At least with baseball we at least have some numbers to compare. I'm a huge football fan and trying to compare offensive lineman on who gets into the HOF is a nightmare. Defensive stats can be ridiculous too if the other team always runs plays away from a defensive standout.
from what i hear wrote:
At least with baseball we at least have some numbers to compare. I'm a huge football fan and trying to compare offensive lineman on who gets into the HOF is a nightmare. Defensive stats can be ridiculous too if the other team always runs plays away from a defensive standout.
I hear you, but that can work both ways.
In football, the great "O" linemen are just kind of "known" because teams are forced to actually "game plan" for them, and this information gets disseminated to the tv/print media who then make it known to the general public. For Defense, there are stats like tackles, sacks, etc, and you would think that would make it easier but not always. There are a number of defensive guys who were dominant but for whatever reason had a tough time getting in. Charles Haley is one that comes to mind, I think it took him a while.
Once an "O" lineman gets to a certain threshold of dominance and longevity, they are pretty much assured entry. You don't have to get into ridiculous "stat wars" like we do for baseball. For the "D" lineman, it seems to be more of a "beauty" contest, it's kind of weird.
6403 wrote:
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.
You can't use Bagwell as a comparable for who should be in the HOF. A lot of people thought he was a steroid user.
Someone should tell Dwight Evans (career WAR 67.1) who never got more than 10 percent on a HOF vote.
That was in regard to the person that mentioned a career war of 62 was an automatic ticket to the HOF.
Flagpole wrote:
6403 wrote:
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.
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.
yeah-how people forget about Yount--amazing power numbers for shortstop especially for that era--what an infield with him and Molitor-Blue Brew Crew!
67 Career WAR and three AS appearances. Is there anyone else comparable?
Bobby Abreu is the closest offensively (60 WAR) but Evans was a significantly better fielder. I can't think of a true comparison.
Maybe they did, but Bagwell is in now, and there are many others who will unfortunately never get in. The whole steroid era has made a mess where the HOF is concerned.
I also pulled up Dwight Evans career so I wasn't just going on memory and impressions.
His stats were a bit better than I thought, but I think he's still just comes up a hair short. But a pretty
good case can be made, and if you're a believer in the Bill James stuff I guess he might belong, but
I'm not totally sold on some of that stuff. It's fine and dandy to trot out those "WAR" stats, but
at the end of the day those are just numbers, too. Saying that some guy has such and such "Wins above
Replacement" for some reason sounds extremely "speculative". I know it's based upon metrics, but
I'm just not totally buying into it.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
6403 wrote:
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.
You can't use Bagwell as a comparable for who should be in the HOF. A lot of people thought he was a steroid user.
Agreed. I think he's fortunate to have gotten in.
from what i hear wrote:
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!
1) Total agreement about Yount, Ripken, and Trammell. Whereas Trammell just barely got in and deserved to BARELY get in, Yount was a shoo-in (and yes that's how you spell that). Great player.
2) Larkin WAS the face of the Reds when he was playing, and that is one of the main reasons he is in the Hall. Had he played for 4 teams, I don't think he'd be in.
6403 wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
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.
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.
1) Good for you for stating Yount deserves to be in. That makes you CORRECT!
2) Regarding Yount's MVP season, he did hit .318 that season with 21 HRs and 103 RBIs. Sierra, considered more of a power guy only had 29 HRs and hit just .306. Baseball is always debatable, but Sierra didn't have a better season to the point that he was robbed there.
3) For the record, I don't think players MUST reach certain milestones to get into the Hall of Fame, but I think SOME players are not generally good enough to without reaching those milestones. Biggio is one. I agree with a previous poster that had he not gotten 3,000 hits, he likely would not be in. I think Adam Dunn MUST have gotten to 500 HRs to get enshrined. BUT, Fred McGriff deserves to be in despite falling short of 500 HRs. 8 seasons with 100 or more RBIs. 1550 RBIs. He was just plain vanilla. 34-35 home runs, 106 RBIs or so, not flashy, not a good interview. Deserves to be in though.
paul72 wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
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.
yeah-how people forget about Yount--amazing power numbers for shortstop especially for that era--what an infield with him and Molitor-Blue Brew Crew!
Yep. Yount was a great player...Molitor too. Molitor is one of the most underrated players in my opinion. He hit .341 with 225 hits at age 39!
Flagpole wrote:
6403 wrote:
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.
1) Good for you for stating Yount deserves to be in. That makes you CORRECT!
2) Regarding Yount's MVP season, he did hit .318 that season with 21 HRs and 103 RBIs. Sierra, considered more of a power guy only had 29 HRs and hit just .306. Baseball is always debatable, but Sierra didn't have a better season to the point that he was robbed there.
3) For the record, I don't think players MUST reach certain milestones to get into the Hall of Fame, but I think SOME players are not generally good enough to without reaching those milestones. Biggio is one. I agree with a previous poster that had he not gotten 3,000 hits, he likely would not be in. I think Adam Dunn MUST have gotten to 500 HRs to get enshrined. BUT, Fred McGriff deserves to be in despite falling short of 500 HRs. 8 seasons with 100 or more RBIs. 1550 RBIs. He was just plain vanilla. 34-35 home runs, 106 RBIs or so, not flashy, not a good interview. Deserves to be in though.
As you can tell, I'm pretty hung up on the fact that McGriff hasn't made it, he was one of the most consistent power hitters of his era, very analogues to Eddie Murray, but he just didn't have any of the "magic" numbers, although for me his homer total is close enough. He also never had one "outlier" year, with like high forties or a fifty homer year. It shows how stupidly important "round numbers" are, even people voting for such an important honor can't think a tiny bit "out of the box". I think if he had been an outfielder, his numbers would have been enough.
Flagpole wrote:
from what i hear wrote:
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!
1) Total agreement about Yount, Ripken, and Trammell. Whereas Trammell just barely got in and deserved to BARELY get in, Yount was a shoo-in (and yes that's how you spell that). Great player.
2) Larkin WAS the face of the Reds when he was playing, and that is one of the main reasons he is in the Hall. Had he played for 4 teams, I don't think he'd be in.
I totally agree with #2. I think that also helped Trammell get in because he and Whitaker were the face of the Tigers.
Not An Expert wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
In response to the other poster's comment, small market teams absolutely do not have the ability to print money. Their only only available strategy for having a play-off team, other than being extremely lucky, is to stink it up for a few years like the Astros did and accumulate some early round picks. Sally should be ashamed.
You’re conflating choosing to spend any money to try to be competitive with profits and asset value appreciation. As real estate and TV deals have become larger parts of team’s revenue streams, even small-market teams’ franchise values have skyrocketed at a rate greatly exceeding the increase in the stock market. The recent sale of the Royals exemplifies this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/11/22/john-sherman-buys-kansas-city-royals-for-1-billion/?sh=6ef698763851Also, a win in free agency costs about $7.63 million:
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-cost-of-a-win-in-free-agency-in-2020/So to answer your question, $22.5 million should buy about three wins above replacement.
Votto signed a 10-year, $225 million contract before the 2014 season. He has been worth 28.6 wins above replacement since then, with 3 more seasons of team control still remaining (2022-2023 guaranteed, and 2024 as a team option—meaning it’s the team’s decision whether they pay it or not):
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/vottojo01.shtml(sum the total in the WAR column from 2014 onwards to see where the 28.6 number came from).
At $7.63 million/win, he is being paid for 29.5 wins, so if he is worth one more win over the remaining two-plus years of the contract he will have more than earned his contract through his on-field performance (even without accounting for the additional value of getting all of these wins from a single roster spot).
And this is all assuming that baseball players are fairly paid for their labors in a market that is set by an employer who has a non-sensical anti-trust exemption, which isn’t necessarily something that I’m willing to stipulate.
Lastly, Votto’s 60+ bWAR, MVP award, and status as the face of a franchise for a decade-plus makes him a Hall of Famer to me, but I’m admittedly a big hall guy.
Appreciation is not cash flow so the ownership needs to either borrow against it or have partners cover cash flow. Money borrowed against franchise value is expensive and MLB sets limits for leverage. From my experience, getting funding from partners is like pulling teeth.
As for your Royals sale example, the day the day that deal closed, the new owners had zero franchise appreciation and if they signed a big free agent contract they would be banking on future appreciation which is not guaranteed. People say that the average age of a baseball fan is in his 50s, so there's no guarantee that even a large market team's franchise value will continue to appreciate. The good news is that I've brainwashed my 14-year old into being an MLB super fan so I will be replaced.
It takes about 50 WAR for a playoff team, so using 7.63M, the the payroll would be about $380. At $200M, one WAR would cost about $4M. The $7.63M is, of course, an incremental cost. Because of the additional revenue generated by having a playoff team, the $7.63M might make sense, but for a small market team to sign mega contracts to improve from 65 wins to 75, it doesn't.
I've heard the total contract analysis before, but ownership having that goal is how teams end up being in a financial hole. I don't know if Miguel Cabrera has "earned" his contract, but he's been killing the team during the last 3 years and he's got another 4 to go. They'll probably have to DFA him as soon as next year.
Flagpole wrote:
paul72 wrote:
yeah-how people forget about Yount--amazing power numbers for shortstop especially for that era--what an infield with him and Molitor-Blue Brew Crew!
Yep. Yount was a great player...Molitor too. Molitor is one of the most underrated players in my opinion. He hit .341 with 225 hits at age 39!
Molitor ended up with over 500 stolen bases which always shocks me. When his career started, he played so hard that he was often injured. He was a very underrated player.
6403 wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) Good for you for stating Yount deserves to be in. That makes you CORRECT!
2) Regarding Yount's MVP season, he did hit .318 that season with 21 HRs and 103 RBIs. Sierra, considered more of a power guy only had 29 HRs and hit just .306. Baseball is always debatable, but Sierra didn't have a better season to the point that he was robbed there.
3) For the record, I don't think players MUST reach certain milestones to get into the Hall of Fame, but I think SOME players are not generally good enough to without reaching those milestones. Biggio is one. I agree with a previous poster that had he not gotten 3,000 hits, he likely would not be in. I think Adam Dunn MUST have gotten to 500 HRs to get enshrined. BUT, Fred McGriff deserves to be in despite falling short of 500 HRs. 8 seasons with 100 or more RBIs. 1550 RBIs. He was just plain vanilla. 34-35 home runs, 106 RBIs or so, not flashy, not a good interview. Deserves to be in though.
As you can tell, I'm pretty hung up on the fact that McGriff hasn't made it, he was one of the most consistent power hitters of his era, very analogues to Eddie Murray, but he just didn't have any of the "magic" numbers, although for me his homer total is close enough. He also never had one "outlier" year, with like high forties or a fifty homer year. It shows how stupidly important "round numbers" are, even people voting for such an important honor can't think a tiny bit "out of the box". I think if he had been an outfielder, his numbers would have been enough.
Great observation, and I concur. Andre Dawson, who is in the Hall of Fame, for example, had fewer HRs (438 to 493) and a lower batting average (.279 to .284), very similar RBI totals (1591 to 1550), BUT Dawson had that ONE super season where he hit 49 HRs. Besides that season, he only hit more than 30 HRs two other times!
from what i hear wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) Total agreement about Yount, Ripken, and Trammell. Whereas Trammell just barely got in and deserved to BARELY get in, Yount was a shoo-in (and yes that's how you spell that). Great player.
2) Larkin WAS the face of the Reds when he was playing, and that is one of the main reasons he is in the Hall. Had he played for 4 teams, I don't think he'd be in.
I totally agree with #2. I think that also helped Trammell get in because he and Whitaker were the face of the Tigers.
For sure. No way Trammell is in if he wasn't with Detroit only. Whitaker got a lot of support to be in the Hall too, but again, just due to being with Detroit only all those years. His stats just don't warrant his election.
from what i hear wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Yep. Yount was a great player...Molitor too. Molitor is one of the most underrated players in my opinion. He hit .341 with 225 hits at age 39!
Molitor ended up with over 500 stolen bases which always shocks me. When his career started, he played so hard that he was often injured. He was a very underrated player.
I would not have guessed Molitor had that many stolen bases (504 -- just looked it up). That just adds to his greatness.
Holy F****ing Sh**. Employee 1.1 just broke 15:00 for 5000 for the 1st time at age 36.
Al Jazeera publishes piece on how alleged Olympic marathoner Ashley Uhl-Leavitt has a GoFundMe. Who?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Japan's Kazuto Iizawa runs #2 1500 time in Japanese history - Guess the time (video)
Parker Valby post 5k interview... Worst of all time? Are Parker Valby interviews always cringe?