Comments on: Who would win this series?

By: John G

John G — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 06:40:24 +0000

Put Frank White on Team B and they win it in 4. Team B in 6.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:12:18 +0000

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.

By: Ben Tilghman

Ben Tilghman — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:42:16 +0000

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?

By: Paul White

Paul White — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:23:59 +0000

“Because trying to move the discussion forward and not relying on faulty metrics is stupid? Ok. Now I got it. Iâ€™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.

By: Sam

Sam — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:33:20 +0000

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.

By: David in Toledo

David in Toledo — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:18:26 +0000

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.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 03:20:07 +0000

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.

By: Steve from Cleve

Steve from Cleve — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 03:05:39 +0000

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.”

By: Paul White

Paul White — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:59:40 +0000

“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.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:54:38 +0000

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.