dola
if your math prof gave a test and then came back a few days later and said that the average score in the class, after adjusting for the curve, was a 75, would you have done "well above average" if your score was 90?
Printable View
dola
if your math prof gave a test and then came back a few days later and said that the average score in the class, after adjusting for the curve, was a 75, would you have done "well above average" if your score was 90?
Actually in a proper stanine bell curve 84.2 per cent and higher would be considered above average, 97.7 per cent would be considered well above average and .13 per cent exceptional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_curve_grading
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by nuzzy62
i think you better go back to math class.
Go take a look. There's no adding or anything it's printed right on the graphic :)
yea, i understand the graphic. thats why i said you should go back to math class :pQuote:
Originally Posted by nuzzy62
How do you figure? It has .13, 2.14 printed right on it?
well im not your math prof, but....thats the percentage of cases that should fall into a certain category, not the raw percentage needed to fall into that category.Quote:
Originally Posted by nuzzy62
so...
the top 2% of scores should get an A
the next 13% should get a B
the next 70% should get a C
the next 13% should get a D
and the bottom 2% should get an F
but in 20 years of school, with 8 being college level, ive never met a prof that used a strict bell curve anyway. typically, the scores are too tightly grouped to make it work. you cant really give one 77 a B and another 77 a C ;)
I actually had two profs use it - both in one of those science courses with a mass amount of people — Needless to say if you showed up to class, you passed because it was those dummies who didn't drop the course that got the F's.
I squeaked out a B in one of them, but it certainly didn't make people study as the masses were happy to show up and get their Cs as they didn't have to try.
The top end students were a bit peeved - they studied like mad to try and get those As
psst, DH: Shea Hillenbrand went to the Giant's, not the Angels.
;)
Just to bring this back to the topic at hand...
Andre Dawson...
1977 Rookie of the Year
8 Gold Gloves
8 time All Star
1987 MVP, 2 2nd place MVP finishes
When he played he was one of three players to have 300 homers and 300 steals along with Bobby Bonds and Willie Mays. Now he is one of six...
Tough out? Sure he OBP was low...but he was a tough out...
Hall of Fame voters only need to talk to Dawson's former teammates to appreciate what he did. Listen to Shawon Dunston, who relayed this story in an interview in 2000:
"When you hit a home run off Nolan Ryan, he meets you at third base," Dunston said of the Hall of Fame pitcher who intimidated hitters. "But when Andre hit one [off Ryan], he stayed near the mound and waited for the ball. That impressed me a lot. That's respect."
Here is what HOF Ryne Sandberg said about him...
During Ryne Sandberg's induction speech at the National Baseball Hall of Fame in July 2005, he mentioned former teammates he respects because they played the game right. Andre Dawson was high on that list.
"No player in baseball history worked harder, suffered more or did it better than Andre Dawson," Sandberg said of the rifle-armed outfielder known as "The Hawk." "He's the best I've ever seen.
"I watched him win an MVP for a last-place team in 1987 [with the Cubs], and it was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen in baseball," Sandberg said. "He did it the right way, the natural way, and he did it in the field and on the bases and in every way, and I hope he will stand up here someday."
Was he a tough out? In 1990 the Reds won the World Series and also that year they walked Andre Dawson 5 times INTENTIONALLY in a game May 22, 1990.
He has the most hits and extra base hits of anyone not in the HOF.
Was he one of the top 2 players at his position for a decade...yes....
He belongs in the Hall of Fame...
Rookie of the Year should not count in HOF discussions. Many players win ROTY's and then disappear, so it's nothing great.Quote:
Originally Posted by edburns
8 Gold Gloves, fine, good defensive outfielder.
8 time All Star? Shouldn't count. Just a popularity contest. I was listening to something on ESPN Radio about this just yesterday, and the guy said that the one thing that just stuck the nail into the coffin with his thoughts of All Star Appearances being meaningless was when Luis Aparicio collected 75,000 all star votes despite having retired during spring training.
MVP...sure, he had some really good years.
Yeah. He was fast, and he had decent power.Quote:
When he played he was one of three players to have 300 homers and 300 steals along with Bobby Bonds and Willie Mays. Now he is one of six...
That does not make any sense whatsoever. The reverse of OBP is "out percentage" basically. A low OBP means that he got out very often. Getting out very often means he was not a tough out.Quote:
Tough out? Sure he OBP was low...but he was a tough out...
New Hall of Fame qualification: Ask player's former teammates of their thoughts. That's sure a fantastic way to decide who belongs in the Hall.Quote:
Hall of Fame voters only need to talk to Dawson's former teammates to appreciate what he did.
Another new Hall of Fame qualifcation: Nolan Ryan has to respect you.Quote:
"When you hit a home run off Nolan Ryan, he meets you at third base," Dunston said of the Hall of Fame pitcher who intimidated hitters. "But when Andre hit one [off Ryan], he stayed near the mound and waited for the ball. That impressed me a lot. That's respect."
Two new ones here: Ryne Sandberg has to respect you. You must play the game right.Quote:
During Ryne Sandberg's induction speech at the National Baseball Hall of Fame in July 2005, he mentioned former teammates he respects because they played the game right. Andre Dawson was high on that list.
Honestly, how many Hall of Famers DIDN'T play the game right? How many Major Leaguers didn't play the game right? :rolleyes:
Some more: Work hard. Suffer. Do it better.Quote:
"No player in baseball history worked harder, suffered more or did it better than Andre Dawson," Sandberg said of the rifle-armed outfielder known as "The Hawk." "He's the best I've ever seen.
What? Seriously. How do you "win an MVP the right and natural way"? What does that even mean? Personally, I don't think he deserved the 1987 MVP. Sure, it was a fantastic year, but I mean...Jack Clark batted .286/.459/.597 with 35 HR, a full 160 points higher than Dawson in OPS. All Dawson did that year that's special is hit 49 home runs. He only stole 11 bases, so it's not like he had a 40-40 year or something. He had a measly .328 OBP. Adjusted league OBP that year for him was .344. Clark beat Dawson in every single category except doubles, HR, and RBI (due to less playing tme), triples, and batting average, by 1 point.Quote:
"I watched him win an MVP for a last-place team in 1987 [with the Cubs], and it was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen in baseball," Sandberg said. "He did it the right way, the natural way, and he did it in the field and on the bases and in every way, and I hope he will stand up here someday."
Um, so? Intentionally walking somebody isn't always the best idea, and just because a team decided to do that to one player 5 times in a game does not mean that the player was a tough out. 1990 was one of Dawson's best years, and I don't feel like looking up how he did prior to May 22,1990, so he might've been really really hot. That doesn't say anything for his career as a whole.Quote:
Was he a tough out? In 1990 the Reds won the World Series and also that year they walked Andre Dawson 5 times INTENTIONALLY in a game May 22, 1990.
You also have to see who was batting BEHIND Dawson in that game, because I'm sure there are players that you'd rather pitch to than Dawson, but there's players I'd rather pitch to than Cecil Fielder, so that doesn't mean anything when it comes to HoF discussions.
Sorry, but I despise this argument. If Dawson gets in the Hall, there's still going to be somebody with the most and extra base hits that isn't in the Hall. That's not a reason to let somebody in!Quote:
He has the most hits and extra base hits of anyone not in the HOF.
Robin Yount played center for a good portion of the 1980's, and was arguably a better player. Kirby Puckett for a few years. Dale Murphy. Chili Davis..Quote:
Was he one of the top 2 players at his position for a decade...yes....
I might be missing a few players because I don't know the entire decade of the 80's by heart. He certainly a great center fielder for a pretty long time, but...
He does not belong in the Hall of Fame.Quote:
He belongs in the Hall of Fame...
So, because many players who win it are forgettable, the exceptions to the rule should be ignored? To me that makes it more exceptional. If 99 of 100 fail then that one who succeeds is outstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
But never mind that, here's the all time list. There are a LOT of great players on the rolls. ROY WINNERS
Although... Being a member of the 300/300 club is something special. I don't think that it means all that much in terms of really playing baseball (He's not Bobby Bonds or Willie Mays) but it's meaningful to us, the fans.
Wow! just looked at the board, knowing that the Dodgers put up some great talent and have had a lot of ROY's but 15 of 59 is unbelievable! That's slightly better than one in four! They also tend to win 'em in bunches. five straight from '92-'96, four straight from '79-'82, and four of seven from '47 to '53.
You really want an answer to that? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
What I saw from the list is how far back you have to go to find an NL ROY who is in the Hall...all the way back to Johnny Bench in 1968. I think Piazza will eventually go in and some guy named Pujols might too.
But then you look at the A.L. side and it is full of HOF winners and will-bes. Ironically, the AL ROY is not a good Hall indicator before 1967 (Carew).
As to whether ROY should be a credential, it should if the subject is "fame". Such honors are how most players get famous. OTOH, it's an unsteady indicator for Hall-worthiness. It's just one more part of the debate.
Agreed. If it shows the beginning of a pattern of excellent performance, then it should be taken into account as well. You don't throw out Yaz's triple crown because it was a down year for production do you? No? Then why throw out another milestone?
Yes, it's a great award, but it doesn't push him over the hump of a non-Hofer to a Hofer. That's what i'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
They wouldn't be in the Hall or in the majors if they didn't play baseball correctly. That's my point.Quote:
You really want an answer to that? :confused:
Of course you don't throw out a triple crown - you look at it in comparison to the rest of the league, and his OPS+ of 191 that year shows out outrageously good that season was.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
All I'm saying is that Dawson winning a ROY doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.
It also counts toward his possibility of becoming one.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
And I don't think anyone will argue that, winning a ROY alone makes *anyone* a Hall of Famer.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Anyone care to argue that Joe Charboneau deserves induction?
OTOH, you're cheerleading for inducting a guy who twice led the league in losses. I'll take a ROY over that.
Losses do not necessarily ndicate how he pitched. Also, he only led the league once. 1988 arguably the worst year of his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
I'll take a dominant pitcher (yes, he was dominant, see the thread on him), whose 5th in career strikeouts, and had excellent career numbers, over a power/speed guy with a career OBP of under .330.
RoY doesnt do anything at all for me, unlike MVP, GG, and AS appearances that do a little.
in the RoY race, there's many a year where the winner is just the best of a bunch of bad options.
I think Gold Gloves are the most ridiculous awards out there. Far more often, they go to the good offensive player who doesn't do pratfalls than to a skilled defensive player.
Sabermetric study after study has rated Adam Everett the National League's best defensive shortstop. Guess how many Gold Gloves he has won? Guess how many Gold Gloves the attrocious-fielding Barry Bonds has won? Aside from Brooks Robinson, the best fielding third baseman I ever saw was Ken Caminiti. He only won 3 Gold Gloves and they happened to coincide with his best *offensive* seasons.
On another thread, I mentioned Rafael Palmeiro winning the GG at 1B in 1999 despite playing only 28 games at first and 135 at DH.
ROY means you were among the league's best players at least for one season. In some years, the competition is stiffer than others and many a good rookie had a weak career either due to injuries or failure to adjust their game. Gold Gloves are 90% garbage as far as I'm concerned. I'd take ROY as a greater credential than GG anyday.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
It's really a tragedy of epic proportions.Quote:
Sabermetric study after study has rated Adam Everett the National League's best defensive shortstop. Guess how many Gold Gloves he has won?
To be fair, when Bonds won his Gold Gloves (1990-1998, except 1995), he WAS a good fielder...Quote:
Guess how many Gold Gloves the attrocious-fielding Barry Bonds has won?
Retarded.Quote:
On another thread, I mentioned Rafael Palmeiro winning the GG at 1B in 1999 despite playing only 28 games at first and 135 at DH.
Wrong. It means you were among the league's best ROOKIES that season.Quote:
ROY means you were among the league's best players at least for one season.
While Gold Gloves are a bull award, I would say that they have more bearing for HOF discussion than ROY. Besides Derek Jeter, I would say that players who win Gold Gloves usually were a good fielder at least earlier in their career. For Gold Gloves, once you're established as a good fielder, you'll keep winning even if you arent a good fielder, with some exceptions like Jeter.Quote:
In some years, the competition is stiffer than others and many a good rookie had a weak career either due to injuries or failure to adjust their game. Gold Gloves are 90% garbage as far as I'm concerned. I'd take ROY as a greater credential than GG anyday.
GG are 90% garbage to me too, hence my "...unlike MVP, GG, and AS appearances that do a little" qualifier ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
90% garbage is still better than 97%, which i would say RoY awards are.
If Andre Dawson had been born 25 years earlier, he'd probably be in the HOF. The fact that we now have a much better understanding of park effects hurts his chances a lot.
Other than Wrigley, what hitter's parks did he play in? Olympic Stadium, where he spent the bulk of his career, was in no way a hitter's park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
Fenway. :D
Seriously, while you are correct that Stade Olympic wasn't a hitter's park, Dawson was already in the decline phase of his career when he left there. Wrigley masked his decline to a great extent.
Still, even if he had played his entire career in pitcher's parks, he'd be, as the thread title puts it, a "Famer on the Fringe". My point was that if we didn't have the understanding of park effects that we've gained in the past quarter century or so, he'd likely be more-or-less a lock. He still has a decent shot at getting in eventually, and that's OK with me. But it's also OK with me if he doesn't get in--there are better-qualified position players who are eligible but not in yet, and they should go in before him.
Well, I find it hard to believe that the sports writers even look at park effects. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
Not to mention what the Big Toilet Bowl did to Hawks knees... god i hate that Stadium.
It's ridiculous that the whole argument against Dawson comes down to his OBP, the one chink in his armour. Get over it, walks are fine and all, but I'll take a guy who makes contact over a guy who sits back to get a few walks AND strikeout a billion times (Sammy Sosa?). OBP is a fine stat, but hardly a deal breaker. It's not "The Hall of Statisitcal Excellance", it's the "Hall of Fame"...
While we're at it throw Tommy John, Jim Kaat and Bert Blylevyn in their as well.
Such as?Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
I'll take a guy who strikes out a lot, gets on base a lot, and hits for power, over a guy who's only abilities are decent power and speed. A strikeout is usually just as bad as any other kind of out. An out is bad. Getting on base is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolfanar
I'm all for John, Kaat, and Blyelvyn, Bert without a doubt.
So you'd induct 3 slightly above average pitchers over an exceptional and at times dominat outfielder?
Wow... inconsistency though name art HGM...
Let's just give out the MVP to the guy with the highest OBP each year :rolleyes:
Bert Blyleven wasn't just slightly above average. Refer to his thread and all the links to the baseball analyst articles.
Dawson had one year that could potentially be called "dominant" - his MVP season, and even then, I personally think there were better candidates that year, they just didn't reach 49 home runs. Even then, if you look at it, his 1987 was actually worse compared to the rest of the league than like his 1983.
I'm not saying OBP is the only stat to use to judge a hitter, but a guy who hits .270/.400/.500 with 30 homers and 0 steals is more valuable than the guy who hits .279/.323/.482 with 30 homers and 20 steals...
The entire point of battings is to score runs. How do you score runs? My getting on base. Outs are the "currency" of baseball. The best hitters, more often than not, are the hitters who get out the least. Obviously a guy who walks with no more, say a .280/.420/.340 (weird line i know), is probably not as valuable as the guy that may go .280/.350/.530...
for his era, Dawson consistently dominant. I have read the thread, and all I see are contradictory arguments depending on who YOU personally like or dislike (All Star games are worthless... oh no wait there not for THIS player. Strikeouts are worthless... but not for THAt guy). There is such a thing as a "good" out, and there is a reason that for years managers liked contact hitters, who didn't strikeout, but didn't necessarily walk a hundred times either. Why? Because in pre-Juiced ball era baseball, pitchers actually PITCHED to hitters/ that's why you didn't see as many 80+_ walk a year guy's. Jeez, forget about 80 walks... the record is over 200 now! Differant eras. I'm guessing you weren't old enough to actually watch 80's baseball, where things like hit and run, speed, base stealing, defense and little ball actually brought strategy to the table. In that environment Dawson WAS a dominant player.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Your passion is great, but you can't expect to brow beat the whole board into agreeing with you by sheer force of volume of posts. That's another thing I see in this thread.
IMO, you VASTLY overate OBP. IYO I VASTLY underate OBP. That's life.
Solely on dominant in the era, the Hawk is in, period. That seems to be the current trend among voters so I think that he qualifies. If you never saw Dawson play, then I can understand you reservations, but if you saw the man do his job, he belongs.
Not when you're working the pitcher, and giving a look at what he's got for the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
When I think "dominant" I think Albert Pujols. Barry Bonds. Dawson's highest OPS+ (157 in 1981, 395 at bats), is just two points higher than Pujols' career low of 155. His career OPS+ was 119.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolfanar
Compared to some dominant players:
Pujols 171
Bonds 182
Manny Ramirez 157
Alex Rodriguez 145
Ken Griffey Jr 141
Mark McGwire 163
All Star Games don't mean anything when it comes to discussing how good a player's career was, no matter who the player is.Quote:
All Star games are worthless...
I didn't see it, but sabermetricians have proven time and time again that using those strategies makes it harder to score runs. While there are rare instances when an out can be "good", an out is overwhelmingly a bad outcome. Saying that "tere's a reason that managers liked it" for so long doesn't mean it's the better way. By that logic, slavery was good because our leaders once liked it.Quote:
There is such a thing as a "good" out, and there is a reason that for years managers liked contact hitters, who didn't strikeout, but didn't necessarily walk a hundred times either. Why? Because in pre-Juiced ball era baseball, pitchers actually PITCHED to hitters/ that's why you didn't see as many 80+_ walk a year guy's. Jeez, forget about 80 walks... the record is over 200 now! Differant eras. I'm guessing you weren't old enough to actually watch 80's baseball, where things like hit and run, speed, base stealing, defense and little ball actually brought strategy to the table.
I'm not trying to. I'm just having a calm debate, and in a debate, I stand hard on my side.Quote:
Your passion is great, but you can't expect to brow beat the whole board into agreeing with you by sheer force of volume of posts. That's another thing I see in this thread.
Well, I'd really like someone to explain to me how a stat that measures how well a player gets on base, which is the whole point of being at bat, is "overrated." There have been many many studies that prove that OBP/OPS correlate extremely well with runs scored.Quote:
IMO, you VASTLY overate OBP. IYO I VASTLY underate OBP. That's life.
When "working the pitcher", wouldn't a walk be a much better outcome than an out? An out is RARELY EVER good. There are very very few instances when an out ends up increasing a team's run expectancy.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Yes, but not every team has a .600 hitter to give everyone a "look". The best hitters fail 60% of the time remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM