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:
Whatchoo talkin' 'bout Willis? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
comeon robin, I know your smarter than that. There's plenty of teams that beat the tar out of everyone during the regular season. Come playoff time though, anything can happen.
Besides, Boston is one of the few teams with an overall lifetime winning record. their 8444-7960 (0.515) since 1901!
*cough* 83 wins *cough*
...sorry, you lost me there.
I think he was refering to St. Louis winning the series this year..
Honestly, where are you pulling this from?Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
The band?Quote:
BTW Houston, ever heard of Slapshot?
Every situation is obviously different, but seriously READ THE ARTICLES BEFORE RAILING AGAINST THEM. There's articles out there that break down the run expectancy of every situation during a game, and stuff like a sacrifice bunt HURTS a team's run expectancy more often than it helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
Yes, and how do you win games? By scoring runs. Doesn't it then make sense that something that HURTS YOUR RUN EXPECTANCY DECREASES YOUR CHANCE OF WINNING?!Quote:
Baseball is a really great game with a lot of interesting strategy and tricky bounces that don't fit nice and neatly on a spreadsheet. Getting the highest OPS+ is not the objective of the sport. The objective is to win games and then win more games than the other teams in the league. Certainly some statistics factor into it but the statistics are not the game. They are an adjunct to the game.
Quit the ignorance.Quote:
The game is played with balls, bats and gloves, not calculators.
No, I did not say that. I'm not as familiar with the 80s as I am the 90s/00s, so I can't come up with somebody off the top of my head. But the whole point of OPS+ is that it can easily be used to compare players from ANY era.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolfanar
1986-1994. Bonds/Dawson, OPS+Quote:
One guy who Dawson was a contemporary of who had similar numbers in the 80's was Barry Bonds. Pretty darn good company.
103/124
114/129
147/137
125/115
170/136
161/115
205/114
206/91
182/82
Not close. At all.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
That's what people fail to realize (particularly ones who are new fans) is that many of the "dominant" players of the expansion/Juiced ball/pathetic pitching era were hardly dominant (atleast not to the extant they were in later years).
That is exactly what OPS+ does. It ADJUSTS for the league. Barry Bonds in 2002 had a ridiculous OPS+ of 275. That is COMPARED to the rest of the league AND park adjusted. OPS+ puts ALL PLAYERS EVER on an even playing field.
Yeah, counting stats were differnet, but OPS+ compares players to the rest of the league, and Dawson simply wasn't head and shoulders over the rest of the league like other guys are.Quote:
Those offensive numbers that people are ga-ga about from guy's like Rodriguez and Griffey and Pujols aren't really impressive when you consider the sheer number of guy's consistently putting up those numbers in the current era. When Dawson was in his prime, you didn't have nearly the same number of players who consistently got 100 walks (or lord... 150 walks which was UNHEARD of until the late 90's!), and where 35-40 HR gave you an excellent chance of leading the league.
You're going to need to proivde more stats than that, because, well that's just not enough. The closest season he had to that when I take a quick look at his b-r page is .274, 20 HR, 78 RBI. OPS+ of 124. Great season, sure, but not "dominant" to the extent that other players are.Quote:
.285, 28 HR, 90 RBI, was an excellent season in Dawsons age.
For argument's sake, career OPS+ of some of those players and some others.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
George Brett 135
Mike Schmidt 147
Fred Lynn 130
Dave Kingman 115
Reggie Jackson 139
Jim Rice 128
Robin Yount 115
Dale Murphy 121
Dave Winfield 129
Andrew Dawson 119.
See? If he was dominant, he'd show more than 3 times.Quote:
Now you're talking OPS+.
Dawson Shows up three times on the OPS+ leaderboards:
1980 NL-OPS+ 136-(#6)
1981 NL-OPS+ 157-(#2)
1983 NL-OPS+ 141-(#5)
George Brett, 10 times. Mike Schmidt, 13 times.
Top 10 in slugging. OPS+ includes ON BASE percentage. And Dawson plain sucked at getting on base.Quote:
Not really. As you can see the guy was regularly amongst the top 10. OPS+ didn't catch that.
Well, it's just a friendly debate!Quote:
Anyway, we aren't going to change each others mind, and none of us get a vote anyway so it's moot.
So that means he hasn't been successful and statistical analysis doesn't work? :rolleyes:Quote:
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?
Ah yes, of course!Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoBoy
lol
Well, it's a bit simplistic, but it's better than nothing. I, personally, don't rely on it completely. It's always worthwhile to look at the actual avg/obp/slg along with it, at least.Quote:
OPS+ puts ALL PLAYERS EVER on an even playing field.
Of course it's not complete, but it does give a good idea of dominance. The thing with looking at AVG/OBP/SLG is that you don't know what the average Avg/OBP/SLG was that year. If the average OBP is .310, than a .340 OBP is really good, even though that would be considered roughly average now a days.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Here's a good test. Think of players' you would consider dominant. Now, look at the single season OPS+ leader board. Who's there? Players that are universally considered the best and the most dominant. Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, and Ted Williams take up 14 of the top 20 slots themselves. Some other names in the top 100 - Lou Gehrig, Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell, Roger Hornsby, Frank Thomas, Mickey Mantle, George Brett, Honus Wagner, Jimmie Foxx, Mike Schmidt, Carl Yastrzemski...
Yup, my kind of list.
:)
Thing is, comparing guys like Gorman Thomas (who we were just talking about :)) to the OPS+ leader board is hardly fair, so I generally don't do it. I like to find guys that have all played during the same time frame, and compare them to each other. Just like I did here, you know?
Dawson's rankings using VORP and 325 AB cutoff
1977 - 33rd overall in the NL, 11th OF in the NL
1978 - 43rd, 15th
1979 - 29th, 8th
1980 - 3rd, 1st
1981 - 2nd, 1st
1982 - 9th, 4th
1983 - 3rd, 2nd
1984 - 71st, 29th
1985 - 48th, 21st
1986 - 30th, 11th
1987 - 18th, 9th
1988 - 13th, 9th
1989 - 45th, 18th
1990 - 6th, 4th
1991 - 40th, 19th
1992 - 30th, 13th
It appears to me he was one of the most dominant hitters for a few years, at least, in the early '80s NL. He also ranks pretty well in comparison to NL OFers of his time. BUT, the majority of his career, he was not someone to fear.
When we have to qualify his dominance with things like "in the NL", "compared to other OF", and "of his time", it doesnt lead to HoF inclusion, in my book.
BTW - a few names off the top of my head that i link with Dawson's era (my era ;) ) that are either better or just as good as him....Sandberg, Carter, Murphy, Pedro Guerrero, Schmidt
That's a great display of why I originally picked 1979-1984 for the comparison lists that I made last night. See, it wasn't arbitrary Dolfanar!
:)
Don't forget Reggie Jackson and Rickie Henderson, DH. Oh, and of course Wally Joyner! What kind of an Angels fan am I?
;)
Well, if we're going to be called Andre Dawson DOMINANT, we really should compare him to plays that ARE dominant, and it's quite obvious to me at least that Dawson was not head and shoulders above the rest of the league - my definition of dominant. He was certainly an above-average player, but "dominant" is a whole nother story - one that a stat like OPS+ can help with.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Yeah, he had a small group of very very strong years, but he was not one of the "most dominant players" of his time.Quote:
It appears to me he was one of the most dominant hitters for a few years, at least, in the early '80s NL. He also ranks pretty well in comparison to NL OFers of his time. BUT, the majority of his career, he was not someone to fear.
The players you listed by OPS+: Sandberg, 114, but you also have to keep in mind that he was a power-hitting second basemen, which is what he's recognized for. Joe Carter, 104. (unless you're talking another Carter)... Carter was a pretty average player. He was almost a poor-man's Dawson - similiar power/speed combination, but couldn't hit for average and got on base even less - .306 career OBP. Dale Murphy, 121. Pedro Guerrero, 137. Mike Schmidt, 147.
i did YBY Top 100 SLG 1977-1992 MLB, to paint a clearer picture ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dolfanar
1977 - 51st
1978 - 55th
1979 - 48th
1980 - 25th
1981 - 2nd
1982 - 26th
1983 - 5th
1984 - 97th
1985 - 59th
1986 - 34th
1987 - 12th
1988 - 15th
1989 - 21st
1990 - 9th
1991 - 31st
1992 - 37th
i could do NL only if you prefer :D
yes, i am....Gary ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
from '77-'87 he was just as good as Dawson and played a much tougher position
There is a difference between all-time Dominant and dominant within any single players playing era, though. Dominant within his era what dolfanar and robinhoodnick (among others) are mainly speaking to, so I'm perfectly willing to oblige their argument. He was popular, and he was an above average player for sure. That needs to be backed up by better stats though, really, in order for enough support to build behind a guy to get him into the Hall. That is my primary argument against Dawson making it, but then as I acknowledged earlier, Dave Winfield is in so...Quote:
Well, if we're going to be called Andre Dawson DOMINANT, we really should compare him to plays that ARE dominant, and it's quite obvious to me at least that Dawson was not head and shoulders above the rest of the league - my definition of dominant. He was certainly an above-average player, but "dominant" is a whole nother story - one that a stat like OPS+ can help with.
*shrug*
I don't agree with dominant in era either. The thing is, it seems to be the measuring stick being used nowadays.
• Harold Baines (1)
• Albert Belle (2)
• Dante Bichette (1)
• Bert Blyleven (10)
• Bobby Bonilla (1)
• Scott Brosius (1)
• Jay Buhner (1)
• Ken Caminiti (1)
• Jose Canseco (1)
• Dave Concepcion (14)
• Eric Davis (1)
• Andre Dawson (6)
• Tony Fernandez (1)
• Steve Garvey (15)
• Rich Gossage (8)
• Tony Gwynn (1)
• Orel Hershiser (2)
• Tommy John (13)
• Wally Joyner (1)
• Don Mattingly (7)
• Mark McGwire (1)
• Jack Morris (8)
• Dale Murphy (9)
• Paul O'Neill (1)
• Dave Parker (11)
• Jim Rice (13)
• Cal Ripken (1)
• Bret Saberhagen (1)
• Lee Smith (5)
• Alan Trammell (6)
• Devon White (1)
• Bobby Witt (1)
I'd say yes to Gossage, Smith, Ripken and Gwynn. Let the vets committee handle the questionables. The rest would need a ticket just like everyone else.
But we're known for losing. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
lol
Boston is a loosing franchise as much as the Islanders are...
:rolleyes:
Anyway, I tend to agree with your analysis. That's a nice list that you posted there. What exactly are the number's that you posted though? I like most of them as a rating, but I wonder where you pulled them from.
Those are the years on ballot numbers. I copied and pasted it from MLB.com. It's the most recent ballot.
some would say that having to go through 10+ votes means you arent a HoFer. i wouldnt, but some would ;)
But thats the point. OPS+ compares a player to the other players. A player who is dominant in his era will have a high OPS+. OPS+ of 200 in 2002 is the same as an OPS+ of 200 in 1980.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Wat I did was reorder the list from 1st years to 15th. Looking at the list this way (working back from Garvey).Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Steve Garvey is a guy I'd consider a fringe HOF. If Orlando Cepeda is a HOF then an argument could be made for Garvey as well. Still, I'm always pretty cool to 1B unless they are real monsters at the plate. I'd say NO to Garvey.
Dave Concepcion is a soft hitting SS, which doesn't mean he should be automatically excluded from the hall. 5 GG, 9 time AS. Another HOF comparable would be Luis Aparicio, but Luis won more GG was just a half notch above Dave. NO to Dave.
Jim Rice to me is a HOF player. The biggest knock on him is that he didn't play a LONG time, but he idd enough, imo to warrant induction. YES to Rice.
Tommy John I already stated above I would vote for. YES to John.
Dave Parker was a pretty darn good ball player, but definitely not HOF worthy. NO to Parker.
YES to Bert (Again I stated before that I would).
Dale Murphy is just slightly behind Dawson in my book. Not as much longevity , but I didn't hold that against Rice, so YES to Murphy.
Jack Morris is real tough one. His ERA was nothing to crow about, but when it comes down to it what brings "Fame" more than winning? YES to Morris.
Rich Gossage is a tough one for me, if only because Lee Smith ISN'T in yet. Weird isn't it, but I'd only induct Gossage into a HOF that includes Lee Smith. NO to Gossage (for now!).
Don Mattingly is another classic case of a GREAT player with a short career. He is hurt also (again for me) by the position he played. I'm REALLY on the fence with Don. Gonna say NO, but only with great, GREAT regret.
Alan Trammell is a HOF in my book. Compared to the other players of his position, particularly during the era he played, he along with Ripken was a pioneer in transformation of SS from a no-hit position into one where offense could be expected. YES to ALan.
Needless to say YES to Dawson.
Lee Smith should ALREADY be in, IMO. YES to Smith.
Albert Belle had a GREAT, albeit short career. Without a doubt, a doimnant player in his short time, I would vote Belle in to the Hall.... just not this year. Like Rice I think he should wait a while. It's only his 2nd year... he has time.
Of the first year players, the ONLY one who jumps at me for inductionis Cal Ripken. TOny Gwynn should definitely get in... I just don't see him as a first ballot kinda guy. Next year definitely. I know he is getting in regardless mind you, so the point is moot. Big Mac is the other name that jumps out... a one-dimensional player, but WHAT A DIMENSION! The steroid thing hurts a bit. Maybe in a year or two.
So my picks:
Jim Rice
Tommy John
Bert Blyleven
Dale Murphy
Jack Morris
Alan Trammell
Andre Dawson
Lee Smith
Tony Gwynn
Cal Ripken
That would be my short-list. If I had to pair it down to 4 names, my ballot THIS year would look like this:
Andre Dawson
Lee Smith
Tony Gwynn
Cal Ripken
That would be my biggest hope for this years class. NEXT year I would still be keeping my fingers crossed for one or two of Jim Rice, Tommy John, Rich Gossage and *especially* Alan Trammell to make it in.
I won't argue with those opinions, except for Gossage. Bruce Sutter is in, and is more comparable to Gossage than Smith. I'd say both Gossage and Smith should be in, but I see no reason why Sutter should go in before Gossage...Gossage'll definitely get in next year though.
Also, did you purposely skip McGwire?
Nope, I mention him. He's a 2nd/3rd year kinda guy to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
AH, overlooked that.