Beisbol Hall of Fame (1 Viewer)

[Eephus]

That's it!

I'm done with these discussions!

Break out the Strat-o-Matic and let's play some baseball.

Oh look, a 4-4 N-HR

Andre Dawson just went yard!

APBA was better.

Actually, I never played APBAHow much better then Start was it?

Baseball nerds, look here for Whatifsports league.

Pretend baseball fever - Catch It!

 

[Smack Tripper]

I think that if you even remotely watched baseball during that timespan....Tony Gwynn was the best pure, consistent hitter.

Ok what do you mean by "best hitter?"

Being able to put Bat on the ball for a basehit Daddy.You could argue Boggs over a much shorter period, and the only other one in the discussion is Molitor, who's averages just don't stack up with Tony. But he did put up 3000 with a bit more pop. It's realy silly debates, personally I take Boggs 1983-1989, but thats some pretty lofty company. Otherwise, Tony G is your man.

Right. So basically whoever has the highest BA is -- in your opinion -- the "best hitter." Like I said, that's a curious definition, but whatever makes you happy, sonny.

Curious definition? Should we all switch to the whoknew vague evaluation scale daddy? Best hitter will probably have the highest average. Best power hitter will have the most homers and best all around hitter is something we can get into deeper debate about Daddy. Don't hate the world because you're a dopey wordsmith.

 

[whoknew]

I think that if you even remotely watched baseball during that timespan....Tony Gwynn was the best pure, consistent hitter.

Ok what do you mean by "best hitter?"

Being able to put Bat on the ball for a basehit Daddy.You could argue Boggs over a much shorter period, and the only other one in the discussion is Molitor, who's averages just don't stack up with Tony. But he did put up 3000 with a bit more pop. It's realy silly debates, personally I take Boggs 1983-1989, but thats some pretty lofty company. Otherwise, Tony G is your man.

Right. So basically whoever has the highest BA is -- in your opinion -- the "best hitter." Like I said, that's a curious definition, but whatever makes you happy, sonny.

Curious definition? Should we all switch to the whoknew vague evaluation scale daddy? Best hitter will probably have the highest average. Best power hitter will have the most homers and best all around hitter is something we can get into deeper debate about Daddy. Don't hate the world because you're a dopey wordsmith.

Are you a cartoon character?Best usually implies having the most value. Sorry if that confuses you. There's really no question that Tony Gwynn was not the hitter with the most value to his team when he played.

 

[videoguy505]

Orel Hershieser, Albert Belle, Paul O'Neill, Bret Saberhagen, Jose Canseco, Tony Fernandez, Dante Bichette, Eric Davis, Bobby Bonilla, Ken Caminiti, Jay Buhner, Scott Brosius, Wally Joyner, Devon White, and Bobby Witt all received less than 28 votes and will NOT appear on future ballots. Only the Veterans Committee can consider them now.

Add to the list Steve Garvey, who's years of eligibility have expired.

 

[babehound37]

Andre Dawson should be in..He was a great player for a long period of time.

 

[Thunderlips]

I think that if you even remotely watched baseball during that timespan....Tony Gwynn was the best pure, consistent hitter.

Ok what do you mean by "best hitter?"

Being able to put Bat on the ball for a basehit Daddy.You could argue Boggs over a much shorter period, and the only other one in the discussion is Molitor, who's averages just don't stack up with Tony. But he did put up 3000 with a bit more pop. It's realy silly debates, personally I take Boggs 1983-1989, but thats some pretty lofty company. Otherwise, Tony G is your man.

Right. So basically whoever has the highest BA is -- in your opinion -- the "best hitter." Like I said, that's a curious definition, but whatever makes you happy, sonny.

Curious definition? Should we all switch to the whoknew vague evaluation scale daddy? Best hitter will probably have the highest average. Best power hitter will have the most homers and best all around hitter is something we can get into deeper debate about Daddy. Don't hate the world because you're a dopey wordsmith.

Are you a cartoon character?Best usually implies having the most value. Sorry if that confuses you. There's really no question that Tony Gwynn was not the hitter with the most value to his team when he played.

Explain to me how a man with the highest batting average over the time span is not the most consistent hitter?

 

[whoknew]

I think that if you even remotely watched baseball during that timespan....Tony Gwynn was the best pure, consistent hitter.

Ok what do you mean by "best hitter?"

Being able to put Bat on the ball for a basehit Daddy.You could argue Boggs over a much shorter period, and the only other one in the discussion is Molitor, who's averages just don't stack up with Tony. But he did put up 3000 with a bit more pop. It's realy silly debates, personally I take Boggs 1983-1989, but thats some pretty lofty company. Otherwise, Tony G is your man.

Right. So basically whoever has the highest BA is -- in your opinion -- the "best hitter." Like I said, that's a curious definition, but whatever makes you happy, sonny.

Curious definition? Should we all switch to the whoknew vague evaluation scale daddy? Best hitter will probably have the highest average. Best power hitter will have the most homers and best all around hitter is something we can get into deeper debate about Daddy. Don't hate the world because you're a dopey wordsmith.

Are you a cartoon character?Best usually implies having the most value. Sorry if that confuses you. There's really no question that Tony Gwynn was not the hitter with the most value to his team when he played.

Explain to me how a man with the highest batting average over the time span is not the most consistent hitter?

I thought we were talking about the best hitter. What does it mean to be the most "consistent hitter?"

 

[Smack Tripper]

I think that if you even remotely watched baseball during that timespan....Tony Gwynn was the best pure, consistent hitter.

Ok what do you mean by "best hitter?"

Being able to put Bat on the ball for a basehit Daddy.You could argue Boggs over a much shorter period, and the only other one in the discussion is Molitor, who's averages just don't stack up with Tony. But he did put up 3000 with a bit more pop. It's realy silly debates, personally I take Boggs 1983-1989, but thats some pretty lofty company. Otherwise, Tony G is your man.

Right. So basically whoever has the highest BA is -- in your opinion -- the "best hitter." Like I said, that's a curious definition, but whatever makes you happy, sonny.

Curious definition? Should we all switch to the whoknew vague evaluation scale daddy? Best hitter will probably have the highest average. Best power hitter will have the most homers and best all around hitter is something we can get into deeper debate about Daddy. Don't hate the world because you're a dopey wordsmith.

Are you a cartoon character?Best usually implies having the most value. Sorry if that confuses you. There's really no question that Tony Gwynn was not the hitter with the most value to his team when he played.

Explain to me how a man with the highest batting average over the time span is not the most consistent hitter?

I thought we were talking about the best hitter. What does it mean to be the most "consistent hitter?"

Daddy, you are the one trying to reinvent the wheel. You don't look any smarter for these semantic games and verbal gymnastics, and apparently you are the lone person who can't understand what you are stating. Maybe you're phrasing it wrong, but Tony Gwynn, in baseball terminology was the best hitter his 17 year career and arguably at any point during his career. Hitters are understood to be people who are good at hitting, one of the five tools most of us who follow baseball realize. It breaks down to:-hitting(pure contact, bat on ball, make contact hitting)-power(the ability to drive the ball and not just put your bat on it)-speed(generally related to baserunning but covers all phases)-defense(the ability to catch the ball-arm(the ability to throw the ballWhen you call someone a great hitter, it is assumed that you are talking about someone who'll hit for average. In the philosophical context of your debate, I think you could expand to some variables that dont' full under the auspice of a power hitter. Boggs and Molitor weren't power hitters, but they drove the ball for more doubles than Gwynn, so it is a somewhat different debate. What you seem to be after is who is the most valuable player, which is much more intangible driven and open to debate past Gwynn. Now that I made your point for you, maybe you can get hooked on phonics and rejoin the party.

 

[whoknew]

When you call someone a great hitter, it is assumed that you are talking about someone who'll hit for average. In the philosophical context of your debate, I think you could expand to some variables that dont' full under the auspice of a power hitter. Boggs and Molitor weren't power hitters, but they drove the ball for more doubles than Gwynn, so it is a somewhat different debate.

What you seem to be after is who is the most valuable player, which is much more intangible driven and open to debate past Gwynn. Now that I made your point for you, maybe you can get hooked on phonics and rejoin the party.

The bolded part is where you are just flat out wrong. Its not a semantics argument at all.

 

[shuke]

considering that bruce sutter and rollie fingers are in the HOF, i am surprised gossage keeps missing.seriously, gossage and fingers are pretty similar.

Goose and Rice in next year. I think Dawson's out of luck.

 

[Koya]

So which of you ####### is going to join the League of Nerds for WIS VII.

DO IT!

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=299606

 

[shuke]

Concepcion was the best SS in MLB for an entire decade.

which decade? and how so? he was not even an average hitter.

Fielding down?

it's well known that DC was an outstanding fielder, but that doesn't necessarily make him the best SS in MLB for a decade. Maybe for a few years in the mid-70s, but you soon have Yount & Ripken come along.

Not to mention Ozzie Smith and Alan Trammell.

Trammell

 

[Frostillicus]

So which of you ####### is going to join the League of Nerds for WIS VII.

DO IT!

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=299606

 

[whoknew]

Concepcion was the best SS in MLB for an entire decade.

which decade? and how so? he was not even an average hitter.

Fielding down?

it's well known that DC was an outstanding fielder, but that doesn't necessarily make him the best SS in MLB for a decade. Maybe for a few years in the mid-70s, but you soon have Yount & Ripken come along.

Not to mention Ozzie Smith and Alan Trammell.

Trammell

Why is that funny?

 

[whoknew]

One of the big problems of HOF voting is that the BBWAA inclusion rules are outdated.

To be a BBWAA member, you have to be a print journalist -- internet only journalists are excluded. This excludes a lot of informed analysts -- most notably a lot of sabermetricians.

 

[guru_007]

One of the big problems of HOF voting is that the BBWAA inclusion rules are outdated. To be a BBWAA member, you have to be a print journalist -- internet only journalists are excluded. This excludes a lot of informed analysts -- most notably a lot of sabermetricians.

Jayson Stark of ESPN said he voted for 9 people into the hall. I agree that the voting is very flawed, but I'm not sure a sabermetrician has any better feel for a player than a print journalist. At least a journalist watches a lot of baseball. I get the feeling a sabermetrician just watches box scores.

 

[whoknew]

One of the big problems of HOF voting is that the BBWAA inclusion rules are outdated. To be a BBWAA member, you have to be a print journalist -- internet only journalists are excluded. This excludes a lot of informed analysts -- most notably a lot of sabermetricians.

Jayson Stark of ESPN said he voted for 9 people into the hall. I agree that the voting is very flawed, but I'm not sure a sabermetrician has any better feel for a player than a print journalist. At least a journalist watches a lot of baseball. I get the feeling a sabermetrician just watches box scores.

I'm not saying sabermetrics is the sole way to evaluate, but to completely ignore it is silly. The analysis being done (just visit baseballprospectus.com) is amazing. Baseball is a unique sport because there are so many stats that there is a ton of analysis that can be done to evaluate the worth of a player. To ignore this is just silly.The eyes can lie. You end up with people saying things like, "Andre Dawson was the best outfielder I've ever seen. He should be in the Hall."

 

[On The Rocks]

That's it!I'm done with these discussions!Break out the Strat-o-Matic and let's play some baseball.Oh look, a 4-4 N-HRAndre Dawson just went yard!

APBA was better.

From year to year I agree 100%, but who at the age of 12 had the money to order the new stat card every season?

 

[guru_007]

The eyes can lie. You end up with people saying things like, "Andre Dawson was the best outfielder I've ever seen. He should be in the Hall."

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."-Mark Twain

 

[Thunderlips]

I think that if you even remotely watched baseball during that timespan....Tony Gwynn was the best pure, consistent hitter.

Ok what do you mean by "best hitter?"

Being able to put Bat on the ball for a basehit Daddy.You could argue Boggs over a much shorter period, and the only other one in the discussion is Molitor, who's averages just don't stack up with Tony. But he did put up 3000 with a bit more pop. It's realy silly debates, personally I take Boggs 1983-1989, but thats some pretty lofty company. Otherwise, Tony G is your man.

Right. So basically whoever has the highest BA is -- in your opinion -- the "best hitter." Like I said, that's a curious definition, but whatever makes you happy, sonny.

Curious definition? Should we all switch to the whoknew vague evaluation scale daddy? Best hitter will probably have the highest average. Best power hitter will have the most homers and best all around hitter is something we can get into deeper debate about Daddy. Don't hate the world because you're a dopey wordsmith.

Are you a cartoon character?Best usually implies having the most value. Sorry if that confuses you. There's really no question that Tony Gwynn was not the hitter with the most value to his team when he played.

Explain to me how a man with the highest batting average over the time span is not the most consistent hitter?

I thought we were talking about the best hitter. What does it mean to be the most "consistent hitter?"

You are talking about best hitter.... which is open to interpretation. I'm talking about consistent hitter...which at its base is exactly what batting average measures.....the number of hits in the number of at bats.EDITED TO ADD: Maybe you did not understand the context of my original statement.

 

[oso diablo]

Bonds before steroids was expendable

what does this mean? Or did you mean "expandable"?

 

[whoknew]

You are talking about best hitter.... which is open to interpretation. I'm talking about consistent hitter...which at its base is exactly what batting average measures.....the number of hits in the number of at bats.EDITED TO ADD: Maybe you did not understand the context of my original statement.

I guess I understand, I just don't find it that interesting. It doesn't really tell us much.

 

[oso diablo]

Daddy, you are the one trying to reinvent the wheel. You don't look any smarter for these semantic games and verbal gymnastics, and apparently you are the lone person who can't understand what you are stating. Maybe you're phrasing it wrong, but Tony Gwynn, in baseball terminology was the best hitter his 17 year career and arguably at any point during his career. Hitters are understood to be people who are good at hitting, one of the five tools most of us who follow baseball realize. It breaks down to:-hitting(pure contact, bat on ball, make contact hitting)-power(the ability to drive the ball and not just put your bat on it)-speed(generally related to baserunning but covers all phases)-defense(the ability to catch the ball-arm(the ability to throw the ballWhen you call someone a great hitter, it is assumed that you are talking about someone who'll hit for average. In the philosophical context of your debate, I think you could expand to some variables that dont' full under the auspice of a power hitter. Boggs and Molitor weren't power hitters, but they drove the ball for more doubles than Gwynn, so it is a somewhat different debate. What you seem to be after is who is the most valuable player, which is much more intangible driven and open to debate past Gwynn. Now that I made your point for you, maybe you can get hooked on phonics and rejoin the party.

I agree with whoknew. The first two tools in your list are typically recorded as "hit for average" and "hit for power". The combination of those two skills constitutes "hitting". Some might also include the skill of batting eye (walks vs. strikeouts).

 

[David Yudkin]

Daddy, you are the one trying to reinvent the wheel. You don't look any smarter for these semantic games and verbal gymnastics, and apparently you are the lone person who can't understand what you are stating. Maybe you're phrasing it wrong, but Tony Gwynn, in baseball terminology was the best hitter his 17 year career and arguably at any point during his career. Hitters are understood to be people who are good at hitting, one of the five tools most of us who follow baseball realize. It breaks down to:-hitting(pure contact, bat on ball, make contact hitting)-power(the ability to drive the ball and not just put your bat on it)-speed(generally related to baserunning but covers all phases)-defense(the ability to catch the ball-arm(the ability to throw the ballWhen you call someone a great hitter, it is assumed that you are talking about someone who'll hit for average. In the philosophical context of your debate, I think you could expand to some variables that dont' full under the auspice of a power hitter. Boggs and Molitor weren't power hitters, but they drove the ball for more doubles than Gwynn, so it is a somewhat different debate. What you seem to be after is who is the most valuable player, which is much more intangible driven and open to debate past Gwynn. Now that I made your point for you, maybe you can get hooked on phonics and rejoin the party.

I agree with whoknew. The first two tools in your list are typically recorded as "hit for average" and "hit for power". The combination of those two skills constitutes "hitting". Some might also include the skill of batting eye (walks vs. strikeouts).

Hasn't OPS (SLG + OBP) become the universal evaluation tool for batting evaluation these days? And for the more statistically inclined OPS+ as a comparison method?

 

[oso diablo]

I get the feeling a sabermetrician just watches box scores.

maybe you should rely more on facts than feelings. you know, like a sabermetrician would.

 

[oso diablo]

Hasn't OPS (SLG + OBP) become the universal evaluation tool for batting evaluation these days? And for the more statistically inclined OPS+ as a comparison method?

OPS has certainly gained in acceptance as a quick way to compare past batting performance, although it has its flaws (it overweights SLG%). Scouts, though, look at the individual skills/tools. The best evaluation method will look at both sides.

 

[dagogrease]

Having been in San Diego for Gwynn's career, he was a great contact hitter and could hit for average like no other.

He was also overrated, selfish, and put his average above driving in runs, which he was certainly capable of doing. Despite his gaudy BA, his career OPS was unimpressive (below Danny Tartabull) and he only scored 100 runs twice (never after 1987) and drove in 100 runs a single time in his entire career.

Especially once he got fat and lost all of his speed, those slap singles just resulted in him clogging up the bases. In fact, he's also top 20 in the history of MLB in grounding into double plays.

In a game where you have to score runs to win, Gwynn wasn't all that valuable a player.

Nice guy, good hitter, extremely overrated.

Is this guy serious??? Getting on base is clogging the bases??? Should he have not got on base?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Looking for some great baseball minds. Inquire here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...9606&st=350

 

[whoknew]

And Rice got jobbed, again. ####### hall of famer bull#### voters.

A good article by Rob Neyer on the problems of the Rice for HOF campaign:But Rice would seem to have a pretty good chance. And for the next 11 months -- and particularly after the 2007 World Series -- you're going to hear and read two things about Rice in particular. First, you're going to hear that he was perhaps the best hitter in the American League for a number of years. And when objections are raised, you're going to hear that Fenway Park didn't help Rice much, if at all.To that we can simply say this: Preposterous. Utterly preposterous. Anybody who seriously believes Rice wasn't helped by Fenway Park is dead wrong. Rice spent his entire career with the Red Sox, and played almost exactly half his games at Fenway. At home, he batted .320; everywhere else he batted .277. At home, he hit 207 doubles; everywhere else he hit 166. At Fenway, he hit 208 home runs; everywhere else he hit 174 homersEvery time I write about Rice, his fans scream (electronically) that Fenway Park hurt Rice, because so many of his long drives were transformed by the wall from home runs to doubles. I'm sure that happened occasionally. It's clear that Fenway did pad Rice's doubles column. It's just as clear that Fenway also padded Rice's taters column. For most of Rice's career, Fenway was one of the most hitter-friendly parks in the American League, and every hitter benefited to some degree. This was especially true in the early part of Rice's career, when, not coincidentally enough, he just happened to pile up his most impressive counting stats. Yes, Fenway turned some homers into doubles. It also turned some fly outs into homers and doubles.Mostly, it's Red Sox fans who say Fenway didn't help Rice. So let's focus on the more substantive argument for Rice's greatness. If he does wind up in the Hall of Fame, it'll be for exactly one reason: The voters believe that, as the Red Sox PR department loves to say, "From 1975 to 1986, Jim Rice was the most dominant player in the American League." (That comes directly from a package titled "Why Jim Rice is Worthy of Hall of Fame Induction," which the Sox sent to every Hall of Fame voter they could track down last year.)Now, I've written about Rice and this particular claim before. Still, it continues to raise its statistically ugly head. I like you. So I'm going to try this again. No rhetorical tricks, no statistical sleight of hand. Just the facts as I come across them, in our search for something resembling objective truth.When I see the words "most dominant player," I think "best player." Was Rice the best player in the American League over those 12 seasons? Looking at runs created above position (which is self-explanatory, I hope) from 1975 through '86, we find Rice with 179 RCAP, which is a fine total. Not the best, mind you. That would belong to George Brett. Not the second best (Robin Yount), or even the third best (Eddie Murray). Rice's 179 RCAP ranks 17th in the league over that 12-year span. The 15th and 16th spots are held by non-Hall of Famer Dwight Evans and non-Hall of Famer Willie Randolph. Also above Rice on the list are non-Hall of Famers Fred Lynn, Bobby Grich, Ken Singleton, Toby Harrah and Alan Trammell.That's one problem. Another is the notion that Rice was, if nothing else, one of the very best hitters in baseball -- disregarding position -- over those dozen seasons. Maybe that's what "most dominant" is supposed to mean. But he was not that, either. The very best major league hitters from 1975 through 1986 were Mike Schmidt and Brett. Respectively, they totaled 546 and 493 runs created above average (disregarding their positions). Murray was third, with 387. Fourth -- and this might surprise you (it did me) -- was Keith Hernandez, with 346. The next four slots are held by Hall of Famers Rod Carew (330), Dave Winfield (326), Joe Morgan (325) and Rickey Henderson (317).Here are the next four on the list: RCAA Lynn 300 Rice 289 Singleton 289 Jose Cruz 280One player who's on the cusp of being elected to the Hall of Fame, and three players who fell off the ballot quickly. Cruz picked up two votes, and was gone. Singleton picked up zero votes. Lynn actually survived for a second try, then he dropped from the ballot, too.Granted, Rice isn't all that far behind Winfield, Morgan and Henderson. Here's the thing, though: Those guys created a lot of runs outside of 1975-86. Outside of those 12 seasons, Winfield created 108 runs above average; Morgan, 338; Henderson, 438. And Rice? Outside of his 12 fine seasons, he created negative-18 runs above average (which means we should place quotation marks around "created").He piled up some impressive raw numbers from 1975 through '86. But when you draw the lines specifically to support your case, you can wind up with some strange arguments. If we make a list of the players with the most hits from 1959 through 1967 -- nine seasons -- we find the No. 2-6 slots occupied by Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson and Brooks Robinson. Top-tier Hall of Famers, all of them. And No. 1 on the list? Vada Pinson. Over a span of nine seasons, nobody racked up more hits than Vada Pinson.If we make a list of the players who have led the majors in hits in each decade, it looks like this: Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, Paul Waner, Lou Boudreau, Richie Ashburn, Clemente, Pete Rose, Yount … and Mark Grace. Similarly, from 1975 through 1984, nobody got more hits than Steve Garvey. You might consider that a key component of his Hall of Fame case, but the fact is that Garvey never has come close to being elected.We can play that game all day long. Let me leave you with two facts: (1) Outside of his 12 best seasons, Rice was essentially an offensive zero, and (2) if you consider his statistics in the context of his home ballpark, his league and the position he played, Rice's stats in his 12 best seasons were very good but not great. He played half his games in a hitter's paradise, he didn't walk much, and he grounded into a ton of double plays. Now, maybe that equation finishes with Cooperstown on the far side of the equal sign. But I keep getting a different answer.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Can we please have all posts referring to "best hitter" stricken from this thread?

TIA

 

[Sam Quentin]

Jayson Stark of ESPN said he voted for 9 people into the hall.

I'm guessing...

Ripken

Gwynn

McGwire

Blyleven

Gossage

Lee Smith

Rice

Andre Dawson

Not sure who his 9th would be (Jack Morris?)

I don't think voting for 9 guys is that bad at all.