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 jimed14 on Jan 24, 2020 11:22:19 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. Rolen can go next to Nomar with 69.9 fWAR vs. 41.5 fWAR? He IS right next to Jeter already, even with a lot of injuries. No projections needed!!! I was comparing him to Beltre, who is obviously way better than Jeter. Jeter had a 104 wRC+ from 2008 - 2014 with terrible defense. From 2010-2014 it was 97. If he was correctly moved off SS, he shouldn't even have been a starter. His last 5 seasons, he averaged less than one WAR. That's how he pulled ahead of Rolen in career WAR. I can't have a conversation with someone who is so stubborn about giving any credence whatsoever to WAR and only cares about counting stats and how great someone's teammates are. Back to ignore.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 11:27:48 GMT -5
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? How is he a slam dunk? He barely cleared 2,000 hits, which has long been an absolute minimum for offensive players. As I wrote above after a four year stretch from 26-29, he was basically average for half his career. It wasn’t silly that he didn’t get love in his career. He had 4 excellent seasons. His career is remarkably similar to Dale Murphy, except Murphy’s best was better. If Rolen gets in, the floor is lower. Guys with injury shortened careers or short primes have renewed cases. Look back at Rolen’s career and ask yourself how many of those seasons stand with the best of all time. It might... MIGHT... be 5. But that is tops. If Rolen is in, a great case fan be made for Nomar, who was a better player to age 29, and was equally mediocre in an even more injury-plagued second half. He certainly had better great years.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 24, 2020 11:37:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 11:40:22 GMT -5
Ah, good one. Well, I look forward to the day I can tell my grandkids about the day Bobby Grich came to town. Watching him accumulate WAR was the thrill of a lifetime. He walked majestically. Edit: Grich, of course, is where the WAR case goes to die. According to WAR, he was the best player in baseball in 1973. At the time, he was not an all-star and 19th in MVP. 17th in OPS+. etc etc. now, he got a good deal of his WAR from defense: 4! But I am suspicious of such precise defensive calculations. Can we calculate the outcomes so precisely of range, throws etc etc? At least with offense, there is a relatively straight up comp (especially with one’s own team, which plays in identical circumstances).
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 24, 2020 11:51:47 GMT -5
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? How is he a slam dunk? He barely cleared 2,000 hits, which has long been an absolute minimum for offensive players. As I wrote above after a four year stretch from 26-29, he was basically average for half his career. It wasn’t silly that he didn’t get love in his career. He had 4 excellent seasons. His career is remarkably similar to Dale Murphy, except Murphy’s best was better. If Rolen gets in, the floor is lower. Guys with injury shortened careers or short primes have renewed cases. Look back at Rolen’s career and ask yourself how many of those seasons stand with the best of all time. It might... MIGHT... be 5. But that is tops. If Rolen is in, a great case fan be made for Nomar, who was a better player to age 29, and was equally mediocre in an even more injury-plagued second half. He certainly had better great years. Dude, sorry you can't appreciate one of the most fun players ever: Lightning quick, amazing range, insane arm. Go watch Jeter make some more jump throws three feet away from where he set up on the infield I guess, he's got that "aura".
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 24, 2020 11:53:14 GMT -5
"Tell my grandkids" is such an obviously subjective standard that it defies any sense. Is anyone who watched the Red Sox in the early 2000's not going to tell their grandkids about Dustin Pedroia? Are any Phillies fans not going to tell about Chase Utley? Or, to use an obviously not-HOF example, Ryan Howard? Dwight Evans was my favorite player ever, and I'm sure my grandkids will want me to shut up about that, should I be so lucky as to have grandkids one day. Bo Jackson was, without question, the most famous player in baseball at one time. This is nonsense. There's a huge museum there to tell the story of baseball. Election has always been an attempt at honoring the best players, not an absurd attempt at parsing fame. If you don't want to tell your grandkids about Larry Walker, skip his plaque.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 12:01:59 GMT -5
"Tell my grandkids" is such an obviously subjective standard that it defies any sense. Is anyone who watched the Red Sox in the early 2000's not going to tell their grandkids about Dustin Pedroia? Are any Phillies fans not going to tell about Chase Utley? Bo Jackson was, without question, the most famous player in baseball at one time. This is nonsense. There's a huge museum there to tell the story of baseball. Election has always been an attempt at honoring the best players, not an absurd attempt at parsing fame. Two things: one, I mean more broadly than homers. I might tell grandkids about Sam Horn, but Indians fans won’t. And don’t be reductive... I am not saying this is exclusively the rule. Secondly, your two choices are interesting, because, again, if Rolen is in, Utley and Pedroia have very strong cases. If we throw out “counting stats” why wouldn’t Pedroia be in? His peak WAR is about HOF average, and he has a reasonable career WAR. ROY, MVP, GGs, heart of greatest stretch in Red Sox history. Now, for me, his career is incomplete and that keeps him out. But if we don’t care about counting stats anymore, not getting to 2,000 hits is no issue.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 24, 2020 12:04:12 GMT -5
Roy Campanella had 1161 hits.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 12:11:08 GMT -5
Roy Campanella had 1161 hits. I didn’t vote for him.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 24, 2020 12:11:36 GMT -5
I think Utley has a decent case and Pedroia has a borderline one, which goes to my point about tell my grandkids. You can't make that the standard, because it's not a standard that's possible to measure. As far as 2000 hits, It's a longevity question, not just "not caring about counting stats anymore." Utley was one of the best players in baseball during the Phillies run in the late 90's that included a World Series and several playoff appearances. He played in 20% more playoff games than Pedroia did. Should he get more credit than if he'd had worse pitching that never got him there? Will you "tell your grandkids" about him? Nobody cares! We're trying to figure out how good these players are.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 12:22:04 GMT -5
I think Utley has a decent case and Pedroia has a borderline one, which goes to my point about tell my grandkids. You can't make that the standard, because it's not a standard that's possible to measure. As far as 2000 hits, It's a longevity question, not just "not caring about counting stats anymore." Utley was one of the best players in baseball during the Phillies run in the late 90's that included a World Series and several playoff appearances. He played in 20% more playoff games than Pedroia did. Should he get more credit than if he'd had worse pitching that never got him there? Will you "tell your grandkids" about him? Nobody cares! We're trying to figure out how good these players are. Post season should be a factor, yes. You used them as “tell your grandkids” examples, but then nullify it by saying it doesn’t matter because of numbers. I’d say they had numbers, team success, and pivotal roles in team success that would be what I’d tell my grandkids about. They are related. Longevity matters. There have been a LOT of players with dominant stretches. But what separates the very best is the sustained excellence. It is a bummer when guys get hurt, but that is the game. And there are counting stats and counting stats... I mean, the notion that people are comparing Rolen to the guy who is 6th all time in hits... you can say what you want about overrated (and I’m here for that) but if you are sixth alltime in what is the most basic element of the game? C’mon. Here is a question: what is the likelihood someone accumulates more hits than Jeter in our lifetime? Ever, even? I mean, would people nitpick Pete Rose if he were a clean liver?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 24, 2020 12:29:32 GMT -5
Two things: one, I mean more broadly than homers. I might tell grandkids about Sam Horn, but Indians fans won’t. And don’t be reductive... I am not saying this is exclusively the rule. Secondly, your two choices are interesting, because, again, if Rolen is in, Utley and Pedroia have very strong cases. If we throw out “counting stats” why wouldn’t Pedroia be in? His peak WAR is about HOF average, and he has a reasonable career WAR. ROY, MVP, GGs, heart of greatest stretch in Red Sox history. Now, for me, his career is incomplete and that keeps him out. But if we don’t care about counting stats anymore, not getting to 2,000 hits is no issue. Pedroia has roughly 45 career WAR and Rolen is at roughly 70. I'm not saying WAR is an automatic argument ender, but there is way more heavy lifting to be done if you want to make the case that Pedroia is any kind of Rolen equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 24, 2020 12:31:07 GMT -5
Nobody is saying Jeter doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. You're getting bent out of shape because people are comparing other people who they think should be in the Hall of Fame to him.
If I say that Yaz was a LOT better than Pete Rose--like, by several degrees--even though Pete Rose had over 800 more hits and Yaz really isn't close to the top of any offensive category, is that dumping on Pete Rose? Derek Jeter collected so many hits and got on base so many times that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. Other players who collected many fewer hits but helped their teams in ways that Jeter did not also belong in the Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 12:39:03 GMT -5
A slightly different question, but a genuine one: how is dWAR calculated for players before the WAR era? I mean, I can understand looking at, say, Bobby Grich’s fielding %, errors, etc, and saying he was great in 1973. But to calculate a fixed number that includes information that was not kept (range, for example) seems like it would require rewatching every game by every seconfld baseman that season, wouldn’t it? Or, put differently, Joe Tinker is 5th all-time in dWAR. How the heck do we know that? How do we have a precise 34.3 for a guy who may not even be on film for all I know?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2020 13:28:11 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. 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. After age 29, Derek Jeter had an OPS of .787. But he did win 4 Gold Gloves so presumably he was a defensive wiz all those years - twice as good as Rolen in fact! This is definitely my favorite one of your arguments so far.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 13:35:37 GMT -5
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. After age 29, Derek Jeter had an OPS of .787. But he did win 4 Gold Gloves so presumably he was a defensive wiz all those years - twice as good as Rolen in fact! This is definitely my favorite one of your arguments so far. Yeah. After 29, Jeter also had almost as many hits as Rolen did in his whole career, batted .303, had 200+ hits 5 times, finished top-3 in MVP twice. The comparison is insane. Oh, and the Gold Gloves, yes.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Jan 24, 2020 13:49:19 GMT -5
After age 29, Derek Jeter had an OPS of .787. But he did win 4 Gold Gloves so presumably he was a defensive wiz all those years - twice as good as Rolen in fact! This is definitely my favorite one of your arguments so far. Yeah. After 29, Jeter also had almost as many hits as Rolen did in his whole career, batted .303, had 200+ hits 5 times, finished top-3 in MVP twice. The comparison is insane. Oh, and the Gold Gloves, yes. The bottom line in all of this is you just care way more about hit totals than anyone else, so we're probably at an impasse. These g raphs, though, show just how similar Jeter and Rolen actually were in terms of value.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 14:02:12 GMT -5
Yeah. After 29, Jeter also had almost as many hits as Rolen did in his whole career, batted .303, had 200+ hits 5 times, finished top-3 in MVP twice. The comparison is insane. Oh, and the Gold Gloves, yes. The bottom line in all of this is you just care way more about hit totals than anyone else, so we're probably at an impasse. These g raphs, though, show just how similar Jeter and Rolen actually were in terms of value. Fair enough. But I will conclude with this: I care about what happened and not about formulas that posit alternatives. WAR is suggestive of something we can’t know: what would happen in other circumstances? I have less faith in that because I have a deep belief in the human element. (Example: what would the pressure Derek Jeter was under in NY do to other players? Who knows?). But here is another factor I think is key in the whole equation: staying on the field. If, for example, you invest a good deal in a player but are actually having to replace him frequently, why does that not count against him? I mean, the case is easily made that Pedroia, for example, COST the Sox wins last year by soaking up pay and not playing. I’d rather have an above-average guy everyday than a star 2/3 of the time and have to plug a hole 50 other games a year or more. Why shouldn’t a guy get penalized in WAR when he, in fact, puts a team in the position to have to replace him?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 24, 2020 14:29:39 GMT -5
Oh, and the Gold Gloves, yes. Peel the foil back on those gloves gloves and you'll find delicious milk chocolate.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 14:32:46 GMT -5
Oh, and the Gold Gloves, yes. Peel the foil back on those gloves gloves and you'll find delicious milk chocolate. Of course, but the same can be said of many of them. But it is hard to use Gold Gloves as a factor and asterisk some of them. If the award is flawed, it’s flawed.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2020 14:39:02 GMT -5
The bottom line in all of this is you just care way more about hit totals than anyone else, so we're probably at an impasse. These g raphs, though, show just how similar Jeter and Rolen actually were in terms of value. Fair enough. But I will conclude with this: I care about what happened and not about formulas that posit alternatives. WAR is suggestive of something we can’t know: what would happen in other circumstances? I have less faith in that because I have a deep belief in the human element. (Example: what would the pressure Derek Jeter was under in NY do to other players? Who knows?). But here is another factor I think is key in the whole equation: staying on the field. If, for example, you invest a good deal in a player but are actually having to replace him frequently, why does that not count against him? I mean, the case is easily made that Pedroia, for example, COST the Sox wins last year by soaking up pay and not playing. I’d rather have an above-average guy everyday than a star 2/3 of the time and have to plug a hole 50 other games a year or more. Why shouldn’t a guy get penalized in WAR when he, in fact, puts a team in the position to have to replace him? Why do you say this? WAR is a counting stat too. It does measure what happened. It's not infallible or anything, but it's also not merely measuring hypotheticals.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 14:54:06 GMT -5
Fair enough. But I will conclude with this: I care about what happened and not about formulas that posit alternatives. WAR is suggestive of something we can’t know: what would happen in other circumstances? I have less faith in that because I have a deep belief in the human element. (Example: what would the pressure Derek Jeter was under in NY do to other players? Who knows?). But here is another factor I think is key in the whole equation: staying on the field. If, for example, you invest a good deal in a player but are actually having to replace him frequently, why does that not count against him? I mean, the case is easily made that Pedroia, for example, COST the Sox wins last year by soaking up pay and not playing. I’d rather have an above-average guy everyday than a star 2/3 of the time and have to plug a hole 50 other games a year or more. Why shouldn’t a guy get penalized in WAR when he, in fact, puts a team in the position to have to replace him? Why do you say this? WAR is a counting stat too. It does measure what happened. It's not infallible or anything, but it's also not merely measuring hypotheticals. Well, it assumes a certain data set represents a common “replacement” to produce a win as though one could imagine plugging factors into human conditions. I don’t think it is nearly as representative of game factors as others do. To wit,said replacement player is in a different position replacing the Marlins’ ss and Jeter. And with defense, measuring, say, average arm accuracy ? Range? How are these things quantified to a decimal? Edit: I’d point to closers, who are poorly served. In the case of the best, they change an oppent’s whole plan. Having Rivera ready means his shadow falls on the game in the sixth inning. You know you’re likely doomed if you are losing by the 8th inning.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2020 15:12:32 GMT -5
Why do you say this? WAR is a counting stat too. It does measure what happened. It's not infallible or anything, but it's also not merely measuring hypotheticals. Well, it assumes a certain data set represents a common “replacement” to produce a win as though one could imagine plugging factors into human conditions. I don’t think it is nearly as representative of game factors as others do. To wit,said replacement player is in a different position replacing the Marlins’ ss and Jeter. And with defense, measuring, say, average arm accuracy ? Range? How are these things quantified to a decimal? Edit: I’d point to closers, who are poorly served. In the case of the best, they change an oppent’s whole plan. Having Rivera ready means his shadow falls on the game in the sixth inning. You know you’re likely doomed if you are losing by the 8th inning. Yeah, WAR sucks for relievers, and maybe for pitchers in general, and I agree it offers kind of a false precision, especially in its measurement for defense. (I have the same question about defensive metrics for the pre-video days, by the way.) But when people invoke WAR I think the best way to take that is as a shorthand for a player's cumulative value, including both offensive and defensive contributions. So to point out that Jeter had only 3 more WAR than Rolen is just to say that Rolen contributed almost as much to his teams as Jeter did. (And he did so in only 3/4ths as many games, which you seem to consider a negative, but others would treat as evidence of his more efficient production.) And whatever you say about the defensive metrics that go into WAR, they're a hell of a lot better than just counting gold gloves.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 24, 2020 17:23:39 GMT -5
Same exact argument about WAR is made at every opportunity. It's not even an argument about Jeter and Rolen, it's another argument about WAR. Gold glove voters are way smarter than the stat guys who came up with the formula for WAR. Let's compare error totals as the be all end all judge of defense next.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 18:51:29 GMT -5
Same exact argument about WAR is made at every opportunity. It's not even an argument about Jeter and Rolen, it's another argument about WAR. Gold glove voters are way smarter than the stat guys who came up with the formula for WAR. Let's compare error totals as the be all end all judge of defense next. It is an argument about Rolen because his case is made overwhelmingly on WAR. His other numbers don’t do it. For example: Hits. HRs. RBIs. BA. OPS. OPS+ 2,107. 352. 1,206. .291. .874. 126 2,077. 316. 1,287. .281. .855. 122 1,885. 294. 1,182. .267. .806. 114 First player is Ellis Burks... 49.8 WAR. One Gold Glove, one top 3 MVP finish. Yes, one was a 3B and another a CF, but the fact is that Ellis Burks was one-and-done HOF with numbers that are almost exactly the same (though a tick better) than Rolen’s. Rolen’s case is a WAR one: his 2,100 hits, mid-.800 OPS etc was more than 1.5 times more valuable than Burks’s. Much of which is predicated on him being so dominant at defense that he wins games with his glove, in theory. The third player is Robin Ventura (6 Gold Gloves and a top-10 MVP finish). He is obviously not as good as Rolen, but it is pretty close, considering that Ventura was immediately rejected, like Burks. The biggest gap is WAR again. So I would suggest that Rolen is a WAR candidate... if you didn’t know his WAR, his numbers would not make a strong case.
|
|
|