TONY GWYNN'S HOF CHANCES
Paul Mussington
I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
nobody does. The benchmark that I use to judge if someone belongs in
the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
his peers over a extended time. Forget HR's, RBI, SLG %, Hits with
runners on third on the fourth of July..... See after a while it no
longer makes sence.
Simply stated Tony Gwynn is a hall of famer if I ever saw one... period
end of conversation.
-Paul
Tim Armitage
How does a player show that he is better than his peers if not by looking at his
career stats???? OK so it's possible to go overboard on the numbers but if you're
not even interested in the basic stats then on what do you base any objective
judgement?
--
*********************************************************
* Tim Armitage *
* Software developer - University of Cambridge (UK) *
* *
* Voice - +44 223 330595 *
* Fax - +44 223 330592 *
* Email - tim.ar...@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk *
*********************************************************
unknown
>
> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>nobody does. The benchmark that I use to judge if someone belongs in
>the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
>his peers over a extended time.
How do you judge 'better'?
Forget HR's, RBI, SLG %, Hits with
>runners on third on the fourth of July..... See after a while it no
>longer makes sence.
HR's and RBI's make perfect sense and are OK if used in proper context
(namely, in relation to how many opportunities one has), slg % is a very
good indicator of overall power (hits nad xtra base hits), HWROTO4July
doesn't tell you much because a) sample size is essentially nil and 2)
unless someone has some 'Patriotism Ability' there is no reason to expect
these to be different than any other AB's with runners on third.
See, these all make sense. They are not all particularly useful, but
they make sense.
>
>Simply stated Tony Gwynn is a hall of famer if I ever saw one... period
>end of conversation.
>
>-Paul
I don't argue with your conclusion, just your means of getting there.
paul
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
>his peers over a extended time.
Okay, has he shown this? Has he been the best right fielder in the
league five times? (The "rule of five" test...)
>Forget HR's, RBI, SLG %, Hits with runners on third on the fourth of July...
Sure. I'll forget these, you forget batting average and OBP. Now
tell me why you think Gwynn deserves the HOF.
>Simply stated Tony Gwynn is a hall of famer if I ever saw one... period
>end of conversation.
No... Rickey Henderson is a no-doubt HOFer. He is a very good player
with a long career and one *dominant* skill. Gwynn fits the "very
good player" part, needs to play for another 5-10 years to fit the
"long career" part, and has no dominant skills.
-Valentine
Doug Dolbear
Has anyone else noticed that if you replace Tony Gwynn's name in this post with
Luis Rivera, the argument is equally convincing ?
Doug Dolbear
RVES...@vma.cc.nd.edu
>
> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>nobody does.
to me, "if X doesn't belong in the hall of fame, then nobody does"
implies that X is the best player of all time. tony gwynn is nowhere
near the best of all time.
bob vesterman.
Roger Lustig
> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
Excuse me, but the point is *not* to twist them. The point is to show
what they have to do with winning.
>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>nobody does.
Babe Ruth? Mike Schmidt? Now who's twisted?
>The benchmark that I use to judge if someone belongs in
>the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
>his peers over a extended time.
All of them? Or some of them?
When was Gwynn better than all other players? MVP voters say:never.
He's only once made the top five. Outfielders who have done
better in the voting: quite a few. He's goodm but not clearly better
than his peers.
>Forget HR's, RBI, SLG %, Hits with
>runners on third on the fourth of July..... See after a while it no
>longer makes sence.
Indeed, if you substitute nonsense for sense, it doesn't make sense.
But SLG and OBP *do* relate to team runs, and to winning, so why are
you so desperate to ignore them?
>Simply stated Tony Gwynn is a hall of famer if I ever saw one... period
Good for you. Can you show *us*?
>end of conversation.
Guess not.
Roger
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA
Armitage) writes:
>In article <49.223.15...@cdreams.com>, paul.mu...@cdreams.com (Paul
Mussington) writes:
>>
>> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>>the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
>>runners on third on the fourth of July..... See after a while it no
>>longer makes sence.
>>
>>
>>-Paul
>
>
>How does a player show that he is better than his peers if not by looking at hi
s
>career stats????
Because there are so many goddamn stats that everyone on the net goes ape shit
with them. They find all these obscure stats exploiting a player's weaknesses
and what you end up with is a convincing argument that the player sucks.
"Well, Player A has a .332 SLG% with 2 outs and a man on third in the fourth
inning when the temperature is 74 degrees."
It is in this fairyland that home runs don't mean anything, averages are about
the equivalent of a pimple on an elephant's ass, and the more RBIs a player
has, the worse he is. Only 2 triples? Well then, the player has no speed.
These people could make an air tight argument that Barry Bonds stinks if they
wanted to. And after a while, it just gets so ridiculous that you can't even
read the stuff anymore, much less try to respond to it.
Russell Peltz
>In article <1993Nov8.1...@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, t...@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk (Tim
> Armitage) writes:
>>
>>How does a player show that he is better than his peers if not by looking at hi
>s
>>career stats????
>
>Because there are so many goddamn stats that everyone on the net goes ape shit
>with them. They find all these obscure stats exploiting a player's weaknesses
>and what you end up with is a convincing argument that the player sucks.
>
>"Well, Player A has a .332 SLG% with 2 outs and a man on third in the fourth
>inning when the temperature is 74 degrees."
>
If you think this is a convincing argument that the player sucks, or even a
legitimate argument, you gotta stop believing everything you read.
Oh, and by the way, the only people I see using temperature, humidity, full
moon, etc., as a condition in evaluating players are people trying to ridicule
statheads, and doing a pretty bad job of it too.
-Rusty
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Peltz peltz-...@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 3838 Y.S.
New Haven, CT 06520
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>with them. They find all these obscure stats exploiting a player's weaknesses
>and what you end up with is a convincing argument that the player sucks.
>
>"Well, Player A has a .332 SLG% with 2 outs and a man on third in the fourth
>inning when the temperature is 74 degrees."
Look, I realize that you lack the intelligence to understand any of
this stuff. Hell, you've proven that you can't even understand simple
English. But straw man arguments like this? Nobody on the net has
ever used the stat you quote.
>These people could make an air tight argument that Barry Bonds stinks if they
>wanted to.
Bullshit and double bullshit. You make it sound like the SDCNs have
grudges against certain players, and so *try* to make them look bad.
That's simply not true. We have a model of how the game works. You
have a model of how the game works (whether you know it or not). The
models disagree. Frankly, our model is much closer to reality.
I *have* heard arguments claiming that Barry Bonds stinks. But from
people like you who fart at OBP and SLG, not from the SDCNs you hate.
It is often said that statistics can be used to prove anything. I
suppose this is true. If you start from a premise and attempt to find
statistics to support that premise, you *can* prove anything. This is
*exactly* what you and your ilk do, Raymond. You like Joe Carter?
Emphasize his RBIs, while downplaying his other stats. You like
Harold Reynolds? Emphasize his SB, while ignoring his CS. You hate
Barry Bonds? Bring up "clutch" to show that he isn't any better than
Ron Gant.
Which is why you can't stand the SDCNs. We *don't* start from the
premise. We start from the statistics and our conclusions are based
almost entirely on them. Our methods are the same for all players,
whether we like them or not.
We may be guilty of oversimplifying the game. We may be guilty of
emphasizing offense to the exclusion of defense. But we are *not*
guilty of any of the things you mention. Want to find somebody guilty
of that? Look in a mirror.
-Valentine
Theodore J Kury
[ Discussion of Tony Gwynn turned into an idiotic attack deleted ]
>
>Because there are so many goddamn stats that everyone on the net goes ape shit
>with them. They find all these obscure stats exploiting a player's weaknesses
>and what you end up with is a convincing argument that the player sucks.
>
Most people on this net use OBA and SLG as a 'quick and dirty' assessment of
a player's offensive value. Neither is obscure.
>"Well, Player A has a .332 SLG% with 2 outs and a man on third in the fourth
>inning when the temperature is 74 degrees."
>
See above. This is the garbage you get from CBS, not here.
>It is in this fairyland that home runs don't mean anything,
Home runs advance all runners four bases. This is covered in SLG.
>averages are about the equivalent of a pimple on an elephant's ass,
Batting average is. The information is contained in OBA and SLG.
>and the more RBIs a player has, the worse he is.
Has anyone said this ? He simply may not be as good as you think he is.
>Only 2 triples? Well then, the player has no speed.
If he has 600 PA, plays first base, and doesn't steal that's exactly what
it says.
>These people could make an air tight argument that Barry Bonds stinks if they
>wanted to. And after a while, it just gets so ridiculous that you can't even
>read the stuff anymore, much less try to respond to it.
No kidding. If you spent less time talking and more time listening you
might actually learn a different way of looking at things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Kury | "I'm still growing up, my friends are
SUNY at Buffalo | growing old before my eyes."
Dept. of Economics | - Goo Goo Dolls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Davenport
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA <ra...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> wrote:
>>
>>How does a player show that he is better than his peers if not by looking at hi
>s
>>career stats????
>
>Because there are so many goddamn stats that everyone on the net goes ape shit
>with them. They find all these obscure stats exploiting a player's weaknesses
>and what you end up with is a convincing argument that the player sucks.
>
>"Well, Player A has a .332 SLG% with 2 outs and a man on third in the fourth
>inning when the temperature is 74 degrees."
>
>It is in this fairyland that home runs don't mean anything, averages are about
>the equivalent of a pimple on an elephant's ass, and the more RBIs a player
>has, the worse he is. Only 2 triples? Well then, the player has no speed.
>
>These people could make an air tight argument that Barry Bonds stinks if they
>wanted to. And after a while, it just gets so ridiculous that you can't even
>read the stuff anymore, much less try to respond to it.
>
Unfortunately, this proves that Ray, among others, still don't
understand stats. Virtually every stathead position can be explained
by looking at three simple rules:
Rule #1: The better a statistic matches up with runs scored, the
better it is.
Rule #2: Apportion credit and blame as well as possible; this means
not giving credit to one persoon for his teammate's effort, and not
counting the bad with the good.
Rule #3: Make sure your sample size is big enough to distinguish what
happenned from chance.
The arguments made by SDCNs match up with these 3 rules pretty well.
No one hates the extreme breakdowns("Well, Player A has a .332 SLG%
with 2 outs and a man on third in the fourth inning when the temperature
is 74 degrees.") worse than us; in one way or another it violates all
3 rules.
Home runs are ALWAYS the best possible outcome of an atbat (from the
hitter's POV). I think you're responding to the Joe Carter thread
here; people glorify his HR, justifiably, but ignore the outs, and
thats almost criminal. Rule 2 violation. No one ever said getting RBIs
was bad (anyone who did is a fool); its just that whoever got on base
to BE driven in deserves some (in many cases, most) of the credit.
Rule 2. Batting averages fall down on rule 1: other statistics match
up with runs much better.
So many straw men, so little time.
--
Clay D.
jc...@virginia.edu
A manager who'd bat Flynn and Blake ahead of Casey is an idiot.
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA
>>
>> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>>nobody does. The benchmark that I use to judge if someone belongs in
>>the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
>>his peers over a extended time. Forget HR's, RBI, SLG %, Hits with
>>runners on third on the fourth of July..... See after a while it no
>>longer makes sence.
>>
>>Simply stated Tony Gwynn is a hall of famer if I ever saw one... period
>>end of conversation.
>>
>
>Luis Rivera, the argument is equally convincing ?
>
>Doug Dolbear
>
interpreting the words literally. Then you MIGHT see what he means.
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA
d [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>In article <49.223.15...@cdreams.com> paul.mu...@cdreams.com (Paul
Mussington) writes:
>>
>>the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
>>his peers over a extended time.
>
>league five times? (The "rule of five" test...)
>
>>Forget HR's, RBI, SLG %, Hits with runners on third on the fourth of July...
>
>Sure. I'll forget these, you forget batting average and OBP. Now
>tell me why you think Gwynn deserves the HOF.
>
>>end of conversation.
>
>with a long career and one *dominant* skill. Gwynn fits the "very
>good player" part, needs to play for another 5-10 years to fit the
>"long career" part, and has no dominant skills.
>
>-Valentine
>
He has the second highest average of any active player, the highest in the
national league, 4 batting titles, 5 gold gloves.
Come on, Valentine! Saying he has no dominant skills is silly and shows the
lack of respect you refuse to give to players you don't like.
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>
>No dominant skills? Is batting average a dominant skill in your book?
Not by itself... Batting average is the skeleton of the performance,
but not the meat. Meares suffers from this. It is quite conceivable
that he will bat .270 next year and *still* manage to be the worst
starting shortstop in the majors. Now obviously Gwynn is no Meares,
but he has less "peripheral" production than even an *average* major
league player, let alone an average HOFer.
Consider the following...
Through 1992:
Boggs: 7323 PA, 422 2B, 47 3B, 85 HR, 1004 BB, .338/.428/.462
Murray: 10389 PA, 462 2B, 32 3B, 414 HR, 1147 BB, .290/.367/.484
Gwynn: 6294 PA, 275 2B, 75 3B, 59 HR, 506 BB, .327/.381/.433
Hm. If Gwynn walked, say, 50 more times per year, he would be Boggs
with a slightly lower BA and a little less power. (Call that park
effects.) Boggs is considered by many to be marginal for the HOF.
And if Boggs is marginal, Gwynn is even more so. His baserunning is
an advantage, and he strikes out less often, but then Boggs plays a
more demanding defensive position.
Consider also Eddie Murray... Gwynn might match those 2B/3B totals by
the time he finishes, but he isn't even going to be *close* to the HR
or BB totals. Will his BA still be above .320 or even .310 when he
retires? Probably not... And how much of an advantage in BA does
it take to make up for 300+ career HR?
>He has the second highest average of any active player, the highest in the
>national league, 4 batting titles, 5 gold gloves.
Sure. He is a very good player. Is this enough for the hall of fame?
He is better than Joe Carter, if that is the question. But I thought
you were applying higher standards here.
Gwynn has no MVP awards, and in fact never even dominated his
*position* in any given year. I assume that you are not claiming
that he deserves the HOF on peak value. Does he deserve the HOF
for *career* value? That's a harder question.
>Come on, Valentine! Saying he has no dominant skills is silly and shows the
>lack of respect you refuse to give to players you don't like.
No, it shows the lack of respect I refuse to give batting average. I
have nothing personal against Gwynn, it's just that you can't win
ballgames on singles alone. And the *rest* of Gwynn's offensive
game is below average.
-Valentine
RVES...@vma.cc.nd.edu
>
>Because there are so many goddamn stats that everyone on the net goes ape shit
>with them. They find all these obscure stats exploiting a player's weaknesses
>and what you end up with is a convincing argument that the player sucks.
>
>"Well, Player A has a .332 SLG% with 2 outs and a man on third in the fourth
>inning when the temperature is 74 degrees."
please point out the last time you saw a stathead post anything remotely
like this. i'll place 100 bucks that says you can't find a stathead who
posted something like that, and wasn't being sarcastic about it.
the people who say things like that are the idiots in the media, not
statheads.
bob vesterman.
Michael Wynblatt
>>Paul Mussington <paul.mu...@cdreams.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>>>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>>>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>>>nobody does. The benchmark that I use to judge if someone belongs in
>>>the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
>>>his peers over a extended time. Forget HR's, RBI, SLG %, Hits with
>>>runners on third on the fourth of July..... See after a while it no
>>>longer makes sence.
>>
>>with Luis Rivera, the argument is equally convincing ?
>>
>interpreting the words literally. Then you MIGHT see what he means.
OK, I'll give it a try. The first sentence is preface, (actually a
backhanded shot at the statheads). The second sentence is hype, which
is apparently to be supported by the next few. The third sentence is
preface, (we're getting to the point now).
The fourth sentence is the meat: I think everyone on this group agrees
that being "better than his peers over extended period of time"
is a resonable HOF criterion, though how much better and how extended
would probably be hotly debated.
The fifth sentence is the caveat: Don't look at stats to make this decision.
How can we possibly judge our criterion of "better then his peers" if we
don't look at statistics? To say the 4th and 5th together is tantamount
to saying we can never judge who should go into the HOF.
In which case, it makes just as much sense to substitute Luis Rivera's
name.
Michael
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA
>In article <49.223.15...@cdreams.com>, paul.mu...@cdreams.com (Paul
>Mussington) says:
>>
>> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>>nobody does.
>
>implies that X is the best player of all time. tony gwynn is nowhere
>near the best of all time.
>
>bob vesterman.
>
Bob - you're right. To you, that's what it means. To everyone else, who
can actually interpret statements in context instead of literally, it means
exactly what Mussington intended it to mean.
David DeMers
In article <1993Nov10.1...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, ra...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (RAYMOND A. DIPERNA) writes:
|> In article <1993Nov8.1...@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, t...@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk (Tim
|> Armitage) writes:
|> >How does a player show that he is better than his peers if not by looking at hi
|> s
|> >career stats????
|>
|> Because there are so many goddamn stats that everyone on the net goes ape shit
|> with them. They find all these obscure stats exploiting a player's weaknesses
|> and what you end up with is a convincing argument that the player sucks.
What obscure stats? A lot of us are interested in what makes a ballplayer
valuable. Triple crown stats aren't the most useful.
|> "Well, Player A has a .332 SLG% with 2 outs and a man on third in the fourth
|> inning when the temperature is 74 degrees."
Elias publishes trash like this and a lot of broadcasters spew it, but I
challenge you to find anything like this promoted by the stats-friendly crowd
on r.s.bb.
|> It is in this fairyland that home runs don't mean anything,
Did anyone say this?
averages are about
|> the equivalent of a pimple on an elephant's ass,
or this?
and the more RBIs a player
|> has, the worse he is.
or this?
Only 2 triples? Well then, the player has no speed.
or if he does, he doesn't use it...
|> These people could make an air tight argument that Barry Bonds stinks if they
|> wanted to.
I haven't smelled him, but nobody can make an air tight argument that
he's not the best ballplayer in the league right now...
And after a while, it just gets so ridiculous that you can't even
|> read the stuff anymore, much less try to respond to it.
I know exactly how you feel :-)
--
Dave DeMers dem...@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering 0114 demers%c...@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego ...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114 (619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Dale Stephenson
[...]
>Gwynn has no MVP awards, and in fact never even dominated his
>*position* in any given year. I assume that you are not claiming
>that he deserves the HOF on peak value. Does he deserve the HOF
>for *career* value? That's a harder question.
I've never claimed that Gwynn should make the hall on peak (which as
you know, I dearly love :->), but I think Gwynn was the best at his
position in 1987. I wouldn't say he dominated (Murphy and Strawberry
were both having *awesome* years, and Murphy has more BR before park
adjustment), but after considering stolen bases and park adjustment I
think Gwynn is clearly the best rightfielder, and best offensive
player. He could play some D, too.
I'm waiting for DA before pronouncing him the best [NL] right fielder this
year. But since Justice needs about a five run FR advantage to catch
Gwynn, I expect Tony was the best this year too. That will give Tony
four years (84, 86, 87, 93) as a [candidate for] best at position.
Still short of the "rule of five", though.
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (st...@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic
"Don't trust your eyes -- they can deceive you."
-- Obi-Wan Kenobi on fielding
Gary Huckabay
on November 11. A note about the ettiquette of posting email is
below. Again, I *will* post email sent to me if I feel it is
appropriate, and anyone I send email to may certainly do the same,
provided it contains no copyrighted material.]
[Unlike Mr. Diperna, I have chosen not to leave in 50-60 thrilling
lines of irrelevant text, but I have not edited the text in any way
with the purposes of distorting or misleading.]
[Mr. DiPerna's letter and my responses follow. My comments are
preceded by a 'GH:', his are identifiable by their poor syntax,
lack of clarity, and telltale Crayola marks on the vt100s in
the Freshman dorm computer lab.]
Huckabay -
I've decided to accept your 'challenge' after all and produce the evidence
you requested: the argument which says that Joe Carter's 32 HRs don't mean
much because the high this year was 46.
GH: I thought the Joe Carter challenge was something that involved
GH: deception by a Maitre' D and Folger's Crystals. "We've replaced
GH: the fine coffee normally served here with big hunks of Joe Carter's
GH: used chaw. Let's listen in to customer's comments!"
First, I would like to say that you have a big head, and someday you will be
asked to put your money where your mouth is, and you will lose. You had the
audacity to write on the net that not one single person had made the
aforementioned argument, that I was claiming falsehoods, and that I should go
back and take...what was it... Critical Thinking.
GH: There have been many times where I have put my money where my mouth
GH: was and lost. Does this matter?
GH: If you honestly think that the evidence you've sent me supports
GH: your argument, then you not only need help with your reading
GH: comprehension, but also your critical reasoning skills, so go
GH: ahead and check out that Critical Thinking class.
I expect in the future you will not blindly issue wise-cracks of this nature
when you stand such a big chance of losing, and subsequentially making a
complete ass out of yourself.
GH: Big chance of losing what? Are we in a contest of some sort?
GH: And I *never* blindly issue wisecracks. They're all fairly
GH: carefully thought out. As for making an ass out of myself,
GH: what say we take a vote in this forum and ask who perceives
GH: who as an ass? I have a feeling it's going to take longer
GH: for you to shave, and I'd contact the Democratic Party about
GH: that Untenured Icon position.
But I do understand that someone of your lesser intelligence may take a while
to learn his lesson. Who can blame you if you lack the aptitude that comes so
naturally to others?
GH: Your ad hominem has been noted. I'd like to say that expected more
GH: from you, but I'd be lying. Have you declared your major yet?
In the future, Huckabay, THINK BEFORE YOU ACT.
GH: In the future, Mr. DiPerna, please send me more email. You've
GH: caused no end of laughter with this particular note, and we all
GH: need more levity in our lives.
GH: I realize that some consider the posting of email to be a serious
GH: breach of ettiquette, but I have stated quite clearly on several
GH: occasions that I will post email if I feel it's appropriate, and
GH: that others may post my email without ruffling my feathers.
========================= Original Message =========================
[From M. Huntington. I have deleted the header. This is Mr. Diperna's
proof in 'The Joe Carter Challenge.']
> If you look at how many homers he gets, and how many hits, etc. they
> simply aren't impressive.
>
>> Let's see -- 33 HR last year, over 30 again -- you're right. Simply not
>> impressive.
> Nope. Let's see, what was the high this year? 46, wasn't it?
> Yeah, I'd say 2/3 of that ain't that impressive. Not bad, but not
> impressive. If that's the best thing he's got going for him, he's
> far from an impressive player.
>
> I don't make 33 HR sound like it leads the league.
>
> Mr. Huntington
--
* Gary Huckabay * THRU 31135 *
* "Enjoying the * /Rule Book Trivia/:j *
* benefits of * /From:.*jr...@wam.umd.edu/h:j *
* a KILL file." * /From:.*l...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com/h:j *
Alex Lopez-Ortiz
writes:
> [The following is email sent to me from Ray DiPerna that I received
> on November 11. A note about the ettiquette of posting email is
> below. Again, I *will* post email sent to me if I feel it is
> appropriate, and anyone I send email to may certainly do the same,
> provided it contains no copyrighted material.]
Private letter have been found by the courts to be copyrighted material
with the intelectual property being on the sender not on the recipient's
side.
So, you posting a private letter is not only rude, but illegal and you
could be taken to court by DiPerna (though I don't think he will).
Alex
--
Alex Lopez-Ortiz alop...@neumann.UWaterloo.ca
Department of Computer Science University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario Canada
bonv...@vxcrna.cern.ch
What's the fuss, Gary? Just put him into your killfile below.
He has nothing to say or contribute, like Lor or others.
Jerilyn Marshall
>From: alop...@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
>Subject: Re: THE JOE CARTER CHALLENGE!! (Viva RBI!)
>Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 01:11:27 GMT
>In article <CGCJy...@ucdavis.edu>, ez02...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Huckabay)
>writes:
>> [The following is email sent to me from Ray DiPerna that I received
>> on November 11. A note about the ettiquette of posting email is
>> below. Again, I *will* post email sent to me if I feel it is
>> appropriate, and anyone I send email to may certainly do the same,
>> provided it contains no copyrighted material.]
>Private letter have been found by the courts to be copyrighted material
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>with the intelectual property being on the sender not on the recipient's
>side.
Are e-mail messages legally considered private letters? If there are any
attorneys or law students in this group who know, please send me a message
or post the response to this group.
Jerilyn Marshall
j-mar...@nwu.edu
[veiled threat to Gary Huckabay deleted]
Jerilyn Marshall
>From: bonv...@vxcrna.cern.ch
>Subject: Re: THE JOE CARTER CHALLENGE!! (Viva RBI!)
>In article <CGCJy...@ucdavis.edu>, ez02...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Huckabay) writes:
>> [The following is email sent to me from Ray DiPerna that I received
>[90 lines deleted]
>What's the fuss, Gary? Just put him into your killfile below.
>He has nothing to say or contribute, like Lor or others.
Good advice, I think.
Jerilyn
Sherri Nichols
>Bob - you're right. To you, that's what it means. To everyone else, who
>can actually interpret statements in context instead of literally, it means
>exactly what Mussington intended it to mean.
Which is?
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Michael David Jones
>>In article <49.223.15...@cdreams.com>, paul.mu...@cdreams.com (Paul
>>Mussington) says:
>>> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>>>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>>>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>>>nobody does.
>>to me, "if X doesn't belong in the hall of fame, then nobody does"
>>implies that X is the best player of all time. tony gwynn is nowhere
>>near the best of all time.
>can actually interpret statements in context instead of literally, it means
>exactly what Mussington intended it to mean.
I don't know; in context or not, I'd have to agree with bob about the
meaning of that statement. It's pretty plain English. If you want to
be understood, you should either say what you mean or issue an RFD for
rec.sport.baseball.psychic.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
The tools we use have a profound (and devious!) influence on our thinking
habits, and, therefore, on our thinking abilities.
- Edsger Dijkstra, "Selected Writings on Computing"
David M. Tate
>No dominant skills? Is batting average a dominant skill in your book?
No.
Let me repeat that: no.
The only skills that really matter for a hitter are getting on base and
advancing baserunners. Batting average is interesting ONLY to the extent
that it reflects these things, which it does in a partial, incomplete
manner. On the other hand, these things are measured quite well by OBP
and SLG.
In other words, BA is only important to the extent that it increases your
OBP and SLG. Those two measures are the "so many goddamn stats" that you
claim you are getting barraged with. You have an odd definition of "many".
Once more, in simple words: a hit is better than a walk because it advances
runners better than a walk. This shows up in SLG. A walk is better than an
out because it provides a baserunner and leaves more outs left to spend in
the inning. This shows up in OBP. Having a batting average of .330 would
not be particularly valuable if it went with an OBP of .350 and an SLG of
.400. There are players like this: Willie McGee some years; Ralph Garr;
Harvey Kuenn; Lloyd Waner. Tony Gwynn isn't quite that bad, but he still
has far lower OBP and SLG than you would expect from a player with his
batting average.
So why do people use batting averages so much? Historical reasons. BA was
invented in the 1870's, in a time when walks were not a significant part of
offense, and extra-base hits were relatively rare. Back then, BA *was* a
good quick-and-dirty indicator of offensive value. That stopped being true
by the turn of the century, though.
--
David M. Tate (dta...@pitt.edu)| It was evening all afternoon.
Member ORSA, IIE, TIMS, SABR | They were winning,
From "Thirteen Ways of | And they were going to win.
Looking at a Fastball" | The fastball sighed in the catcher's mitt.
Donald Pajerek
>In article <1993Nov10.1...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> ra...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (RAYMOND A. DIPERNA) writes:
>>
>>Because there are so many goddamn stats that everyone on the net goes ape shit
>>with them. They find all these obscure stats exploiting a player's weaknesses
>>and what you end up with is a convincing argument that the player sucks.
>>
>That's simply not true.
My observation is that SDCN's are biased against the players favored
by the media, mainly due to the SDCN contempt for 'mediots'. If the
media is hyping a player, SDCN's love nothing better than to demonstrate
why the hype is undeserved. This often accompanied by the promotion
of another, unrecognized player as *really* deserving of the media
glory that is lavished on a 'stiff'.
[Count the number of times you see the phrase: "Hell, <hyped player>
isn't even the best outfielder on his own team!".]
In this context, awards like those to Bonds and Maddux create problems
(and boredom) for SDCN's. MVP winner Bonds not only had high
BA, RBI, and HR numbers (which SDCNs despise), but he was also
the OBP and SLG leader in the NL. The award to Maddux is also difficult
to criticize (though the case for Maddux is less airtight).
I wonder what the SDCN community thinks of Frank Thomas' comments
to the effect that he felt that he took too many walks in 93, and
that next year he plans to swing at more pitches out of the strike zone...
>-Valentine
Don Pajerek
Standard disclaimers apply.
Roger Lustig
> Armitage) writes:
>>In article <49.223.15...@cdreams.com>, paul.mu...@cdreams.com (Paul
> Mussington) writes:
>>> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>>>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>>>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>>>nobody does. The benchmark that I use to judge if someone belongs in
>>>the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
>>>his peers over a extended time. Forget HR's, RBI, SLG %, Hits with
>>>runners on third on the fourth of July..... See after a while it no
>>>longer makes sence.
>>>Simply stated Tony Gwynn is a hall of famer if I ever saw one... period
>>>end of conversation.
>>How does a player show that he is better than his peers if not by
>>looking at his career stats????
>Because there are so many goddamn stats that everyone on the net goes ape shit
>with them. They find all these obscure stats exploiting a player's weaknesses
>and what you end up with is a convincing argument that the player sucks.
Ray, have you *read* any of the discussions you're criticizing?
>"Well, Player A has a .332 SLG% with 2 outs and a man on third in the fourth
>inning when the temperature is 74 degrees."
Evidently you haven't. The people who cite stats specifically *reject* that
kind of stuff. You're arguing against the facts.
The point is that there are a very few stats that do better than all
the others in correlating with offensive performance. These are the
ones we use. We *reject* most of the split stats because they are
generally the result of random deviation.
>It is in this fairyland that home runs don't mean anything,
You might do well to name a name or two before posting drivel like this.
>averages are about
>the equivalent of a pimple on an elephant's ass,
On the contrary: the two stats most often cited *are* averages. Just
not batting average, because it ignores both walks and power.
Really, Ray, do you believe anyone's said this?
>and the more RBIs a player
>has, the worse he is. Only 2 triples? Well then, the player has no speed.
Again, Ray, you're the only one saying this stuff. And talking nonsense
and inventing silly strawmen isn't going to impress anyone.
>These people could make an air tight argument that Barry Bonds stinks if they
>wanted to. And after a while, it just gets so ridiculous that you can't even
>read the stuff anymore, much less try to respond to it.
Are you accusing people of inconsistency? The point is that you *can't*
accuse Bonds of being a bad player (not that you didn't do just that the
other day with regard to "pressure"), not if you look at the stuff he does
that makes teams win. He does more of it than everyone else.
What gets ridiculous is *you*, not even getting the arguments straight
before complaining and lashing out with this nonsense.
Roger
Sherri Nichols
>My observation is that SDCN's are biased against the players favored
>by the media, mainly due to the SDCN contempt for 'mediots'.
No, I don't think so. You won't find a SDCN on this net who doesn't like
Ken Griffey, Jr, and doesn't think he's on a HOF track.
What we do is look at what the player has done, and judge him accordingly.
I don't care what the media thinks of a player; I've read and studied
enough to know that they aren't a reliable source of information for
evaluating players.
Don, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't like SDCN's. That's
fine; nobody has to like SDCN's, or agree with them. But I really wish
you'd spare us all this silly "analysis" of SDCN's.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
bres...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
> The only skills that really matter for a hitter are getting on base and
> advancing baserunners. Batting average is interesting ONLY to the extent
> that it reflects these things, which it does in a partial, incomplete
> manner. On the other hand, these things are measured quite well by OBP
> and SLG.
>
> In other words, BA is only important to the extent that it increases your
> OBP and SLG. Those two measures are the "so many goddamn stats" that you
> claim you are getting barraged with. You have an odd definition of "many".
>
> [ examples deleted ]
>
> So why do people use batting averages so much? Historical reasons. BA was
> invented in the 1870's, in a time when walks were not a significant part of
> offense, and extra-base hits were relatively rare. Back then, BA *was* a
> good quick-and-dirty indicator of offensive value. That stopped being true
> by the turn of the century, though.
Two observations:
1. In the early days of the National League, it took as many as
nine balls to get a walk. Pitching distances, restrictions, counts,
and strike zones changed on an almost yearly basis. For a while, the
batter had his choice of two strike zones: top-of-shoulder to waist,
or waist to bottom-of-knee.
2. In 1894, walks were counted as hits in computing batting average.
Evidently, the hit-and-run and other newly-developed strategies
made clear the value of reaching base. This was dropped after one
year (in which eleven batted .400!); it would be interesting to scan
old papers for possible complaints by "traditionalists" or "purists".
--- Michael Patrick Bresina
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>
>Valentine threw this "dominant skill" phrase out, and I have no idea what
>it means, and I suspect most others don't either. So how about we get
>off this "dominant" kick?
Sorry, perhaps I should clarify. Raymond seems to think that his BA
qualifies. Roger seems to think that it isn't even a skill. I
disagree with both. My fault for not clearly defining my terms.
There are various different ways to make the HOF, IMHO.
1) Dominate your position over a 5-10 year period. "Dominate" implies
being the best, but it is even more than that. It means being
*unquestionably* the best, by a very wide margin over mere mortals.
2) Put up 10-15 near-All-Star years.
3) Be very, very good at something. This is where the "dominant
skill" phrase came from. Nolan Ryan would make the HOF on his
strikeouts alone. Rickey Henderson would make the HOF on his
basestealing. Wade Boggs, IMHO, should make the HOF for his
incredible OBPs at his peak. (Of course these three also have other
skills supporting their candidacy... Kingman is stretching this
"dominant skill" think a bit too far.)
The closest thing Gwynn comes to a "dominant skill" is his batting
average. Which *is* quite good, second best among active players.
But "second best" is, IMHO, not enough to qualify this way... While
"second best BA of his time" is a strong recommendation, I think Gwynn
also needs to do a little more.
If Gwynn were to retire tomorrow, I don't think he would deserve the
HOF. But I believe that by the end of his career, there is a strong
chance that he will.
All IMHO, based on my opinions of what the standards for the HOF should
be...
Cheers,
-Valentine
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>>
>>You make it sound like the SDCNs have
>>grudges against certain players, and so *try* to make them look bad.
>>That's simply not true.
>
>My observation is that SDCN's are biased against the players favored
>by the media, mainly due to the SDCN contempt for 'mediots'.
I admit there is some of this. However I *do* try my best to be fair.
I will post on the "Joe Carter is overrated" thread because in my
opinion he *is*. (Evidence the All-Star voting, and frequent mediot
comments.) However you won't see me twisting stats to try to prove
that he is the worst player in the league. I have repeatedly stated
that he is an above-average player that any major league team would be
happy to have (if they didn't have to pay his enormous salary).
>[Count the number of times you see the phrase: "Hell, <hyped player>
>isn't even the best outfielder on his own team!".]
Actually, he isn't. I personally think Devon White was more valuable
than Carter last year. (Depends on how much importance you place on
outstanding defense and baserunning.)
>In this context, awards like those to Bonds and Maddux create problems
>(and boredom) for SDCN's.
If only we could have more such boredom! Personally, I have better
things to do in life than argue whether Olerud or Molitor was better
last year. The answer is obvious to anybody with half a brain...
>I wonder what the SDCN community thinks of Frank Thomas' comments
>to the effect that he felt that he took too many walks in 93, and
>that next year he plans to swing at more pitches out of the strike zone...
As usual, I can only speak for myself. But I don't think Thomas is
helping himself or his team by swinging away. He put up superlative
numbers in 1991 at the age of 23, hitting .318/.453/.553. Now two
years closer to his prime, in an expansion year, he hit
.317/.426/.607.
Obviously this is all a big "what if?". I can't know whether 1991 was
simply a fluke, or whether Thomas peaked early, or what. But so far
Thomas has not shown as much improvement I had hoped for. If Thomas
can improve his production by swinging more often, then great! But I
suspect that he will hurt himself, costing a large number of walks for
only an occasional extra hit.
Cheers,
-Valentine
Roger Lustig
>In article <1993Nov8.1...@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, do...@innovus.com (Do
>ug Dolbear) writes:
>>In article <49.223.15...@cdreams.com>,
>>Paul Mussington <paul.mu...@cdreams.com> wrote:
>>> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>>>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>>>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>>>nobody does. The benchmark that I use to judge if someone belongs in
>>>the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
>>>his peers over a extended time. Forget HR's, RBI, SLG %, Hits with
>>>runners on third on the fourth of July..... See after a while it no
>>>longer makes sence.
>>>Simply stated Tony Gwynn is a hall of famer if I ever saw one... period
>>>end of conversation.
>>Has anyone else noticed that if you replace Tony Gwynn's name in this post with
>>Luis Rivera, the argument is equally convincing ?
>Doug - Why don't you pay attention to the meaning of the post instead of
>interpreting the words literally. Then you MIGHT see what he means.
Sure-- he means that he wants his word to be law.
The trouble is: what does "better than his peers over an extended time"
mean? Better than all of them? Than most of them? Does this only mean
players at the same position? Or all positions?
How long is "an extended time"? Four years? ten? fifteen?
And how do we determine who's better, if we're not allowed to use any
stats?
In short, "the meaning of the post" is damn near zero, especially when
you include the usual twaddle about how statistics can be used to show
this or that. And, yes, it doesn't change much if you substitute in
the name of some other player.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <1993Nov8.1...@cs.cornell.edu>, ted...@cs.cornell.edu (Edwar
>d [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>>In article <49.223.15...@cdreams.com> paul.mu...@cdreams.com (Paul
>Mussington) writes:
>>>The benchmark that I use to judge if someone belongs in
>>>the hall of fame is simple. Has the palyer shown that he is better than
>>>his peers over a extended time.
>>Okay, has he shown this? Has he been the best right fielder in the
>>league five times? (The "rule of five" test...)
>>>Forget HR's, RBI, SLG %, Hits with runners on third on the fourth of July...
>>Sure. I'll forget these, you forget batting average and OBP. Now
>>tell me why you think Gwynn deserves the HOF.
>>>Simply stated Tony Gwynn is a hall of famer if I ever saw one... period
>>>end of conversation.
>>No... Rickey Henderson is a no-doubt HOFer. He is a very good player
>>with a long career and one *dominant* skill. Gwynn fits the "very
>>good player" part, needs to play for another 5-10 years to fit the
>>"long career" part, and has no dominant skills.
>No dominant skills? Is batting average a dominant skill in your book?
No. Batting average is not a skill. It's a number.
It's a number of questionable value in evaluating offensive production.
And hitting *is* a skill, the one that some people say Gwynn is so good
at.
BA leaves out power *and* walks, and doesn't even consider all
plate appearances. It's a good measure for pinch-hitters, but
otherwise doesn't really describe offensive skills very well.
>He has the second highest average of any active player, the highest in the
>national league, 4 batting titles, 5 gold gloves.
So, does that make him a terrific hitter? For that matter, are he and
Boggs (number one) your top picks for the last ten years? I doubt
that very much.
As for the gold gloves, even the players don't believe in them.
Gwynn's a good fielder, but the gold glove voters rarely even get
enough of a look at all the candidates to make informed choices.
>Come on, Valentine! Saying he has no dominant skills is silly and shows the
Not until you name them. BA isn't a skill. Hitting is a skill, and
Gwynn isn't a dominant hitter. Good, yes. Dominant, no.
>lack of respect you refuse to give to players you don't like.
Oh, cut the crap, Ray. Ted made his criterion quite clear up above:
all you have to do is read it. Liking Gwynn (which we all do) has
nothing to do with the case.
Now, is Gwynn your top RF for five years? Or anything like that?
Roger
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>In article <1993Nov11.0...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> ra...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (RAYMOND A. DIPERNA) writes:
>>No dominant skills? Is batting average a dominant skill in your book?
>No.
>Let me repeat that: no.
Valentine threw this "dominant skill" phrase out, and I have no idea what
it means, and I suspect most others don't either. So how about we get
off this "dominant" kick?
How about "important" skill?
>The only skills that really matter for a hitter are getting on base and
>advancing baserunners.
You can say this another way: The three skills that matter are the
ability to get hits, the ability to get walks, and the ability to
hit for power.
I think it's wrong to say hitting for average isn't an important
skill. After all, how many under .200 hitters are good at either
getting on base or advancing baserunners?
Batting average isn't an important stat because we have stats that
better represent the results that lead to runs. But that doesn't
mean that hitting for average isn't an important skill.
>So why do people use batting averages so much? Historical reasons. BA was
>invented in the 1870's, in a time when walks were not a significant part of
>offense, and extra-base hits were relatively rare. Back then, BA *was* a
>good quick-and-dirty indicator of offensive value. That stopped being true
>by the turn of the century, though.
My recollection is that, before the dead ball era, there was a period
where power was important. Not as important as it was after 1920, of
course, but certainly more important than it was right after the turn
of the century.
I bet, for example, that league isolated power was a lot higher in 1887 and
1897 than it was in 1907.
Greg
David Grabiner
> Unfortunately, this proves that Ray, among others, still don't
> understand stats. Virtually every stathead position can be explained
> by looking at three simple rules:
> Rule #1: The better a statistic matches up with runs scored, the
> better it is.
> Rule #2: Apportion credit and blame as well as possible; this means
> not giving credit to one persoon for his teammate's effort, and not
> counting the bad with the good.
> Rule #3: Make sure your sample size is big enough to distinguish what
> happenned from chance.
The three tests in the Sabermetric Manifesto match up very well with
these criteria. Quotes follow
The first natural question to ask about a statistic is, "Does the
statistic measure an important contribution to that goal?" [The goal is
usually scoring runs or winning games; this covers #1.]
The second, and usually most important, question to ask is, "How well
does the statistic measure the player's own contribution?" [This covers
#2 and #3]
Now, once you have some idea of how well the statistic measures the
player's own contribution to the goal, the final question to ask is, "Is
there a better way to measure the same thing?" [This is also related to
#1; the problem with batting average is that there are better measures.]
--
David Grabiner, grab...@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
RVES...@vma.cc.nd.edu
>(Pau
>>Mussington) says:
>>>
>>> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>>>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>>>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>>>nobody does.
>>
>>to me, "if X doesn't belong in the hall of fame, then nobody does"
>>implies that X is the best player of all time. tony gwynn is nowhere
>>near the best of all time.
>>
>>bob vesterman.
>>
>
>Bob - you're right. To you, that's what it means. To everyone else, who
>can actually interpret statements in context instead of literally, it means
>exactly what Mussington intended it to mean.
so, you think that babe ruth belongs in the hall only if tony gwynn does?
babe has no more qualifications, and maybe less, than gwynn? how about
ted williams, or lou gehrig, or walter johnson, or mike schmidt? none of
them are more worthy of the hall than gwynn?
oh, and as for people "who can actually interpret statements in context
instead of literally", aren't you the guy who interpreted a statement
which was LABELLED as sarcasm to be literal?
bob vesterman.
John C. Davenport
<bres...@cnsvax.uwec.edu> wrote:
>
> 1. In the early days of the National League, it took as many as
> nine balls to get a walk. Pitching distances, restrictions, counts,
> and strike zones changed on an almost yearly basis. For a while, the
> batter had his choice of two strike zones: top-of-shoulder to waist,
> or waist to bottom-of-knee.
And has anybody noticed that we're back to this original definition,
except the batter no longer has a choice and its always the lower one.
>
> 2. In 1894, walks were counted as hits in computing batting average.
> Evidently, the hit-and-run and other newly-developed strategies
> made clear the value of reaching base. This was dropped after one
> year (in which eleven batted .400!); it would be interesting to scan
> old papers for possible complaints by "traditionalists" or "purists".
>
Actually it was 1887 that counted walks as hits, which meant they were
recording on base average. If they'd have stayed with it a lot of
bandwidth would have been saved.
The high averages of 1894 had to do with moving the pitching distance
back to 60'6" at the pitcher's back foot, plus owners trying to get a
more exciting game. These averages stayed high for the rest of the
1890s, although not quite so much as in '94.
--
Clay D.
jc...@virginia.edu
A manager who'd bat Flynn and Blake ahead of Casey is an idiot.
Jeff BH
watched him for years in San Diego, Ican say this: the guy is the best in the
game (along with Boggs, 'til recently) at taking a pitch, going
with it, and turning it into a hit. That IS a huge skill in baseball, it's
tremendously useful both to the Padres and scoring runs, and if he maintains
his level of performance, puts him in the Hall of Fame in
my book.
He belongs in the Hall of Fame just like Rod Carew does.
Or he will, anyway, if he keeps itup.
unknown
>by the media, mainly due to the SDCN contempt for 'mediots'.
Partly true. SDCN's are biased against the media, who, for the
most part, haven't got a clue about life. Media that makes statements
like "Other pitchers have been more effective, but Jack McDowell still
deserves the Cy Young because of his wins and innings pitched.", neglecting
the fact that just the year before, they gave the Cy YOung award to a pitcher
who only had 88 innings pitched and a couple wins. Because he was the
most effective pitcher.
If the
>media is hyping a player, SDCN's love nothing better than to demonstrate
>why the hype is undeserved.
If the media hypes Barry Bonds, no one argues. When the media trashes
Barry bonds, SDCN's come to his defense in a very strong manner.
If the media claims Joe Carter is the best run producer in baseball, SDCN's
scoff. If the media were to claim that Joe Carter is an above average
slugger who has a hideous obp for a cleanup hitter, I wouldn't complain.
However, the media are unwilling to make such an unbiased statement.
This often accompanied by the promotion
>of another, unrecognized player as *really* deserving of the media
>glory that is lavished on a 'stiff'.
Unrecognized by whom? The media? You? You don't think that Baltimore
knows how good Chris Hoiles actually is? Just because you've never heard
of the guy doesn't mean he isn't good (or even unrecognized).
>
>[Count the number of times you see the phrase: "Hell, <hyped player>
>isn't even the best outfielder on his own team!".]
Maybe if the media would hype the best player instead of joe Carter,
we wouldn't have to.
>
>In this context, awards like those to Bonds and Maddux create problems
>(and boredom) for SDCN's. MVP winner Bonds not only had high
>BA, RBI, and HR numbers (which SDCNs despise), but he was also
>the OBP and SLG leader in the NL. The award to Maddux is also difficult
>to criticize (though the case for Maddux is less airtight).
Chosing the proper award winners does not give me any problems. I
feel that Bonds and Maddux were totally deserving. Why should I
complain.
>
>I wonder what the SDCN community thinks of Frank Thomas' comments
>to the effect that he felt that he took too many walks in 93, and
>that next year he plans to swing at more pitches out of the strike zone...
>
I, for one, feel that Frank Thomas is going to cost his team runs
using this approach.
paul
Roger Lustig
>In article <93312.1734...@vma.cc.nd.edu>, RVES...@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
>>In article <49.223.15...@cdreams.com>, paul.mu...@cdreams.com (Paul
>>Mussington) says:
>>> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>>>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>>>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>>>nobody does.
>>to me, "if X doesn't belong in the hall of fame, then nobody does"
>>implies that X is the best player of all time. tony gwynn is nowhere
>>near the best of all time.
>Bob - you're right. To you, that's what it means. To everyone else, who
>can actually interpret statements in context instead of literally, it means
>exactly what Mussington intended it to mean.
Speak for yourself. I can interpret it just fine, and no, that's not
what it means to me.
To me, it means: "I'm right and don't argue with me."
Which is a mighty odd thing to say in a discussion group.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>>In article <1993Nov10.1...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> ra...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (RAYMOND A. DIPERNA) writes:
>>>Because there are so many goddamn stats that everyone on the net goes ape shit
>>>with them. They find all these obscure stats exploiting a player's weaknesses
>>>and what you end up with is a convincing argument that the player sucks.
>>You make it sound like the SDCNs have
>>grudges against certain players, and so *try* to make them look bad.
>>That's simply not true.
>My observation is that SDCN's are biased against the players favored
>by the media, mainly due to the SDCN contempt for 'mediots'. If the
>media is hyping a player, SDCN's love nothing better than to demonstrate
>why the hype is undeserved. This often accompanied by the promotion
>of another, unrecognized player as *really* deserving of the media
>glory that is lavished on a 'stiff'.
Don, I said it to Ray and I'll say it to you: speak for yourself.
Don't put words in the mouths of others, or thoughts in their heads.
Argue from what you know, not from what you think other people feel.
>[Count the number of times you see the phrase: "Hell, <hyped player>
>isn't even the best outfielder on his own team!".]
After you. *You* count.
>In this context, awards like those to Bonds and Maddux create problems
>(and boredom) for SDCN's.
Care to name some names, Don? WHo's troubled by this?
>MVP winner Bonds not only had high
>BA, RBI, and HR numbers (which SDCNs despise), but he was also
>the OBP and SLG leader in the NL. The award to Maddux is also difficult
>to criticize (though the case for Maddux is less airtight).
So? Who has the problem?
>I wonder what the SDCN community thinks of Frank Thomas' comments
>to the effect that he felt that he took too many walks in 93, and
>that next year he plans to swing at more pitches out of the strike zone...
No, you don't.
Roger
(How do you like *them* apples?)
unknown
>It's too soon to tell whether Gwynn belongs in the Hall of Fame, buthaving
>watched him for years in San Diego, Ican say this: the guy is the best in the
>game (along with Boggs, 'til recently) at taking a pitch, going
>with it, and turning it into a hit.
And you've seen everyone else in the game enough to know that this is so.
You must watch a lot of baseball (12-14 games a day, I think).
That IS a huge skill in baseball, it's
>tremendously useful both to the Padres and scoring runs,
And it is a skill that is reflected in his obp and slg. Imagine, if
he weren't able to do that, his obp and slg averages would likely be
much lower.
And tell me, is there a skill that is useful for scoring runs that is
not useful to the Padres? (Well, he helps us score runs, but we don't
need that...)
and if he maintains
>his level of performance, puts him in the Hall of Fame in
>my book.
I can't argue with your book (since it's your opinion).
>He belongs in the Hall of Fame just like Rod Carew does.
>Or he will, anyway, if he keeps itup.
I always liked to watch Carew play. I saw him try to steal home once.
He didn't make it.
paul
David Wren-Hardin
>In article <CGEB2...@newsserver.pixel.kodak.com> paj...@telstar.kodak.com (Donald Pajerek) writes:
>>My observation is that SDCN's are biased against the players favored
>>by the media, mainly due to the SDCN contempt for 'mediots'.
>
>No, I don't think so. You won't find a SDCN on this net who doesn't like
>Ken Griffey, Jr, and doesn't think he's on a HOF track.
I don't know, I've noticed this too. It seems that players popular with
the media do get subjected to a lot of attention by the SDCN's. Bias might
be too strong a word though. I think Maddux is a good case of this. Most
seem to agree that he is deserving of the award, but his stats are stil
getting alot of scrutiny.
I don't necessarily think it's bad. What I think is happening is that even
when the media gets it right, they get it right for the wrong reasons, and
so a popular player -- even if his stats are good -- will get a lot of
scrutiny because the media is pumping him for the wrong or for unsubstantiated
reasons.
>
>What we do is look at what the player has done, and judge him accordingly.
>I don't care what the media thinks of a player; I've read and studied
>enough to know that they aren't a reliable source of information for
>evaluating players.
>
Do you think you might subconsciouly let a the media influence you ? I don't
know if you do or not, but I know I sometimes find myself reaching for
the baseball encyclopedia when some media.weasel makes a blatenly unsubstantied
comment even when I might agree that he could have a point.
[munch]
>
>Sherri Nichols
>snic...@adobe.com
>
>
--
*****************************************************************************
David Wren-Hardin bd...@quads.uchicago.edu University of Chicago
Thousands of years ago the Egyptians worshipped cats as gods.
Cats have never forgotten this.
Sherri Nichols
>be too strong a word though. I think Maddux is a good case of this. Most
>seem to agree that he is deserving of the award, but his stats are stil
>getting alot of scrutiny.
Any Cy Young contender's stats are going to get a lot of scrutiny, whether
he's popular with the media or not. Some contenders' stats may get more
scrutiny than others, I'll agree, but that's often in response to a
particular claim made about that pitcher. Appier's starts weren't broken
down in as much detail as McDowell's, but nobody made the claim that Appier
had pitched better than his ERA indicated, while people both here and in
the media were making such a claim about McDowell.
If somebody, whether in the media or elsewhere, makes a claim that I can
check, I usually try to check it.
>Do you think you might subconsciouly let a the media influence you ? I don't
>know if you do or not, but I know I sometimes find myself reaching for
>the baseball encyclopedia when some media.weasel makes a blatenly
>unsubstantied comment even when I might agree that he could have a point.
Sure, if I hear a blatently unsubstantiated comment, I'll look it up to see
if it's real. But I do that if it comes from anybody, not just the media,
and I don't just do it with regards to baseball. I certainly don't think
that checking facts makes me biased against media favorites; it makes me a
careful reader.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Warren Usui
>to the effect that he felt that he took too many walks in 93, and
>that next year he plans to swing at more pitches out of the strike zone...
I think that this is a great comment. How else would you expect Frank
to get pitches out of the strike zone unless pitchers think that there
is a chance that he'll go for them? I suspect that this comment will
allow Frank Thomas to unload on a lot of 2-0 and 3-0 pitches next season.
Never play poker with a guy who says "I'm a lousy poker player. Let me show you"
--
Warren Usui
I'm one with the Universe -- on a scale from 1 to 10.
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA
>In article <1993Nov12.0...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, ra...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
>(RAYMOND A. DIPERNA) says:
>>
>>writes:
>>>In article <49.223.15...@cdreams.com>, paul.mu...@cdreams.com
>>(Pau
>>>Mussington) says:
>>>>
>>>> I am not going to go into Tony Gwynn's numbers on the baseball field
>>>>because anyone can take numbers and twist them the way that they want to
>>>>but I will say this. If tony Gwynn does not belong in the hall of fame
>>>>nobody does.
>>>
>>>to me, "if X doesn't belong in the hall of fame, then nobody does"
>>>implies that X is the best player of all time. tony gwynn is nowhere
>>>near the best of all time.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bob - you're right. To you, that's what it means. To everyone else, who
>>can actually interpret statements in context instead of literally, it means
>>exactly what Mussington intended it to mean.
>
>babe has no more qualifications, and maybe less, than gwynn? how about
>ted williams, or lou gehrig, or walter johnson, or mike schmidt? none of
>them are more worthy of the hall than gwynn?
>
I tried to help you and hopefully force you to extract the MEANING out of
his post. But you proceed with this useless dribble. It is obvious to
me that, alas, I cannot help you because you still insist on interpretating
things literally. Go jump off a bridge.
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Hold it, Bob - that's just a figure of speech! It means,
"get a life" or something. NOOOOO!!!!! WAIT! That, too, doesn't mean what
you think it does. How can I say this to you. How about "get lost". STOP!
I don't really mean for you to get lost. Get the picture?
NO, BOB, you don't have to go and find a picture of something.
Well, good luck with your responses in the future, Bob. And break a leg.
HOLD IT! Don't go down to the basement and get that hammer, Bob! You
don't really have to break your leg.
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA
rites:
>[The following is email sent to me from Ray DiPerna that I received
> below. Again, I *will* post email sent to me if I feel it is
> appropriate, and anyone I send email to may certainly do the same,
> provided it contains no copyrighted material.]
>
>In the future, Huckabay, THINK BEFORE YOU ACT.
>
Well - I guess that when in one ear and out the other. I can't say I'm
surprised...
Huckabay -
I decided to save you the trouble of redirecting my mail to
rec.baseball, so I will say to everyone what I really only needed to say
to you.
Without going into the legalities of the whole thing, I do feel
that your public posting of private mail without permission is well beyond
your right. Now, in this case I don't particularly mind because there is
nothing in my message to you that I would be hesitant to show to anyone else.
But, in general, I feel this type of behavior is childish, and something
we could all do without.
I realize you were having a little fun and trying to get a few laughs at
my expense, which doesn't bother me at all. But it would have been noble
of you to have the guts to ask me if you could post it. I assure you the
answer would have been yes.
If you continue this practice, you really might succeed at making needless
enemies. You should consider yourself lucky that it was my mail you posted,
and not somebody else's who actually gives a damn about it.
So, in the future, I will no longer write directly to you, but will instead
contact you over the net, for all to see. I suspect that you already forced
some people to no longer send you direct mail, for fear of it appearing on the
front page of every newspaper in this country. But that's your problem.
I know you have already stated your views on this topic, but am wondering
if you have changed your mind. So I will ask you this one question, and would
welcome a response, if you are brave enough to do so. Do you think it is fair
for you to post personal mail over the net for literally the whole world to see?
-- Ray DiPerna
P.S... Huckabay - Don't bother to respond to me personally. If you are
going to respond, just do it over the net. We have no secrets.
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA
edu (Jerilyn Marshall) writes:
>In article <CGCtz...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> alop...@neumann.uwaterloo.
ca (Alex Lopez-Ortiz) writes:
>>From: alop...@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Alex Lopez-Ortiz)
>>Subject: Re: THE JOE CARTER CHALLENGE!! (Viva RBI!)
>>Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 01:11:27 GMT
>
>>In article <CGCJy...@ucdavis.edu>, ez02...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Huckabay)
>>writes:
>>> [The following is email sent to me from Ray DiPerna that I received
>>> on November 11. A note about the ettiquette of posting email is
>>> below. Again, I *will* post email sent to me if I feel it is
>>> appropriate, and anyone I send email to may certainly do the same,
>>> provided it contains no copyrighted material.]
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>with the intelectual property being on the sender not on the recipient's
>>side.
>
>Are e-mail messages legally considered private letters? If there are any
>attorneys or law students in this group who know, please send me a message
>or post the response to this group.
>
>Jerilyn Marshall
>j-mar...@nwu.edu
>
>
>[veiled threat to Gary Huckabay deleted]
>
Jerilyn -
Would you mind telling me exactly what "threat" I made to Huckabay?
It's really stupid of you to write things which are clearly falsehoods. It
is misleading and downright rude.
Or maybe it's not your fault. Maybe you just don't have a very big
vocabulary. Maybe you just don't know the meaning of the word "threat".
I suggest you get a copy of Webster's or something. Or maybe just ask
someone. I'm sure you can find somebody who can set you straight.
-- Ray DiPerna
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA
edu (Jerilyn Marshall) writes:
>
>
>Jerilyn
>
No, Jerilyn, you DON'T think. That's your problem. Maybe you can ask
Huckabay for more information about that Critical Thinking class he was
referring me to.
By the way, have you found out the meaning of that word yet?
I'll be glad to enlighten you if you wish.
-- Ray DiPerna
P.S. 'Enlighten' means 'give the answer'.
Dave Eisen
>
> P.S... Huckabay - Don't bother to respond to me personally. If you are
> going to respond, just do it over the net. We have no secrets.
I really wish you did. Have secrets, I mean. I don't particularly
want to read your private communication with Gary unless it really
is something that is interesting to a wider audience.
And Gary, posting private email, while probably legal, is entirely
uncool and should not be done unless absolutely necessary. It would
really be nice if the two of you learned to ignore each other.
--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dke...@leland.Stanford.EDU FAX: (415) 967-5648
There's something in my library to offend everybody.
--- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Jim_...@transarc.com
> In article <1993Nov12.2...@adobe.com> snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nicho\
> ls) writes:
> >In article <CGEB2...@newsserver.pixel.kodak.com> paj...@telstar.kodak.com \
> (Donald Pajerek) writes:
> >>My observation is that SDCN's are biased against the players favored
> >>by the media, mainly due to the SDCN contempt for 'mediots'.
> >
> >No, I don't think so. You won't find a SDCN on this net who doesn't like
> >Ken Griffey, Jr, and doesn't think he's on a HOF track.
>
> I don't know, I've noticed this too. It seems that players popular with
> the media do get subjected to a lot of attention by the SDCN's. Bias might
> be too strong a word though. I think Maddux is a good case of this. Most
> seem to agree that he is deserving of the award, but his stats are stil
> getting alot of scrutiny.
I think we tend to have a combination of two things:
First off, there some players that the media and others like to talk
about as "the greatest," "great," etc. All too often, this praise is
unconditional. Somebody likes the player (who may indeed by very good
in a number of areas) and immediately starts stating bluntly that
X is the best there is at that position and that anybody who doesn't
think so is wrongheaded. Now, it is a natural reaction for many folks
who hear somewhat state bluntly that "X is perfect" to say, "But, what
about his ability to .... ?" or "What about Y, who is better?".
Second, many of the folks who like to say "X is the greatest" take any
statements to the contrary as the equivlent of the responder saying "X
is awful" or "I don't like X." Thus, we are accused of belittling
Pete Rose by saying he isn't as good as Babe Ruth or Ted Williams, of
not liking Ken Griffey for saying he is a great hitter but his
fielding is overrated, or for hating Jack McDowell for saying he's
good but Apier and a few others were better.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 338-4442
mhunt...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
> In article <CGCJy...@ucdavis.edu>, ez02...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Huckabay) w
> rites:
>>[The following is email sent to me from Ray DiPerna that I received
>> on November 11. A note about the ettiquette of posting email is
>> below. Again, I *will* post email sent to me if I feel it is
>> appropriate, and anyone I send email to may certainly do the same,
>> provided it contains no copyrighted material.]
>>
>>In the future, Huckabay, THINK BEFORE YOU ACT.
>>
>
> Well - I guess that when in one ear and out the other. I can't say I'm
> surprised...
>
>
> Huckabay -
> I decided to save you the trouble of redirecting my mail to
> rec.baseball, so I will say to everyone what I really only needed to say
> to you.
>
> Without going into the legalities of the whole thing, I do feel
> that your public posting of private mail without permission is well beyond
> your right.
However, in that letter that you sent to Huckabay was some private e-mail
I sent to you. Not only that, but it was editted without showing that
it had been or where. Why is it ok to send it to him, but not ok
for him to post it?
Matthew Huntington
David Wren-Hardin
I saved the whole message because it's Ray DiPerna's feelings about
posting private e-mail. I probably shouldn't jump into a flame-war,
but I just thought I'd express _my OPINION_ about posting e-mail.
IMHO if someone sends me something that I didn't even ask for, I
will do with it as I wish, which includes posting it, or if it's real
paper mail, using it to line my birdcage. I don't know the technical
'legalities' of the situation, but if I get unsolicited mail, it's not
my fault if I don't handle it as the sender wishes. If they don't like
it, they don't have to send it to me. This isn't a flame or anything,
just how I would handle a similar situation.
I've only done this once, and that was when I got flamed on the net. I
was also sent a flame by the guy to my e-mail, which I tried to reply
to in e-mail, but he locked me out, so I posted his message and my reply
to the net. Hey, if he wanted to keep the reply private, he never
should have locked me out :). Anyway, that's another situation. Feel
free to reply to me by e-mail or whatever with your side of the issue
if you feel strongely either way, not flames please :), it's obviously
a sensisitive issue, and if I'm missing something big (like possible
jail time ;-) I'd like to know.
> -- Ray DiPerna
>
> P.S... Huckabay - Don't bother to respond to me personally. If you are
> going to respond, just do it over the net. We have no secrets.
RVES...@vma.cc.nd.edu
thank you, i really wasn't looking forward to breaking one. whew.
the first time i interpreted, "if tony gwynn doesn't belong in the hall,
no one does", i interpreted it as "tony gwynn is the best player ever".
tony gwynn is not the best player ever.
you said this was too literal. so i then interpreted it as "tony gwynn
belongs in the hall, without a shadow of a doubt. he's not just great,
he's one of the game's true elites. he's a mantle, he's a mays."
maybe i didn't make it clear that this was the way i was interpreting
it the second time; i apologize for that. regardless, tony gwynn is
not a mantle. he is not a mays.
this is still too literal? if so, please tell me what the meaning of
"if tony gwynn doesn't belong in the hall, no one does" is. does it
simply mean, "i think tony gwynn belongs in the hall"? that's a much,
much weaker statement. there are people who think phil rizzuto belongs
in the hall. they would be laughed out of town if they said "if phil
rizzuto doesn't belong in the hall, no one does".
please tell me how i'm supposed to interpret the statement.
bob vesterman.
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA
>the first time i interpreted, "if tony gwynn doesn't belong in the hall,
>no one does", i interpreted it as "tony gwynn is the best player ever".
>tony gwynn is not the best player ever.
>
>you said this was too literal. so i then interpreted it as "tony gwynn
>belongs in the hall, without a shadow of a doubt. he's not just great,
>he's one of the game's true elites. he's a mantle, he's a mays."
>maybe i didn't make it clear that this was the way i was interpreting
>it the second time; i apologize for that. regardless, tony gwynn is
>not a mantle. he is not a mays.
>
>this is still too literal? if so, please tell me what the meaning of
>"if tony gwynn doesn't belong in the hall, no one does" is.
>please tell me how i'm supposed to interpret the statement.
>
>bob vesterman.
>
>
I would be glad to tell you. He simply meant this:
"What's the point of the hall of fame if players who deserve to be in there
are not?"
I don't think he was claiming Gwynn as the best ever, or better than Mantle
and Mays, or any of that jazz. He simply feels Gwynn should be in the hall of
fame, or it just is not fair. Remember - this is just his opinion.
-- Ray DiPerna
Ted Frank
with about 2500 hits and at least four batting titles. (How many
did Buckner win? Madlock? Nobody would suggest those two for the HOF,
but they may not have won four titles.)
Gwynn clearly isn't the best hitter or outfielder out there, and may
not deserve to be in the HOF on objective merits, but he is someone
who's hit .309+ for 11-straight years, and it would be difficult to
envision the HOF committee not eventually voting him in, if not a
first-balloter by any stretch.
--
ted frank | Top Ten Ways to Improve Usenet Newsgroups
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | 10. Create soc.buttafuoco
the u of c law school | 9. Free car wash with every hundred posts
standard disclaimers | 8. Less talk, more rock
RAYMOND A. DIPERNA
Thus, we are accused of belittling
>Pete Rose by saying he isn't as good as Babe Ruth or Ted Williams, of
>not liking Ken Griffey for saying he is a great hitter but his
>fielding is overrated.
A comment about Griffey: I like him and I think he's a very good player.
But my bone with him is not that his fielding is overrated, but that he
sometimes doesn't hustle when he does something bad. For example, I was
watching a Seattle game this summer, and Griffey misjudged a line drive -
it went over his head. I don't have a problem with this. I mean, the guy
made an error. It happens. But on this particular play, the ball rolled to
the wall, and Griffey half-heartedly went after it like he was going out to
get the mail or something. It's this type of garbage I can't stand. When I
played baseball in high school, if I misjudged a ball even during practice, I
ran after it like a bat out of hell. This is the way Molitor plays the game.
This is the way Rose played the game. This is how the game should be played.
Now, I don't get the chance to watch a lot of Seattle games so I don't know if
this is a regular occurance or not, but I remember in 1992, Griffey popped up
to the infield and didn't run to first. Carlton Fisk noticed it, and was very
angry.
Nelson Lu
>Now, I don't get the chance to watch a lot of Seattle games so I don't know if
>this is a regular occurance or not, but I remember in 1992, Griffey popped up
>to the infield and didn't run to first. Carlton Fisk noticed it, and was very
>angry.
That was *Deion Sanders* that you're talking about...
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (clau...@leland.stanford.edu)
Mike Fester
Ted Frank <th...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>What's the most batting titles won by any non-HOF'er? Gwynn will finish
>with about 2500 hits and at least four batting titles. (How many
>did Buckner win?
1
>Madlock? Nobody would suggest those two for the HOF,
>but they may not have won four titles.)
>
>Gwynn clearly isn't the best hitter or outfielder out there, and may
>not deserve to be in the HOF on objective merits, but he is someone
>who's hit .309+ for 11-straight years, and it would be difficult to
>envision the HOF committee not eventually voting him in, if not a
>first-balloter by any stretch.
Which "objective merits" would those be? T&P have him rated as the 110 all-time
player on career stats before last year; in the 70s or 80s for hitters. They
also rated him the 2nd best player in the NL 2 different years, and put
him in the top 10 3 other times.
Mike
David DeMers
In article <1993Nov22....@midway.uchicago.edu>, th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
...
|> Gwynn clearly isn't the best hitter or outfielder out there, and may
|> not deserve to be in the HOF on objective merits, but he is someone
|> who's hit .309+ for 11-straight years, and it would be difficult to
|> envision the HOF committee not eventually voting him in, if not a
|> first-balloter by any stretch.
Well, back to my first comments on this thread... Gwynn WILL make the HOF,
no question. However, there are several players who are perhaps more
deserving who may not. Gwynn has the BA (overrated, but the BBWAA think
it means a lot), 4 titles, 5 Gold Gloves (his defense really is excellent).
Dave
--
Dave DeMers dem...@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering 0114 demers%c...@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego ...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114 (619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>In article <1993Nov22....@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>Ted Frank <th...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>What's the most batting titles won by any non-HOF'er? Gwynn will finish
>>with about 2500 hits and at least four batting titles. (How many
>>did Buckner win?
>>Madlock? Nobody would suggest those two for the HOF,
>>but they may not have won four titles.)
>>
>>Gwynn clearly isn't the best hitter or outfielder out there, and may
>>not deserve to be in the HOF on objective merits, but he is someone
>>who's hit .309+ for 11-straight years, and it would be difficult to
>>envision the HOF committee not eventually voting him in, if not a
>>first-balloter by any stretch.
>Which "objective merits" would those be? T&P have him rated as the 110 all-time
>player on career stats before last year; in the 70s or 80s for hitters. They
>also rated him the 2nd best player in the NL 2 different years, and put
>him in the top 10 3 other times.
A lot of TP's high rating of Gwynn is based on his really high number
of fielding runs. As you probably know, most people here are quite
skeptical of fielding runs. If the fielding runs listed for Gwynn are
indeed accurate assesments of his defensive value, then I think most
people here would agree that Gwynn belongs in the Hall. Whether his
defense is that valuable is a question, and one that I have no answer
for. Gwynn is most certainly a very good fielder, but I'm not sure if
he's *that* good.
As far as his offense goes, his peak value in terms of batting runs isn't
particularly high for an outfielder - 163*. I would *guess* that 80%
of the outfielders in the Hall of Fame have higher peak value. His value
outside those 5 years isn't extraordinary either - 67 batting runs*
(+ of course this year, probably the 2nd best of Gwynn's career).
*(actually batting runs + stolen base runs)
To argue that Gwynn has produced enough to be in the Hall if he retired
today, I think you have to argue that he's had one of the 20 best
outfield defensive careers ever. I, myself, am not prepared to believe
that, though TB's numbers clearly imply that that's true.
In the end, when he retires, I suspect I will be convinced that he's
Hall of Fame quality. I certainly will be if he repeats this past
season a couple of times, though I doubt he'll do that, unless the
87/93 effect pops up again. (Whatever it is that ups offense in these
years - and I'm not going to try and guess what it is - seems to have
an extraordinary effect on Gwynn).
Greg