Sketch Soland Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Upset that Ripken was left off 8 ballots?? How about this silliness: Ty Cobb was left off four ballots Nolan Ryan wasn't on six Hank Aaron on nine Babe Ruth on 11 Willie Mays on 23 Joe DiMaggio needed to appear on the ballot three times to get in, receiving 44 percent and 69 percent in his first two tries. People didn't vote for Ruth?? Mays??? DiMaggio needed 3 tries???? It just part of baseball's wierd culture. Nobody has ever received 100% and it's likely no one will for a very long time. /thread
syhuang Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 You're just so fukkin' superior. Which explains why you didn't know what Baseball Reference was. For example: VORP, Win shares, SLG+. What we get is that is your opinion based on whatever mathmatical dork you like. Period. Another mathmatical dork doesn't agree with you. Period. Not just me, the sabermetrics world. Try to learn what the stats above mean. Of course, you can choose to keep living in your small world by saying something with nothing to back up. Keep opening your mouth with nothing useful but words like 'fukking' or 'dork'. Now, I can understand why you always lose to Holcombs_Arm in other threads.
shrader Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Isn't the better question "Who are the idiots who voted for guys like Bobby Bonilla,Ken Caminiti,and Jay Buhner?"?
Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 For example: VORP, Win shares, SLG+. Not just me, the sabermetrics world. Try to learn what the stats above mean. Of course, you can choose to keep living in your small world by saying something with nothing to back up. I've read the sabermetrics stuff. I know what it is. I get it. Like I said, I JUST DON'T CARE either way. Keep opening your mouth with nothing useful but words like 'fukking' or 'dork'. Now, I can understand why you always lose to Holcombs_Arm in other threads. Yeah, I wish I could be more useful debating things like whether some dude named Arky from 70 years ago was better than some dude named Cal because some mathmetician gave me all the tools I needed to validate me (like using a computer to match up boxers). That would make me wicked awesome and able to not step all over my dick on things like "Baseball Reference" as some kind of popularity contest. You're the winner, man. You called it. You're going to keep calling it. Good on ya.
syhuang Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Apology accepted. I've read the sabermetrics stuff. I know what it is. I get it. Like I said, I JUST DON'T CARE either way. Yeah, I wish I could be more useful debating things like whether some dude named Arky from 70 years ago was better than some dude named Cal because some mathmetician gave me all the tools I needed to validate me (like using a computer to match up boxers). That would make me wicked awesome and able to not step all over my dick on things like "Baseball Reference" as some kind of popularity contest. You're the winner, man. You called it. You're going to keep calling it. Good on ya.
OGTEleven Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 For example: VORP, Win shares, SLG+. Not just me, the sabermetrics world. Try to learn what the stats above mean. Of course, you can choose to keep living in your small world by saying something with nothing to back up. Keep opening your mouth with nothing useful but words like 'fukking' or 'dork'. Now, I can understand why you always lose to Holcombs_Arm in other threads. How many VORPs did Pudge get this year? There is no way for the whole "sabermetrics world" to measure what he did for the Tigers. I play fantasy baseball. I like it. I never confuse it with real baseball. It is a fun diversion and a way to "argue" whether Johann Santana is better than Carlos Beltran. I like actual baseball a whole lot more. It is full of things that just can't be measured. How many VORPs does Ripken get for allowing the O's to carry an extra reliever because they knew they'd never have to pinch hit late in games for an anemic shortstop? How many VORPs did Tony Gwynn get for inside outing one of the nastiest sliders Randy Johnson ever threw for a double and turning around a playoff game? I don't like Ripken. I never really did. I do recognize what he did, particularly at the plate, had a huge impact on the sport of baseball. My opinon on the first ballot thing with Ripken vs Ruth vs Aaron, etc is that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Lots of writers vote. They are asked whether a player (in this case Ripken & Gwynn) belong in the hall. They are not asked anything else such as does he deserve to be in the hall someday but not yet. Ripken and Gwynn are in. As far as I'm concerned that locks in the votes of the 8 & 13 as forever saying they don't deserve it. They are wrong.
syhuang Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 How many VORPs did Pudge get this year? There is no way for the whole "sabermetrics world" to measure what he did for the Tigers. Yes, you can, in sabermetrics. His VORP is 22.0 for his 0.300 AVG, 0.332 OBP, 0.437 SLG. Pudge's offensive performance is not as good as people think, even looking at his traditional number can figure this out. However, people think he's very good on offense because he is famous. Here are the top catchers on VORP and their traditional stats: Mauer 66.9 (.347 AVG, .429 OBP, .507 SLG) McCann 54.8 (.333 AVG, .388 OBP, .572 SLG) V.Martinez 47.8 (.316 AVG, .391 OBP, .538 SLG) Posoda 38.0 (.278 AVG, .375 OBP, .494 SLG) Please note this is the offense measurement. There're also stats for defense and stats for combinations of offense and defense, for example, win shares. Pudge's win share is 25 in 2006 season, 26th overall. Only Mauer's 31 is better than him at catcher position. Pudge's ranking on win share is higher mainly because his defense win share is the best one among major leaguers, 11.5. Again, I brought up sabermetrics was to answer your question of "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't.". It has nothing to do with HOF voting and why Ripken didn't get all the votes. Don't confuse one with another or keep shifting the focus. I even told you I agree both Ripken and Gwynn should go to HOF, however, I don't agree with your statement above I just listed. You seems trying to tie sabermetrics to anti-Ripken (which is not what I'm doing) and ignoring your "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't" statement. Last, VORP is "Value Over Replacement Player" in case you're interested.
Ramius Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Yes, you can, in sabermetrics. His VORP is 22.0 for his 0.300 AVG, 0.332 OBP, 0.437 SLG. Pudge's offensive performance is not as good as people think, even looking at his traditional number can figure this out. However, people think he's very good on offense because he is famous. Here are the top catchers on VORP and their traditional stats: Mauer 66.9 (.347 AVG, .429 OBP, .507 SLG) McCann 54.8 (.333 AVG, .388 OBP, .572 SLG) V.Martinez 47.8 (.316 AVG, .391 OBP, .538 SLG) Posoda 38.0 (.278 AVG, .375 OBP, .494 SLG) Please note this is the offense measurement. There're also stats for defense and stats for combinations of offense and defense, for example, win shares. Pudge's win share is 25 in 2006 season, 26th overall. Only Mauer's 31 is better than him at catcher position. Pudge's ranking on win share is higher mainly because his defense win share is the best one among major leaguers, 11.5. Again, I brought up sabermetrics was to answer your question of "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't.". It has nothing to do with HOF voting and why Ripken didn't get all the votes. Don't confuse one with another or keep shifting the focus. I even told you I agree both Ripken and Gwynn should go to HOF, however, I don't agree with your statement above I just listed. You seems trying to tie sabermetrics to anti-Ripken (which is not what I'm doing) and ignoring your "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't" statement. Last, VORP is "Value Over Replacement Player" in case you're interested. and this is where you miss the point. watching what he did for the tigers has nothing to do with the offensive/defensive numbers he put up. You little stats would say that Jason Kendall sucked for oakland last year, and they'd be better off with someone else. What they dont say is how the vet kendall helped lead the A's young pitching to a division title. How his demeanor controlled those guys and how his pitch calling ability put them in a position to win. Back to pudge, i'd like to see how your stats place a number on pudge walking out to the mound and calming down verlander/bondermann/robertson with 2 on and 1 out in the bottom of the 7th of a 1 run ballgame. Pudge talks to them, they settle down, and get 2 outs to end the inning. the tigers go on and win.
OGTEleven Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Yes, you can, in sabermetrics. His VORP is 22.0 for his 0.300 AVG, 0.332 OBP, 0.437 SLG. Pudge's offensive performance is not as good as people think, even looking at his traditional number can figure this out. However, people think he's very good on offense because he is famous. Here are the top catchers on VORP and their traditional stats: Mauer 66.9 (.347 AVG, .429 OBP, .507 SLG) McCann 54.8 (.333 AVG, .388 OBP, .572 SLG) V.Martinez 47.8 (.316 AVG, .391 OBP, .538 SLG) Posoda 38.0 (.278 AVG, .375 OBP, .494 SLG) Please note this is the offense measurement. There're also stats for defense and stats for combinations of offense and defense, for example, win shares. Pudge's win share is 25 in 2006 season, 26th overall. Only Mauer's 31 is better than him at catcher position. Pudge's ranking on win share is higher mainly because his defense win share is the best one among major leaguers, 11.5. Again, I brought up sabermetrics was to answer your question of "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't.". It has nothing to do with HOF voting and why Ripken didn't get all the votes. Don't confuse one with another or keep shifting the focus. I even told you I agree both Ripken and Gwynn should go to HOF, however, I don't agree with your statement above I just listed. You seems trying to tie sabermetrics to anti-Ripken (which is not what I'm doing) and ignoring your "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't" statement. Last, VORP is "Value Over Replacement Player" in case you're interested. My point (using Pudge) is that not everything can be measured even in a sport so intrinsically tied to stats as baseball. Because I do not care, I do not know the ins and outs of VORP. I would be shocked if it could somehow manage to take into account how well the Detroit pitching staff was handled despite their makeup which included several talented but young arms and an ornery veteran. I give Pudge a lot of credit for that and don't care if it garnered him 3.2 extra VORPs or not. I know what I'm looking at when I'm watching a baseball game/season. Ripken changed the way SS is viewed, particularly with regard to offensive production, thoughout baseball. I watched that too. Parts of that can be measured and parts cannot. To say emphatically that Vaughn was a better offensive player than Ripken based entirely on pro-rated statistics is silly. To use it as part of a more holistic argument would certainly be reasonable but you have not done that. Ripken caused teams to go look for different types of Shortstops than they had in the past. The makeup of baseball, to a degree, was changed by Ripken's offense. I doubt the changes to the scouting philosophy of the Phillies earned him a VORP.
Lori Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Wow, what a thread. First of all, I dont think ANYONE here is saying Cal Jr. doesnt belong in the Hall. Some speculate without the streak, he wouldnt be in the hall, but the streak exists, and thus everyone here seems to be in agreement. On the Unanimous thing. You have to understand the guys voting for the hall. Or better yet, understand that you cant understand them. Baseball is a sport of tradition if nothing else. Some voters feel that if Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb cant be a unanimous HOFer, certainally someone much more marginal (Ripken/Gwynn), shouldnt be either. And thus they choose not to vote ANY player in the first try. Others submitted blank ballots as a protest to the steroid era. Still others voted for Bobby Bonilla, Tony Fernandez and Jay Buhner...go figure. So, there is little to be angry about here (except for the 6 fools who voted for canseco). Ripken and Gwynn are both HOFers. Neither is worthy of being the first player unanimously selected. I think all is well today in the baseball world Not sure why we needed the next three pages of this thread, because you nailed it. BBWAA: "If Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous, neither is anyone else. EVER."
Alaska Darin Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Not sure why we needed the next three pages of this thread, because you nailed it.BBWAA: "If Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous, neither is anyone else. EVER." I'm never going to understand that line of thinking. When something is wrong, continuing to follow the practice makes it more wrong. I think that "2 Wrongs don't make a Right" exists for a reason.
Sketch Soland Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 I'm never going to understand that line of thinking. When something is wrong, continuing to follow the practice makes it more wrong. I think that "2 Wrongs don't make a Right" exists for a reason. sure, but the point is is that this is the way the baseball HOF voting process is. they aren't going to change because some fans think they're voting process is off-kilter. Debating wheter Ripken should have been unanimously elected is essentially a moot point considering that over the history of baseball a lot of fan regarded "unanimous" HOF players were not "unanimously" elected. It is a petty and flawed process, sure, but that's not going to change as long as joe blow beat writer has a ballot and can do with it WTF he wants to do with it.
syhuang Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 You little stats would say that Jason Kendall sucked for oakland last year, and they'd be better off with someone else. What they dont say is how the vet kendall helped lead the A's young pitching to a division title. How his demeanor controlled those guys and how his pitch calling ability put them in a position to win. "would say"? No, you're completely wrong. You have this impression because you don't know sabermetrics and only look at traditional stats. For your information, Kendall is number two in win share defense. There are catchers better than him, however, he is still above replacement level. and this is where you miss the point. watching what he did for the tigers has nothing to do with the offensive/defensive numbers he put up. Back to pudge, i'd like to see how your stats place a number on pudge walking out to the mound and calming down verlander/bondermann/robertson with 2 on and 1 out in the bottom of the 7th of a 1 run ballgame. Pudge talks to them, they settle down, and get 2 outs to end the inning. the tigers go on and win. No, I didn't say sabermetrics can measure every detail. Furthermore, there's no proof yet that what you described does help pitchers' performance. This is another topic though. If you wanted to discuss it, you're welcome. However, right now, the discussion here is "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't". I did say sabermetrics can measure overall offensive performance as asked in the original question "Name 2 better offensive shortstops ......".
syhuang Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 My point (using Pudge) is that not everything can be measured even in a sport so intrinsically tied to stats as baseball. Because I do not care, I do not know the ins and outs of VORP. I would be shocked if it could somehow manage to take into account how well the Detroit pitching staff was handled despite their makeup which included several talented but young arms and an ornery veteran. I give Pudge a lot of credit for that and don't care if it garnered him 3.2 extra VORPs or not. I know what I'm looking at when I'm watching a baseball game/season. Ripken changed the way SS is viewed, particularly with regard to offensive production, thoughout baseball. I watched that too. Parts of that can be measured and parts cannot. To say emphatically that Vaughn was a better offensive player than Ripken based entirely on pro-rated statistics is silly. To use it as part of a more holistic argument would certainly be reasonable but you have not done that. Ripken caused teams to go look for different types of Shortstops than they had in the past. The makeup of baseball, to a degree, was changed by Ripken's offense. I doubt the changes to the scouting philosophy of the Phillies earned him a VORP. Read my post again and stop shifting the focus. You asked "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't", why do you keep ignoring this statement? No one says sabermetrics can measure every detail, especially the ones without scientific proof and only based on people's feeling. However, it can measure overall offensive performance as asked in your original question. ----------------------------- Again, I brought up sabermetrics was to answer your question of "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't.". It has nothing to do with HOF voting and why Ripken didn't get all the votes. Don't confuse one with another or keep shifting the focus. I even told you I agree both Ripken and Gwynn should go to HOF, however, I don't agree with your statement above I just listed. You seems trying to tie sabermetrics to anti-Ripken (which is not what I'm doing) and ignoring your "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't" statement. -----------------------------
Lori Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 I'm never going to understand that line of thinking. When something is wrong, continuing to follow the practice makes it more wrong. I think that "2 Wrongs don't make a Right" exists for a reason. sure, but the point is is that this is the way the baseball HOF voting process is. they aren't going to change because some fans think their voting process is off-kilter. Debating wheter Ripken should have been unanimously elected is essentially a moot point considering that over the history of baseball a lot of fan regarded "unanimous" HOF players were not "unanimously" elected. It is a petty and flawed process, sure, but that's not going to change as long as joe blow beat writer has a ballot and can do with it WTF he wants to do with it. Right there with ya, guys. Heard that Mike&Mike interview with the guy who turned in the blank ballot, and he fell back on the "a precedent has been set" line vis-a-vis unanimous inductions. I was kind of with him on the steroid thing, but after he started stammering out the "..but Aaron wasn't unanimous... and Ruth..." BS, I changed the station. Can you imagine something similar in the other Halls of Fame? Like, say, Bruce Matthews shouldn't get in this year because Art Shell didn't make it on the first ballot twenty freakin' years ago? But like you said, Sketch, it's their ballot and they can do whatever they want with it... even if it makes them look like idiots, IMO...
OGTEleven Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Read my post again and stop shifting the focuse. You asked "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't", why do you keep ignoring this statement. No one said sabermetrics can measure every detail, however, it can measure overall offensive performance as in your original question. ----------------------------- Again, I brought up sabermetrics was to answer your question of "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't.". It has nothing to do with HOF voting and why Ripken didn't get all the votes. Don't confuse one with another or keep shifting the focus. I even told you I agree both Ripken and Gwynn should go to HOF, however, I don't agree with your statement above I just listed. You seems trying to tie sabermetrics to anti-Ripken (which is not what I'm doing) and ignoring your "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't" statement. ----------------------------- It can for fantasy baseball. How does it measure Ripken's impact on baseball? What number does it assign to holding down the #3 spot in the order for 15+ years? What number does it assign to having SS seen as a production position throughout the major league after decades of Punch and Judies?? Can you argue that Vaughn was a better offensive player? Sure. Can you state that he was? No.
syhuang Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 It can for fantasy baseball. How does it measure Ripken's impact on baseball? What number does it assign to holding down the #3 spot in the order for 15+ years? What number does it assign to having SS seen as a production position throughout the major league after decades of Punch and Judies?? Can you argue that Vaughn was a better offensive player? Sure. Can you state that he was? No. You are shifting the focos again. Read you original question "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't"? Do you see "offensive" there? What does "impact on baseball" have anything to do with it? There're methods to compare players in baseball. There are books and articles about them. You don't even understand them before throw them away. Furthermore, you don't accept sabermetrics doesn't mean players in different era can not be compared. These methods are already widely used in baseball analysis. Ok, by your standard, you can NOT compare players in different era and you just asked a dummy question (by your standard) to waste everyone's time. And no, it's not about fantasy baseball. Only people who don't know sabermetrics try to tie it to fantasy game.
OGTEleven Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 You are shifting the focos again. Read you original question "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't"? Do you see "offensive" there? What does "impact on baseball" have anything to do with it? There're methods to compare players in baseball. There are books and articles about them. You don't even understand them before reject them. Ok, by your standard, you can NOT compare players in different era and you just asked a dummy question (by your standard) to waste everyone's time. And no, it's not about fantasy baseball. Does holding down the 3rd slot in the batting order from a position traditionally slotted as 7th or 8th (or maybe 1st) have an offensive impact? Is it part of the "offensive" equation? Does having the expectation level of every shortstop in the league being increased have an offensive impact? Is that measured? Not being able to prove that Pudge working with the pitching staff has any impact does not render it moot. You can't measure but you can see it. Your comment on that topic to me was strange. You seemed to say that since you can't measure it with a number it doesn't exist. Is that really what you meant? Statistics are an important and fun part of baseball but they are not its entirety. If we take your claims in this thread at face value, we could rank every player in baseball history on their offensive ability from 1 to 99,000 and there is no point in ever arguing anything. Why not just do that?
syhuang Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Does holding down the 3rd slot in the batting order from a position traditionally slotted as 7th or 8th (or maybe 1st) have an offensive impact? Is it part of the "offensive" equation? Impact to league isn't equal to offensive display. Where Ripken batted already reflects on his numbers. Does having the expectation level of every shortstop in the league being increased have an offensive impact? "Every" shortstop? We are talking about Ripken's offensive display, not the shortstops after him. Are you implying that pitchers became more careful when pitching to Ripken? The same thing can be said to Wagner and Vaughan. Why don't you say that maybe Vaughan always pee twice before the game and its impact doesn't reflect on the stats? We are talking about the offensive display on field!! Not being able to prove that Pudge working with the pitching staff has any impact does not render it moot. You can't measure but you can see it. Your comment on that topic to me was strange. You seemed to say that since you can't measure it with a number it doesn't exist. Is that really what you meant? No, I say there's no scientific proof that what you said does help pitchers. What you think or what you feel doesn't mean it is right. Not long time ago, lots of people believed earth is flat. Statistics are an important and fun part of baseball but they are not its entirety. If we take your claims in this thread at face value, we could rank every player in baseball history on their offensive ability from 1 to 99,000 and there is no point in ever arguing anything. Why not just do that? It actually can be done, but need time to setup database and write proper queries. However, it can be quickly done manually to compare two or three players without going through the whole thing. You failed to respond most of my previous post, let me post it again: -------------------------------- There're methods to compare players in baseball. There are books and articles about them. You don't even understand them before throw them away. Furthermore, you don't accept sabermetrics doesn't mean players in different era can not be compared. These methods are already widely used in baseball analysis. Ok, by your standard, you can NOT compare players in different era and you just asked a dummy question (by your standard) to waste everyone's time. -------------------------------- Just answer if you think players in different era can be compared or not. Stop shifting the focus.
OGTEleven Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 --------------------------------There're methods to compare players in baseball. There are books and articles about them. You don't even understand them before throw them away. Furthermore, you don't accept sabermetrics doesn't mean players in different era can not be compared. These methods are already widely used in baseball analysis. Ok, by your standard, you can NOT compare players in different era and you just asked a dummy question (by your standard) to waste everyone's time. -------------------------------- I never said your numbers were worthless. I never "threw them away". I never said they could not be used to compare players. I never said that Ripken was definitely better than Vaughn but I do say the point can be argued. It appears that to you, a number is a number and if something can't be measured with a number, it does not exist. What I do say is that you cannot rely entirely on any set of numbers to rank players. You can't set up a database that ranks all the players from 1-99,000. Why, because you simply cannot measure all the variables. You throw out things that cannot be measured with a number. You've done it in this thread. I cannot prove with a number that Pudge's trip to the mounds or his talks after games or his set up on each pitch in each game helps a young staff through a 162 game season. Maybe if he went to the mound after every time Verlander threw a bad pitch and kicked him in the balls it would be a better method. Who's to say? It can't be proven. That must mean it is unimportant.
Recommended Posts