HoustonGM's Personal Hall of Fame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I remember Keith Olberman did a piece on Herman Long arguing that he should be in the Hall.

Looking at his offensive numbers, I was sort of meh on it. He did appear to have more power during the dead ball era and as a SS that is pretty impressive. Defensively is where he starts to pop out. Ranks 9th all time in put outs, however ranks 1st all time in errors. That tells me his range has to be really absurd for that position. What do you think?

---

I remember more recently Olberman doing a piece on Derek Jeter basically saying he is nothing more than an average player. Not worthy of hall consideration. I remember thinking man, he's citing alot of stats maybe he's correct. I remember looking closer at it and seeing just how cherry picked those were and concluding this was nothing more than a hack job to gain ratings from a shock jock. My opinion of Olbermann fell significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRLzkufdxGA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I remember more recently Olberman doing a piece on Derek Jeter basically saying he is nothing more than an average player. Not worthy of hall consideration. I remember thinking man, he's citing alot of stats maybe he's correct. I remember looking closer at it and seeing just how cherry picked those were and concluding this was nothing more than a hack job to gain ratings from a shock jock. My opinion of Olbermann fell significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRLzkufdxGA

---

I thought Olbermann's piece on Jeter was fine. I haven't watched it since it was originally recorded (and can't currently watch it to jog my memory) but I think you're greatly twisting his argument. If I recall correctly, it was that Jeter is immensely overrated (true), isn't one of the top 5 Yankees of all time (true), was an awful defensive shortstop (true), and should not have been batting at the top of the order this year (true). I don't recall him saying that he was merely average, nor do I recall him saying that he wasn't worthy of Hall consideration. Even though everything I just said is true, Jeter is still one of the best shortstops of all time and an easy Hall of Famer. He's just more Luke Appling/Ozzie Smith/Pee Wee Reese (in terms of overall value), and less Honus Wagner/Cal Ripken/Alex Rodriguez (as the average media buffoon and fan would think).

Rage:
Herman Long isn't close to a Hall of Famer IMO. Good player, nice career, but I have him with only 3 All Star seasons and just 1 year as the best shortstop in the league. Jack Glasscock, Bill Dahlen and Hughie Jennings were the best shortstops of that era. Long isn't close to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I remember more recently Olberman doing a piece on Derek Jeter basically saying he is nothing more than an average player. Not worthy of hall consideration. I remember thinking man, he's citing alot of stats maybe he's correct. I remember looking closer at it and seeing just how cherry picked those were and concluding this was nothing more than a hack job to gain ratings from a shock jock. My opinion of Olbermann fell significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRLzkufdxGA

---

I just watched it and I feel like we watched two different videos. I didn't hear him say anything like you just said. Although he did cherry pick some stats like WAR/years played and a lot of the fielding stats he showed were affected by the fact Jeter played so many years at SS. I don't believe he was 200 x worse at defense than fricking Yuniesky Betancourt for example. But his main point was that Jeter was not the GOAT and that all the hoopla over his last games was ridiculous. Both I agree with. It's okay to think Jeter was over rated and still think he is HOF worthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichelleWie

I just watched it and I feel like we watched two different videos. I didn't hear him say anything like you just said. Although he did cherry pick some stats like WAR/years played and a lot of the fielding stats he showed were affected by the fact Jeter played so many years at SS. I don't believe he was 200 x worse at defense than fricking Yuniesky Betancourt for example. But his main point was that Jeter was not the GOAT and that all the hoopla over his last games was ridiculous. Both I agree with. It's okay to think Jeter was over rated and still think he is HOF worthy.

---

Defensive runs saved is a counting stat, so yeah, the fact that he played so much is part of why he has so many negative fielding runs - but, also, if he wasn't so bad, he just simply wouldn't have that many negative runs. It's not saying that he's X times worse than Yuniesky Betancourt any more than saying that any random slugger having X times more home runs than some other better power hitter with less at bats is saying that that random slugger is X times better... But it does highlight some important details. Look at the players being compared - they all eventually were moved off the position. That shows that players of Jeter's defensive caliber at shortstop generally do not stick at the position and that Jeter was overrated and received different treatment than similar players - even others with excellent bats (Young and Hanley).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Defensive runs saved is a counting stat, so yeah, the fact that he played so much is part of why he has so many negative fielding runs - but, also, if he wasn't so bad, he just simply wouldn't have that many negative runs. It's not saying that he's X times worse than Yuniesky Betancourt any more than saying that any random slugger having X times more home runs than some other better power hitter with less at bats is saying that that random slugger is X times better... But it does highlight some important details. Look at the players being compared - they all eventually were moved off the position. That shows that players of Jeter's defensive caliber at shortstop generally do not stick at the position and that Jeter was overrated and received different treatment than similar players - even others with excellent bats (Young and Hanley).

---

This isn't really anything new, either. IIRC, you and I have both made the argument before on this forum--maybe as long as a decade ago--that Jeter is (well, was, now I guess) over-rated as a defensive player, that whereas a lot of people saw him as a good defensive SS, he was actually below average defensively.

Caveat: I haven't heard exactly what Olberman said about Jeter--there seems to be some dispute there--so I can't comment specifically on that. Frankly, I consider Olberman a pompous jackass, and I'm not interested in what he has to say on any subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichelleWie

I just watched it and I feel like we watched two different videos. I didn't hear him say anything like you just said. Although he did cherry pick some stats like WAR/years played and a lot of the fielding stats he showed were affected by the fact Jeter played so many years at SS. I don't believe he was 200 x worse at defense than fricking Yuniesky Betancourt for example. But his main point was that Jeter was not the GOAT and that all the hoopla over his last games was ridiculous. Both I agree with. It's okay to think Jeter was over rated and still think he is HOF worthy.

---

i think the point of his rant, at the time of it, was entirely misleading and solely done for ratings / shock jock. He could've given the flip side to the story if he wanted to be honest and upfront. Now I'm not a Yankee fan nor am I honestly much a fan of Jeter's. I fully agree he's overrated. But I don't see how anyone can watch that video and think it's not misleading and done purposefully .

My two cents on Derek Jeter: he was an overrated HoFer. Sounds like a contradiction, but with the way everyone carries on about him, you would think he was Honus freakin' Wagner re-incarnated, and he's not even close.

HGM, another question for ya: You say you sometimes had to take just one player at various positions throughout history for your All-Star teams, due to a lack of quality at that position that year. Did you do that with catcher as well? I ask because it's the most specialized position on the field, and I would think that in reality you'd want two players for it, but of course if the object is to get the best damn players on your All-Star team in a given year, I'd wager there were some years where you had to go with just one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

My two cents on Derek Jeter: he was an overrated HoFer. Sounds like a contradiction, but with the way everyone carries on about him, you would think he was Honus freakin' Wagner re-incarnated, and he's not even close.

HGM, another question for ya: You say you sometimes had to take just one player at various positions throughout history for your All-Star teams, due to a lack of quality at that position that year. Did you do that with catcher as well? I ask because it's the most specialized position on the field, and I would think that in reality you'd want two players for it, but of course if the object is to get the best damn players on your All-Star team in a given year, I'd wager there were some years where you had to go with just one.

---

Basically this. Most years have at least 2 catchers, but there are certainly some where I had just one. I also tried to make sure that the All Stars did something to separate themselves from the rest of their position. For example, if there was a catcher with 4 WAR, a catcher with 2.5 WAR, and then every other catcher was bunched up around 1 or less WAR, I'd be more likely to make those top 2 catchers All Stars compared to a situation where the top catcher had 4 WAR, the next best had 1.3 WAR, and then there was a cluster around 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Basically this. Most years have at least 2 catchers, but there are certainly some where I had just one. I also tried to make sure that the All Stars did something to separate themselves from the rest of their position. For example, if there was a catcher with 4 WAR, a catcher with 2.5 WAR, and then every other catcher was bunched up around 1 or less WAR, I'd be more likely to make those top 2 catchers All Stars compared to a situation where the top catcher had 4 WAR, the next best had 1.3 WAR, and then there was a cluster around 1.

---

The all star game, as far as I recall, has always been played midseason with the players being chosen based upon their early season performance. If one of your goals is trying to show how your HOF would differ from MLB's, and allstar selections is something that goes into consideration for HOF entry, wouldn't it make sense to use the same timeframe when selecting allstars? If thats not one of your goals and you're simply listing your personal HOF with no relationship to MLBs or structure for their award consideration than i guess it doesn't matter. I'm of course assuming your all stars were chosen based upon a complete seasons statistics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

The all star game, as far as I recall, has always been played midseason with the players being chosen based upon their early season performance. If one of your goals is trying to show how your HOF would differ from MLB's, and allstar selections is something that goes into consideration for HOF entry, wouldn't it make sense to use the same timeframe when selecting allstars? If thats not one of your goals and you're simply listing your personal HOF with no relationship to MLBs or structure for their award consideration than i guess it doesn't matter. I'm of course assuming your all stars were chosen based upon a complete seasons statistics.

---

Yes, the point was to come up with who the "All Stars" were for each individual full season. You're right that my goal is to show how my HoF differs from MLB, and that's part of the reason why I'm designating All Stars differently. I think using real life All Star selections as part of a HoF analysis is misguided, as it is often times decided just based on first half performance, plus other things that don't have anything to do with how good a player actually is (such as 'lifetime achievement' All Star selections like Derek Jeter in 2014 or Cal Ripken in 2001), and my ideal Hall of Fame is based almost purely on how much on-field value players actually provided to their team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Basically this. Most years have at least 2 catchers, but there are certainly some where I had just one. I also tried to make sure that the All Stars did something to separate themselves from the rest of their position. For example, if there was a catcher with 4 WAR, a catcher with 2.5 WAR, and then every other catcher was bunched up around 1 or less WAR, I'd be more likely to make those top 2 catchers All Stars compared to a situation where the top catcher had 4 WAR, the next best had 1.3 WAR, and then there was a cluster around 1.

---

Thanks for the explanation. :cool:

Can you give critique about what Hall of Famers are in, but don't deserve to be for what reasons, for players like Rabbit Maranville for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Can you give critique about what Hall of Famers are in, but don't deserve to be for what reasons, for players like Rabbit Maranville for example.

---

Maranville had a solid peak, with 5 All Star seasons, but only his 1919 rates as the best year for a shortstop. He sprinkled 4 WAR seasons randomly throughout his career, but was mostly a no-hit, good-glove shortstop for a long time. Issue is that he wasn't particularly otherworldly in the field, and his glove, too, was inconsistent. Just wasn't good enough outside of his All Star seasons to warrant selection.

I haven't yet listed all the real Hall of Famers in my spreadsheet to compare and get a definite list of who is in the real HoF but not in mine. I'll do that at some point most likely (busy with rosters currently), but will expand upon individual players if anybody asks specifically.

How about Johnny Evers and Joe Tinker? No, I'm not a sucker for the "Tinker, to Evers, to Chance" jingle. I guess Tinker only had one season where he was the best in his league and it came in the Federal League, so that's a strike against him. He looks like he was good enough for double digit all-star seasons though. As for Evers, he looks like he was best at his position four times, and has eight all-star seasons by my count. Keep in mind, I've only used BB-Ref WAR, so if I'm way off on these numbers, be gentle. Thanks in advance for your response. :cool:

Tinker is close - i have 10 all star seasons, but only 1 at the top of the league, and the overall package is just a bit underwhelming too me. He's a touch below the borderline IMO. Evers I have with 7 all star seasons and 2 as the best at his position (1907, 1908 - Claude Ritchey, Miller Huggins and Larry Doyle were the best for various stretches around Evers' career). Definitely a good player, but more along the lines of a Davey Lopes type, not a HoFer.