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 25, 2020 15:10:37 GMT -5
Crush some other things like defense. Right.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 25, 2020 15:17:32 GMT -5
Crush some other things like defense. Right. And that is the fundamental disagreement. I don’t care as much about defense. It’s great... especially up the middle. But it isn’t enough to put me over. I am fine if you are with the 10-35%. Edit: my larger philosophy is this : the gap between bad and average is critical. Bad fielders are nightmarish. The gap between average and great (esp. at some positions) actually matters infrequently. Less so now with shifts making range a smaller factor. So, for example, the idea of an average fielding pitcher vs a great one likely has little actual impact over long stretches. I pitched through college and never once had a game turn on a defensive play I made or didn’t make. My (subpar, as a lefty who didn’t land square) defense was never a factor (except a few times I got drilled).
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 25, 2020 17:49:41 GMT -5
How does fame not factor into getting into the hall of fame? And where do they get off calling themselves a HALL of fame, when it's more like an atrium or a gallery?
You guys need to cut him a little slack. Even if you're right the process leaning on WAR rather than counting numbers has been in effect for, at most, 5 years and it's very likely that refined stats make WAR look just as silly 10 years from now.Do you dispute that Scott Rolen was an elite defender? This is not a question about WAR.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 25, 2020 18:16:09 GMT -5
How does fame not factor into getting into the hall of fame? And where do they get off calling themselves a HALL of fame, when it's more like an atrium or a gallery?
You guys need to cut him a little slack. Even if you're right the process leaning on WAR rather than counting numbers has been in effect for, at most, 5 years and it's very likely that refined stats make WAR look just as silly 10 years from now.Do you dispute that Scott Rolen was an elite defender? This is not a question about WAR. I’m not even disputing that he was an elite defender. I am disputing that that makes one a HOF third baseman.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 25, 2020 18:37:03 GMT -5
I’m not even disputing that he was an elite defender. I am disputing that that makes one a HOF third baseman. Well if he wasn't also a very good hitter, it wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 25, 2020 19:01:09 GMT -5
I’m not even disputing that he was an elite defender. I am disputing that that makes one a HOF third baseman. Well if he wasn't also a very good hitter, it wouldn't. I guess we’ll see. If a huge portion of the 90% of voters who didn’t vote for him the first time around keep finding old footage, maybe they will change their minds.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 25, 2020 19:22:46 GMT -5
Larry Walker and Ted Simmons are going to the Hall of Fame this year, based very largely on the arguments "statheads" have made in the past several years. Tim Raines and Mike Mussina were recently elected similarly. Scott Rolen will get in someday fairly soon. Bobby Grich and Dwight Evans might never get in while Trevor Hoffman did and Omar Vizquel might, but there are always going to be disagreements over individual players. That doesn't change the fact that the Hall of Fame election process tries to consider how good a player was without considering how famous, and listens to advanced statistical analysis that goes beyond 1920's counting stats. If you want to argue the merits of Rolen or Grich or Evans specifically, right, that's cool. But "stats don't tell the story" isn't an argument against them. "He wasn't famous enough" isn't an argument against them. "You're only considering WAR, have you considered hits and RBI instead" certainly isn't an argument against them. How does fame not factor into getting into the hall of fame? You guys need to cut him a little slack. Even if you're right the process leaning on WAR rather than counting numbers has been in effect for, at most, 5 years and it's very likely that refined stats make WAR look just as silly 10 years from now. Refined stats, yes. But it's not going back to hits and ignoring walks and defense.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 25, 2020 19:25:40 GMT -5
Crush some other things like defense. Right. And that is the fundamental disagreement. I don’t care as much about defense. It’s great... especially up the middle. But it isn’t enough to put me over. I am fine if you are with the 10-35%. Edit: my larger philosophy is this : the gap between bad and average is critical. Bad fielders are nightmarish. The gap between average and great (esp. at some positions) actually matters infrequently. Less so now with shifts making range a smaller factor. So, for example, the idea of an average fielding pitcher vs a great one likely has little actual impact over long stretches. I pitched through college and never once had a game turn on a defensive play I made or didn’t make. My (subpar, as a lefty who didn’t land square) defense was never a factor (except a few times I got drilled). Do you really not understand the concept that saving a run on defense is worth exactly the same amount as creating a run on offense? I'm not talking about how exciting it is or how it makes you feel. I'm talking about the very simple math of winning and losing a game.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jan 25, 2020 19:45:41 GMT -5
Don't bring math into this equation.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 25, 2020 20:04:58 GMT -5
And that is the fundamental disagreement. I don’t care as much about defense. It’s great... especially up the middle. But it isn’t enough to put me over. I am fine if you are with the 10-35%. Edit: my larger philosophy is this : the gap between bad and average is critical. Bad fielders are nightmarish. The gap between average and great (esp. at some positions) actually matters infrequently. Less so now with shifts making range a smaller factor. So, for example, the idea of an average fielding pitcher vs a great one likely has little actual impact over long stretches. I pitched through college and never once had a game turn on a defensive play I made or didn’t make. My (subpar, as a lefty who didn’t land square) defense was never a factor (except a few times I got drilled). Do you really not understand the concept that saving a run on defense is worth exactly the same amount as creating a run on offense? I'm not talking about how exciting it is or how it makes you feel. I'm talking about the very simple math of winning and losing a game. Nope, never heard of it. C’mon. Sure, a saved run... same. But... how many runs do people single-handedly save? Or... more specifically, how many more runs does a good fielder single-handedly save over an average fielder? I said poor fielding is brutal and costs tons. But once you hit average, I suspect the difference narrows. So, for example, Jeff Kent was likely painful to pitch in front of, but his offense made up for that. Even a poor fielder like him couldn’t surrender runs at nearly the pace he produced them. Edit: and when I say single-handedly, I mean no doubt you made the difference, and no one (or almost) else would have.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 25, 2020 20:22:55 GMT -5
Do you really not understand the concept that saving a run on defense is worth exactly the same amount as creating a run on offense? I'm not talking about how exciting it is or how it makes you feel. I'm talking about the very simple math of winning and losing a game. Nope, never heard of it. C’mon. Sure, a saved run... same. But... how many runs do people single-handedly save? Or... more specifically, how many more runs does a good fielder single-handedly save over an average fielder? I said poor fielding is brutal and costs tons. But once you hit average, I suspect the difference narrows. So, for example, Jeff Kent was likely painful to pitch in front of, but his offense made up for that. Even a poor fielder like him couldn’t surrender runs at nearly the pace he produced them. Edit: and when I say single-handedly, I mean no doubt you made the difference, and no one (or almost) else would have. Alas, if only there were a statistic that tried to calculate how many runs defense saves and explicitly measured it relative to average...
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jan 25, 2020 20:45:30 GMT -5
Do you really not understand the concept that saving a run on defense is worth exactly the same amount as creating a run on offense? I'm not talking about how exciting it is or how it makes you feel. I'm talking about the very simple math of winning and losing a game. Nope, never heard of it. C’mon. Sure, a saved run... same. But... how many runs do people single-handedly save? Or... more specifically, how many more runs does a good fielder single-handedly save over an average fielder? I said poor fielding is brutal and costs tons. But once you hit average, I suspect the difference narrows. So, for example, Jeff Kent was likely painful to pitch in front of, but his offense made up for that. Even a poor fielder like him couldn’t surrender runs at nearly the pace he produced them. Edit: and when I say single-handedly, I mean no doubt you made the difference, and no one (or almost) else would have. So, let me understand this. You're questioning how many runs a great defender could actually save "single-handedly"? Yet how amny runs does a great hitter create single-handedly? Only if he hit s HR. All those single and doubles and RBI's were dependent on people getting on base. Which is why RBI's are kind of a ridiculous counting stat. And why all those Bobby Grich and Larry Walker walks are important. They're not trying to walk. But they're willing to wait for one of their pitches to hit instead letting the pitcher be in control. And on the defensive side, when there are runners in scoring position (or sometimes with runners on 1st, too) and someone hit a smash down the 3rd base line and Rolen makes an diving stop (or catch of a line drive), that's single-handedly stopping runs from scoring as opposed to a defender that couldn't make that play. I think that's just as frequent as HR's. SO elite defenders do save runs single-handedly. But great defensive plays can also prevent guys from advancing to 2nd or 3rd where they can - and often do - score more easily. Honestly, it's not rocket science and it does take WAR to notice. Maybe WAR helps quantify, but it's not that hard to see.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 25, 2020 20:45:36 GMT -5
Nope, never heard of it. C’mon. Sure, a saved run... same. But... how many runs do people single-handedly save? Or... more specifically, how many more runs does a good fielder single-handedly save over an average fielder? I said poor fielding is brutal and costs tons. But once you hit average, I suspect the difference narrows. So, for example, Jeff Kent was likely painful to pitch in front of, but his offense made up for that. Even a poor fielder like him couldn’t surrender runs at nearly the pace he produced them. Edit: and when I say single-handedly, I mean no doubt you made the difference, and no one (or almost) else would have. So what was all that talk about Gold Gloves about? You seemed to care about great defense a minute ago.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 25, 2020 21:47:30 GMT -5
And where do they get off calling themselves a HALL of fame, when it's more like an atrium or a gallery?
Do you dispute that Scott Rolen was an elite defender? This is not a question about WAR. I’m not even disputing that he was an elite defender. I am disputing that that makes one a HOF third baseman. Brooks Robinson says it doesn't hurt.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 25, 2020 21:55:26 GMT -5
Nope, never heard of it. C’mon. Sure, a saved run... same. But... how many runs do people single-handedly save? Or... more specifically, how many more runs does a good fielder single-handedly save over an average fielder? I said poor fielding is brutal and costs tons. But once you hit average, I suspect the difference narrows. So, for example, Jeff Kent was likely painful to pitch in front of, but his offense made up for that. Even a poor fielder like him couldn’t surrender runs at nearly the pace he produced them. Edit: and when I say single-handedly, I mean no doubt you made the difference, and no one (or almost) else would have. Alas, if only there were a statistic that tried to calculate how many runs defense saves and explicitly measured it relative to average... If we assume that statistic is entirely accurate, it tells us Rolen saved 114 runs from 2002-2012, an average of about 10 a season. In the sane span, Aramis Ramirez is a -45. So that is 159 runs in Rolen’s favor. In the same span, let’s look: R. RBI. HR. OPS 838. 1,049. 296. .861 730. 794. 183. .837 363 more runs offensive difference. So despite Aramis Ramirez being a legitimate butcher, he appears to have made up for it by being substantially better offensively. And, I’d add, the Cubs sucked these years, so it isn’t like Ramirez was in the middle of a murderer’s row.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 25, 2020 22:18:35 GMT -5
In the same span, let’s look: R. RBI. HR. OPS 838. 1,049. 296. .861 730. 794. 183. .837 363 more runs offensive difference. You cannot do an apples to apples comparison of defensive runs saved to (runs + RBIs). They're not measures of the same thing, nomenclature aside.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 25, 2020 22:22:24 GMT -5
Alas, if only there were a statistic that tried to calculate how many runs defense saves and explicitly measured it relative to average... If we assume that statistic is entirely accurate, it tells us Rolen saved 114 runs from 2002-2012, an average of about 10 a season. In the sane span, Aramis Ramirez is a -45. So that is 159 runs in Rolen’s favor. In the same span, let’s look: R. RBI. HR. OPS 838. 1,049. 296. .861 730. 794. 183. .837 363 more runs offensive difference. So despite Aramis Ramirez being a legitimate butcher, he appears to have made up for it by being substantially better offensively. And, I’d add, the Cubs sucked these years, so it isn’t like Ramirez was in the middle of a murderer’s row. Did you not read iakovos's comment above? You're giving them complete credit for both runs scored and runs batted in. To see how silly that is, just notice how that credits them with 2 runs for hitting a solo homer. The comparison you're trying to make is to how many offensive runs they create above average, which I think is wRAA. For Rolen, from 2002-2012, that's 154. For Ramirez it's 216. (Feel free to check my math.) So compared to Ramirez, Rolen was +159 on defense and -62 on offense. That's +97 overall.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 25, 2020 22:38:00 GMT -5
If we assume that statistic is entirely accurate, it tells us Rolen saved 114 runs from 2002-2012, an average of about 10 a season. In the sane span, Aramis Ramirez is a -45. So that is 159 runs in Rolen’s favor. In the same span, let’s look: R. RBI. HR. OPS 838. 1,049. 296. .861 730. 794. 183. .837 363 more runs offensive difference. So despite Aramis Ramirez being a legitimate butcher, he appears to have made up for it by being substantially better offensively. And, I’d add, the Cubs sucked these years, so it isn’t like Ramirez was in the middle of a murderer’s row. Did you not read iakovos's comment above? You're giving them complete credit for both runs scored and runs batted in. To see how silly that is, just notice how that credits them with 2 runs for hitting a solo homer. The comparison you're trying to make is to how many offensive runs they create above average, which I think is wRAA. For Rolen, from 2002-2012, that's 154. For Ramirez it's 216. (Feel free to check my math.) So compared to Ramirez, Rolen was +159 on defense and -62 on offense. That's +97 overall. I was responding to Jimed who said a saved run was the same as a scored one. you’ve all convinced me. I say Rolen, Aramis Ramirez, should both get in. Further, let’s go with Craig Nettles (higher dWAR than Rolen and better counting numbers!) and Buddy Bell (same as Nettles). Ken Boyer for good measure.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 25, 2020 22:46:40 GMT -5
Why in the name of my Great Aunt Gertrude would you start an analysis of Rolen's offensive production in 2002? From his debut through 2001 he hit .285/.375/.508, scoring 481 runs and driving in 493. That's like comparing Wade Boggs to some dude starting in 1988.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 25, 2020 22:49:37 GMT -5
Why in the name of my Great Aunt Gertrude would you start an analysis of Rolen's offensive production in 2002? Because it is the first year of DRS. That was the statistic that was in question. Though the question is otherwise very fair, because as I wrote a long way back, from 2004 to the end of his career, Rolen was a bit better than average offensively. So his HOF case is essentially that he had 5 really good, 3 great offensive seasons. It is not enough. By the bye, a guy can be a great player for a short span but not be a HOFer.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 25, 2020 22:57:04 GMT -5
Why in the name of my Great Aunt Gertrude would you start an analysis of Rolen's offensive production in 2002? Because it is the first year of DRS. That was the statistic that was in question. That doesn't mean his career started then. You're going to not give him credit for his best offensive seasons because the best available defensive stat wasn't yet being recorded? This is the most ridiculous argument you've made yet. If Scott Rolen's career started in 2002 he wouldn't be a Hall of Famer, and nobody has argued otherwise. Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 25, 2020 23:02:07 GMT -5
Because it is the first year of DRS. That was the statistic that was in question. That doesn't mean his career started then. You're going to not give him credit for his best offensive seasons because the best available defensive stat wasn't yet being recorded? This is the most ridiculous argument you've made yet. If Scott Rolen's career started in 2002 he wouldn't be a Hall of Famer, and nobody has argued otherwise. Jesus. Give me a break. Someone insisted that stat was essential. I looked at it. It starts in 2002. Perhaps I should have just said “Jesus,” and been a prick about it, but I took the point seriously and looked at it. If that stat could be applied backwards, I’d have gone further back. Don’t attack me for responding to someone else’s framework. Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 25, 2020 23:14:00 GMT -5
The best defensive stat we have started in 2002. That doesn't mean you can't consider all the stuff that happens before 2002. If Rolen was 114 runs above average from 2002 onward, that doesn't mean you only start measuring his offensive contributions in 2002. And you also can count his defense before then, too. It's not as statistically precise, but they put Brooks Robinson and Ozzie Smith into the Hall of Fame on the basis that their outstanding, best-in-baseball defense supplemented their roles as very solid hitters. Scott Rolen was considered an elite defender by scouts, the less precise stats (stuff like range factor) considered him an elite defender, and the more precise ones came along and indicated that was correct.
Saying "check defensive runs saved for evidence of Rolen's excellence at preventing runs" doesn't mean "Rolen's case rests on the invention of defensive runs saved statistic" and I think you know that. Would he have a weaker case without that being quantified? Maybe, yes. But part of this is considering new evidence when we find it. I was very bearish on Yadier Molina's Hall of Fame case, even though a lot of people like him for it. But when new advanced stats gave him additional credit for pitch framing, I changed my mind and now I'd at least be agreeable to it. And if someone gets into the Hall of Fame, and then evidence comes out that they weren't as good? So what? They let Rabbit Maranville and Harold Baines in, and the world didn't stop spinning. There will always be people who sneak in, there will always be people who deserve induction who get left out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider new evidence about how good a player was.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 25, 2020 23:18:08 GMT -5
The best defensive stat we have started in 2002. That doesn't mean you can't consider all the stuff that happens before 2002. If Rolen was 114 runs above average from 2002 onward, that doesn't mean you only start measuring his offensive contributions in 2002. And you also can count his defense before then, too. It's not as statistically precise, but they put Brooks Robinson and Ozzie Smith into the Hall of Fame on the basis that their outstanding, best-in-baseball defense supplemented their roles as very solid hitters. Scott Rolen was considered an elite defender by scouts, the less precise stats (stuff like range factor) considered him an elite defender, and the more precise ones came along and indicated that was correct. Saying "check defensive runs saved for evidence of Rolen's excellence at preventing runs" doesn't mean "Rolen's case rests on the invention of defensive runs saved statistic" and I think you know that. Would he have a weaker case without that being quantified? Maybe, yes. But part of this is considering new evidence when we find it. I was very bearish on Yadier Molina's Hall of Fame case, even though a lot of people like him for it. But when new advanced stats gave him additional credit for pitch framing, I changed my mind and now I'd at least be agreeable to it. And if someone gets into the Hall of Fame, and then evidence comes out that they weren't as good? So what? They let Rabbit Maranville and Harold Baines in, and the world didn't stop spinning. There will always be people who sneak in, there will always be people who deserve induction who get left out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider new evidence about how good a player was. Enough. I’ve made my points. On to new topics. Given that no one agrees or seems apt to budge, further exchanges just waste bandwidth.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 26, 2020 8:36:11 GMT -5
you’ve all convinced me. I say Rolen, Aramis Ramirez, should both get in.No one said this or implied it besides you. Ramirez isn't a HOF, he was almost as good a hitter as Rolen but not nearly as good at anything else. He has 30 less career WAR than Rolen. The only one who thinks they're the same.
|
|
|