he played until his last year in 2014. Curt Schilling, on the other hand, had a career postseason ERA of 2.23, and several obviously clutch moments, and I think that should absolutely be factored into his Hall of Fame case. By the way, David Ortiz, like Jeter, was basically the same player in the postseason - .286/.380/.552 regular vs. .289/.404/.543 post. Unlike Jeter, though, he really was clutch - a 3.22 WPA in 85 games.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 23, 2020 22:16:54 GMT -5
I agree that postseason performance should count for something. But: Derek Jeter, regular season career: .310/.377/.440 Derek Jeter, postseason career: .308/.374/.465 He's just the exact same player. And if you're wondering about Mr. November's clutchiness, his career postseason WPA is... -0.92. It's actually kind of remarkable he was that unclutch, considering the very respectable slash line. He played essentially a full season's worth of postseason games, and that WPA is worse than any single season he played until his last year in 2014. Yeah but... that's good. At a minimum it's essentially an extra season of peak Jeter you can tack on to his career.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 23, 2020 22:24:37 GMT -5
How does Derek Jeter miss a single vote? How does Larry f'ing Walker get voted into the HoF? Well so I said this to Manfred above, but to reiterate the point: Walker had considerably better offensive and defensive numbers than Jeter, albeit in a shorter career. I get the argument that Jeter is a more obvious HoF candidate than Walker despite that - longevity counts for something! But you are treating it as completely obvious that Jeter should have been unanimously elected and just as obvious that Walker shouldn't have been elected at all, and I just don't understand how those are consistent views. Can you explain it? Jeter had 5 Gold Gloves. People can use sabermetric stats to say he was bad, and at the end of his career he was past it defensively, but he was getting hardware somehow. As for offensive numbers, it is kind of a matter of perspective. Jeter batted .003 points lower. He had about 900 more hits. He scored nearly 2,000 runs. Drove in about the same number. Stole a ton more bases. So.... he was worse over his career in that he was less a power hitter. Fine. But guy broke 3,000 hits, won a fistful of WS, hit .310 for his career, and was the face of the premier franchise of the sport in one of its greatest periods. Larry Walker was... a Rockie. A very good hitter... even an excellent hitter... who struggled to play full seasons and put up career totals that aren’t obvious magic numbers. ~2,1000 hits, <400 home runs is hardly an uncommon line in this era. The HOF is a place for standout numbers AND aura. Jeter was one of the biggest names in sports for 20 years. Larry Walker was... always on the all-star ballot?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 23, 2020 22:35:58 GMT -5
I agree that postseason performance should count for something. But: Derek Jeter, regular season career: .310/.377/.440 Derek Jeter, postseason career: .308/.374/.465 He's just the exact same player. And if you're wondering about Mr. November's clutchiness, his career postseason WPA is... -0.92. It's actually kind of remarkable he was that unclutch, considering the very respectable slash line. He played essentially a full season's worth of postseason games, and that WPA is worse than any single season he played until his last year in 2014. Yeah but... that's good. At a minimum it's essentially an extra season of peak Jeter you can tack on to his career. Sure, it's good. Not peak Jeter, though - it's average Jeter, and unusually unclutch Jeter at that. But the claim was that he had a "phenomenal postseason record" and that moves him from a borderline HoF case to a (shoulda been) unanimous one. I'm not seeing that. (I almost think you could say it of Schilling though.) Maybe I should re-state that I think he definitely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 24, 2020 8:31:57 GMT -5
Well so I said this to Manfred above, but to reiterate the point: Walker had considerably better offensive and defensive numbers than Jeter, albeit in a shorter career. I get the argument that Jeter is a more obvious HoF candidate than Walker despite that - longevity counts for something! But you are treating it as completely obvious that Jeter should have been unanimously elected and just as obvious that Walker shouldn't have been elected at all, and I just don't understand how those are consistent views. Can you explain it? Jeter had 5 Gold Gloves. People can use sabermetric stats to say he was bad, and at the end of his career he was past it defensively, but he was getting hardware somehow. As for offensive numbers, it is kind of a matter of perspective. Jeter batted .003 points lower. He had about 900 more hits. He scored nearly 2,000 runs. Drove in about the same number. Stole a ton more bases. So.... he was worse over his career in that he was less a power hitter. Fine. But guy broke 3,000 hits, won a fistful of WS, hit .310 for his career, and was the face of the premier franchise of the sport in one of its greatest periods. Larry Walker was... a Rockie. A very good hitter... even an excellent hitter... who struggled to play full seasons and put up career totals that aren’t obvious magic numbers. ~2,1000 hits, <400 home runs is hardly an uncommon line in this era. The HOF is a place for standout numbers AND aura. Jeter was one of the biggest names in sports for 20 years. Larry Walker was... always on the all-star ballot? All of this seems to add up to a Hall of Fame that tries to gauge how "famous" a player was instead of how good he was. I don't understand why that's appealing. Derek Jeter was extremely famous and one of the 100 best players of all time. Larry Walker and Scott Rolen were quite a bit less famous and roughly as good. Trying to figure out how good a player is - whether Dwight Evans was better than Dave Winfield, whether Tim Raines was better than Tony Gwynn, etc. - is interesting to me. Trying to make pronouncements about "fame"? What's the point of honoring people for being already famous? ----- Aside about Rolen - I've wondered if we (and by "we" I mean "any of y'all boneheads who don't value him") view David Price differently in Boston if Steve Pearce isn't walking around with his 2018 World Series MVP Award. The same can be said for 2006 with Eckstein taking Rolen's. I have to imagine there are at least a few voters who would value that essentially meaningless "2006 World Series MVP" being on a plaque to an exorbitant margin.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 24, 2020 8:34:55 GMT -5
Yeah but... that's good. At a minimum it's essentially an extra season of peak Jeter you can tack on to his career. Sure, it's good. Not peak Jeter, though - it's average Jeter, and unusually unclutch Jeter at that. But the claim was that he had a "phenomenal postseason record" and that moves him from a borderline HoF case to a (shoulda been) unanimous one. I'm not seeing that. (I almost think you could say it of Schilling though.) Maybe I should re-state that I think he definitely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. But if you think he was a borderline guy with those numbers and then carried virtually the same numbers into October.... Plus, you can say he was unclutch, but he does have a WS MVP and a .947 OPS in 2009. I will admit it's not Curt Schilling or David Ortiz elevation though.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 24, 2020 10:12:56 GMT -5
If Nomar had 2 more seasons at his peak, would he be a HoFer? That's basically what I think of Larry Walker at this point.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 10:31:02 GMT -5
Jeter had 5 Gold Gloves. People can use sabermetric stats to say he was bad, and at the end of his career he was past it defensively, but he was getting hardware somehow. As for offensive numbers, it is kind of a matter of perspective. Jeter batted .003 points lower. He had about 900 more hits. He scored nearly 2,000 runs. Drove in about the same number. Stole a ton more bases. So.... he was worse over his career in that he was less a power hitter. Fine. But guy broke 3,000 hits, won a fistful of WS, hit .310 for his career, and was the face of the premier franchise of the sport in one of its greatest periods. Larry Walker was... a Rockie. A very good hitter... even an excellent hitter... who struggled to play full seasons and put up career totals that aren’t obvious magic numbers. ~2,1000 hits, <400 home runs is hardly an uncommon line in this era. The HOF is a place for standout numbers AND aura. Jeter was one of the biggest names in sports for 20 years. Larry Walker was... always on the all-star ballot? All of this seems to add up to a Hall of Fame that tries to gauge how "famous" a player was instead of how good he was. I don't understand why that's appealing. Derek Jeter was extremely famous and one of the 100 best players of all time. Larry Walker and Scott Rolen were quite a bit less famous and roughly as good. Trying to figure out how good a player is - whether Dwight Evans was better than Dave Winfield, whether Tim Raines was better than Tony Gwynn, etc. - is interesting to me. Trying to make pronouncements about "fame"? What's the point of honoring people for being already famous? ----- Aside about Rolen - I've wondered if we (and by "we" I mean "any of y'all boneheads who don't value him") view David Price differently in Boston if Steve Pearce isn't walking around with his 2018 World Series MVP Award. The same can be said for 2006 with Eckstein taking Rolen's. I have to imagine there are at least a few voters who would value that essentially meaningless "2006 World Series MVP" being on a plaque to an exorbitant margin. That is a bit of an over simplification, but the word “fame” is, of course, in the title. One certainly expects to go and tell one’s kids stories of homers for sick kids or pointing to the stands etc. These are the players a generation was most apt to pay to see. Guys I barely think about at the time are not guys I go to see in the Hall later. If people want to open a Hall-of-Calculus, fine, but we shouldn’t find out decades later that the very good player was actually much better than what we saw daily as he played. Rolen, of the barely 2,000 hits, was apparently magic, as he managed to get no love for MVP despite his greatness... how was the baseball world collectively so blind then but so aware now? Guy was a very good player, injury prone, alas, which might be the difference between him and Beltre, a first ballot HOFer. But injuries have kept a lot of guys out. Them’s the breaks. It isn’t the Hall-of-Projection either.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 24, 2020 10:49:11 GMT -5
Yeah but... that's good. At a minimum it's essentially an extra season of peak Jeter you can tack on to his career. Sure, it's good. Not peak Jeter, though - it's average Jeter, and unusually unclutch Jeter at that. But the claim was that he had a "phenomenal postseason record" and that moves him from a borderline HoF case to a (shoulda been) unanimous one. I'm not seeing that. (I almost think you could say it of Schilling though.) Maybe I should re-state that I think he definitely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. To be fair, it's difficult to be just as good in the postseason as it is in the regular season because the pitching is far superior and the weather is often miserable. I'm sure we'd all take it if Mookie was the same player (so far in his early career).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 24, 2020 10:52:45 GMT -5
All of this seems to add up to a Hall of Fame that tries to gauge how "famous" a player was instead of how good he was. I don't understand why that's appealing. Derek Jeter was extremely famous and one of the 100 best players of all time. Larry Walker and Scott Rolen were quite a bit less famous and roughly as good. Trying to figure out how good a player is - whether Dwight Evans was better than Dave Winfield, whether Tim Raines was better than Tony Gwynn, etc. - is interesting to me. Trying to make pronouncements about "fame"? What's the point of honoring people for being already famous? ----- Aside about Rolen - I've wondered if we (and by "we" I mean "any of y'all boneheads who don't value him") view David Price differently in Boston if Steve Pearce isn't walking around with his 2018 World Series MVP Award. The same can be said for 2006 with Eckstein taking Rolen's. I have to imagine there are at least a few voters who would value that essentially meaningless "2006 World Series MVP" being on a plaque to an exorbitant margin. That is a bit of an over simplification, but the word “fame” is, of course, in the title. One certainly expects to go and tell one’s kids stories of homers for sick kids or pointing to the stands etc. These are the players a generation was most apt to pay to see. Guys I barely think about at the time are not guys I go to see in the Hall later. If people want to open a Hall-of-Calculus, fine, but we shouldn’t find out decades later that the very good player was actually much better than what we saw daily as he played. Rolen, of the barely 2,000 hits, was apparently magic, as he managed to get no love for MVP despite his greatness... how was the baseball world collectively so blind then but so aware now? Guy was a very good player, injury prone, alas, which might be the difference between him and Beltre, a first ballot HOFer. But injuries have kept a lot of guys out. Them’s the breaks. It isn’t the Hall-of-Projection either. As I said earlier, Jeter has 3 more fWAR than Rolen in 50% more plate appearances. And since you value Gold Gloves so much, Rolen has 8 of them. He was one of the best defensive 3B of all time. Easily top 5. If Rolen played a few more seasons, he'd have Beltre's career.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 11:06:53 GMT -5
That is a bit of an over simplification, but the word “fame” is, of course, in the title. One certainly expects to go and tell one’s kids stories of homers for sick kids or pointing to the stands etc. These are the players a generation was most apt to pay to see. Guys I barely think about at the time are not guys I go to see in the Hall later. If people want to open a Hall-of-Calculus, fine, but we shouldn’t find out decades later that the very good player was actually much better than what we saw daily as he played. Rolen, of the barely 2,000 hits, was apparently magic, as he managed to get no love for MVP despite his greatness... how was the baseball world collectively so blind then but so aware now? Guy was a very good player, injury prone, alas, which might be the difference between him and Beltre, a first ballot HOFer. But injuries have kept a lot of guys out. Them’s the breaks. It isn’t the Hall-of-Projection either. As I said earlier, Jeter has 3 more fWAR than Rolen in 50% more plate appearances. And since you value Gold Gloves so much, Rolen has 8 of them. He was one of the best defensive 3B of all time. Easily top 5. If Rolen played a few more seasons, he'd have Beltre's career. I said that... if if if. Not the Hall of Projections. And the fWAR comp is for the Hall of Calculus. The Yankees had one of their most dominant stretches, and it was the era of Jeter. Rolen.... was fourth in MVP voting once? Hit over .300 twice? Squeaked out 2,000 hits with a couple well-below offensive seasons at the end of his career? Here’s a Rolen fact: after age 29, he had 2 Gold Gloves (good!) and an OPS of .791, OPS+ of 107. That is half his career. So, if there is a vote for the too-bad-he-couldn’t stay healthy wing, he can go next to Nomar.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Jan 24, 2020 11:12:09 GMT -5
As I said earlier, Jeter has 3 more fWAR than Rolen in 50% more plate appearances. And since you value Gold Gloves so much, Rolen has 8 of them. He was one of the best defensive 3B of all time. Easily top 5. If Rolen played a few more seasons, he'd have Beltre's career. I said that... if if if. Not the Hall of Projections. And the fWAR comp is for the Hall of Calculus. The Yankees had one of their most dominant stretches, and it was the era of Jeter. Rolen.... was fourth in MVP voting once? Hit over .300 twice? Squeaked out 2,000 hits with a couple well-below offensive seasons at the end of his career? Here’s a Rolen fact: after age 29, he had 2 Gold Gloves (good!) and an OPS of .791, OPS+ of 107. That is half his career. So, if there is a vote for the too-bad-he-couldn’t stay healthy wing, he can go next to Nomar. Weren't you just talking about how compounding silliness is silly? Because people didn't appreciate Scott Rolen enough in his day, we shouldn't let him into the hall of fame now even though statistically he's a slam dunk?
|
|
|