Printable View
Probably. Personally, I don't think that that's a very good reason to keep a guy out of the Hall. As we've mentioned before, there are plenty of scoundrels and villeins in the Hall already. Belle's misbehavior, if he were admitted, should be a component of his biography, not a reason factored into whether or not to admit him.
I'm really on the fence about either one of them making it regardless, but if I had a vote, I probably would vote... yes.
Re: Belle vs. Rice.
I think it should be noted that Rice played before expansion in the 90s diluted the pitching around the league. I would expect Rice's numbers to be significantly better if he'd played most of his career in the 90s, even if he didn't play them at Fenway.
That's not to say Rice should be in - only to say Belle's numbers would need to be 10-15% better than Rice's for them to be "equal" in my eyes.
With a lot of the less savory characters, there was a lot more distance between their behavior and the years they were elected. Belle is still a really fresh memory to a lot of people. In another 10 years the memory may soften some, and the Vets may put him in.
1) what about the fact that Belle put up Rice's numbers in 30% less AB?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
2) Barry's numbers need to be 50% better than Ruth for them to be equal, ie. hit 1130+ HR?
Jim Rice OPS+ 128Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
Albert Belle OPS+ 143
His numbers against the rest of the league, adjusted for ballpark effects, are about 12% better than Rice's.
And what disposablehero said!
Personally, I don't think either belongs in the Hall, I just find it a great injustice that Belle gets knocked off the ballot, while Rice inches closer to enshrinement.
You know, according to the way the guys at Baseball Prospectus figure things (specifically, Nate Silver) with EqA and their little statistical "time machine", Bond's performance is better than Ruth in terms of getting on base, Fielding, and Running, but not quite as good in terms of slugging.
OPS+... what a joke. All outs are bad outs... what a joke. Sure OPS+ can compare eras and adjust for years and parks...so what? The style of baseball was different in the late 1970s to the early 1990s. How does OPS+ adjust for fielding? How does it adjust for strategy? Bruce Sutter invented a pitch...do you have any idea what that means? How many WS has the Bill James school won? One by my count and if a team has the 2nd highest payroll year after year statistics tell us they are bound to win at some point right...?
Albert Belle was a jerk...plain and simple. That is why he is off the Hall of Fame radar already...go look at what the "real" Hall of Fame ballot says about character.
In return HOUSTON GM will spout about stats and OPS+ being the Holy Grail some more...I suggest you go out and play or coach some and watch more baseball rather than trying to win arguements by shouting "OPS+! OPS+!" over and over.
How's it a joke?Quote:
Originally Posted by edburns
The overwhelming majority of outs are bad because they decrease a team's run expectancy. There's a small combination of instances in which an out can help, but the amount of times where it does is very small.Quote:
All outs are bad outs... what a joke.
So it can compare hitters on an even level?Quote:
Sure OPS+ can compare eras and adjust for years and parks...so what?
Exactly why OPS+ exists...Quote:
The style of baseball was different in the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
It doesn't. It's an offensive statistic. :confused:Quote:
How does OPS+ adjust for fielding?
It doesn't. It's an offensive statistic designed to measure a player's on-base ability and power relative to his league. :confused:Quote:
How does it adjust for strategy?
It means he invented a pitch. What does that have to do with OPS+?Quote:
Bruce Sutter invented a pitch...do you have any idea what that means?
Read the thread. We've already gone over that. The playoffs are essentially random.Quote:
How many WS has the Bill James school won? One by my count and if a team has the 2nd highest payroll year after year statistics tell us they are bound to win at some point right...?
I wouldn't want Belle in the Hall, I'm just saying that it's a travesty that Jim Rice is on the fringes while Belle is completely left off, even though Belle was the superbly better player.Quote:
Albert Belle was a jerk...plain and simple. That is why he is off the Hall of Fame radar already...go look at what the "real" Hall of Fame ballot says about character.
LOL.Quote:
In return HOUSTON GM will spout about stats and OPS+ being the Holy Grail some more...I suggest you go out and play or coach some and watch more baseball rather than trying to win arguements by shouting "OPS+! OPS+!" over and over.
That's all I have to say to that. I watch baseball ALL the time. I hope to play in college. I'm 17, so I'm not exactly in a position to COACH.
And if I was to coach, I'd tell my players that the goal of baseball is to score runs. And you score runs by getting on base. And therefore, getting on base is good. :rolleyes:
How about this. Instead of just railing against statistics and claiming that they're "jokes" without providing any proof, show me some proof. Give me some extensive studies that show that outs are often good, instead of rarely good. There's been tons of studies that prove that outs are bad. Christ, you don't need a study to show you that an out is bad. You have 27 outs in a game of baseball, just use logic and you'll see that wasting outs is NOT GOOD. But seriously, the anti-statistical side never gives their own proof to counter the pro-statistic side. They just use baseless insults such as "You never watch baseball" or simply dismiss it as a "joke." That's the real joke here.
Doesn't matter. GM's and Managers don't talk about it much, but sabermetrics has already won the field. Every GM, Manager, and player in baseball uses the tools that sabermetrics has developed over the years in some fashion these days. Arbitration and contract negotiations, trade decisions, deciding to sign players or not, etc... Almost all decisions in baseball are made with some statistical reference in mind now. I saw an article the other day talking about how the "traditional" scouts are almost exclusively using some sabermetric evaluations in their reports now (Don't have the link handy, unfortunately). The debate is more about what statistics to use and how to properly use them nowadays, rather than weather or not to use them.
*shrug*
Unfortunately, the BBWA is a last bastion of traditionalist thought, in that a good portion of their members seem to be intentionally avoiding sabermetric evaluations. That will change over time, though. The only question is, who's going to be passed over in the process? Even that problem isn't permanent though, since there's always the veterans association...
To add more to my side of the argument, below is a chart of the 2006 teams. In it, you'll see the team's place in the MLB in runs, OPS, and on-base percentage.Look how nicely OPS correlates with runs scored. If you wanted to guess the order of teams by their runs scored, and all you did was order them by their OPS+, you wouldn't be far off. The only large anomoly I see is Toronto, who placed 12th in runs scored but managed the 2nd best OPS. Exactly half the league, 15 teams, either were in the same place in Runs and OPS, or were one off. It's eerie how closely the two rankings correlate.Code:Team Runs OPS OBP
New York (AL) 1 1 1
Cleveland 2 4 3
Chicago (AL) 3 3 8
Philadelphia 4 5 6
Atlanta 5 6 15
Texas 6 8 12
New York (NL) 7 10 17
Detroit 8 11 24
Boston 9 7 2
Los Angeles (NL) 10 9 4
Colorado 11 12 9
Toronto 12 2 5
Minnesota 13 13 7
St. Louis 14 14 14
Arizona 15 20 22
Oakland 16 21 10
Baltimore 17 17 11
Los Angeles (AL) 18 18 18
Florida 19 16 23
Kansas City 20 26 19
Seattle 21 22 27
Cincinnati 22 15 16
Washington 23 19 13
San Francisco 24 25 28
Houston 25 28 21
San Diego 26 23 20
Milwaukee 27 24 25
Chicago (NL) 28 27 29
Pittsburgh 29 30 26
Tampa Bay 30 29 30
Not really, considering you can't score if you can't get on base.Quote:
It's eerie how closely the two rankings correlate.
lol
That was sarcasm. :p Some of the hardcore traditionalists would like to believe that OPS and on-base percentage mean absolutely nothing. I bet even when confronted with the strong correlation between OPS and runs scored, they'd still dismiss OPS as a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
:cool:
Yeah........ what she said.:cool: Baseball Prospectus.
Sticking a plus on a bad stat doesn't make it good.
Ohms, traditionalist thought is not a bad thing in baseball. We don't need another overproduced pageant crammed full of cheerleaders, dunkin' midgets, and has been musicians in American sports. Thank G O D that there's a veterans committee to keep some balance. Not many people are getting in on their glove, but the Vets can help there.Quote:
Unfortunately, the BBWA is a last bastion of traditionalist thought, in that a good portion of their members seem to be intentionally avoiding sabermetric evaluations. That will change over time, though. The only question is, who's going to be passed over in the process? Even that problem isn't permanent though, since there's always the veterans association...
OPS is not a great stat, because it puts equal value on slugging and on-base, correct. On-base is much more important. Stuff like Gross Production Average (roughly (OBP*1.8+SLG)/4 i believe off the top if my head, then adjusted for park) have been created to solve that problem. OPS+ is better than OPS, though.