While I like Gonzalez, I don't see him as a HoFer. Not sure that I see Rusty Staub as a better choice, though.
Registered User
While I like Gonzalez, I don't see him as a HoFer. Not sure that I see Rusty Staub as a better choice, though.
o
It's close. I'd give perhaps a slight edge to Staub, but yeah, it's not clear cut..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.
Ain't the beer cold, hon
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?
That's taking nothing away from Luis Gonzalez. He was an excellent hitter, and his years between 1999-2001 were really awe-inspiring.
==+==+==+==
The Surf are back! Read up on the new exploits of baseball's most amazing team in Goin' to Surf City!, the ongoing story of the Ocean City Surf!
"Any kid who grew up in Maryland would feel that it was a great dream to play in an Orioles uniform...thank you all for always treating me like family."
-- Harold Baines, 46th member of the Orioles Hall of Fame
Banned
Yeah if you look at the metrics used for the HOF monitor, you can see why it doesn't work.
Near Retirement frm F0RUM
the juice
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
The Constitution was designed by the founders to save people from themselves. It never fails to amaze me how good of a job they didMy Finest work!!!
haveacigar
><((((º> ¸.·´¯`·.¸¸><((((º> ¸.·´¯`·.¸¸><((((º>Death don't want ya... But the Lotus do... so bring ya wicked shlt we gonna bring ours too!!!
¸.·´¯`·.¸¸><((((º> ¸.·´¯`·.¸¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·.¸¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·.¸¸><((((º>
o
How does it "not work"?
Banned
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.
o
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.
Banned
I did read it.
o
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."
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.
Reply With Quote
