Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
No, I'm talking YBY Top 10 SLG 1977-1992
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
No, I'm talking YBY Top 10 SLG 1977-1992
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I hate you. I haven't touched Access in over 5 years (Long since migrated to SQL server) but htis thread has me playing with that infernal software again.
Hate you!
lol, I know the feeling. You've got Lahman, right?
Slugging leaderboard apperances for Dawson:Quote:
Originally Posted by dolfanar
Year LG-SLG-Position
1980 NL-.492-10
1981 NL-.553-2
1982 NL-.498-9
1983 NL-.539-2
1986 NL-.478-9
1987 NL-.568-6
1988 NL-.504-5
1990 NL-.535-6
OPS+ does a pretty good job at evening out the good vs. bad hitting seasons issues, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Not really. As you can see the guy was regularly amongst the top 10. OPS+ didn't catch that.
Anyway, we aren't going to change each others mind, and none of us get a vote anyway so it's moot.
What's important is that you got me playing with access again, and I will curse your name forever for doing so...
DLing it now. Been a while... need to relearn the format. Curse you Ohms!Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Curse you! You're worse then that cheating, lying chicken abusing Wade Boggs and his a accursed "side-burns"!
lol
It is a fun sort of argument though. I could see him being in the Hall, although I wouldn't put him there. Winfield is in, after all. The only thing about these sorts of arguments that bothers me is when people make purely emotional arguments. It's great that Winfield, Brett, Dawson, etc.. were all well liked and popular, but is anyone seriously going to remember them 50 years from now, in the same way that we think about Ruth, Mantle, or even Ozzie? Their all great players that we've mentioned here, I just don't see them breaking through to be really great players is all. I did love watching them, though. The early 80's was some fun baseball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Ozzie... definitely. Mantle, Ruth and Mays? No, but then what you're suggesting is a whole other level of player that goes above and beyond what the Hall of Fame has been from the beginning.
You know what would solve ALOT of these arguments? They need a "second level" of hall of famer. A Hall of Excellance, which would recognize the truly elite of elites.
The hall of Fame is really alot like a All Star selection. Alot more than just playing "excellance" goes into who gets in. An there is NOTHING wrong with that, imo. As I've said, it ISN'T a "Hall of Excellance", so maybe what they need is an actual "Hall of Excellance", a kind of Hall of Fame + for players voted on by a panel that would have to justify how and why a player is elected based on strict criteria.
For the record, I didn't mean that they compare against each other that way. Strictly statistically, if you look at the four players "Similar batters" on Baseball-referance.com you'll see what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
That's true. There is actually an area or something with the "best of the best" in it, I've heard. The way that players have been selected over time, it is like a career All Star selection, and there are certainly reasons that players can be notable aside from pure performance metrics. Cal Ripkin's "Iron Man" abiity is a great example of that.
The Hall of Fame Monitor is actually a pretty good metric though, despite (or because of?) it's not speaking to whether or not a player deserves to be in the hall. Jim Rice, for example, would be another good player to argue about. He's got more Black Ink reasons to make it than Dawson does, as well.
No, I know. I'm just saying... well, George Brett certainly deserves to be in. I wouldn't vote for Winfield or Dawson is all. I loved watching them, they played good ball, but not that good. Like you said, it's all about the standards that you personally set for the hall. I don't really have a problem with Reggie "Mr. October" Jackson getting in, but I think that he was a better player (albeit arguably) than Dawson and Winfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolfanar
Yes, which brings me back to............ 2 world series wins since '69. Lousy percentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Well, there's nothing to say to that. Winning isn't enough, I guess?
*shrug*
I'm not sure what you expect. No one is able to guarantee wins. Just look at the Yankees this last year, they pretty much had a stacked roster (except their pitching is only... average), and yet they lost to Detroit, didn't even make it to the World Series.
No, since we're being results oriented here, you can't have it both ways. They've either won the Series or they haven't. Billy Beane's had a great run in Oakland but he has yet to win a championship right? Grady Little is an example of how not to do it as well. Remember when he flushed the Sox season by going with the numbers and leaving worn out Pedro on the mound instead of going to his lights out bullpen?
1) Winning a World series or not doesn't speak to the ability of a team to win. You have to win (a lot) in the regular season in order to even get to the Series. That's only one series. It is the most important series, but loosing the world series doesn't make a 100+ win season meaningless.
2) Grady Little ignored the numbers regarding Pedro. I thought you were a Red Sox fan?
:confused: