Baseball-ReferenceQuote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Printable View
Baseball-ReferenceQuote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
this is good stuff HGM, keep it up. Looks like it will be awhile before you even finish the infield haha.
Quick question, are you doing pitchers and if so are you only ranking like the top 15 or 20?
McGwire over Murray? I would have thought Murray had more career value but then again I haven't looked at the numbers...aS FOR hERNANDEZ, did you say once tht you didn' think he was a HOFer but here you say he iss one of the top 15 1BM ever??Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
A couple notes. First, as the HoM did, the players are placed into their position by either the position at which they provided the most overall value in their career (roughly). However, they're ranked based on their overall career. Killebrew spent 791 games at third and 471 games at left field, and was a butcher at both positions, particularly at third, which drags his overall ranking down a good deal. You also have to factor in him being a plodder on the basepaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
With McGwire, his ranking depends on whether you prefer peak or career. Personally, I don't see anybody in my top 7 that I'd rank him higher than (obviously). Gehrig and Foxx are the clear 1-2. Anson never had a peak like McGwire's, but had the longest career of any player in history and was an great player for the majority of it and effective for the entirety of it. Translated to a 162 game schedule, Anson would've had somewhere around 16,000-17,000 plate appearances. Obviously, had he actually played that much, it's likely he would've broken down earlier than he did, but if you translate the shorter season schedules into longer schedules (as you should to compare his value to other guys), he was immensely valuable to his clubs. Mize and Greenberg both had peaks comparable to McGwire's, and similar career value, except they both missed 3-4 years while serving their country. I (and most HoM voters) give credit for that, and that puts them above McGwire. Brouthers and Connor also had comparable peaks and both had more career value.
Clark and Hernandez are really, really similar. They could easily go in any order. Comparable peaks and careers.
If I want to be a serious voter for the HoM, I'm going to have to rank them (and all of them), in order to accurately rank all candidates. I'm tackling them last though.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Murray definitely beats Big Mac on career value, but he never really had a phenomenal peak. He was just incredibly good for incredibly long. McGwire's peak puts him over Murray for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
A couple things,Quote:
aS FOR hERNANDEZ, did you say once tht you didn' think he was a HOFer but here you say he iss one of the top 15 1BM ever??
1) As I said, I'm ranking the players that the Hall of Merit has inducted. Hernandez was inducted by them, so he's ranked by me. This also means that the current and recently retired batch of first basemen are being ranked. Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, and Albert Pujols are easily above Hernandez, pushing him down to #19, and there's certainly arguments for other players as well (Giambi, Delgado, etc.).
2) I have no idea if I ever said here that I didn't think Hernandez was a HoFer, although it's possible I did. However, I've since changed my mind, particularly after reading through the Hernandez discussion the HoM had. He was the best defensive first basemen ever, and had a very good bat to boot. Clearly a bottom-rung player, but he's in, for me.
So again, you agree with the HoM on all 19 selections?
I can't REALLY say for sure until I rank non-HoM players as well, and then do an overall ranking, but currently, I'm not sold on Bill Terry and Jake Beckley, and only agree on Joe Start if I give him credit for his play in the 1860's.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
Makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Hernandez was in Seinfeld, though. :)Quote:
Clark and Hernandez are really, really similar. They could easily go in any order. Comparable peaks and careers.
I think I agree with your ranking - but my cutoff for the HOF would end below Killebrew and above Clark/Hernandez. Both were very good players - but not quite good enough in a small HOF that I'd prefer.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yeah, the Hall of Merit is (intentionally) the same size as the Hall of Fame, in terms of number of players.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
I know - it was just interesting to me that the cutoff for a small HOF seems very clearcut at first base (aside from the Negro Leagues where I have no information). There is a huge gap in value from Killebrew to Clark.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Lindstrom did better then Boyer, his career was just shorter.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
LOL this Hall of Merit must be a big April Fool's Joke. Will Clark? Ken Boyer?
Will Clark was a great player, and Ken Boyer had better longevity and was slightly better then Lindstrom. The real HOF is an April Fools jokeQuote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Boyer had a 116 OPS+ in 8,268 plate appearances, and played very good defense. Lindstrom had a 109 OPS+ in 6104 plate appearances, and the metrics indicate average to solid defense but nothing special. Lindstrom did not do better than Boyer at anything AND had a much shorter career.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Okay, know-it-all, which first basemen besides the ones I listed above Will Clark on my list are better than Will Clark?Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Also, these players you're using to call the HoM an "April Fool's Joke" are, by the consensus of the voters, the weaker group of players. Have you ever taken a look at the weaker group in the Hall of Fame? Because, THAT'S a joke.
ezuidgndfioy8 Must you always post the same things I do, in more detail? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Except, you know, batting average and OBP... and 2 less seasons is "much shorter" ? (Lindstrom played 12, Boyer played 14)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
There's also this thing called offensive environment, which is why I posted their respective OPS+'s. Lindstrom played in the late 20's and early 30's, which was a high offensive environment. Boyer played in the 60's, which was the lowest offensive environment since the deadball era.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Lindstrom's .351 OBP was basically league average which was .349. Boyer had a .349 OBP...but the average during his career was .335.
Lindstrom played in 13 different seasons, Boyer in 15. That's #1. #2 is that that's an awfully crazy way to look at who had a longer career, considering Lindstrom had 7 seasons of 130+ games while Boyer had 12.Quote:
and 2 less seasons is "much shorter" ? (Lindstrom played 12, Boyer played 14)
In honor of the truly prestigious (:rolleyes:) Hall of Merit, I propose a Sports Mogul Baseball Hall of OK... Every player who was an OK player during his career can be nominated, but only the most OK of the OK can get elected
Uh, right. Once again, metsguy, I'm telling you for your own good, stop being willfully ignorant.
The Hall of OK is the perfect place for all of the Ken Boyers and the Will Clarks of the world :DQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You should really check out all the work that the HoM voters have put into it. They put more work into evaluating one player than you've put into evaluating every player you've ever looked at.
Once again, stop with your childish ignorant crap, and if you really disagree, answer the question I've posed. Which first basemen were better than Clark (besides the ones I listed above him)?
And, again, if you're going to laugh at the HoM for their weakest players, why do you respect the HoF?
And that's how they voted for baseball legends Ken Boyer, Will Clark, Willie Randolph, Lou Whitaker, Graig Nettles, and Bret Saberhagen...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Once again, stop with your childish ignorant crap. You haven't even looked past their inductees. Your remarks are completely off-base.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
And they all were deserving of it.....Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
That's not trueQuote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
And you're an idiot with minimal understanding of the game.....Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
and that is true.
Bret Saberhagen SUCKED. He does NOT, repeat DOES NOT deserve a Hall of Fame induction.Quote:
Originally Posted by wahoosamC
Please explain to me how he sucked, was it his career ERA+ of 126? Or was it his WHIP and SO to Walk ratio?Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
And please explain how that has anything to do with you having minimal knowledge of the game.
He did not suck. he was not the best pitcher ever, but he did not suck.... He was far from suckingQuote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
This type of "discussion" is pointless. On both sides. People have opinions, and from whatever they derive those opinions is their thing.
Well, it's not an opinion that Bret Saberhagen didn't suck. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Whether or not he belongs in a "Hall", yes, that's an opinion, of course.
One important thing to remember with the HoM is the voting structure. Each year (currently), there are 3 inductees. The 3 players that receive the most points get inducted. So, if there's a weak crop of incoming candidates, as there was both this and last year, a "backlog" candidate or two is going to get elected, often times without majority support. Saberhagen was placed on 24 of the 50 voters' ballots when he was elected, meaning 26 voters didn't have him in their top 15, so it's not as if the HoM is saying that he's a slam-dunk-no-doubt-about-it candidate.
It's all about context. In terms of a HoF or HoM or whatever, Saberhagen does kinda suck. He had some really great seasons, won a couple of Cy Youngs, but he spent over half of his career being injured, bad, or both. Based on career totals and ability, Mo Vaughn is equally Hall-of-Anything-worthy. I kinda doubt metsguy truly believes that Saberhagen is a garbage pitcher, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Perhaps there's something to what metsguy is saying, if you look past the brusque delivery. Maybe the Hall of Merit isn't so meritorious if they decide to adhere to a rule which automatically puts in three inductees in spite of quality.
I don't completely agree with him, and I don't think Saberhagen flat out sucked, without it being qualified by something like "Among HOFers, Saberhagen sucks." It's nice that there's a respectable venue for the placement and discussion about an alternate Hall of Fame that's geared to be based less on BS and more on strict analysis, but I'm not sure I really put a great deal of stock in it, and I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way. If a player who had severe trouble staying healthy and consistent is there, it does raise a bit of a red flag.
This is just my opinion... and on the other hand, I'm not sure I see anything constructive in coming into this thread of yours to disrupt it, if that was his intent.
And this isn't totally aimed at you, because it was basically said (not by you) that he knows nothing about baseball, which is kinda rude and uncalled for. And the idea of the Hall of Merit was possibly, in a classless way, ridiculed by our friend metsguy. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong, it's all opinion. But there's better ways to deliver ideas.
I just think it's better to make an argument as best you can and leave it at that, and not resort to ridicule. This isn't directed at any one forum member or even any one thread, including this one. I just thought I'd pipe in with this. In large part, I'm echoing this:
http://www.sportsmogul.com/vbulletin...54#post1237154
That said, please do continue. I'm interested in your rankings of these players, and I'd hate to see an interesting thread get thrown off by a squabble over who thinks which player should or shouldn't be on which list and why or why not.
By suck, I mean like, a "Bob Welch" type of sucking, he had a pretty good career, some great seasons, but I'm doubting that Saberhagen was truly one of the top 3 candidates on that ballot (Out of curiosity, HGM, who were the 15 people eligible that year?)
Sandy Koufax got in both Hall's on the basis of a dominant 4 year stretch. Outside of that, Koufax had little.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
These are those four years, innings and ERA+:
311, 159
223, 187
335, 170
323, 190
Saberhagen IS sort of a Koufax-lite, but with the misfortune of his best years coming in an odd every-other-year fashion instead of consecutively. Saberhagen's best years:
235, 145
257, 136
262, 180
177, 152 (strike year)
On overall career value, they're basically identical, with Koufax throwing 2,324 innings with a 131 ERA+ and Saberhagen 2,562 innings with a 126 ERA+.
Now, like I said, LITE, very lite, but he's the same type of candidate - great peak, little career. And, again, Saberhagen is likely one of, if not THE worst pitchers in the HoM. I haven't ranked pitchers yet, and neither has the HoM, but I don't see how he wouldn't be at or near the bottom. And personally, I'd take Saberhagen as my "floor" for a 237 player sized Hall over Rube Marquard and Jesse Haines. HoM discussion on Saberhagen.
Agreed, and this is one reason that I honestly really enjoy discussions with you. We don't always agree and in fact may disagree more often than we agree, but you always put a lot of detail and thoughts into your arguments (and I like to think I do mine as well), which makes for an interesting back-and-forth, regardless of agreements or disagreements.Quote:
I just think it's better to make an argument as best you can and leave it at that, and not resort to ridicule. This isn't directed at any one forum member or even any one thread, including this one. I just thought I'd pipe in with this.
The HoM doesn't work like that. Every year, every player not already inducted is eligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Here are the 2008 election results. Tim Raines was overwhelmingly first, with 46 of the 50 voters placing him first on their ballot (Gavvy Cravath, Kirby Puckett, Dick Redding [Negro Leaguer], and Addie Joss got the other first place votes). Dick Lundy, a Negro Leaguer, placed 2nd with Saberhagen 3rd, named on 25 and 24 ballots respectively. Outside of Raines, Lundy was the only player to be ranked in the top 15 of candidates by 50% of the voters. Reggie Smith (who was inducted the following year, this year), Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw (also inducted this year), Dick Redding, Kirby Puckett, and Bob Johnson rounded out the top 10 in points.
Might be a little lay off. In order to further improve my rankings, I'm trying to go year-by-year and figure out the best player at each position in each league, so I can get a sense of how "dominating" a player was. If I have a player ranked lower than another and I see that he was actually the best player in his league at his position 8 times and the latter only 3 times, that'd give me incentive to change my rankings. I'm not being very in-depth with the best-at-position-in-league for each year ratings, and it's going relatively quick, but just a heads up.
It may be beside the point if the 1B list is final, but I'd put Greenberg lower, and I'd think I'd put Beckley ahead of Terry and Sisler.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I don't have much of a handle on Start, either, but he was a good player well into his 40s, which was much rarer back in the day than it is now--that's got to be a point in his favor.
I'm giving Greenberg credit for missing most of 1942, all of 1942-1944, and half of 1945, due to the war. He picked up right where he left off, and had he played those seasons, his career would look a lot better.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
As for Beckley, Terry, and Sisler, Beckley has no peak to speak of, and I like to see at least some peak. Sisler had a great peak, but little outside of it. Him and Terry could probably be flip-flopped.
The lists aren't 100% final. They'll never be 100%. I'm always open to hearing new arguments and revising my choices.
Also, as he was 28 in 1871, the first recorded year of his career, his peak likely came in the 1860's. During discussion, some people did run some "projections" of how he would've done in his 20's, based off similar post-age-28 players. Without that credit, I don't think he makes the cut-off.Quote:
I don't have much of a handle on Start, either, but he was a good player well into his 40s, which was much rarer back in the day than it is now--that's got to be a point in his favor.
Who would you put ahead of Greenberg?Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
Originally, I was thinking I'd drop him about 4 or 5 spots, but HGM may be right that I'm not giving him enough credit for missed years due to the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by wahoosamC
Slightly revised first base rankings:
- Lou Gehrig
- Jimmie Foxx
- Cap Anson
- Dan Brouthers
- Johnny Mize
- Roger Connor
- Hank Greenberg
- Mark McGwire
- Eddie Murray
- Willie McCovey
- Buck Leonard
- Harmon Killebrew
- Mule Suttles
- Keith Hernandez
- Will Clark
- Joe Start
- George Sisler
- Bill Terry
- Jake Beckley
And third base:
- Mike Schmidt
- Eddie Mathews
- Wade Boggs
- George Brett
- Jud Wilson
- Frank Baker
- Ron Santo
- Heinie Groh
- Brooks Robinson
- Dick Allen
- Paul Molitor
- Ezra Sutton
- Jimmy Collins
- Darrell Evans
- John Beckwith
- John McGraw
- Stan Hack
- Graig Nettles
- Ken Boyer