Who would win this series?
Posted: September 18th, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 84 Comments »
Everybody is in their prime. It’s a best of seven-game series. Who do you think wins the series? You can answer in the poll. I don’t just ask for the obvious reasons … I’m curious about a couple of different things.
Team A
1B: George Kelly
2B: Bill Mazeroski
SS: Luis Aparicio
3B: George Kell
LF: Lou Brock
CF: Lloyd Waner
RF: Harry Hooper
C: Ray Schalk
Backup catcher: Rick Ferrell
Bench: Tinker, Evers, Chance.
Pitcher: Catfish Hunter
Pitcher: Rube Marquard
Pitcher: Herb Pennock
Closer: Bruce Sutter
* * *
Team B
1B: Mark McGwire
2B: Bobby Grich
SS: Alan Trammell
3B: Ron Santo
LF: Albert Belle
CF: Fred Lynn
RF: Dwight Evans
C: Ted Simmons
Backup catcher: Thurman Munson
Bench: Shoeless Joe, Pete Rose and Dick Allen.
Pitcher: Ron Guidry
Pitcher: Bert Blyleven
Pitcher: Dave Stieb
Closer: Dan Quisenberry
Loading ...
I see what you did there.
this matchup ain’t fair.
So… Belle’s starting over Shoeless Joe? Really?
Can I get a recount?
Try matching team B up with the worst BBWAA hall of famers; you would probably get a much fairer match-up.
There is only one representative from the 1975 Cincinnati Reds in this “game”: Pete Rose, on Team B. Clearly, Team B must win.
The 1975 Reds were a great team. Somebody should write a book about them.
I love Dave Stieb, but c’mon, you surely could’ve another non-HOF pitcher. I’m a big Stieb fan but he’s not HOF material.
And that’s exactly what’s wrong with the Hall of Fame, because you see, it’s also the Hall of Mediocre to Above Average for an Extended Period but you were voted in anyway. At least it’s not the Hall of Very Good.
Is it too late to vote for Team C.
I can’t believe Lou Whittaker can’t even make team B. Talk about getting no respect.
In a few years, you can probably put Kevin Brown in for Dave Steib.
I’ll take Eric Davis’s prime over Fred Lynn’s. No fooling.
I’d suggest Poz write a book about Eric Davis, but he already has a pretty good autobiography, written with Ralph Wiley…
hrm… you say in their primes?
belle, lynn and evans all start above shoeless joe and dick allen?
anyway, if everyone is in their “prime” (having one of their two or three best seasons, i guess), team “b” clobbers team “a” in the seven game series.
does that make the guys on team “b” more worthy of the hall of fame? i’m not sure. longevity does count for something, i think. so does defense, and a couple of guys on list “a” deserve some bonus points for that. so does doing something that might make you “famous”.
i’m thinking specifically of mazeroski. i think he’s borderline, but i do think he belongs in the hall if he gets voted in.
i’m beginning to think that the hall of fame is no more (or less!) fair than the fact that some players have great careers and never get to play in a world series, or the fact that dusty baker had to show up and manager MY favorite team and not someone else’s.
it’s fun to debate. maz is in the hall, grich isn’t, they seem pretty similar, but grich never hit that homer in the world series. fact of the matter is that the homer got maz into the hall, and i think that’s ok.
sure, there are some real head scratchers (how is blyleven not in the hall… seriously?), but generally the borderline guys are on one side of the line or the other, and an argument can be made either way (the guys who certainly belong are in, the guys who definitely don’t, aren’t). and the argument on the borderline guys is half the fun.
i’ll argue for davey concepcion because he was one of my favorite players. and there’s nothing wrong with that, i don’t think.
Team A wins, on a 9th-inning home run by Chick Hafey.
Stieb wasn’t a Hall of Famer and that there are likely better choices out there, but I think he’s always been woefully underrated. Jack Morris always get high praise for being “the winningest pitcher of the 80s,” but Stieb was second on that list and he generally played on much worse teams. It’s almost as though he won a lot because HE was really good, and not because he was good and his team was really good.
His peak was too short, but he was brilliant in his day, and I’m disappointed to say that I didn’t appreciate just HOW good he was when he was playing.
Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers and Frank Chance should never, EVER have made the Hall of Fame, and wouldn’t have were it not for that now mostly-forgotten poem. Mighty Casey would have been a better Hall choice.
“…Stieb was second on that list and he generally played on much worse teams…”
Oi!
The Blue Jays of the ’80s, past 1982, were one hell of a team. You could argue that the Tigers were slightly better, and I wouldn’t argue, but much better? Come off it. Two division titles each, one disastrous year each (‘81 for Toronto, ‘89 for Detroit) and the Jays were closer to Detroit in ‘87 and ‘84 than the Tigers were to Toronto in ‘85 and ‘89. I think the ‘84 Tigers give them the edge, but it’s close.
None of which is to say that Stieb wasn’t a hell of a pitcher. I hope to see him passed in the next few years as best Jays hurler ever, but a great, and one that as you note is underrated.
It is true, longevity does count for a lot.
Actually I’d put Mattingly at 1st for Team B.
People love to say that it’s not the Hall of Pretty Good, but it isn’t the Hall of Outstandingly Stupendous either. It’s the Hall of FAME. Ergo, I have no problem with Maz, Rizzuto, I think Gil Hodges should be in. I think Rose should be in (but not allowed to coach/manage/etc.) Sports is an entertainment industry after all.
Anyone who voted for Team A is just being obstinate or else should have their voting proveleges revoked.
Stieb, while perhaps not the best choice among non-HOF pitchers is so fogotten and was so good that I love his being highlighted here. And the argument for Stieb over Morris isn;t that his team was worse and he had teh 2nd most wins, it’s that he was a vastly superior pitcher to Morris by any reasonable metric other than wins…
I can see the Showless Joe/Belle discussion, but Dewey did have longevity and terriffic defensive value, and as great as Dick Allen was, where exactly would he play? Over McGwire? Not unless we’re discounting for pharmaceuticals. Over Santo? Considering defense, probably not, and the pitchers might riot. And I know you’re not suggesting we put Allen in the OF….
Allen would make an awesome DH, as long as it didn’t make him angry
When it comes to the Hall of Fame, longevity counts for EVERYTHING. Heck, let’s put Bob Hamelin, Angel Berroa and Brian Bannister on Team B if we’re just talking about their “peak.” For good measure, let’s start building Team B’s minor league system with Kila Ka’aihue. Just for a second, let’s compare starting left fielders. In his prime, Albert Belle was a better pure power hitter. Lou Brock was BY FAR a better all-around player whose “prime” lasted over a decade. Does Lou Brock deserve to be in the hall of fame? Absolutely. Does Albert Belle deserve to be in the hall of fame? Hell no. In a seven-game series, McGwire and the boys fold like a cheap suit. Team A in six.
Not only would Bert pitch well his in the clubhouse “intangibles” would be key…
I want to get a Team B t-shirt…
Team A Fan, HOF aside, Belle was a FAR superior player to Brock. Belle contributed infinitely more offensively, and they were both mediocre defensively. If you really think Brock was superior to Belle, I would assume that you also think that Dave Collins, Ron LeFlore, and Vince Coleman are Belle’s superiors.
I (and anyone else with any sense) will take the guy who rings up the scoreboard.
Team B kicks the snot outta Team A in peak value, career value, and any other damned value you could think up.
I would put Tim Raines somewhere on Team B.
Over the course of a full season, I say Team B beats out Team A by something like ten games (provided you put Luis Tiant in there instead of Stieb).
But for a seven-game series? It’s a crapshoot. Haven’t any of you read that book that Joe Morgan says Billy Beane wrote about himself?
I think that you shouldn’t have included Shoeless Joe, Shameless Pete or the Steroid Mark on Team B because the reason they’re not in the Hall has nothing to do with their on field results. It’s not like the voters are exlucing them because they didn’t hit or field or run the bases well enough. But you can get rid of those three, take Dick Allen off the bench and put him at first base and even if you make Celerino Sanchez, Rich McKinney and Reid Nichols your bench Team B still rolls to the tune of 9o-72 over a full season.
I think we can all find players we would substitute for one or more on Joe’s lists. For example, I would consider Jesse Haines on his actual HOF list and would love to see Minnie Minoso, Bob Johnson, Lou Whitaker and Lon Warneke get some recognition on the non-HOF list. I also would leave off both Rose and Shoeless Joe, not because they don’t belong. I think both are starters. But because the reason they are not in is not due to lack of respect for their play.They belong in a different category from those who have failed to be elected.
In any case, while I do not know who would win a 7 game series (after all, a team of Duane Kuiper and others of his quality might win 4 of 7 against any team), I think there is no question that team B is much superior and might still be if we expanded both teams to full 25 man squads.
I think Noam’s comment is the first reasonable thing I have ever read that has used some form of the statement, “It’s called the Hall of FAME…â€
Why doesn’t SABR elect their own hall of fame?
Ah HA!!! Got it…
You can’t go wrong with Team B’s bench.
-but-
Can I really go against a team that has Rube Marquard hurling for them??
Setting aside all the obvious arguments, one thing struck me about the two lineups:
Team A has one hell of a defense.
The problem, of course, being that you can’t field the ball when it’s halfway up the bleachers, which is how a lot of Team B’s at-bats are going to end…
Pat asked why SABR doesn’t elect their own Hall of Fame; its not SABR, but at Baseball Think Factory there is the Hall of Merit (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/) that is an alternate to the HOF. Same number of honorees, but different voters and different methods. Very interesting. They have Grich in and Maz out, for example.
Also, saying that Grich and Maz were similar players vastly understates how good Grich was. Over more than 8000 PA, most at second, Grich had an OPS+ of 125. Maz was at 84. Not similar at all.
I just do not see why the Quiz gets no respect!!!! If the games were close, I would bet on the QUIZ!!!
You know who else was awesome in his prime? Todd Frohwirth. I’m totally serious.
Who are the 16 idiots who voted for Team A???? Are Blow-herd and Michael Kay and Lupica and Marriotti and Platschke and Paige and Rome voting in this thing or something???
I’ll take team B – but then again, we saw what happened with St. Louis and the Mets (and St. Louis and the Tigers) in 2006.
The striking thing about Team A is the lack of power – only Kelly and Chance were especially notable power hitters in their own times. Meanwhile, every player on Team B with the exception of Rose is a legitimate threat to go yard.
Team A does have a fantastic defense – but Team B isn’t bad in that regard either. Trammell, Grich, Santo, Lynn, and Evans were all at least very good fielders; on Simmons’ days off, you also have a fine catcher. Since Brock was pretty bad in the outfield, the only position where you have a good fielder up against a bad one when Munson is behind the plate is first base.
Actually, for this particular team (and with the “in their prime” stipulation), I might start Munson over Simmons a majority of the time. He was a better fielder, and Simmons had a bit of a double play problem, which would only be exacerbated with all the baserunners on this team. Not that it would matter most of the time…
You have to assume Shoeless Joe will throw the games, convince the others to do so and use Rose’s connections to arrange the money. Team A.
I’m assuming those guys were voted in by the veterans committee. So why was the system changed so that the writers started voting in the HOFers? Probably because it was agreed that the system needed fixing. So you’ve pointed out that they were right. The blog post should be titled “The system needed fixing and it was fixed.”
Jackie Ballgame -
Nothing is fixed. The VC and BBWAA voting have always both happened, since the HOF opened. They both exist now. And the BBWAA has elected some losers (Pee Wee Reese) and skipped over some great players (Johnny Mize). Not as bad as the VC, but both systems have flaws. After all, the BBWAA has skipped over Ron Santo and taken WAY too long to elect Blyleven.
Add me to the list of people that think NOAM SANE’s comment is spot on.
Team B wins in a walk. Most of Team A is dead. Even though a lot of the guys on Team B are old, they still can beat a mostly dead team.
Where are they playing?
Team B’s starting hitters would struggle more in a pitcher’s park.
Team A is faster and better defensively, particularly up the middle. They have decent OB, but very little pop.
The pitchers are a wash.
Regardless of their Hall of Fame qualifications, these are quality, above average major league players. This series would be very close.
Looking over the lineups again, I’m gonna have to change my mind. Team A’s grittiness and heart are off the charts. They’ll win because they are (were) gamers and want it more. While I respect James’ point, death is no obstacle for grittiness.
“It’s the Hall of FAME” …. I’ve never understood this argument, which seems to imply that the more fame one has the more deserving of induction. Yes, I know the word “fame” is in the title, but the voting rules are clear:
“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
There’s nothing in there about “fame.”
My biggest problem with the Hall is where it places it’s values. Not only do they debate if a player should be inducted, but how long they should make them wait. If you think a player should be in, then vote them in. If not don’t vote, but to say “I think they should be in, but not for 5 ballots” is crazy. That’s what keeps a lot of fringe guys out.
They also need to quit the moral high horse. Tell me you think Pete Rose’s numbers aren’t good enough. Or Shoeless Joe, etc. It’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Upstanding Citizens Who Played The Game Exceptionally Well. I know it is kind of a dead horse, but Ty Cobb is regarded as one of the worst human beings to play the game, and he was the first entrant (and absolutly deserved to be). I’m not even going to go into Buck O’Neil.
…and Team B will win. Quiz would own Team A.
I know that all of the guys on Team B have good career value as well, but I don’t think this exercise tells us very much. I mean, if you put everybody in their prime, then how would “Team D” fare in such a series:
C: Todd Hundley
1B: Mo Vaughn
2B: Bret Boone
SS: Nomar Garciaparra
3B: Eric Chavez
LF: Brian Giles
CF: Eric Davis
RF: Tim Salmon
SP: Bret Saberhagen
SP: Jack McDowell
SP: Mike Scott
SP: Barry Zito
Closer: Bryan Harvey
I mean, that team could beat Team A in a 7 game series, right? If everyone was in their prime, I’d give them a very good chance to win, in the neighborhood of 60-65%.
Kirby Puckett should’ve been on Team A.
Steve,
Don’t forget Doc Gooden for your squad. And I’d probably go Mark Wohlers for your closer…
Good to see my boy Albert Belle in there. Being able to watch Belle when I was just becoming a fan was a great pleasure.
I’m with Andrea. Team B needs a leadoff man (Team A is mostly leadoff men). Tim Raines in left field instead of Albert. Albert might do something silly, get ejected, and his team would have only eight in the field. Albert could be a DH, though.
The only real glaring omission from Team B is Wes Ferrell — a better pitcher than anyone on Team A and possibly a better hitter too.
Love that Stieb is in there. A waaayyyy better pitcher than Morris in the 80s and was off the ballot in one year. I don’t think he belongs in the HOF but for 5-6 years he was easily one of the best ptchers in all of baseball.
As of right now, there are more people (39) who didn’t read the post, and admit it (Team C) than there are people (35) who didn’t read the post but won’t admit it (Team A)…
Whichever team is wearing the powder blues is always the winner in my book.
Here is the problem: team B wouldn’t win because they would have no bench. That bench would all kill each other! Jackson, Rose, Munson and Allen spending time on the same bench!?!?? They wouldn’t get through the second inning before those four egos destroy one another.
Okay, okay. Team B is obviously better. Team B is the greatest team of all time if ever assembled.
@ Denopac –
I voted for Team B, because I’m not an idiot – but of the qualities you mentioned as being parameters for HoF voting, only one is directly related to performance (“playing ability”) and one is mostly related (“contributions to the team…”), while the others have little to do with their stats.
Of course, playing ability is weighted much more than the others when you determine who makes it in, but I think it’s obvious that there’s a place for guys like Mazeroski and Lou Brock because of that whole “fame” thing. I was born in ‘82, so I don’t remember much of his career, but if 75% of the voters think that Jim Rice was one scary mothereffer when he came to the plate, then who am I to say he doesn’t belong in there? Statistically, I think his case is highly dubious. But there are other things to consider.
Either way, no one’s going to come to a consensus on this. Some people view the Hall as one thing, and others view it as another. And despite the definition of what the voters are supposed to consider, it’s going to be a different place for different people.
But those 75% who think Jim Rice was a scary mofo didn’t vote for him right away— apparently he is getting scarier over time… that’s the part I don’t understand.
Oh, and the part about how he was the 3rd best OF on the team for most of his career… and the other 2 guys aren’t in…
Jay B:
Wohlers could throw pure smoke (routinely hit 100+ IIRC) but I’m looking at his numbers and, well, they’re not incredibly impressive besides his K totals.
Harvey is largely forgotten, but at his best he rivaled Rivera, Hoffman and the rest of the pantheon in terms of sheer dominance. Check out his 1991 and 1993 seasons, he was a force in those two years. Outstanding forkball that got swinging strikeouts by the boatload, and good control as well.
Just for those of who who are only discussing/thinking about offensive output, let’s not forget defense. Mazeroski was the best fielding secondbaseman of his generation and it’s not even close. His double-play combination with Gene Alley in the mid-60s was incredible. That infield in Forbes Field was not always the best (hard, bumpy) but you would not have known it when watching Maz and his glove. Some say the quickest hands ever to play the position. Who knows, but yes, if he had not hit the HR in ‘60 WS he would not be in Cooperstown – how fair is that?
“…Oh, and the part about how [Rice] was the 3rd best OF on the team for most of his career… and the other 2 guys aren’t in…”
Using Win Shares, Rice was the 3rd best outfielder on his own team precisely three times – 1980 (when he missed six weeks with a broken wrist), 1984, and 1987 (when he missed more than 50 games with a variety of injuries).
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion or anything.
To me, the fundamental question is: “Does the Hall of Fame *reward* Fame, or *bestow* it?” I think the answer is, it does both.
There are players in who are there mainly on reputation and specific achievements rather than general performance (Brock, Maz, etc) and there’s room for some more (Hodges…).
There are also players who deserve to be in so as to recognize what they did on the field that may not have been fully appreciated at the time (Blyleven, Santo). “Daddy, Daddy, who’s that?” “I don’t know, son, I’ve never heard of him.” (reads plaque) “Wow, he did all that? I wish I’d gotten to see him play…”
Bonds will be on team B in a few years. I have this image of him getting the “McGwire” treatment on the HoF ballot.
I’ll take team B in 6 games. This is probably the best baseball blog entry I’ve ever seen.
And very funny… I’ve heard of every name on team B, but I couldn’t tell you who George Kell or George Kelly or Harry Hooper are. I actually had to look ‘em up.
If Frank Chance was also managing Team A, they’d absolutely have one heck of a shot. Also, Babe Ruth regarded Herb Pennock as the finest pitcher he ever saw.
Also, that defense of Team A is without peer: Schalk, Aparicio, Hooper AND Mazeroski? Team B is full of guys who didn’t exactly lead their respective teams to postseason glory.
Team A in seven games, with Mazeroski hitting the walk-off game winner off the Quiz.
I’m biased, because Dave Stieb is my favourite pitcher of all-time, but I also think he deserves to get in to the Hall of Fame on objective merit. He was elected to the Hall of Merit, which was mentioned above.
Dave Stieb was a MUCH better pitcher than Jack Morris. It’s not even close.
So yeah, Team B in a walk.
Steve from Cleve makes the best point.
If we are talking about peak, there are lots of players who never would make the Hall who could beat team A.
Oh, and if we’re going to pit non-HoF teams against HoF teams, I’d pay to see this matchup:
Nolan Ryan, with no bullpen, and any offense behind him (give him Ruth and the Splinter if you’d like) versus:
1B: Ferris Fain
2B: Eddie Stanky
SS: Eddie Joost
3B: Eddie Yost
LF: Charlie Keller
CF: Roy Cullenbine (he was a RF, but he’ll have to bite the bullet)
RF: Elmer Valo
C: Gene Tenace
DH: Max Bishop
P: Who cares, how about Jim Abbott?
For those less historically inclined fans of the Poz, well, first of all you should check out the BB-Ref pages for these guys, but basically everyone on that team were ridiculously patient (especially Bishop, Yost, Fain, Tenace and Stanky) hitters who drew a ton of walks. Nolan Ryan was known to throw 250 pitches to real life teams; imagine how many he’d have to throw to this team if he didn’t have a bullpen.
Are we up to team “F” yet?
Leading off, Pete Rose 2b; Joe Jackson, cf; Mark McGwire, 1b; Barry Bonds, lf; Sammy Sosa, rf; Ken Caminiti, 3b; Swede Risberg, ss; Benito Santiago, c. Reserves Hal Chase, Heinie Zimmerman, Jose Canseco, Jim Leyritz. Pitchers Ed Cicotte, Lefty Williams, Roger Clemens. Closer John Rocker.
I’m one of those “it’s called the Hall of FAME” people, so I approve Noah Same’s message. But denopac points out “fame” is not included in the voting guidelines, and that’s part of the problem. “Sportsmanship” is, but would anyone have kept Reggie Jackson out over sportsmanship?
“Fame” is not in the guidelines, but it should be and I think, practically speaking, it is. When we talk about players you just KNOW are HOFers, it’s never because of their sportsmanship or character, it’s about how they transcended the game. (If you have to make a case for a player’s inclusion, most of the time, he doesn’t belong. Nobody had to make a case for Willie Mays.) Basically, they were megastars, people like Reggie (I like using him because despite the flaws in his game and character, he’s a no-brainer HoFer), Cal Ripken, and Tony Gwynn. And Pete Rose. Who is a character guy beloved by virtually all of his teammates, who simply gambled. That’s breaks baseball’s most sacred rule. Ty Cobb, on the other hand, was a racist and a bully, hated by many of his teammates and all of his opponents, which breaks some of society’s most sacred rules. And he’s in. Come to think of it, that sums up the business of baseball: to hell with society, just don’t break OUR rules.
Win Shares isn’t a good metric.
It deflates the impact of Rice’s defensive value (or lack thereof).
Don’t let a crummy metric help make your point or anything.
In my mind, it depends where they’re playing and when.
If the game is played in Shibe Park in Philly in 1914, then team A wins the series in a runaway. (However, it also depends on who the managers are — somebody like Dick Howser or Dick Williams would probably adapt and pull McGwire for Rose, move Lynn to left and put in Jackson in center and try to salvage the series.) Seriously — a team with McGwire at first and Simmons at catcher who have to try to play in an era where the sac bunt and the stolen base are primary offensive weapons and in a time where power is severely reduced is, at base, fundamentally flawed. You may not think much of Ray Schalk, but he was considered one of his era’s fine defensive catchers, and he’d likely be able to keep the few team B running threats under control, while Brock, Waner, and even Maz tear up the bases, with Tinker coming in to pinch-hit/pinch-bunt for the pitcher in a key situation.
Move the game to Atlanta Fulton-County stadium in 1996, and team B wins going away – half of team B’s lineup has the potential to hit multiple homers per game, while team A’s best long-ball threat is probably Lloyd Waner (the era more than anything else didn’t allow him to show his ‘real’ power). If team A tried to play their traditional game, they’d get killed; eking out a run every other inning and seeing that effort get wiped away by a two-or-three run blast in the bottom of the fourth would have to be demoralizing. The only possible hope for team A would be that Dick Allen would be so pissed about riding the bench that he wouldn’t be much use for the series, and might convince a weak-minded teammate or two to join him in his personal strike.
If baseball truly is about context, then we should keep in mind that many players we find talented and brilliant today might not have survived big-league play in earlier days.
“Win Shares isn’t a good metric.
It deflates the impact of Rice’s defensive value (or lack thereof).
Don’t let a crummy metric help make your point or anything.”
We seem to have reached the point where citing any metric results in someone telling you how crummy that metric is. We can’t evaluate players just using our eyes, because those are crummy evaluation tools. And we can’t evaluate players by the traditional stats, because those are also crummy. And, according to some, we can’t evaluate them by Win Shares, one of the more advanced metrics, because it’s crummy, too. Linear Weights has long been poo-pooed in many circles as crummy. Depending on who’s talking, you also can’t evaluate players using WARP or VORP or EQA, because all or parts of those things are also crummy. Judging players by reputation is monstrously crummy. I’m sure there’s a metric that you favor as well, and as soon as you mention it someone else will tell me that it is also crummy. And if anyone would invent a new metric that somehow magically conglomerates all of these measurements, it too would be inherently crummy since it would be based on a pile of underlying crumminess.
I find the whole situation to be crummy. In fact, I’m sure someone will now tell me that no, in fact, it’s not crummy. It’s really “crumby”.
James did not use many newer, more accurate, metrics, particularly those dealing with fielding because they are not available for much of baseball’s history.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_shares
It’s just not a good metric. Rice was a LF and a bad one, at that. It’s not crazy to think Lynne or Dewey were more valuable than Rice more often than you may remember. Defense is rarely given its proper due in the mainstream, and it definitely isn’t in Win Shares, either.
“From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_shares“
Nope, sorry, can’t use any Wikipedia references to prove your point. Everyone knows that site is crummy.
Paul White:
Bingo. At first it was just the luddites using their horrid traditional stats, futzing around like the apes at the start of “2001,” that were always under fire from the sabermetric community. Now, any time you make an argument, someone will shoot up immediately and tell you that your advanced metric is trash, and that THEIR advanced metric is the one that really “gets it.”
Because trying to move the discussion forward and not relying on faulty metrics is stupid? Ok. Now I got it. I’ll put my hands back on my ears then.
Okay, Nobody’s the only person who is also Perfect. And win shares aren’t “perfect,” but they are useful nonetheless. (They consider defense, Andrew.)
And for a corner outfielder to have the presumption of a Hall of Fame career, he should compile 370-380. Unless his career is cut short by discrimination, illness, etc., and he clearly was on track to 370-380. (See Minoso, 283.) Or unless a persuasive case can be made for an exception, using something other than b.s. as argument.
Career win shares: Tim Raines 390, Jim Rice 282, Fred Lynn 280, Dwight Evans 347, Reggie Smith 325, Carl Yastrzemski 488. There are plenty of outfielders in the Hall (Hooper 321, L. Waner 245, Brock 348) whose career totals are below 370. But either argument can overcome a negative presumption (Ross Youngs 206?, Chick Hafey 186?) or they are mistakes.
It was already linked above, but the Hall of Merit is the best thing in the history of the internet (after this site of course): http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/
Go back through the old threads and you’ll learn as much about the history of baseball as you’ll ever want to know.
“Because trying to move the discussion forward and not relying on faulty metrics is stupid? Ok. Now I got it. I’ll put my hands back on my ears then.”
Wow. So anyone who doesn’t agree with you isn’t advancing the discussion and has their hands over their ears. Thanks for proving my point.
I’m pretty solidly in the “Fame” camp, and, like some others here, I take the “integrity, sportsmanship, character” part of the voting guidelines seriously. What separates Ty Cobb from Pete Rose (and McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Clemens) was that while Cobb’s personal beliefs were reprehensible, they didn’t seriously undermine the integrity of the game (especially not at the time he played). Gambling and chemical enhancement do taint the public’s perception of the sport, and the Hall of Fame, being mostly an exercise in industry self-congratulation and promotion, shouldn’t recognize people who sullied the public perception of the game.
That’s not to say we should ignore the bad things in baseball’s history – that’s what the museum is for. But as far as the Hall of Fame is concerned, it should focus on individuals who represent the game at its best.
Oh, and where’s Rock?
Like many commenters, I immediately noticed Team A’s vast superiority on defense. However, take another look at Team B’s pitchers. They sure did strike out a lot of batters. With fewer opposing hitters making contact, Team B’s defensive disadvantage isn’t nearly as great.
And yes, ballpark does make a difference, but only if we’re talking all-time ballparks (and considering most of Team A is dead, we probably shouldn’t exclude dead ballparks.
In modern parks, Team B’s power advantage would be almost as great even in in the most “pitcher-friendly” ones like Dodger Stadium and Shea. But in a cavernous old stadium like, say, the Polo Grounds, where speed, defense, and bat control were so much more of the game because, well, when centerfield is 480, they have to be, Team A grabs a decided advantage.
Put Frank White on Team B and they win it in 4. Team B in 6.