Babe Ruth once punched an empire.
EJCTED FROM THE HOF!
Printable View
Babe Ruth once punched an empire.
EJCTED FROM THE HOF!
and i mean, why would you "punish him"? I mean, how holier than though can you be?
****tard
You mean umpire HGM
That I do.
I really couldn't give half a sh!t who gets into the Hall of Fame and who doesn't. This is the only museum where there's a huge furor if there's a person missing in an exhibit.
To most baseball fans and to most players, it's not just an "exhibit" at a museum. It's an honor given to the best players of the game we love.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I have my memories. I could care less who gets a plaque in a wing of a museum in upstate New York.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You know what, I'll take it back about Brown. I didn't realize his peak was as long as it was. I'll move him to "deserve," although it's scary how close he is to Schilling in terms of career numbers.
Brown will probably not get in while Schilling will, because voters suck.
Walker though, I'm sorry, he's just not quite good enough. He should have numbers better than Dawson, Walker played in the most favorable hitting environment in the history of MLB. He only had 8000 PAs compared to Dawson's 10,000+. His numbers in Montreal were solid, but far from HOF worthy.
Unfortunately for Walker, 90s Coors distorts stats so severely that it's really hard to give credit to any of their hitters. I don't think he would have been a HOF player without Coors. I can't prove that, and it's not entirely fair to Walker, but, that's just what it is. If he had had a longer career, maybe I'd give him the nod.
I wouldn't be pissed if any of the players you listed got in, but I wouldn't vote for Walker or Olerud.
Good for you. So, why are you in HoF threads then?
Playing time is a legitimate concern with Walker, but I think his overall combination of offense (he posted OPS+'s of 151, 142 and 130 with the Expos and Cardinals, so I think it's obvious that he was a very good offensive player even without Coors, his unadjusted numbers are just eye-popping with Coors, but OPS+ does a good job adjusting that), defense and baserunning (Walker was strong on both counts) outweigh the playing time concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
Honestly, if he had had 1000 more PAs in Montreal, he probably gets my vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'm sorry if it appears that I'm slow, but I'm having a hard time understanding your stance on Walker. The tale of the tape:
Walker 8030 PA, 67.1 WAR
Dawson 10769 PA, 56.8 WAR
Um yeah it's not even close. Walker's a HOFer and Dawson is not. Add in the fact that Dawson basically took up a roster spot the last 5 years of his career. For those years he accumulated -0.2 WAR. In other words he was a tick below replacement level in those 5 years comprising 1693 of his 10769 PA. Interestingly enough during those years while he was chasing better counting stat numbers, he was killing his cred as a legit HOFer in my eyes and many others and you want to reward him for not figuring out that he was basically for lack of a better term a useless tit to his teams at that point in his career? Had he retired after 1991 or 1992, I would have no problem with him going into the Hall, but he staggered and limped his way to 1996, killing his teams as he went. It was pathetic really, and I guess if you're into pityf**cks you're happy he's going to Cooperstown...I'm not. Meanwhile Larry Walker figured out it was time to leave after his age 38 season when he put up a 130 OPS+...in St. Louis.
I keep hearing all these stories of Dawson's courage and ability to play through pain yaddah, yaddah, yaddah and then the "Oh think of how much better he could have been" drivel. Meanwhile Larry Walker gets no such respect. He played through tremendous pain too. Think of how great he would have been. Hypocrisy much?
My stance is that Walker's WAR totals are inflated by Coors. Sorry you don't agree, I guess.
WAR does use park adjustments...do you think there's something about Coors that makes it not able to be adjusted for or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
I think so, pre-humidor. It created an environment where it was hard to throw a major league breaking pitch of any sort, much less the effects on batted balls. I don't know enough of the mechanics of how they adjust for parks to say for sure, but I think the difference is so drastic that it skews WAR.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
He's obviously better than Galarraga, Bichette, or Castilla. He's ahead of Helton by default, but depending on how he finishes his career, he might pull ahead. They'll be very close, however. And I think if Helton were to retire today, he wouldn't be in the hall of fame either.
Walker may have decided to walk away rather than hang on to the detriment of a team. Unfortunately, that's less playing time we have to evaluate him. If he hangs on another 2 seasons, he probably gets my vote. Likewise, if Helton has 3 or 4 more seasons at his current rate, I'd probably vote him in.
Maybe I put too much emphasis on career longevity. Oh well.
Also, do those WAR calculations include a defensive metric? I suspect that Dawson was a better fielder, mainly because he played CF for a number of years.
I'm also not sure I buy that Dawson was below replacement level his last five seasons. Below average, maybe.