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.
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 30, 2020 20:40:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 31, 2020 14:19:23 GMT -5
That's interesting. I can certainly buy that WAR undervalues relief pitchers. But even if you spot Wagner the full 1.7 WAR/season bonus, which would be the most generous application of what that article says, that would only get him to parity with Tim Hudson.
It's interesting, in that regard, that Wagner and Hudson have almost identical career WPA too, around 28.5. But then, Jonathan Papelbon also has almost the exact same WPA...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 31, 2020 14:33:46 GMT -5
Papelbon's problem is the lack of longevity discussed above. He was awesome for four years or so then very good for another six and then he literally just disappeared after one bad season. I'm kind of surprised that article hasn't been written yet.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 31, 2020 15:19:05 GMT -5
Papelbon's problem is the lack of longevity discussed above. He was awesome for four years or so then very good for another six and then he literally just disappeared after one bad season. I'm kind of surprised that article hasn't been written yet. This is a big problem for me with relievers... there are dominant ones and then... the Jeff Russells or Joe Nathans. But sometimes on paper it is hard to separate the two (because the main stat, saves, is cheap, etc). So a guy like Paps has a truly great run. But if he then went on to have a long Reardon-esque decline, accumulating low-ish ERAs and saves, is that enough? Clearly with other players it is not uncommon for guys to have a few awesome years and then the longevity to get counting stats and be in. If Kimbrel could have five more mediocre years, say, averaging 30 saves, ERA around 3.00.... is he in? It is maybe a subset of questions that come up with guys like Johan Santana. Why do subpar padding years matter? But with a closer, I feel like many of us (maybe I’m wrong) suspect 3-4 dominant years just aren’t as impressive as 3-4 great years anywhere else on the field. I mean, you win 4 CYs, you are in. 4 Rolaids relief man... and honestly I don’t even know if they still do that award.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 31, 2020 21:29:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 12, 2021 11:11:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 12, 2021 13:03:52 GMT -5
Shaughnessy continues to be a joke.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 12, 2021 13:06:50 GMT -5
Shaughnessy continues to be a joke. For those of us without a subscription what silliness is he proposing?
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 12, 2021 13:34:03 GMT -5
Shaughnessy continues to be a joke. For those of us without a subscription what silliness is he proposing? His ballot consisted of Jeff Kent. Just Jeff Kent.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 12, 2021 13:37:49 GMT -5
For those of us without a subscription what silliness is he proposing? His ballot consisted of Jeff Kent. Just Jeff Kent. At least he got one right. I guess I have to ask - what is the outrage? I'm a bigger HOF guy but some others are small HOF guys. If you plan on never voting for a steroid guy that would justify not voting for Clemens, Bonds, or Sosa. If you're looking at the character clause, Omar Vizquel has given a reason for a no vote, and Curt Schilling, well that goes without saying. None of the other guys are slam dunks. If I were a voter I'd vote differently but this year more than any I can see the "opposing" side's point of view.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jan 12, 2021 14:17:58 GMT -5
His ballot consisted of Jeff Kent. Just Jeff Kent. At least he got one right. I guess I have to ask - what is the outrage? I'm a bigger HOF guy but some others are small HOF guys. If you plan on never voting for a steroid guy that would justify not voting for Clemens, Bonds, or Sosa. If you're looking at the character clause, Omar Vizquel has given a reason for a no vote, and Curt Schilling, well that goes without saying. None of the other guys are slam dunks. If I were a voter I'd vote differently but this year more than any I can see the "opposing" side's point of view. Clemens and Bonds are the only two hall of famers on this ballot. Schilling doesn't deserve anything positive to happen in his life. My ballot would be just Bonds and Clemens. Maybe Manny. Although he got popped multiple times.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jan 12, 2021 14:37:53 GMT -5
Eh, I don't know that I agree. 3000 K's, 3 rings including a WS MVP and the bloody sock game, 3x Cy runner-up. Are there really that many people who don't think he meets the bar statistically? That said, given that he was all of 20 votes short last year, it's probably both. I just know there's probably at least 20 voters in the "new" generation of voters who are smart enough to ignore wins who are vocal that they don't vote for him for off-field reasons. That said, I've seen articles lately about how the standard for modern-era pitchers has been unrealistic for the Hall. Just read through Jay Jaffe's harsh take on Schilling. I had not realized how busy he's been on Twitter and in the media. He's pushed away some of his supporters, people such as Jaffe who have brought the expertise to really evaluate players. Sad. Thankfully there is a character clause in voting for the HOF. If you look at Schillings numbers overall he is borderline. If you weigh in the post season stats he's in. If you take into account the fact he's an absolute garbage pail of a human being he's 100% out. I wish he got under 5% of the vote this year just to take that stain off the ballot but it is what it is. He's going to be the first person to ever eclipse 70% and not make the HOF. SAD indeed. SAD SAD Racist.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 12, 2021 14:45:47 GMT -5
His ballot consisted of Jeff Kent. Just Jeff Kent. At least he got one right. I guess I have to ask - what is the outrage? I'm a bigger HOF guy but some others are small HOF guys. If you plan on never voting for a steroid guy that would justify not voting for Clemens, Bonds, or Sosa. If you're looking at the character clause, Omar Vizquel has given a reason for a no vote, and Curt Schilling, well that goes without saying. None of the other guys are slam dunks. If I were a voter I'd vote differently but this year more than any I can see the "opposing" side's point of view. I get excluding the guys for whom there is evidence of PEDs, character clause, etc, but why Kent and not, say, Jones and Rolen? That's the part I find indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 12, 2021 14:49:05 GMT -5
I don't see how Schillings numbers are boarder line. I also don't think Jeff Kent is a HOF guy either.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 12, 2021 14:54:08 GMT -5
At least he got one right. I guess I have to ask - what is the outrage? I'm a bigger HOF guy but some others are small HOF guys. If you plan on never voting for a steroid guy that would justify not voting for Clemens, Bonds, or Sosa. If you're looking at the character clause, Omar Vizquel has given a reason for a no vote, and Curt Schilling, well that goes without saying. None of the other guys are slam dunks. If I were a voter I'd vote differently but this year more than any I can see the "opposing" side's point of view. I get excluding the guys for whom they're is evidence of PEDs, character clause, etc, but why Kent and not, say, Jones and Rolen? That's the part I find indefensible. I would guess that he knows nothing of defensive value, and Jones has the image of a guy who had a great start and was never Willie Mays or Ken Griffey Jr. like one thought would be possible when he was 19 and smacking World Series HR. Of course he did fade, but he did have other outstanding years that have probably been forgotten if you're not that knowledgeable. And like I said, he probably doesn't realize how great all around Rolen was or maybe he thought that if Nettles isn't in, why should Rolen be. I'm honestly surprised he was for Kent, who I've always felt was underrated given his offensive numbers for a 2b. I'm going to try to stop thinking like Shaughnessy because my brain is now hurting.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 12, 2021 19:16:10 GMT -5
I can understand voting for Kent, but not Clemens, Bonds, Schilling, Vizquel, or several of the others. What I don't understand is how you can vote for Kent but not Rolen. Offensively they're basically the same player - .856 OPS for Kent, .854 for Rolen; 123 wRC+ for Kent, 122 for Rolen. Identical .210 ISO. Rolen's OBP was .008 higher. But then Rolen was a phenomenal defensive player and Kent was sub-par. If you discount defense 100%, then you can say they're comparable. But in what world is Kent the superior player?
Here's Shaughnessy's argument: To sum up: - his defense was poor - among the leaders in RBIs and homers for second baseman - won an MVP in a season in which he finished 4th in the league in fWAR, and 2nd on his own team - 5 all-star appearances (two fewer than Rolen; is this what Shaughnessy meant by "dominant at his position"?) - Dusty Baker says he's not as bad as he seems
It really just boils down to: Kent was a good offensive player by second baseman standards, a defense-first position (but Kent's defense wasn't very good). It's bananas.
|
|
|
Post by rasimon on Jan 12, 2021 20:16:05 GMT -5
- Barry Bonds - he should be in based on what he did prior to the steriod use.
- Roger Clemens - same as Bonds
- Curt Schilling - complete trash of a human being, but he should be in based on what he did on the field. Extra points for his role in breaking the curse.
- Andruw Jones - best defensive CFer ever and a pretty good hitter. When he came up, I thought he could be the next Mickey Mantle. He wasn't (Griffey was on track to be. Mike Trout is!) but he was a very good player at least early in his career.
- Scott Rolen - nothing to add to the discussion already made in this thread.
- Todd Helton - good hitter even after you correct for the park. Very good fielder. Extra credit for playing his whole career with one club.
- Manny Ramirez - as good a hitter as anyone in my lifetime not named Bonds or Trout. Fielding was an adventure. But he's Manny!
- Billy Wagner - among pitchers with 1000+ IP the career leader in Adjusted ERA+ is Mariano Rivera with 205. Clayton Kershaw is second at 158. Wagner pitched 903 inning with an Adjusted ERA+ of 187. He played 15 years + 1 batter in 1995. Of those 15 years, his Adjusted ERA+ was below 140 in only one of those years (that year was 2000 when he pitched poorly until they shut him down with a torn flexor tendon) If the standard for relief pitchers in the HOF is Lee Smith and Trevor Hoffman, then Wagner should be in too.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 12, 2021 21:14:34 GMT -5
I can understand voting for Kent, but not Clemens, Bonds, Schilling, Vizquel, or several of the others. What I don't understand is how you can vote for Kent but not Rolen. Offensively they're basically the same player - .856 OPS for Kent, .854 for Rolen; 123 wRC+ for Kent, 122 for Rolen. Identical .210 ISO. Rolen's OBP was .008 higher. But then Rolen was a phenomenal defensive player and Kent was sub-par. If you discount defense 100%, then you can say they're comparable. But in what world is Kent the superior player?
Here's Shaughnessy's argument: To sum up: - his defense was poor - among the leaders in RBIs and homers for second baseman - won an MVP in a season in which he finished 4th in the league in fWAR, and 2nd on his own team - 5 all-star appearances (two fewer than Rolen; is this what Shaughnessy meant by "dominant at his position"?) - Dusty Baker says he's not as bad as he seems
It really just boils down to: Kent was a good offensive player by second baseman standards, a defense-first position (but Kent's defense wasn't very good). It's bananas.
I had ticked Kent, but then pretty much your summary ran through my head and I unchecked him. I won’t complain if he gets in, but it feels like he was a good hitting second baseman mostly because he was not really a second baseman. He was a bat who you stuck out there and hoped he’d be adequate.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 12, 2021 23:33:16 GMT -5
I will echo what others have said, that Kent is something around the 8th to 10th best player on this ballot and voting for him is defensible. Voting for only him is a cry for attention.
It feels silly, but I am sure that if Rolen wins that WS MVP he deserved in 2006 then he is already in.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 13, 2021 1:01:00 GMT -5
I can understand voting for Kent, but not Clemens, Bonds, Schilling, Vizquel, or several of the others. What I don't understand is how you can vote for Kent but not Rolen. Offensively they're basically the same player - .856 OPS for Kent, .854 for Rolen; 123 wRC+ for Kent, 122 for Rolen. Identical .210 ISO. Rolen's OBP was .008 higher. But then Rolen was a phenomenal defensive player and Kent was sub-par. If you discount defense 100%, then you can say they're comparable. But in what world is Kent the superior player?
Here's Shaughnessy's argument: To sum up: - his defense was poor - among the leaders in RBIs and homers for second baseman - won an MVP in a season in which he finished 4th in the league in fWAR, and 2nd on his own team - 5 all-star appearances (two fewer than Rolen; is this what Shaughnessy meant by "dominant at his position"?) - Dusty Baker says he's not as bad as he seems
It really just boils down to: Kent was a good offensive player by second baseman standards, a defense-first position (but Kent's defense wasn't very good). It's bananas.
I had ticked Kent, but then pretty much your summary ran through my head and I unchecked him. I won’t complain if he gets in, but it feels like he was a good hitting second baseman mostly because he was not really a second baseman. He was a bat who you stuck out there and hoped he’d be adequate. Haha - to be clear, I was making a pro-Rolen argument, not an anti-Kent one! I didn't pick him in the other thread but he's one of about 5 absolute borderline guys that I would have no problem seeing voted in.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 13, 2021 10:07:31 GMT -5
Even using the really simple, Luddite metrics:
Jones: .254/.337/.486/.823, 434 HR, 10 GG, 5x All-Star, 1x Silver Slugger, an MVP runner-up Rolen: .281/.364/.490/.855, 316 HR, 8 GG, 7x All-Star, 1x Silver Slugger, ROY Kent: .290/.356/.500/.855, 377 HR, 1x MVP, 5x All-Star, 4x Silver Slugger
I just don't get it. maybe you can take Jones for granted but I seriously don't get the Kent but not Rolen vote unless the single MVP means that much. They were basically the same offensive player and Rolen was light years better as a defender.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 13, 2021 17:10:02 GMT -5
Even using the really simple, Luddite metrics: Jones: .254/.337/.486/.823, 434 HR, 10 GG, 5x All-Star, 1x Silver Slugger, an MVP runner-up Rolen: .281/.364/.490/.855, 316 HR, 8 GG, 7x All-Star, 1x Silver Slugger, ROY Kent: .290/.356/.500/.855, 377 HR, 1x MVP, 5x All-Star, 4x Silver Slugger I just don't get it. maybe you can take Jones for granted but I seriously don't get the Kent but not Rolen vote unless the single MVP means that much. They were basically the same offensive player and Rolen was light years better as a defender. I am a no on both, but I can see the argument for either. Two things might give people a sense Kent is more deserving: first, that his offense at 2B is more impressive than Rolen’s at 3B (I think it is a bad argument, especially given that Kent was a butcher). But the other thing I’ve said before about Rolen is that he was not close to a HOFer after age 29, his last great season. 2005-2012, his OPS+ was 107. I just think he was hurt too much to reach his full potential.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 13, 2021 17:30:03 GMT -5
Two things might give people a sense Kent is more deserving: first, that his offense at 2B is more impressive than Rolen’s at 3B (I think it is a bad argument, especially given that Kent was a butcher). But the other thing I’ve said before about Rolen is that he was not close to a HOFer after age 29, his last great season. 2005-2012, his OPS+ was 107. I just think he was hurt too much to reach his full potential. I'm out on either argument 1) BRef oWAR: Rolen, 52.7; Kent, 60.1. Both in 17 seasons. So yeah, maybe a shade better offensively controlling for things including position, but not by much. 2) That's a pretty arbitrary cutoff on Rolen and I don't get the point. He got MVP votes in his age 35 season. You're cutting off a 6-WAR season, a couple 4-WAR seasons, and a 3.5-WAR season. He was terrific offensively in his age 31 season. If you're going to ding Rolen for a few of his final few seasons not being great, why wouldn't you ding Kent for being very mediocre his first five seasons? Same 107 OPS+.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 13, 2021 17:31:36 GMT -5
Even using the really simple, Luddite metrics: Jones: .254/.337/.486/.823, 434 HR, 10 GG, 5x All-Star, 1x Silver Slugger, an MVP runner-up Rolen: .281/.364/.490/.855, 316 HR, 8 GG, 7x All-Star, 1x Silver Slugger, ROY Kent: .290/.356/.500/.855, 377 HR, 1x MVP, 5x All-Star, 4x Silver Slugger I just don't get it. maybe you can take Jones for granted but I seriously don't get the Kent but not Rolen vote unless the single MVP means that much. They were basically the same offensive player and Rolen was light years better as a defender. I am a no on both, but I can see the argument for either. Two things might give people a sense Kent is more deserving: first, that his offense at 2B is more impressive than Rolen’s at 3B (I think it is a bad argument, especially given that Kent was a butcher). But the other thing I’ve said before about Rolen is that he was not close to a HOFer after age 29, his last great season. 2005-2012, his OPS+ was 107. I just think he was hurt too much to reach his full potential. I feel like Andruw Jones gets dinged for this too, but I don't understand it. Kent didn't even have a 3-WAR season until he was 29. Is it better to be mediocre in your 20s and great in your 30s than vice versa? Likewise, Jones didn't have a great season after age 29, but he already had a 7-WAR season at age 21. If his 9-year run of excellence came from ages 25-33 I think people would credit him with greater longevity, but of course that makes no sense..
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 13, 2021 18:08:59 GMT -5
Two things might give people a sense Kent is more deserving: first, that his offense at 2B is more impressive than Rolen’s at 3B (I think it is a bad argument, especially given that Kent was a butcher). But the other thing I’ve said before about Rolen is that he was not close to a HOFer after age 29, his last great season. 2005-2012, his OPS+ was 107. I just think he was hurt too much to reach his full potential. I'm out on either argument 1) BRef oWAR: Rolen, 52.7; Kent, 60.1. Both in 17 seasons. So yeah, maybe a shade better offensively controlling for things including position, but not by much. 2) That's a pretty arbitrary cutoff on Rolen and I don't get the point. He got MVP votes in his age 35 season. You're cutting off a 6-WAR season, a couple 4-WAR seasons, and a 3.5-WAR season. He was terrific offensively in his age 31 season. If you're going to ding Rolen for a few of his final few seasons not being great, why wouldn't you ding Kent for being very mediocre his first five seasons? Same 107 OPS+. But I am a no on both.... so the comp is irrelevant to me. My main point on Rolen is he had a few great, great years, some good years, and many incomplete years. It’s too bad. If those seasons of 110 games were 150, there’d be no debate, I imagine. From a counting stat perspective, he crawls over pretty minimal thresholds: just over 2,000 hits, just over 300 homeruns (both of which Kent is well further past). I know many people don’t care, but many do, and I suspect that doesn’t help either. I look forward to Ichiro. I actually get a bit tired of the arguments about close guys. I love the no-brainers. I think of the HOF like an art museum... Ichiro is a Mona Lisa, 5 deep with people waiting to get a look at his plaque. Scott Rolen or Jeff Kent is the Florentine studio painting people walk past to get their place waiting for the Mona Lisa.
|
|
|