http://www.fishstripes.com/2008/9/11...z-closing-in-o
Printable View
Do u have your own thoughts or just other people's?
No. No way. He's not "on the cusp" of the Hall of Fame. He's not close, and has no chance of being elected. This writer should have stuck with his original thought, instead of being swayed by the weakest arguments that can be made for a Hall of Famer. "Extra base hits after age 35"? Yeah, um, that's not a HOF case. The only HOF case that can be made for Gonzalez requires ignoring context completely, and setting arbitrary cutoff points in carefully selected stats that place Gonzalez in a group with other HOFers, and that doesn't cut it.
He's been a solid corner outfielder for a while. That doesn't make him a Hall of Famer. Rusty Staub is just one of many players with better cases than Gonzalez, and he's no Hall of Famer.
He's just linking to other people's articles in order to stimulate discussion, not necessarily because he agrees with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by twinsGM
Luis Gonzalez in the Hall? Yeah, he'll be right in line behind Dave Henderson.
"Luis Gonzalez hit the 354th homer of his career, a two-run shot in the third off Brett Myers. Gonzalez is tied with Lee May for 74th on the all-time list, one behind Greg Vaughn "
Greg Vaughn!!! Greg -freakin-Vaughn!!!!!! That's your HOF comparison!!!
Either this article was "Holy crap, I need to write something!" or this guy is nuts.
Are they related?
Not a chance. Doesn't belong, and won't get voted in.
His numbers are good but not great. He was never even close to the best at his position, let alone one of the best hitters of his generation. He only had 4 or 5 HOF caliber seasons. His best showing ever in the MVP vote was #3. His second best finish? #18!
If he hadn't waited until 31 to learn how to hit VERY WELL, he'd probably have a good case. But his body of work is very unimpressive by HOF standards, his peak didn't last anywhere near long enough, and he pales in comparison to his peers.
He was in 2001, non-Barry Bonds division...but that's nitpicking ;) Agreed with what you've said...except, I'd say he only really had one HOF caliber season...but that depends on what you mean by "HOF caliber season."Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Nope, no chance he gets in. He was a very good player for quite a while, but he should even get a scent of the Hall of Fame.
Haha, yes, in the non-Bonds division, he was the best LF for one year, for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Gonzalez did have an amazing 2001, no doubt. But even during his 5 year peak, he was on the bubble in the conversation of the game's best outfielders. Bonds, Sheffield, Sosa, Manny, Vlad, Ichiro, Andruw Jones, etc., etc., etc. 5 or 6 of those guys are easily HOFers, and there's little room for the rest of the crop, especially a guy like Gonzalez.
What I mean by 4 or 5 HOF caliber seasons is, if he had been doing that when he "should have" (mid to late 20s) as well, if it were all added up, he'd have a strong HOF case. At one point he was a perennial .320/.400/.550, 30 HR guy. Many HOF have very similar season numbers, only... spread out over 10+ years, instead of 4 or 5. That's the problem with LuGo. He was an average outfielder for the majority of his career.
what about his 101.5 score on James HOF watch calculation, http://www.baseball-reference.com/ab...ml#hof_monitorQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
All that's meant to estimate is the likelihood that a player will be elected to the Hall of Fame. It's not meant to determine whether or not a player is actually qualified. It based purely on statistical benchmarks - http://www.baseball-reference.com/ab...ml#hof_monitor. It doesn't account for era, for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
Yeah, it's not meant to be the end-all-be-all of HOF worthiness. That scoring system is pretty much "for fun" as much as anything. LuGo benefits from racking up a lot of the small points on that thing, or racking up big points for things he did only once.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Gonzalez was a very good player, but he just wasn't that good for that long, he wasn't ever a top-5 OF (except for one season, which hardly counts for anything)... he probably would be on the bubble of a top 10, but only for 4 seasons.
Dale Murphy and Jim Rice were far superior players, and they don't even quite deserve the hall.
While I like Gonzalez, I don't see him as a HoFer. Not sure that I see Rusty Staub as a better choice, though.
It's close. I'd give perhaps a slight edge to Staub, but yeah, it's not clear cut..Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
My point though was really, Gonzalez is very similar to a ton of corner outfielders throughout history. There's no denying that he had a similar career to Staub, and it'd be awfully hard to argue that the "HOF line" is drawn somewhere between Gonzo and Staub.
Yeah, that's not a perfect calculation. Fred McGriff is a point behind Luis Gonzalez on that scale...who do you think has a better chance for the Hall - or is objectively more deserving?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
That's taking nothing away from Luis Gonzalez. He was an excellent hitter, and his years between 1999-2001 were really awe-inspiring.
Yeah if you look at the metrics used for the HOF monitor, you can see why it doesn't work.
the juice :pQuote:
Originally Posted by oriole^
seriously tho... if it came to those 2 id have to say Chrime Dog is in but even he is outsid elooking in I am afraid... and if Gonzo is looked at... Julio Franco is looked it and I am sad to say, tho I love him, Julio is NOT in
How does it "not work"?Quote:
Originally Posted by boa
It doesn't take into consideration what voters take into consideration - it offers basically zero comparison to other players of the same era, and unless I am mistaken it doesn't take into consideration how many mvp type years a player has had.
It was built as a way to estimate the HOF chances of a player BY taking into consideration what voters take into consideration. It's calculated using a formula designed to approximate the way voters have voted in the past. Read the formula.Quote:
Originally Posted by boa
I did read it.
While it doesn't give points exactly for "MVP type years", it does give points for awards, as well as points for individual season marks in a number of different statistics, mainly AVG-HR-RBI, three of the main stats voters use, which would do a decent job of estimating "MVP-type seasons."Quote:
Originally Posted by boa
A score of 130 is pretty much a guarentee for election. There are 104 players with a Monitor score of over 130. 21 are active, leaving 83 players. We can also get rid of Pete Rose, as he's ineligible. 82 players. Barry Bonds, Jeff Bagwell, Bernie Williams, and Edgar Martinez all are not ballot-eligible yet. 78 players. Of those 78, 6 aren't in the Hall of Fame. One of them is Rickey Henderson, who's in next year. Another is Mark McGwire. He'd be in if not for steroid concerns. The remaining four are Jim Rice, Don Mattingly, Albert Belle, and Steve Garvey. Rice is on the verge of getting in. Mattingly and Garvey both drew significant support.
I'd say that that's a pretty damn good success rate for a measure meant to estimate a player's HOF chances.