Joey Votto

Flagpole wrote:

here's some stats for you:

1) Templeton was a career .271 hitter over 16 years...better than Concepcion (.267) and Smith (.262).

2) Templeton had over 2,000 hits (2,096).

Are you using these stat to say Templeton was better than we think/remember, or just sharing some fun facts? Because if you’re just sharing fun facts my reaction is “Huh, those fun facts are good illustrations of how batting average and hit total landmarks aren’t necessarily good indicators of value.” But if you’re using them to say Templeton was better than we remember, my reaction is “Do I really have to explain, in 2021, that batting average and hit total landmarks aren’t necessarily good indicators of value?”

I am accepting of the fact that Perez and Larkin are in though.

Perez had a truck load of RBIs (1652)...I mean, man, that's a lot. There are worse players than him in the Hall.

I think Larkin is tougher for me to accept. Solid fielder (not the best shortstop in the game at the time). He wasn't a power hitter despite having the anomaly of a year when he hit 33 home runs; his next highest total was 20. He ended up with only 2,340 hits (fewer than Perez had). Never had 200 hits in a season which you kind of want to see in a guy who hits a bunch of singles and for average.

Oh well...they didn't ask me.

Not An Expert wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

here's some stats for you:

1) Templeton was a career .271 hitter over 16 years...better than Concepcion (.267) and Smith (.262).

2) Templeton had over 2,000 hits (2,096).

Are you using these stat to say Templeton was better than we think/remember, or just sharing some fun facts? Because if you’re just sharing fun facts my reaction is “Huh, those fun facts are good illustrations of how batting average and hit total landmarks aren’t necessarily good indicators of value.” But if you’re using them to say Templeton was better than we remember, my reaction is “Do I really have to explain, in 2021, that batting average and hit total landmarks aren’t necessarily good indicators of value?”

Fun facts only. Ozzie Smith was MUCH better than Templeton and deserving of being in the Hall of Fame. Templeton is deserving of being in the Hall of Average.

Flagpole, to be entirely honest, you seem like you’re both a Reds homer and have a personal system of evaluating players that is, largely although not entirely, divorced from the contemporary understanding of player valuation. You seem to overvalue counting stats, overvalue batting average, appropriately value home runs (although I think you’re giving the 500 home run milestone too much weight as aHall ofFame indicator in what I’ll somewhat inaccurately call the post-steroids era), undervalue walks, and overvalue your subjective opinion of defense.

Oh, and undervaluing baserunning, too (Larkin was a great base runner, FYI).

You must consider the WAR analytic to be irrelevant If you believe 500 HRs would have gotten Dunne into the HOF. All of the 500 home run members in the Hall have career WAR totals of at least three times Dunne's. The glove he used for his -5.2 dwar season would prevent him from getting through the metal detector even if he was there just to visit.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

You must consider the WAR analytic to be irrelevant If you believe 500 HRs would have gotten Dunne into the HOF. All of the 500 home run members in the Hall have career WAR totals of at least three times Dunne's. The glove he used for his -5.2 dwar season would prevent him from getting through the metal detector even if he was there just to visit.

It’s really hard to get most people to look at advanced stats, especially if they are older and have some sort of ‘eye test’ or internal criteria that they cannot quantify. I can understand the attachment we have to these things.

However, I believe you are entirely right about Dunn, and when people just total up a stat that they can appreciate and understand, they get excited. IMO, HRs tend to be overvalued and fielding is undervalued in considering a player’s career. Some players can look dramatic and are extremely good performers when they get to the ball, but they are not very good fielders. So I’d be careful using dWar to rate fielders even if they tell the story right (-28.4 for Dunn). UZR(ultimate zone range) is a great way to do that.

Unfortunately, I think there’s only data for a very few years for UZR. Personally, I think it would expose Cal Ripken Jr as a very average SS especially over the last half of his career (dWar = 35). I also think it would expose how abysmal Jeter was at times (dWar = -9.4). Both suffered from a notable lack of range and were lauded mainly for solid if unspectacular play. The flip and jumpturn makes people ooh and ahh over Jeter, but there’s a lot of balls he didn’t get to. Many advances stats put them in the same neighborhood in terms of positional rating whereas dWar seems to suggest a significant advantage.

At some point, I’ll figure out how to do the positional adjustment and compare the career dWar for Dunn and Jeter….

More important question.....can the Reds make the playoffs? Can they make a surprise run?

They had the best record in the NL in July.

Alan

Not An Expert wrote:

Flagpole, to be entirely honest, you seem like you’re both a Reds homer and have a personal system of evaluating players that is, largely although not entirely, divorced from the contemporary understanding of player valuation. You seem to overvalue counting stats, overvalue batting average, appropriately value home runs (although I think you’re giving the 500 home run milestone too much weight as aHall ofFame indicator in what I’ll somewhat inaccurately call the post-steroids era), undervalue walks, and overvalue your subjective opinion of defense.

Even if you are "new school" and not a believer in "counting stats", there are still two "magic numbers" that get you in the hall, rightly or wrongly(unless you are tainted by steroids).

500 homers and 3000 hits.

For my money, Craig Biggio is not a Hall of Famer, and he got in largely on his 3000 hit magic ticket.

What was more ridiculous, he made it several years before his far superior teammate, Jeff Bagwell.

Robin Yount is another one with 3000 hits who I think is marginal at best and would not have put in.

I have no idea what the "rate stats" say about those two 3000 hit guys.

I’d give them a better chance than the Mets right now :(

I must not. 500 home runs would have gotten him in. All 500+ guys who aren't dopers are either in or will be. He would have been (Ortiz will be elected. Cabrera is sitting at 498, and he will be (based on more than just his HR ability though).

Dunn (no 'e') was a bad fielder, yes. His batting average was not great (pulled down by his last 4 seasons). The fact that he didn't get to the 500 milestone is the excuse needed to keep him out of the Hall. Had he gotten to 500, he'd eventually get elected.

1) 3,000 hits and 300 wins for a pitcher are the most automatic stats to get into the Hall. Biggio did it, so he's in. He's not the greatest HOF member, but he's deserving.

2) Biggio also had 668 doubles. That is an insane number. 6th all-time!

3) You are WAY off on Yount. He was the league MVP TWICE! 3,142 hits, so not just over like Biggio. No way you leave that guy out.

Not An Expert wrote:

Flagpole, to be entirely honest, you seem like you’re both a Reds homer and have a personal system of evaluating players that is, largely although not entirely, divorced from the contemporary understanding of player valuation. You seem to overvalue counting stats, overvalue batting average, appropriately value home runs (although I think you’re giving the 500 home run milestone too much weight as aHall ofFame indicator in what I’ll somewhat inaccurately call the post-steroids era), undervalue walks, and overvalue your subjective opinion of defense.

How am I a Reds homer when I would have left Perez and Larkin out of the Hall of Fame?

Barry Larkin was a better player than Dave Concepcion, but considering the era, Concepcion was better in his era than Larkin was in his, so I would put Concepcion in the Hall and leave Larkin out.

Let's continue to remember that as things sit, I do not believe Dunn deserves to be elected. Had he hit 500 HRs though (just 38 away), yes, I would have said he deserved to be in. There hasn't yet been one who didn't dope who has hit 500 and isn't in.

Runningart2004 wrote:

More important question.....can the Reds make the playoffs? Can they make a surprise run?

They had the best record in the NL in July.

Alan

Possibly, but I have faith in them to fail. Their biggest weakness is pitching, and I think that's what will keep them out.

Flagpole wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

More important question.....can the Reds make the playoffs? Can they make a surprise run?

They had the best record in the NL in July.

Alan

Possibly, but I have faith in them to fail. Their biggest weakness is pitching, and I think that's what will keep them out.

Yea that's been their MO over the last 20 years during their good years....either have good to great pitching and no bats or have good to great bats and no pitching.

I grew up on Rob Dibble, Chris Sabo, Barry Larkin, and Jose Rijo!

Alan

1) Cal Ripken. Cal Ripken, Jr. deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because of what he accomplished. He had 3,184 hits, and that does it. He has the lowest batting average of anyone in the 3,000 hits club. Had he not played every freakin' day (but he DID), he would not have gotten 3,000 hits and would be outside looking in. Ripken was a very good player who is in because he played every day (and got that magic hits stat as a result).

2) Derek Jeter - Not a great fielder, but not bad. However, he is VERY deserving of being in the Hall of Fame. He's an elite member of the Hall of Fame even. .310 batting average, 3,465 hits, 14x All Star, 8 seasons with 200 or more hits.

Jbsports wrote:

Under appreciated ball player. Has won an mvp and many the me leader in ops. Decent power but not usually close to hr leave. Borderline hall of fame. Seems like a good guy. Few more good years and cool or make hall of fame.

agree-he has been stuck in small-market Cincinnati for his entire career and flying under the radar-he should get there!

Yount was an exceptional player. He definitely deserves to be in the HOF. When he began his career, shortstops were light hitting guys that if they hit 7 homers a year then fans were happy. Yount, Ripken, and Trammell helped redefine the position into what it is today. Yount later moved to the outfield and was great there as well.

Larkin was a guy that I never appreciated when he was playing as much as I should have. He was an excellent baserunner. He was also the face of the Reds throughout his career. He had a very good playoff run in 1990 that helped the Reds win the World Series. Not as good as Billy Hatcher's playoff run but who could compare to that!

Was just never a big fan of Yount, I always thought he was overrated when he played, was one of those guys who was a media darling. And one of his MVP's is semi tainted, in 89 Ruben Sierra probably should have won it. I remember when that happened which I think put it in my head that he was overrated.

But yeah, I'm just being cranky about Yount, he's in fair and square.

My take on your "Cincy" guys, from a distance I think Larkin should be in and Perez should be out. Perez had several excellent years with the "machine" but he just hung around forever hanging numbers.

Based on this discussion, however, I am starting to buy into the new school "rate stats". It might actually be a more meritocratic way of judging players. I know 3k is an automatic, but I was never a huge fan of that one. There are some old school guys who had high 2k totally forgotten to history, but you get that 3k and you're in.

If McGriff had 6 more homers, he'd be in. It's an incredibly subjective, messy process.