Henderson and Rice elected to the HOF
Peter Lawrence
today. Henderson received 95% of the vote while Rice received 76%.
Rice needed 405 votes to get in and received 412. Rice was only the
third player in history to be voted into the HOF on his final year of
eligibility.
http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090112&content_id=10819&vkey=hof_news
- Peter
Dick Adams
> Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame
> today. Henderson received 95% of the vote while Rice received 76%.
> Rice needed 405 votes to get in and received 412. Rice was only the
> third player in history to be voted into the HOF on his final year of
> eligibility.
I was never a big Rickey Henderson fan, but I'd like to know who
were the 28 nitwits who didn't vote for him. Those guys are just
more evidence that you don't have to know jack-$#it about Baseball
to be a member of the BWAA.
Dick
Steve Cutchen
<rda...@panix.com> wrote:
No... I'd bet a Coke that the 28 knew about him plenty. They know
jack shit. They just didn't vote for him for some reason.
Will in New Haven
> In article <gkhlah$99...@reader1.panix.com>, Dick Adams
>
> <rdad...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame
> > > today. Henderson received 95% of the vote while Rice received 76%.
> > > Rice needed 405 votes to get in and received 412. Rice was only the
> > > third player in history to be voted into the HOF on his final year of
> > > eligibility.
>
> > I was never a big Rickey Henderson fan, but I'd like to know who
> > were the 28 nitwits who didn't vote for him. Those guys are just
> > more evidence that you don't have to know jack-$#it about Baseball
> > to be a member of the BWAA.
>
> > Dick
>
> No... I'd bet a Coke that the 28 knew about him plenty. They know
> jack shit. They just didn't vote for him for some reason.
Probably didn't like him. They may have seen him on the, admittedly
few, occasions where he clearly dogged it in the field and mailed in
his at-bats. I watched him do that a couple of times. I would still
have voted for him but, since he was going to get in in any case, I
can understand the few who felt that they should make a statement.
--
Will in New Haven
Corby Gilmore
There are at least 2 voters who turn in blank ballots every year.
There are others who will not vote for anyone who played during the
so-called "steroid" era. There is at least ne who will not vote for anyone
who played during the strike-shortened 1994 season; there are a couple of
writers who will not vote for anyone in their first year of eligibility.
Xavier Onnasis
news:58aaf089-58f7-4adc...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
what statement do you figure those folks are making? maybe something
like, "hi there everybody...I'm a recalcitrant moron, I make no bones
about it, and don't care who knows it!"
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
>
--
XO
Xavier Onnasis
news:gkgbdv$lr2$1...@news.motzarella.org:
I wonder...50 years from now, is Rice gonna look like a good
choice? or is he gonna look like the George Kelly of his
generation
FWIW, I think he's got what it takes...a quick look at his black
ink and gray ink totals says he was one of the top dogs during
his day (even though the counting stats from the 80s pale in
comparison to the numbers racked up in the two following decades)
--
XO
Will in New Haven
wrote:
Maybe "I don't like a player who dogs it because he doesn't like his
contract, even if he HAS wonderful career numbers." I don't think that
makes them morons, even though I would have voted for him. It isn't as
if you can't name three or four all-time all-star outfields without
considering Rickey. And, even if you couldn't, doggint it is dogging
it.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote innews:gkgbdv$lr2$1...@news.motzarella.org:
He was the consensus best player in the game for a few years. There
are a lot of HoFers who were never even ARGUABLY the best player in
the game. And he played in a moderate-scoring time. It wasn't the dead-
ball era or the Sixties but it wasn't the Thirties or today either.
Xavier Onnasis
> On Jan 13, 7:21 pm, Xavier Onnasis <xavier.onnasis@mule_brokers.com>
> wrote:
>> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote
>> innews:58aaf089
> -58f7-4adc-893...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
well, yeah, perfectly good reasons to be piqued about a player
...but, IMO, HOF voting is about a man's career, not one day
when he was (perhaps) out of sorts
I'd think it would be kind of hard to be the all time leader in
runs scored and stolen bases if you're dogging it most of the time
wonder how close Maddox will get to a perfect score? drug free,
going up against steroid-monsters, and still kicking ass? seems
like he should be about as close as anyone gets...but I bet there
will be one or two folks that won't vote for Greg either
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
>
>
--
XO
Xavier Onnasis
that's the way I remember it too...no one will ever confuse him with
the top tier...but IMHO, he's a fully deserving member...I only
wonder why the voters took as long as they did to admit him...was he
really that gruff and unfriendly???
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
>
--
XO
Will in New Haven
wrote:
He was unpopular with the _press_ and the press only, as far as I can
tell. The Yankee players of that era respected and generally liked
him. The ones who didn't were the red-asses who hated everyone in that
uniform. He was not unpopular in his own clubhouse or with any
managers or coaches that I know of.
This contrasts with Yaz. It is very easy to find comments from his
teammates and at least one manager that are far from flattering. But
the press loved him. Williams, was more like Rice in this respect.
Except for some of the guys very early in his career, when he _was_ a
wise-ass, Williams was liked in the clubhouse but anathema to the
press. However, he was _too_ obvious a top-tier player for that to
keep him out of the Hall.
A guy who writes for the "New Haven Register" says that Rice got in,
which he deserved to do, because the older reporters who had dealt
with him personally were no longer voting and the young guys who
replaced them were looking at the numbers and the narratives of some
pennant races.
Now I need a new outfielder for my all-time Eligible but not in the
Hall team.
Tarkus
That reason being that they're jackasses, most likely.
Tarkus
Reminds me of umpires who think the game revolves around them, and the
players are only there as props.
Tarkus
He didn't dog it so much that even at least some of those who chose not
to vote for him still recognize him as the greatest leadoff hitter in
the history of the game. And ya know, that's kind of an important position.
grossman
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 7:30�pm, Xavier Onnasis <xavier.onnasis@mule_brokers.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote innews:gkgbdv$lr2$1...@news.motzarella.org:
>
> > > Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were elected to Baseball's Hall of
> > > Fame today. �Henderson received 95% of the vote while Rice received
> > > 76%. Rice needed 405 votes to get in and received 412. �Rice was
> > > only the third player in history to be voted into the HOF on his
> > > final year of eligibility.
>
> > >http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090112&conte
> > > nt_id=10819&vkey=hof_news
>
> > > - Peter
>
> > I wonder...50 years from now, is Rice gonna look like a good
> > choice? �or is he gonna look like the George Kelly of his
> > generation
>
> > FWIW, I think he's got what it takes...a quick look at his black
> > ink and gray ink totals says he was one of the top dogs during
> > his day (even though the counting stats from the 80s pale in
> > comparison to the numbers racked up in the two following decades)
>
> He was the consensus best player in the game for a few years.
No he wasn't. Possibly one year, that's it.
grossman
wrote:
Gruff and unfriendly was not the problem. His transparent offensive
stats were. Much of his hitting was just an illusion created by the
ballpark he played in. During Rice's career fenway incread offense by
almost 20%. He had sevral seasons where his road stats were like .275
with 12 HRs and 40 RBI, while his home stats were like .340 with 27
HRs and 80 RBI.
Rice's career OPS+ was just 127, with only three seasons of 140 or
higher, and nothing over 153. Those are not the numbers of a player
who is the best hitter of his day, and he never once led the league in
OPS+ . Gene Tenace and John Kruk were better offensive players than
Jim Rice. He was just lucky to be playing in Fenway with several other
good hitters around him who were on base a lot (Boggs, Evans, Lynn,
Yaz). If he had been playing in a bad hitter's park his numbers would
look more like the numbers of someone like Bob Allison who had the
same exact career OPS+ of 127.
Rice also hit into an incredible shitload of double plays. The guy was
not near as good as Tim Raines, who could only get around 20% of the
vote this year.
Josh Rosenbluth
The short argument against Rice:
1) Playing in Fenway in the 70's and 80's is like the current high-
scoring era.
2) As usual, we place too much emphasis on RBI, not enough on R.
Thus, the opinion of him in his time was flawed. He was a top-tier
player for a few years in the late 70's, but only merely good after
that in spite of the 100+ RBI seasons. Such a player needs a longer
body of work to be in the Hall.
Josh Rosenbluth
Will in New Haven
Not really. We don't choose, for example, all-time all-star teams by
batting-order position. And we don't do it for a good reason. Batting
order is a minor factor. If you asked anyone who thinks about it a
great deal to choose an all-time team chances are that there would be
no leadoff hitter on it. So you would have someone like Honus Wagner
leading off, even though he didn't lead off much at all, maybe never
did, during his career. And it would be fine.
The all-time greats batted third or fourth, with some outliers who
batted second or fifth for at least part of their careers.
But Rickey's still one of the greatest players of all time, even if
you don't buy into the batting-order mystique.
Will in New Haven
He certainly was, not possibly certainly, in 1978. I talked to
players, managers, scouts and even newspaper sportswriters that year
and in the next few years and, even though the sample size was not
overwhelming, the consensus that he was the best player in the game
that year _was_ overwhelming. Yankee players thought he was the best
player that year, Yankee fans, including me, thought he was the best
player that year as did people I talked to in Boston, Clevelant,
Philly, etc. And these people knew he played his home games in Fenway
Park.
The numbers on the page are important but the people who saw the games
get a say too.
One year as the best player in the game is more than many HoF players
ever did.
I will concede that the other two years I was thinking of were more
doubtful and I would not have called him the best player in the game
in either of those years myself, although others did.
Cameron Laird
Xavier Onnasis <xavier.onnasis@mule_brokers.com> wrote:
.
.
.
>I wonder...50 years from now, is Rice gonna look like a good
>choice? or is he gonna look like the George Kelly of his
>generation
>
>FWIW, I think he's got what it takes...a quick look at his black
>ink and gray ink totals says he was one of the top dogs during
>his day (even though the counting stats from the 80s pale in
>comparison to the numbers racked up in the two following decades)
.
.
Fred Lynn was a better hitter and fielder--'least, when he
could make it onto the field. Jim Rice was quite good, but
less deserving than Allen, Santo, Evans, Magee, Reggie
Smith (!), probably Dale Murphy, Frank Howard, The Toy
Cannon, Colavito, Ken Singleton (!), ...
Xavier Onnasis
@lairds.us:
maybe, maybe not...from your list, and based on the stats from
baseball-reference.com, Allen (who I remember) and Magee (somebody
I only read about) are clearly superior choices...but after that?
if you wanna argue positional adjustments, maybe Santo...but after
that, I think you're done...black and gray ink are wonderful
(albeit under-appreciated) stats, simply because they quantify to
some degree how dominant a player was during his career...and only
Magee beats Rice for black/gray totals...stats below...and FWIW, of
the players listed, IMHO Allen is *by far* the most deserving of
hall of fame enshrinement
player black gray OPS+
-----------------------------------------------------
Jim Rice 33 176 128
Average HOFer ~27 ~144 ?
Sherry Magee 35 210 136
Dick Allen 27 159 156
Dwight Evans 15 113 127
Fred Lynn 15 69 129
Ron Santo 11 147 125
Darrell Evans 8 82 119
Reggie Smith (!) 4 124 137
[ probably ]
Dale Murphy 31 147 121
Frank Howard 17 121 142
Rocky Colavito 15 152 132
The Toy Cannon 4 94 128
Ken Singleton (!) 1 69 132
--
XO
Xavier Onnasis
news:d527ff9c-1bdc-4694...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
ah, but such a player already IS in the hall, your arguments not
withstanding ;^D
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
>
--
XO
Hank Gillette
<c3924966-e8d7-47e8...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> Not really. We don't choose, for example, all-time all-star teams by
> batting-order position. And we don't do it for a good reason. Batting
> order is a minor factor. If you asked anyone who thinks about it a
> great deal to choose an all-time team chances are that there would be
> no leadoff hitter on it.
Another way to view it is that probably the second best leadoff hitter
of all time (Raines) is nowhere near getting into the Hall of Fame
(although he deserves to). And who can even name the fourth or fifth
all-time best leadoff hitter?
--
Hank Gillette
"It was one of those evenings you get in the summer, when you can hear a
snail clear its throat a mile away." -- P. G. Wodehouse
Tarkus
Then I guess virtually all MLB head coaches are stupid, because that's a
priority for most of them. AFAIK, only Tony LaRussa has basically
thrown names into a hat to determine lineup order. And that was more of
a gimmick than a strategy.
Personally speaking, I'd want at least one guy on base when my big guns
come up to bat. And better yet, I'd want to already have one run on the
board.
Tarkus
> In article
> <c3924966-e8d7-47e8...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>> Not really. We don't choose, for example, all-time all-star teams by
>> batting-order position. And we don't do it for a good reason. Batting
>> order is a minor factor. If you asked anyone who thinks about it a
>> great deal to choose an all-time team chances are that there would be
>> no leadoff hitter on it.
>
> Another way to view it is that probably the second best leadoff hitter
> of all time (Raines) is nowhere near getting into the Hall of Fame
> (although he deserves to). And who can even name the fourth or fifth
> all-time best leadoff hitter?
And yet another way to view it is that just shows how special Henderson
was, despite supposedly dogging it.
Will in New Haven
> In article
> <c3924966-e8d7-47e8-a955-063d51cd5...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > Not really. We don't choose, for example, all-time all-star teams by
> > batting-order position. And we don't do it for a good reason. Batting
> > order is a minor factor. If you asked anyone who thinks about it a
> > great deal to choose an all-time team chances are that there would be
> > no leadoff hitter on it.
>
> Another way to view it is that probably the second best leadoff hitter
> of all time (Raines) is nowhere near getting into the Hall of Fame
> (although he deserves to). And who can even name the fourth or fifth
> all-time best leadoff hitter?
Well, Raines ought to be in but I don't know if he's the second-best
leadoff hitter of all time. I guess the question is does this mean
"second-best player who generally batted leadoff" because Richie
Ashburn is probably the answer to that question. However, you have to
factor in defense to get him past Raines and he didn't bat leadoff all
the time.
Will in New Haven
> > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not really. We don't choose, for example, all-time all-star teams by
> >> batting-order position. And we don't do it for a good reason. Batting
> >> order is a minor factor. If you asked anyone who thinks about it a
> >> great deal to choose an all-time team chances are that there would be
> >> no leadoff hitter on it.
>
> > Another way to view it is that probably the second best leadoff hitter
> > of all time (Raines) is nowhere near getting into the Hall of Fame
> > (although he deserves to). And who can even name the fourth or fifth
> > all-time best leadoff hitter?
>
> And yet another way to view it is that just shows how special Henderson
> was, despite supposedly dogging it.
Look, I _saw_ him dog it from the left-field stands. And it wasn't
just for one or two games. So fuck the "supposedly." He dogged it. On
the other hand, that was a small fraction of a great career. And I
would have voted for him. He would have been a HoF player if he had
batted third his whole career.
Will in New Haven
We call them "managers."
because that's a
> priority for most of them. AFAIK, only Tony LaRussa has basically
> thrown names into a hat to determine lineup order. And that was more of
> a gimmick than a strategy.
If you look at Stengel's choices for leadoff hitter over a very
succesful run with the Yankees, you might feel differently.
>
> Personally speaking, I'd want at least one guy on base when my big guns
> come up to bat. And better yet, I'd want to already have one run on the
> board.
But you are more likely to have that runner on base or a run already
scored with someone who _wasn't_ a career leadoff hitter than one who
was, with Henderson being about the only exception. If you were
picking a team and you had one more outfield spot to fill and didn't
know who you were batting leadoff, would you pick Tim Raines, a fine
player who batted leadoff, or Cobb, a much better player who _didn't_
bat leadoff. I think Henderson versus Cobb would be close but
Henderson is the only leadoff batter in history who would make it
close. Well, Ashburn if you factor in defense and Cobb's being such an
asshole.
Tarkus
Point taken.
Tarkus
Duh. As a Chiefs fan, I've been talking a lot of football the last few
days, and it clearly spilled over into the baseball part of my brain. ;p
Will in New Haven
My condolonces.
Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:
How many of these players are in and how many are out? How many
better players are not in?
Josh Rosenbluth
grossman
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 12:33�am, grossman <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > He was the consensus best player in the game for a few years.
>
> > No he wasn't. Possibly one year, that's it.-
>
> He certainly was, not possibly certainly, in 1978. I talked to
> players, managers, scouts and even newspaper sportswriters that year
> and in the next few years and, even though the sample size was not
> overwhelming, the consensus that he was the best player in the game
> that year _was_ overwhelming.
Sorry, didn't know that you had actually talked to
sportswriters....WOW...
why didn't you say so.
Did you talk to the same types of managers who voted Jeter three
gold glove awards?
Scouts....wow.
Dave Parker had 37 win shares in 1978. Rice had 36 win shares in
1978.
It's debatable who was better. Parker's OPS+ was 163, Rice was 153.
So Parker was a better park adjusted hitter. Parker was certainly a
much
better fielder than Rice in 1978, and a better baserunner too,
stealing
20 out of 27 bases. The only reason that Rice is even in the
discussion
is because he played 15 more games than Parker that year (163 to
148).
If your definition of the "best player" is the player who plays at the
highest
level when he is there, Parker beats Rice easily (40.5 win shares per
162 for Parker,
and 35.8 win shares per 162 for Rice)
art...@yahoo.com
> Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame
> > today. Henderson received 95% of the vote while Rice received 76%.
> > Rice needed 405 votes to get in and received 412. Rice was only the
> > third player in history to be voted into the HOF on his final year of
> > eligibility.
>
> were the 28 nitwits who didn't vote for him.
There were a few nitwits who didn't vote for Mays. Maybe Aaron too?
Will in New Haven
When Torrie was leaving, I don't know why they didn't go out and find
someone who understands "win shares" to manage the Yankees. I know
damn well that the numbers you think are all-important are important
but, you know, I think the people involved in the game know more than
you do. Parker missed too much time to be the best player in the game.
People who think about having to put together a lineup day after day
take that sort of thing into account.
grossman
So you are saying that anybody who misses 14 games can't be the best
player in the game?
Bonds only played 143 games in 2002. I guess he wasn't the best player
in the game. Screw his .370/.582/.799 season.
If you think that the people involved in the game know more than I do
about evaluating which players
were the best players in a particular year, you're an idiot. They know
more about a lot of things, but not about that.
grossman
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> When Torrie was leaving, I don't know why they didn't go out and find
> someone who understands "win shares" to manage the Yankees.
Who's Torrie?
If you mean Torre, maybe the Yankees should be at least hiring
somebody in some capacity who understands win shares and other
SABRmetric things, like the Red Sox (Bill James) and many other teams
have. Maybe then they wouldn't be spending more than twice as much
money in salaries as most other teams are and failing to even make the
playoffs last year. They haven't even won a playoff series since they
choked away the 3-0 lead in the 2004 ALCS. If they had someone who
knew what they were doing with that
budget, they'd be much better than they have been in the past 5 years.
grossman
> On Jan 16, 10:09�am, "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ��
>
> > There were a few nitwits who didn't vote for Mays. Maybe Aaron too?
>
> Aaron. �Mays' result clued me in that the BBWAA is full of idiots who
> have no business voting for the HOF.
>
> An amusing statistic regarding "dogging it" is that Henderson, with a
> much longer career and most of that in the large parks in NY and
> Oakland, and some reputation of having power and speed, had fewer
> career triples than Santo, never known as a speedster and most of his
> career in Wrigley. �The difference was 67 to 66, but it says something
> about hustle.
No it doesn't. Yankee Stadium and Oakland are poor triples parks,
Henderson was a pull hitter who didn't hit the ball deep to RF much,
and besides, he knew that if he stopped at 2B that he was more in
control of stealing 3B than he was in trying to stretch a double into
a triple.
Will in New Haven
Deep to Left-Center in Yankee Stadium is good for Triples but he hit
down the line a lot. The LF would have to fall down for even Henderson
to get a Triple. I have to admit that I never saw him fail to get a
Triple when he should have, even when he mailed in the end of one
season.
Hank Gillette
Xavier Onnasis <xavier.onnasis@mule_brokers.com> wrote:
> > Thus, the opinion of him in his time was flawed. He was a top-tier
> > player for a few years in the late 70's, but only merely good after
> > that in spite of the 100+ RBI seasons. Such a player needs a longer
> > body of work to be in the Hall.
>
> ah, but such a player already IS in the hall, your arguments not
> withstanding ;^D
Are you arguing that every player better than the worst player in the
HOF should be inducted? The HOF would be awfully big if that were done.
grossman
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 9:37�pm, Hank Gillette <hankgille...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <c3924966-e8d7-47e8-a955-063d51cd5...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not really. We don't choose, for example, all-time all-star teams by
> > > batting-order position. And we don't do it for a good reason. Batting
> > > order is a minor factor. If you asked anyone who thinks about it a
> > > great deal to choose an all-time team chances are that there would be
> > > no leadoff hitter on it.
>
> > Another way to view it is that probably the second best leadoff hitter
> > of all time (Raines) is nowhere near getting into the Hall of Fame
> > (although he deserves to). And who can even name the fourth or fifth
> > all-time best leadoff hitter?
>
> Well, Raines ought to be in but I don't know if he's the second-best
> leadoff hitter of all time. I guess the question is does this mean
> "second-best player who generally batted leadoff" because Richie
> Ashburn is probably the answer to that question.
A - Raines is better than Ashburn, easily. Any metric you want to use
(TPR, win shares, WARP3, etc...) has Raines way ahead. Bill James
ranks Raines as the 8th best LFer, Ashburn as the 16th best CFer.
B - Neither was the second best player who batted leadoff. That would
be Billy Hamilton, who may have even been better than Rickey, although
in a much shorter career.
Xavier Onnasis
news:hankgillette-262E...@news.astraweb.com:
> In article <Xns9B93D59F1DAC6D...@69.16.185.250>,
> Xavier Onnasis <xavier.onnasis@mule_brokers.com> wrote:
>
>> > Thus, the opinion of him in his time was flawed. He was a
>> > top-tier player for a few years in the late 70's, but only merely
>> > good after that in spite of the 100+ RBI seasons. Such a player
>> > needs a longer body of work to be in the Hall.
>>
>> ah, but such a player already IS in the hall, your arguments not
>> withstanding ;^D
>
> Are you arguing that every player better than the worst player in
> the HOF should be inducted? The HOF would be awfully big if that
> were done.
>
nope...merely pointing out that, for better or worse,
Rice already *is* in the hall, and thus really does
not need "a longer body of work" to get elected
--
XO
Will in New Haven
> On Jan 15, 9:30 am, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 9:37 pm, Hank Gillette <hankgille...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <c3924966-e8d7-47e8-a955-063d51cd5...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Not really. We don't choose, for example, all-time all-star teams by
> > > > batting-order position. And we don't do it for a good reason. Batting
> > > > order is a minor factor. If you asked anyone who thinks about it a
> > > > great deal to choose an all-time team chances are that there would be
> > > > no leadoff hitter on it.
>
> > > Another way to view it is that probably the second best leadoff hitter
> > > of all time (Raines) is nowhere near getting into the Hall of Fame
> > > (although he deserves to). And who can even name the fourth or fifth
> > > all-time best leadoff hitter?
>
> > Well, Raines ought to be in but I don't know if he's the second-best
> > leadoff hitter of all time. I guess the question is does this mean
> > "second-best player who generally batted leadoff" because Richie
> > Ashburn is probably the answer to that question.
>
> A - Raines is better than Ashburn, easily. Any metric you want to use
> (TPR, win shares, WARP3, etc...) has Raines way ahead. Bill James
> ranks Raines as the 8th best LFer, Ashburn as the 16th best CFer.
It is on a statistical basis that some people rate Ashburn as the best
defensive Center Fielder of that era, even ahead of Mays. Maybe there
is a park effect or something about his pitching staff that caused
Ashburn to catch all those fly balls but he did catch a ton of them.
Defense is less important than offense but a great Center Fielder,
which Ashburn was, is more valuable than a very good Left Fielder.
>
> B - Neither was the second best player who batted leadoff. That would
> be Billy Hamilton, who may have even been better than Rickey, although
> in a much shorter career.
I've read about him. Comparing players from such widely disparate
times would seem to be difficult enough to make it moot that he is the
second-best player ever to bet leadoff.
Cameron Laird
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
.
.
.
>> A - Raines is better than Ashburn, easily. Any metric you want to use
>> (TPR, win shares, WARP3, etc...) has Raines way ahead. Bill James
>> ranks Raines as the 8th best LFer, Ashburn as the 16th best CFer.
>
>It is on a statistical basis that some people rate Ashburn as the best
>defensive Center Fielder of that era, even ahead of Mays. Maybe there
>is a park effect or something about his pitching staff that caused
>Ashburn to catch all those fly balls but he did catch a ton of them.
>Defense is less important than offense but a great Center Fielder,
>which Ashburn was, is more valuable than a very good Left Fielder.
.
.
Ashburn wasn't a great centerfielder (and Maz wasn't a great
second baseman); he was a very good centerfielder whose
absolute brilliance in the field compensated for his mediocre
hitting (although he was better at getting on base than many
seem to remember).
Will in New Haven
> In article <78d02c25-9c8b-4230-bf2e-b865d574b...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Obviously, I meant a great-fielding CF compared to a very good-
fielding LF.
Thomas R. Kettler
wrote:
Ashburn's stats BA/OBP/SLG=308/396/382 while Raines's stats are
294/385/425.
The National League did not keep CS stats from 1925-1950 so three years
of Ashburn we don't have CS stats available. Even so, the had 92 CS's
(minimum) versus 234 SB's so it is likely that, at best, his SB's are a
wash versus his CS's (remember you need to consider SB-2*CS for net
SB's).
Tim had 808 SB's versus only 146 CS's so he had a net SB value of over
500.
Baseball-reference.com has Ashburn at 18.2 batting wins and an OPS+ at
111 versus 33.1 and 123 for Raines.
<http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/ashburi01.shtml>
<http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/raineti01.shtml>
Raines was likely somewhat more valuable (Ashburn was somewhat better at
getting on base although Raines may have drawn walks somewhat better
since Ashburn's OBP-BA is 88 points versus Raines' 91 but that may just
be due to Raines' lower BA and Ashburn was a better defender while
Raines had more power and a better baserunner), but a team couldn't have
complained about having either one.
Arguing that Ashburn was only the 16th best CFer versus Raines the 8th
best LFer is not a valid comparison since CF has probably the best
accumlation of talent at any position on the diamond.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
Dale Hicks
@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, bill....@taylorandfrancis.com
says...
>
> I've read about him. Comparing players from such widely disparate
> times would seem to be difficult enough to make it moot that he is the
> second-best player ever to bet leadoff.
Is Pete Rose the best player to bet leadoff?
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Don McC
"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> Comparing players from such widely disparate times would seem
> to be difficult enough to make it moot that he is the second-best
> player ever to bet leadoff.
Pete Rose being the best leadoff better ever?
--
Don
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable.
~ Mark Twain
Will in New Haven
> In article <78d02c25-9c8b-4230-bf2e-b865d574b186
> says...
>
>
>
> > I've read about him. Comparing players from such widely disparate
> > times would seem to be difficult enough to make it moot that he is the
> > second-best player ever to bet leadoff.
>
> Is Pete Rose the best player to bet leadoff?
He was a pretty good player for a very long time. He belongs in the
Hall but not in this discussion. I hope he gets in after you and he
are dead. I hope he gets in very soon.
grossman
wrote:
> Raines was likely somewhat more valuable (Ashburn was somewhat better at
> getting on base although Raines may have drawn walks somewhat better
> since Ashburn's OBP-BA is 88 points versus Raines' 91 but that may just
> be due to Raines' lower BA and Ashburn was a better defender while
> Raines had more power and a better baserunner), but a team couldn't have
> complained about having either one.
>
> Arguing that Ashburn was only the 16th best CFer versus Raines the 8th
> best LFer is not a valid comparison since CF has probably the best
> accumlation of talent at any position on the diamond.
Only among the top 6 or 7 CFers. Once you get past that the LFers are
probably a bit better.
Here's # 8 through # 16 at each position, according to James in 2001:
CENTER FIELD / LEFT FIELD
8 - Puckett - Raines
9 - Hamilton - Stargell
10 - Wynn - Minoso
11 - Doby - B. Williams
12 - Murphy - Delahanty
13 - Berger - Medwick
14 - Averill - Burkett
15 - Roush - Brock
16 - Ashburn - Goslin
You're not suggesting that Ashburn is better than Stargell, Delahanty
and Medwick, are you? He may be better than Brock, possibly, but no
way he eas as good as Burkett.
Here's how Ashburn and Raines both stand with win shares:
CAREER WIN SHARES
Raines - 387
Ashburn - 329
BEST THREE SEASONS
Raines - 36-34-32
Ashburn - 29-28-28
BEST FIVE CONSECUTIVE SEASONS
Raines - 162
Ashburn - 137
WIN SHARES per 162
Raines - 26.62
Ashburn - 24.34
Ranies has a much better peak and a better career.
James has Raines as the # 81 best player of all time at any position
on a list that includes Negro Leaguers too. The last CFer who made the
top 100 is Puckett.
Thomas R. Kettler
<9298e92c-bc7a-407f...@q25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
grossman <Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 1:56?pm, "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkett...@blownfuse.net>
Delahanty and Medwick had the advantage of playing in two of the biggest
offensive eras.
I wouldn't classify Puckett as better than Jimmy Wynn or Larry Doby. I
don't get how James has Puckett rated #8 among CF's.
> Here's how Ashburn and Raines both stand with win shares:
>
> CAREER WIN SHARES
> Raines - 387
> Ashburn - 329
>
> BEST THREE SEASONS
> Raines - 36-34-32
> Ashburn - 29-28-28
>
> BEST FIVE CONSECUTIVE SEASONS
> Raines - 162
> Ashburn - 137
>
> WIN SHARES per 162
> Raines - 26.62
> Ashburn - 24.34
>
> Ranies has a much better peak and a better career.
>
> James has Raines as the # 81 best player of all time at any position
> on a list that includes Negro Leaguers too. The last CFer who made the
> top 100 is Puckett.
Actually, I'm a former Expos and present Nationals fan for roughly 30
years. I'm one of the biggest Tim Raines fans but I was trying to
objectively consider Raines versus Ashburn.
grossman
wrote:
>
> Delahanty and Medwick had the advantage of playing in two of the biggest
> offensive eras.
That so called "advantage" is neutrelized by win shares (as well as
most other modern metrics) If the team wins 100 games in 1908, or
1930, the members of the team still divide up 300 win shares for those
100 wins. Everything is adjusted for the league average levels of
offense, fielding, etc... of the time.
According to win shares the best ever season for a position player
came in one of the worst offensive seasons ever, Honus Wagner in 1908.
A OPS+ of 205 for perhaps the greatest overall fielder of the day made
his 1908 season more valuable than any other season ever. A-Rod has
never even approached an OPS+ of 200. His best year so far was 177 in
2007, as a 3Bman.
In 1908 Wagner hit .354 in a league that hit .239. His OBP was .415 in
a league at .299, and he slugged .542 in a league that slugged .306.
The league ERA that year was 2.35. There were only 6.65 runs scored
per game that year for both teams combined, and that's with a shitload
of unearned runs.
1908 Wagner was a more valuable season than any Ruth or Bonds year, as
Wagner had a ton more defensive value than either of those guys ever
did.
Will in New Haven
When I tried to evaluate individual years of the Twentieth Century, it
was Mantle (I don't remember whether whether it was '56 or '57) who
came in second to Wagner '08. One of Wagner's other years might have
fit between them but I tried to do one year for each player.
Thomas R. Kettler
<16b9dc85-b7d2-4b0d...@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
grossman <Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 12:28?am, "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkett...@blownfuse.net>
Wagner is also the only player I know to have started in the outfield
and finished in his career at SS. Did he start in one of the regular OF
positions or did his career start at SS when it was actually a position
to just take relays since baseballs then did not have the cork center so
it was practically impossible to throw the ball from the outfield into
the infield in just one throw?